1 Kropp

Andreas Kropp
Limits of Hellenisation: Pre-Roman basalt temples in the Hauran
Ḥaurān
The identities (social, cultural, ethnic) of local populations are of increasing interest to the students of
Graeco-Roman antiquity. Such regional studies often explore phenomena of acculturation, be they
1
Hellenisation or Romanisation, and assess their significance in the forging of identities . Archaeological
inquiry has been particularly fruitful in this respect since it often penetrates where literary sources cannot
reach. From grandiose temple architecture to the mundane ceramic vessels of everyday life, the material
evidence is a window on the perspectives of insiders, i.e. local populations of all walks of life, which ancient
authors ignore and modern observers have long neglected. The Near East is relatively poorly examined
under such premises, partly because of the comparative poverty of the material remains and the resulting
lack of publications, and partly because its complex cultural and linguistic setup does not lend itself to ready-
made categories, as the present paper on the “pre-Roman” Ḥaurān aims to demonstrate.
The designation “pre-Roman” used in the title corresponds to the term “pré-provincial” in French
scholarship; it is a mere chronological expedient to describe the period before the establishment of direct
Roman rule in the Ḥaurān at the end of the first century AD. The region’s eventful history means that, unlike
“Herodian Judaea” or “Nabataean Petra,” it cannot be attributed to any one power in particular. Not only
would a catch-phrase like “Herodian Ḥaurān” only tell a half-truth about the political circumstances – it would
also threaten to prejudice research towards such material evidence that proves active local engagement with
the dominant power. In fact, this study argues that Ḥaurāny artists and architects were not concerned with
building up tangible “assimilation” or “resistance” to its foreign masters (which is discernible in neighbouring
regions at the time), but rather with engaging with their own rich and varied ancient traditions.
From a Graeco-Roman perspective, the Ḥaurān was somewhat of a cultural backwater until the later
2
second century AD . Its inhabitants were not Nabataeans, if by that word one means the Petran tribal elite
that came to rule much of the lands east of the Jordan, and their clients. This common misconception is
already expressed in the Princeton Publications, which present a number of ruins as typical ‘Nabataean’
3
specimens, and is perpetuated to the present day . This idea may stem from the urge to label the ‘odd’
material culture, in conjunction with the account of Josephus of the Nabataean occupation of Damascus, and
1
E.g. MACMULLEN 2000 and WOOLF 1998. See already SCHLUMBERGER 1969, 13–19.
2
E.g. BOLELLI 1986, 312; DENTZER 2003, 185–87; BUTCHER 2003, 157–61.
3
E.g. GLUECK 1965, 6–7; NEGEV 1977, 613–15; BUSINK 1980, 1252–1320; WARD PERKINS 1981, 339. Correct already in PETERS 1977,
esp. 271.
Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale C / C5 / 1 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076
www.archeologia.beniculturali.it
1
A. Kropp - Limits of Hellenisation: Pre-Roman basalt temples in the Hauran
4
hence necessarily of the Ḥaurān, in the mid-80s BC . This, however, remained a brief episode, after which
the Nabataeans retreated to the southern part of the Ḥaurān, while the larger part of it was under control of
the Ituraean tetrarchs Ptolemaios, Lysanias and Zenodoros (interrupted by Cleopatra VII from 36 to 31), and
then bestowed by Augustus on Herod in 20 BC (fig. 1). It remained in the hands of Herodian kings for more
5
than a century .
The “identité culturelle” of southern Syria is an issue at the heart of Francophone research in recent
decades. One of its remarkable successes is to outline the nature and extent of Herodian and Nabataean
control, as well as to provide a convincing and substantiated picture of the region’s native art and
architecture. As a region of villages and agriculture, the Ḥaurān was a residual, cultural ‘pocket’ largely
unaffected by Hellenism, drawing instead on its own repertoire of ancient models for its arts and crafts, which
6
can be traced back to the Bronze Age . Whichever class of artefact from pre-provincial Ḥaurān one
examines, it always looks and feels distinctly archaic. The ‘Hellenistic’ sanctuary of Massakeb (late second
or early first century BC) surprised its excavators not only with its ancient Near Eastern appearance, but also
7
with the ancient techniques used to cut the building blocks . Similarly, a series of unique tumuli of ‘rustic’
appearance suggest a Bronze Age date at first sight, but really date to the first century BC. Late ‘Hellenistic’
monuments in the Ḥaurān “ne doivent pratiquement rien à la tradition architecturale de la Méditerranée
8
hellénistique ni pour la technique, ni pour les programmes, ni pour le décor” . The local pottery up to the
Roman period is virtually indistinguishable from its Bronze Age predecessor, and it would be dated much
9
earlier, were it not for foreign imports such as Ephesian lamps, which provide chronologically fixed points .
10
The well-known basalt sculpture from the entire Ḥaurān , to which a few words can hardly do
justice, has always struck observers with its archaic look and peculiar approach to bodies and spaces (see
below). On other accounts, one can demonstrate that the division into a Herodian north and a Nabataean
south turned the formerly homogeneous Ḥaurān into two cultural entities, each departing in a different
direction. The northern half saw an influx of Graeco-Roman culture under Herodian rule. Even in the volcanic
desert of Trachonitis (Ledjā) Greek inscriptions are erected beginning in the first century AD, whereas the
southern part, including the city of Bostra, has not yielded a single Greek inscription from before the second
11
century AD . Conversely, ‘Nabataean’ inscriptions (one should rather say Aramaic) appear virtually only in
12 13
the south and at Sī‘ , and Nabataean pottery is rare in the north . The onomastics, which may reveal
religious and cultural affiliations, show that only in the south Nabataean theophorics such as ‘Abd-Dušārā
were fashionable, while the population of the north was generally more ready to adopt Greek names or even
14
names of Herodian dynasts such as Agrippa . Also funerary customs differed. While the Ḥaurān is generally
the region with the largest number of inscribed stelae in the whole Near East, the northern part (95 villages
surveyed) has only yielded 448 stelae with Greek inscriptions, the southern part (60 villages) 1,195 such
15
stelae .
The first elements of Graeco-Roman architectural decoration, no doubt transmitted through the
nearby Roman province of Syria, start appearing in the Herodian Ḥaurān in the first century AD in the shape
4
AJ 13.392; BJ 1.103.
5
On the limit between the two sectors, see BRÜNNOW and VON DOMASZEWSKI 1904, 264–70; SARTRE 1982, 48–75; BOWERSOCK 1983,
90–104.
6
DENTZER 1986, 407–9, 416–17; ID. 2003, 193–95.
7
KALOS 1999.
8
DENTZER 2003, 186.
9
Ibid.
10
The sculpture in local style comes mostly from the Djebel Ḥaurān, not the plain: DUNAND 1934; BOLELLI 1986; EAD. 1991; DENTZER-
FEYDY 1986; EAD. 1991B; W ENNING 2001; WEBER 2003; DENTZER 2003, 187–204.
11
SARTRE 1985, 193. Considering that the Ḥaurān has yielded more than 2,000 Greek inscriptions, this result is statistically relevant.
12
Some 300 known ‘Nabataean’ texts, 100 in Bostra alone, STARCKY 1985, 173–79 fig. 1; SARTRE-FAURIAT 2001 II, 107; GRAF 2004,
146.
13
DENTZER 2003, 187; BUTCHER 2003, 292.
14
SARTRE 1985, 198–202; DENTZER-FEYDY 1988, 221.
15
SARTRE-FAURIAT 2001 II, 106.
2
XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008
Session: Beyond Identity in the Hellenistic East
Fig. 1 – The Hauran in the 1st c. BC and AD (© the author).
3
Fig. 2 – Sī‘, map of the area

(FREYBERGER 1998, Beil. 12b).
of fluted acanthus leaves,

Corinthian capitals and profiles
with so-called regular egg-and-
16
dart motifs . The south has not
yielded any example from this
period. There, on the other
hand, at a number of cities in
the south, Bostra, Umm al-
Jimāl, a properly Nabataean
architectural decoration appea-
red, which was unknown in the
17
north, except at Sī‘ . Bostra in
particular seems to have been
given special attention by the
Nabataean authorities, with a
whole new quarter and a monu-
mental complex in Nabataean
style being set up under their
18
rule . These examples illustrate
how an arbitrary political border
19
became a cultural boundary .
Sī‘
The site of Sī‘ (Greek

Seeia, Aramaic she‘ī‘, “plat-
form”) in the Herodian north of
the Ḥaurān offers a number of key monuments to elucidate the engagement of Haurany artists and architects
with their heritage and foreign influences. Sī‘ is situated three km southeast of Qanawāt, the Decapolis city of
Canatha. From a spur it overlooks the surrounding plain at the fringe between cultivated land of Auranitis
and the steppe of the Ṣafā (figs. 2 and 3). In the ancient road network it lay at a crossroads, from which one
of the main arteries departed into the eastern steppe, where the nomads who left us thousands of Safaitic
20
inscriptions lived , while two further roads led to the northwest to Canatha and to the southwest to
Dionysias. Though Sī‘ is not incorporated into any settlement, it is in the immediate vicinity of a number of
towns, which probably celebrated their cults in common here. The sanctuary was also a goal of pilgrimage
for nomads from the steppe. One tribesman of the Ḥarra explicitly mentions his journey to the temple of
16
DENTZER-FEYDY 1988, 223.
17
Ibid.
18
DENTZER, DENTZER-FEYDY, BLANC 2001. But it was not made the new Nabataean capital, as is often claimed, based on a wrong
interpretation of dedications to “Dushārā Ar’a, god of our lord Rabbel who is in Bostra.” The relative clause in fact refers to Dushārā,
WENNING 1993!
19
A reflection of this division is found in Damascius Vita Isid. (ed. Athanassiadi) 196, which describes the age-old enmity between
Bostra, “founded by Arabs,” and Dionysias (Suwaydā). The classic case of comparison in Europe is the arbitrary Late Antique dividing
line across the Balkans from north to south along the Drina, which became the ethnic and religious divide between Croats and Serbs.
20
PPUAS IVC; CLARK 1979; MILIK 1985; MACDONALD 2003b.
4
Fig. 3 – Sī‘, Temple 2 (left) and courtyard, looking north (© the author, 2009).
21
Baalshamin in a Safaitic inscription . Sī‘ was under Herodian control during the main phases of construction,
but they have hardly made a material impact.
There are three sanctuaries on the hilltop built one after the other in a string from west to east and
from the late first century BC to the early second century AD (fig. 4). They are discussed in detail in the
22 23
monumental publications of the Princeton Missions to Syria in 1899 , 1904/5 and 1909 , who saw and re-
corded the remains before they were dismantled and the blocks reused in World War I to build Ottoman
barracks in Suwaydā. Since 1977, a French team under the direction of J.-M. Dentzer and J. Dentzer-Feydy
24
has been carrying out further fieldwork . Their extensive excavations have yielded a revised plan (fig. 5) and
substantial improvements to the recording and interpretation of the remains.
The first monumental construction on the probable site of a modest ‘high place’ under open sky is
25
the temple of Baalshamin (fig. 6) . The cella is situated oddly in the middle of an elongated temenos of 24
by 50 m. The roof of the nearly square cella (8.6 by 7.6 m) was held by four interior columns, surrounded by
an open corridor. The pronaos was reached through an impressive pedimented façade flanked by two
26
square towers, which probably gave access to the flat roof . It was preceded by a square paved courtyard
27
(fig. 7), with two high steps, or rather rows of seats, all along three sides, forming a theatron .
28
A number of important inscriptions come from the temple of Baalshamin . Most of them are written
in an Aramaic script formerly labelled Nabataean. It is in fact similar to the script used in the Nabataean
realm, but the script is now recognised as a distinct Ḥaurāny variant of the widespread basic Aramaic script,
29
which was equally at home in Syria as in Arabia . The usage of this script is therefore not necessa-
21
PPUAS IVC no. 350. A second inscription on the same subject is still unpublished, CLARK 1979, no. 424; MACDONALD 2003b.
22
PAAES.
23
PPUAS.
24
J. DENTZER 1979; DENTZER, BRAEMER, DENTZER-FEYDY,, VILLENEUVE 1985; DENTZER-FEYDY 1986, 265–69; DENTZER 1990; DENTZER-
FEYDY 1991; DENTZER-FEYDY, DENTZER, BLANC 2003. The latter is concerned with Sī‘8. See also NEGEV 1977, 614–18; BUSINK 1980,
1282–94; WENNING 1987, 31–38; MILLAR 1993, 394–96; THOLBECQ 2007.
25
PPUAS II A6, 374–85; 387–89; DENTZER, BRAEMER, DENTZER-FEYDY, VILLENEUVE 1985, 70–74.
26
FREYBERGER 1998, 48.
27
On this recurrent term, used as a loan word in Aramaic, see now THOLBECQ 2007, 295–97.
28
For a recent comprehensive discussion, see THOLBECQ 2007.
29
STARCKY 1985, 169; MACDONALD 2003c, 44–46, 54–55.
5
Fig. 4 – Sī‘, plan of the Temple of Baalshamin (Butler, PPUAS II A 6, frontispiece).
Fig. 6 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin,

reconstruction of temple facade with four
statue bases (top): a) bilingual by Malikat son
of Moairu – b) to Malikat the younger by people
of Seeia – c) to Herod – d) without inscription
(Butler, PPUAS II A 6, ill. 325).
Fig. 5 – Sī‘, plan of the Temple of Baalshamin (DENTZER-FEYDY, DENTZER, BLANC

2003, pl. 86).
rily a sign of proximity to the kings of Petra.

The courtyard yielded the dated honorific inscription to
Malīkat, spread out over more than four meters on the architrave of
the portico surrounding the courtyard (fig. 8). “In pious remem-
brance of Malīkat, son of Ausu, son of Mu‘aiyru, who built for (‘l lit.
“over”) Baalshamin the inner temple (brt’ gwt’) and the outer temple
(wbrt’ brt’) and this theatron (wtyṭr’ d’) and its covering (wmṭ[llth]) …
[from] the year 280 until the year 300 (or 311?). May those who
Fig. 7 – Sī‘, Temples of Baalshamin and “Dushara”, reconstructed plan (Butler

PPUAES II A 6, ill. 324).
6
Fig. 8 – Sī‘,Temple of Baalshamin, Aramaic inscriptions from the courtyard (PAAES IV, 85-90; PPUAES IVA, no. 100).
30
still live be in peace(?)!” The dedicant proceeds in a logical order to enumerate all the main elements of the
temple, starting from the innermost part, the “Holy of Holies” to the courtyard. The dates are reckoned after
the Seleucid era, giving the interval of 33 to 2 BC as the construction time of the temple, and making it the
oldest dated inscription from the Ḥaurān.
This date accords well with a remarkable statue base found between two of the four columns of the
naos’ portico, again inscribed in Greek: “To king Herod (my) lord I, Obaisatos son of Soados, set up this
31
statue at my own expense” . Both the statue and the base are now lost. The inscribed base, which was said
32
to still have one foot on top, was brought to the Louvre, but has not been seen since . It is the only known
dedication to Herod from the Near East, made by a private citizen of local extraction, and it indicates some
benefactions made to the sanctuary by the Judaean king. The wording of Obaisat’s dedication to Herod
indicates that it was set up while Herod was still alive. This is supported by the fact that the earliest
Nabataean coins found at Sī‘ date to the early years of Aretas IV (4-3 BC), and also a Herodian coin of the
33
same period was found in the excavations .
That Obaisat was both the sculptor and the dedicant is confirmed by an inscription, in which Kaddu,
34
son of Obaisat, son of Soados calls himself the sculptor (’mn’) of a statue of another Malīkat . A portrait
30
CIS II 163; PAAES IV 85–90; PPUAES IVA, no. 100; NEGEV 1977, 616; THOLBECQ 2007, 286–88; 294–95. The translation of the last
three words (w‘d hiyyw bshlm) is uncertain; they literally read “and until his life in peace.”
31
Waddington 2364 = PPUAS II A6, 379 = IGRR 3.1243 = OGIS 415 = PAAES 427b.
32
Cf. INGHOLT 1963, 135 n.80. One head found in Sī‘, now in the Louvre, has been associated with Herod, but this is speculative,
HOMÈS-FREDERICQ 1980, 103 no. 74.
33
AUGÉ 1985; DENTZER 2003, 186. The Nabataean specimens are remarkable, considering that at Bostra itself the most ancient
Nabataean coin found dates to AD 16, ibid. 184.
34
PPUAS II A6, 372. He is generally considered Malīkat ‘the younger’ in scholarly literature, but THOLBECQ 2007, 289–92 makes a
convincing case for him being the other Malīkat’s uncle.
7
head found nearby, now in the Louvre, perhaps depicts this

35
man (fig. 9) . This family of sculptors can also be traced in a
36
number of further inscriptions . A bilingual inscription mentions
the affiliation of this family to the “tribe of Obaisat” (’l ‘bysht),
37
translated in Greek as the demos of the Obaisenoi . This
definition is significant as it is the first out of many attestations
of a tribe in the Ḥaurān.
Immediately to the west, the other two temples were
built with large trapezoidal courtyards adjoining each other (figs.
4 and 5). Both courtyards have three levels, rising up from north
to south. The cellas were constructed on the highest level, while
the central intermediary one served as prolongation of the
processional way towards the temple of Baalshamin. Temple 2
at the southwestern corner of its courtyard, dated to the mid-first
century AD, was most probably dedicated to the Tyche of
38
Seeia, the personification of the locality . It was interpreted by
Butler as a square cella supported by four columns with a
39
square enclosure around (fig. 7) . The French excavators have
shown, however, that the cella was in fact a narrow rectangle
Fig. 9 – Si‘, temenos, portrait of a benefactor with the entrance on the long side, in other words a
(Malikat the Elder?) (SCHMIDT-COLINET ET AL.
1978, 81).
40
“Breitraumtempel” (fig. 5) . The corridor
did not lead around the backside; the
back wall is divided into three parts by
the ‘cella’, or rather adyton, in the mid-
dle, an arrangement that is likewise
41
found in nearby Saḥr al-Ledjā (fig. 10)
and in the Nabataean temples of Qaṣr
42 43
Rabb‘a and Dibon , and the Qaṣr al-
44
Bint (fig. 11) .
Fig. 10 - Sahr al-Ledjā, plan of the temple (KALOS

2003, fig. 3).
35
HOMÈS-FREDERICQ 1980, 103 no. 75; WENNING 1990, Taf. 20.3-4; THOLBECQ 2007 passim. The latter would see them as a priestly
clan.
36
PAAES III 428; 430; 432. Several other sculptors are attested, e.g. SHUDU, HOMÈS-FREDERICQ 1980, 106 no. 81.
37
CIS II 164; WADDINGTON 1870, 2366; PPUAS IVA, 78; MILLAR 1993, 395; THOLBECQ 2007, 288–90 with new stemma.
38
The temple to the Tyche of Seeia was formerly known as temple ‘of Dushārā’ due to an alleged statue of this god found by Butler,
PPUAS II A6, 390 and fig. 337. But J. DENTZER, 1979, showed that this fragment fits with a base found three m away from the entrance
identifying the figure in Greek and Nabataean as a “(personification) of Seeia standing in the Ḥaurānite land / This is the image of she‘ī‘,”
PPUAS IV A, no. 103. Contra ABDUL-HAK 1951 and SARTRE 2001, 897–98 who interpret the temple implausibly as a Mithraeum on the
basis of two reliefs depicting MITHRAS TAUROKTONOS, W EBER 2006, nos. 93–94.
39
Reprinted by NETZER 2003, fig. 141, who throughout his Ḥaurān-discussion, 102–10, adopts all of Butler’s erroneous plans.
40
DENTZER 1990, 366.
41
KALOS 2003, figs. 2–5.
42
NETZER 2003, 99–100.
43
NETZER 2003, 100–101.
44
ZAYADINE, LARCHÉ, DENTZER-FEYDY 2003; LARCHÉ, ZAYADINE 2003; MCKENZIE 1990, 135–38; NETZER 2003, 68–72; KANELLOPOULOS
2004, 223–24.
8
The outer enclosure had two columns forming

the entrance with an arcuated lintel on top of the lintel
proper. The paved courtyard was porticoed on all sides
except on the entrance side to the temple of Baal-
shamin, where six steps led up to the theatron gate
(bridging a difference of 87 cm), flanked by three rows
of seats of 33 cm height and 45 cm depth. The southern
side of the courtyard, in front of the temple, had a single
row of seats. A large number of fragments of altars,
statues and reliefs, among them even a series of
peculiar orthostats showing faint outlines of a bull, a
45
horse, a human bust and a draped female figure .
None of these elements can be attributed to the
architectural remains with certainty. Temple 2 can be
dated thanks to a well-preserved pedestal for a statue
from the same courtyard, which is adorned at the top by
lion heads holding garlands and inscribed in Aramaic
46
(fig. 5.133) . It is a dedication of a statue to a local
notable called Galis made by several of his countrymen
and dated to “year 33 of our lord (Herod) Philippos,” that
47
is, AD 29/30 . Another important dedication is a
bilingual Aramaic and Greek inscription stating that a
certain Malīkat “hw bnh birt’ ‘lyt’ / hyperoikodomēsant[a]
Fig. 11 – Petra, plan of the Qaṣr al-Bint (after ZAYADINE, 48
LARCHÉ, DENTZER-FEYDY 2003, 135). tò hierón – he built the higher temple” . This man used
to be considered a grandson of the first Malīkat
mentioned above, but is now more likely to be his uncle whose architectural contributions precede those
49
listed above .
A document of very different character, an edict of Agrippa I in the reign of Claudius, was also found
here. Parts of this lengthy edict with its strikingly polemical language is preserved in 16 fragments from the
debris on the courtyard of Temple 2, as well as three more fragments found in Qanawāt, which belong to the
50
same inscription (not to a second copy of it) . From the edges of some of the fragments it is clear that these
are the building blocks of the front wall of Temple 2, providing a further terminus ante quem for the temple. In
handsome, ornamental characters the king speaks to his subjects, condemning his enemies as cave-
51 52 53
dwelling beasts . This negative picture has exact correspondences in how Josephus and Strabo
54
describe the unruly inhabitants of the nearby Ledjā (Trachonitis) who regularly intercepted trade and traffic .
The intention of Agrippa’s edict may have been either a call to the cave-dwellers to change their lifestyle,
45
DENTZER 1990, 367.
46
PPUAS II A6, 390 ill. 338; DUNAND 1934, no. 158.
47
PPUAS IV A, no. 101. Freyberger 1998, 47 reaches the same date by examining the sculpted vine leaves.
48
CIS II 164; WADDINGTON 1870, 2366; PPUAS IVA, 78; THOLBECQ 2007, 288.
49
THOLBECQ 2007, 289–92. This eliminates the problem raised by PARLASCA 1967, 558 and WENNING 1987, 34 and 2001, 313 that,
depending on how one interprets hyperoikodomēsant[a], one would have to re-attribute the extant ruins to some later restoration rather
than 33 to 2 BC, thus jeopardising the position of one of the few fix points of Ḥaurāny sculpture.
50
WADDINGTON 1870, no. 2329 = IGRR 3.1223 = OGIS 424 = BRÜNNOW , DOMASZEWSKI III 1909, 308 = PAAES III, 404 = PPUAS III A6,
359–64 no. 766; cf. JONES 1931, 269; KOKKINOS 1998, 287–8.
51
PPUAS III A6 359-64 no. 766 was later able to prove that it must have been set up in Sī‘ originally.
52
BJ 1.398-400; AJ 14.421–22; 15.344–48; 16.271.
53
16.2.20 (756).
54
JONES 1931, 269–71; DENTZER 1986, 399; ISAAC 1990, 62–66; MILLAR 1993, 36–37; ALIQUOT 1999-2003, 207–8; SARTRE 2001, 507–11;
BOWERSOCK 2003.
9
Fig. 12 – Sī‘, south temple, reconstruction of the

facade and architectural details (Butler, PPUAS II A 6, Fig. 13 – Sī‘ 8, reconstruction (DENTZER-FEYDY, DENTZER, BLANC
ill. 341). 2003, pl. 61).
build houses and behave in a civilised manner, or,

more probably, an appeal to his subjects to hunt down the cave-dwelling bandits.
Temple 3, the southern temple, is an elongated prostyle tetrastyle (19.3 by 8.3 m) on a podium of 2.5
55
m height, resembling in its outer shape a standard Roman temple on a podium (fig. 12) . The inner walls of
the cella have piers to support transversal arches. Otherwise it was already too badly damaged in Butler’s
days to make any certain reconstruction. There is no inscription to provide a fixed date, but in this case the
‘Nabataean’ capitals (with the ‘horns’ of a much-exaggerated concave abacus) of the façade suggest a date
56
during the rule of Rabbel II (AD 70-106) . There is unanimity among scholars about the distinctly Nabataean
57
character of this temple, despite its ‘Roman’ ground plan . Dentzer even describes it as “une offrande de
58
prestige vraisemblemblement faite par Rabbel II” , a bold claim, which the evidence does not warrant. The
59
capitals are rather a variant that does not fit into the typologies of Petran capitals , and the employment of
such regional variants of ‘Nabataean’ capitals can be seen to emerge in various places in the first century
60
BC, especially in Cyprus (Kourion and Amathous), hence the alternative name ‘Cypro-Corinthian’ , in
61 62
Egypt , and also Herod’s Masada . They probably represent Ionic and Corinthian capitals deliberately left
55
Butler PPUAS II A6, 393–95.
56
DENTZER, BRAEMER, DENTZER-FEYDY, VILLENEUVE 1985, 69; DENTZER-FEYDY 1991a, 46. Only FREYBERGER 1998, 47, advocates an
early first-century date for all four temples (including Sī‘ 8), without acknowledging the unanimous results of the French mission’s study
on architectural decoration, ceramics, stratigraphy and numismatics. On Nabataean capitals, see MCKENZIE 1990, 116–17.
57
“A temple in Classical plan, executed in almost purely Nabataean detail,” PPUAS II A6, 393.
58
DENTZER 1986, 405, with DENTZER-FEYDY 1991b, 53, contra FREYBERGER 1998, 52–53.
59
PATRICH 1996, 199.
60
GROS 1996, 171–72.
61
The temple to Augustus (!) in Philae, ibid. 163.
10
in bosse. At any rate, it is true that a temple of Roman design with horned capitals is a unique occurrence in
the Ḥaurān, which suggests a dedication by foreign worshippers.
One further small sanctuary called Sī‘ 8 (fig. 13) is situated at the northern foot of the hill, exactly at
the crossroads of the three major routes mentioned above and of the steep processional way leading up to
the temple of Baalshamin. The sanctuary consists of a theatron of 18 by 8 m, a courtyard surrounded by
three rows of benches and porticoes, limited on its western side by a monumental façade of 12.30 m width,
63
which terminates on either side with pilasters with Corinthian capitals . The façade is pierced by a central
grandiose opening (2.30 m wide, 3.20 m high) flanked by two smaller ones. All three are crowned by
pediments. The backside of the façade shows rough workmanship and no traces of either foundations or a
pavement. Unusual in Graeco-Roman terms, such a tripartite arrangement of the façade is found in a
64
number of Syrian temples, for instance at Palmyra in the first phase of the Temple of Baalshamin and in
65
the northern thalamos of the Temple of Bel . The façade of Sī‘ 8 limits one side of the theatron in its entirety,
66
a feature that it shares with several temples of the Ḥaurān .
The style of the temples and the inscriptions, of which a good part is written in ‘Nabataean’ script by
67
people with ‘Nabataean’ names, have led most researchers to assert a strong Nabataean presence here .
68
Also the Nabataean coins found on site represent a large majority with 37% of the total numbers . It must be
noted that neither the script nor the names have an unequivocally Nabataean affiliation. Also the coinage
may have been a common currency beyond the borders of the Nabataean kingdom in the Herodian north.
Yet, despite such notes of caution, this cumulative evidence does suggest some kind of link with the
southern neighbours.
Decoration and significance
The three temples of the sanctuary at Sī‘, built and dedicated by local inhabitants, thus offer a wide
spectrum of architectural variation with numerous borrowings from Classical architecture employed in an
idiosyncratic manner. A closer look at the details of the temples’ layout and decoration can confirm that one
is not merely dealing with the embryonic stages of Hellenisation, but with articulations of a uniquely local
visual language.
69
The sanctuary is an architectural milestone of far-reaching significance , and the sculpture is easily
the highest quality in all of southern Syria. For example, at Temple 2 and the theatron gate one can observe
the first appearance of the ‘Syrian arch,’ also known as the arcuated lintel, that is, a Classical architrave with
70
fasciae bent to form an arch (see below) . Further, it has towers to flank the façade, a standard device of
later Oriental temples.
Façades and entrances are the most exuberantly decorated parts throughout all four sanctuaries of
Sī‘, whereas the actual adyta are disproportionately small and austere, rather like monumental niches. The
emphasis obviously articulates the importance of rituals performed in the theatron, whereas the interiors
were so narrow as to be unfit for circulation. In a small example such as Sī‘ 8 (fig. 13) one can truly speak of
a sanctuary without a temple, consisting only of a temenos and a niche. Again, the idiosyncrasy of the
62
PATRICH 1996, 208–9; PELEG 2006, 331.
63
DENTZER FEYDY 2003, 106.
64
GAWLIKOWSKI, PIETRZYKOWSKI 1980.
65
GAWLIKOWSKI 1981, PL. 22.1; FREYBERGER 1998, 54.
66
DENTZER-FEYDY 2003, 107.
67
Esp. PPUAS II A6.
68
DENTZER 1988, 222. On the other hand, the amounts of Nabataean pottery found on site are neglectable, but even the southern part
of the Ḥaurān, except Bostra, has yielded almost no Nabataean pottery at all.
69
W ARD-PERKINS 1981, 341.
70
LYTTLETON 1974, 162–63.
11
Ḥaurān suggests that its artists were drawing on their

own, native tradition, which may have been more
widespread at some point.
The mouldings are worked with a great va-
riety of profiles, which have all little in common with
Graeco-Roman architecture (figs. 12 and 14). The
columns of the peristyle of the theatron display diffe-
rent kinds of capitals side by side, which one could
vaguely label Corinthian (but with a single row of
71
leaves at the necking) and Ionic . Entire walls are
covered in ornaments like carpets, showing grapes
and vine leaves of all shapes and sizes, and in
between the foliage appear birds, locusts, busts and
human figures. The grape-vine is the most recurring
motif, underlining the importance of viticulture in the
Djebel Ḥaurān. Human and divine figures also appear
in the column capitals, as “human forms with
72
distorted bodies and grinning faces” . A large num-
ber of eagle statues were found, which crowned the
73
rooftops and pediments as acroteria . The space be-
tween the pilasters of the towers flanking the Temple
of Baalshamin had lion heads projecting like gar-
74
goyles .
As an illustration of the imaginative approach
of Ḥaurāny artists, one of the sculptural masterpieces
Fig. 14 – Sī‘, Temple 2, architectural details (Butler, PPUAS II is discussed in some detail, the façade of the en-
A 6, il. 336).
trance to the theatron, which dates to the early first
75
century AD (figs. 15 and 16) . Though badly destroyed, almost all the fragments were found in situ and
enabled the excavators to make a reconstruction and cast to scale and to set it up in the Princeton University
76
Library . Flanked by projecting walls terminating in pilasters with palm tree-trunk ornament and low
pedestals beside either door jamb, the portal appears as if recessed and is visually emphasised. Wall and
pedestal share a base-moulding of fascia, flat torus and high, flat cyma recta and narrow cavetto. The base
mouldings of the pilasters stand out by replacing the flat cyma recta with a deep cavetto and a flat torus. The
pedestals project 60 cm from the wall, but are only 15 cm wide. It is supported by a band of large, upright
acanthus leaves, of which a single one faces the front side. The pilasters end in round, flat surfaces, but
since no capitals were found, it seems likely that they carried eagle statues.
The mouldings of the portal are of extraordinary complexity. Surrounding the doorway like an almost
square frame (4 by 4.5 m), “the three outermost mouldings of the jamb, a fascia, a shallow cavetto and a
77
narrow torus, are returned inward at the foot, and carried across the opening as a step” . 15 cm back from
the edge, inside the doorway, is a second moulded step. The jambs are decorated with band after band of
carving, showing endless series of stiff ends of acanthus leaves, followed by broad flat leaves, then thistles
71
PPUAS II A6, 379.
72
PPUAS II A6, 369; VON MERCKLIN 1962, 23–26 figs. 71–107. To the figures and the acanthus leaves of these capitals FREYBERGER
1998, 52 provides late Hellenistic comparanda from Mesopotamia.
73
PPUAS II A6, ill. 325; 328.12.
74
PPUAS II A6, ill. 325; 326.8; 328.13.
75
PPUAS II A6, 380–85; DENTZER-FEYDY 1986, 267–269.
76
It is now lost, Wenning, personal communication 20 April 2007. Another copy is in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. WENNING 2001,
313 is wary of the reconstruction.
77
PPUAS II A6, 380.
12
Fig. 15 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, reconstruction of theatron

entrance (Butler, PPUAS II A 6, ill. 329).
Fig. 16 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, reconstruction of

theatron entrance (Butler, PPUAS II A 6, ill. 330).
and finally undulating grape-vine at the inner edge.

The lintel repeats the same decoration and in
addition has the relief of a spread eagle under its
soffit in the centre. It was directly surmounted by a
frieze of three bands of ornament between a flat
ovolo and a fascia; on top of two narrow bands,
one with bay leaves and one with vine with six-
petalled flowers, runs the broadest band, which is
“carved with a rinceau in which the stalks are not
unlike acanthus, but in which the grape-leaf and
grapes, pomegranates, figs, birds and various

Fig. 17 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, keystone of arch above the 78
nondescript flowers appear” .
theatron entrance with radiate bust (Butler, PPUAS II A, ill. 331).
The theatron gate also offers good exam-
ples of the typical figural sculpture of the Hauran with its distinct approach to bodies and spaces. The frieze
is limited on either end by the extremities of a built-in arch with a diameter of 3.1 m. Flanked by more grapes
and vines, the keystone depicts a radiate bust thought to represent Baalshamin in the guise of Helios,
79
wearing a tunic fastened by round fibulae on each shoulder (fig. 17) . The face of the god is young and
expressionless. The portal was crowned by a raking
78
PPUAS II A6, 384.
79
PPUAS IVA, 384 figs. 331-33 frgm. G; W EBER 2006, no. 91. There are at least two more radiate heads from this sanctuary; their
original location is unclear:– Suwaydā: DUNAND 1934, no. 41 pl. 15, described as by far the best piece of sculpture from the Ḥaurān. –
13
Fig. 18 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, relief portrait of

central figure above the theatron entrance (WENNING
2001, no. 134).
cornice with large acanthus leaves as

acroteria. The semicircular tympanum be-
neath the arch had an intriguing assem-
blage of relief sculpture, which was, ho-
wever, badly damaged. To the left and Fig. 19 – Qanawāt, seated statue (WENNING 1990, pl. 20).
right were two horsemen with short-cropped
hair facing each other. The body of the left rider was fixed in his saddle through a socket. A Greek inscription
behind the saddle identified him as “Triton trumpeter,” and his head in fact showed the remains of the
80
presumed trumpet broken off his lips . The riders flanked a central male figure depicted almost life-sized
and standing frontally (fig. 18).
81
This central figure wears a tunic fixed on the right shoulder with a round fibula and the left shoulder
exposed. The figure looks different from the radiate bust just above. The short-cropped hair is only rendered
as a smooth elevation with light wavy incisions and limited over the forehead with a sharp edge, whereas the
radiate bust has wavy strands over his forehead. The latter is depicted as a young man, while this bust
emphasises signs of age, such as the deeply carved nasiolabal folds. Rather than a divinity, this must be the
portrait of a man, or more precisely of “one of the benefactors of the temple whose fame was being
82
heralded” by the trumpeter. It could depict Malīkat, son of Ausu, son of Mu‘aiyru, the dedicator of the
sanctuary.
These figural depictions encapsulate recurrent features of Haurany sculpture (e.g. fig. 19); it shows a
83
preference for representation in relief, even when sculpted in the round. Both seated and standing figures
often appear like blocks with few free-standing parts, on which each side is carved as a separate relief,
84
giving the overall impression of rigidity and immobility . Human anatomy is often disregarded in favour of
Louvre, under life-sized: HOMÈS-FREDERICQ 1980, no. 73 (with vines in front of rays). Another head, ibid. 101 pl. 27, with a curious, tall
feather crown in three registers, represents an unknown deity.
80
PPUAS II A6, ill. 334 N, WENNING 2001, no. 136. The other rider is PPUAS II A6, ill. 334 m, WENNING 2001, no. 135.
81
PPUAS II A6, ill. 334 O; WENNING 2001, no. 134.
82
PPUAS II A6, 385, but with a question-mark.
83
E.g. DUNAND 1934, no. 64 pl. XVII; WEBER 2006, pl. 53 a-c; BOLELLI 1986, nos. 14-19; EAD. 1991, 68–69.
84
BOLELLI 1986, 312–21; EAD. 1991, 64 and MOUNIF 2003 on sculpting techniques.
14
stereotypical formulae for hair, lips, ears, dresses and so forth. The heads have stiff, expressionless looks,
with triangular faces, almond-shaped eyes and short, pouting lips. Hands and heads are strongly
85
emphasised . Also some of the motifs are unknown in Greek art, for instance the eagle flanked by small
86
figures holding grapes . The peculiar construction of space and iconographic formulas, such as the
representation of lips as a coil with an incision in the centre, or almond-shaped, bulging eyes framed by
87
deeply cuts lids, find their closest parallels in Neo-Hittite and Assyrian art .
Hence, even though the Ḥaurān stands out from its contemporary neighbouring regions, its sculpture
seems to be a remnant of a stylistic undercurrent that was originally more widespread in inner Syria, but
88
elsewhere died out earlier and left only faint traces . The few surviving examples of this stylistic current are
scattered throughout the Fertile Crescent, forming one arc from Assur to Jerusalem and taking in the major
Hellenised centres of Mesopotamia (Seleucia) as well as Palmyra, Damascus and the Decapolis. The
honorific statues for Herodian kings in the temenos suggest that there may have been some royal
involvement in the construction of the sanctuary. However, the inscriptions leave no doubt that it the main
benefactors were local notables and that the builders were local masons and sculptors. This fact may in part
be responsible for the extraordinary imaginative results.
The array of non-canonical, highly original elements reviewed here testify to an adherence to ancient
non-Mediterranean models. Such a partial engagement with the rigidly defined models of classical
architecture need not be seen as a sign of antagonism or resistance. Nor is it necessarily a case of getting
89
the Classical orders “wrong” , but rather demonstrates that the dedicants, the artists, and probably the
audience too, did not feel tied to canonic precepts and made selective use of them for the construction of
their local sanctuary. This playful and eclectic approach shows an unusual degree of value placed on
individual virtuosity and originality, thereby constructing unique articulations of local identities. The quantity,
quality and especially the distinct Haurany style of the architecture of Sī‘ are a testament of the wealth, taste
and self-confidence of Haurany artists and builders.
Dr. Andreas Kropp

Lecturer in Classical Art
Department of Classics
University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD
E-mail: [email protected]
Aknowledgements
I warmly thank J. Dentzer-Feydy for helpful advice.
85
“Indifférence pour l’imitation illusioniste de la réalité,” BOLELLI 1991, 64.
86
DUNAND 1934, nos. 38, 63 pls. XIV, XVI; BOLELLI 1986, nos. 49-50; EAD. 1991, 70 nos. 253, 320 pl. 7; MEYNERSEN 2003, 131;
LICHTENBERGER 2006B, 194.
87
BOLELLI 1986, 336–41.
88
BOLELLI 1986 passim; ead. 1991, 66. Iconographic formulas, such as the shawl across chest with tassels at the bottom, or the
combination of eagle and grapes, is also found in Damascus, Ḥoms, Ḥamā and especially Ḥarbata 30 km to the north of Baalbek,
BOLELLI 1986, 330–36; RONZEVALLE 1937. The peculiarities of the architectural decoration, such as carpet-like covering in ornament
depicting vines and humans, have already been noted for the most ancient monuments of Palmyra (1st c BC to 1st c AD), SEYRIG 1940;
BOLELLI 1986, 334–36.
89
Cf. BONATO 1999, 27 on the décor of tombs in Jerusalem: “succession de composantes architectoniques juxtaposées sans réelle
compréhension ou respect de l’ordre canonique.” See PELEG 2006, 332–3 for examples.
15
Bibliography
ABDUL-HAK S., 1951. Un nouveau relief en basalte représentant Mithra Tauroctonos. AAAS, 1, 141–44.
ALIQUOT J., 1999-2003. Les Ituréens et la présence arabe au Liban du IIe siècle a.C. au Ive siècle P.C.
MUSJ, 56, 161–290.
AUGÉ C., 1985. Les monnaies de fouilles de Si‘ et la circulation monétaire antique dans le Hauran. In J.-M.
DENTZER (ed), Hauran I. Recherches Archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque Hellénistique et
Romaine. Vol. 1. Paris, 203–17.
BOLELLI G., 1986. La ronde-bosse de caractère indigene de Syrie du Sud. In J.-M. DENTZER (ed), Hauran I.
Recherches Archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque Hellénistique et Romaine. Vol. 2. Paris,
311–72.
BOLELLI G., 1991. La sculpture au Musée de Suweida. In J.-M. DENTZER, J. DENTZER-FEYDY (eds), Le djebel
al-‘Arab. Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de Suweida. Paris, 63–80.
BONATO S., 1999. Aspects d’hellénisation de la Judée: les monuments funéraires des necropolis de
Jérusalem. Kölner Jahrbuch, 32, 7–31.
BOWERSOCK G. W., 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge (Mass).
BOWERSOCK G. W., 2003. The Hellenistic Leja’. Topoi suppl. 4, 341–48.
BRÜNNOW R., VON DOMASZEWSKI A., 1904. Die Provincia Arabia, Vol. 1. Strasburg.
BUSINK T. A., 1980. Der Tempel von Jerusalem. Von Salomo bis Herodes. Eine archäologisch-historische
Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. Vol. 2. Von Ezechiel bis Middot.
BUTCHER K., 2003. Roman Syria and the Near East. Leiden.
DENTZER J., 1979. À propos du temple dit de ‘Dusarès’ à Si‘. Syria, 56, 325–32.
DENTZER J.-M., 1990. Neue Ausgrabungen in Si‘ (Qanawat) und Bosra (1986-1987): Zwei einheimische
Heiligtümer der vorkaiserzeitlichen Periode. In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für
Klassische Archäologie. Mainz, 364–70.
DENTZER J.-M., 2003. Le Jebel al-‘Arab à l’époque hellénistique: Repères chronologiques et identité
culturelle. In K. S. FREYBERGER, A. HENNING, H. VON HESBERG (eds), Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen
Orient. Rahden, 181–218.
DENTZER J.-M. (ed), 1985-86. Hauran I. Recherches Archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque
Hellénistique et Romaine. Paris.
DENTZER J.-M., DENTZER-FEYDY J. (eds), 1991. Le djebel al-‘Arab. Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de
Suweida. Paris.
DENTZER J.-M., BRAEMER F., DENTZER-FEYDY J., VILLENEUVE F., 1985. Six campagnes de fouilles à Si‘:
Développement et culture indigène en Syrie méridionale. DaMitt, 2, 65–83.
DENTZER J.-M., DENTZER-FEYDY J., BLANC P. M., 2001. Busra dans la perspective par millénaires: la Busra
nabatéenne. SHAJ, 7, 457–68.
DENTZER-FEYDY J., 1986. Décor architectural et développement du Hauran dans l’Antiquité. In J.-M. DENTZER
(ed), Hauran I. Recherches Archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque Hellénistique et Romaine.
Vol. 2. Paris, 261–309.
DENTZER-FEYDY J., 1988. Frontières et matériel archéologique en Syrie du Sud: politique et culture du 1er
siècle av. notre ère au 4h siècle de notre ère. In P. L. GATIER, B. HELLY, J.-P. REY-COQUAIS (eds),
Géographie Historique au Proche-Orient (Syrie, Phénicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzantines).
Actes de la Table Ronde 1985. Paris, 219–39.
DENTZER-FEYDY J., 1991a. Le site et le sanctuaire de Si‘. In J.-M. DENTZER, J. DENTZER-FEYDY (eds), Le
djebel al-‘Arab. Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de Suweida. Paris, 45–48.
DENTZER-FEYDY J., 1991b. L’architecture et son décor. In J.-M. DENTZER, J. DENTZER-FEYDY (eds), Le djebel
al-‘Arab. Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de Suweida. Paris, 53–58.
DENTZER-FEYDY J., 2003. Le sanctuaire. In J. DENTZER-FEYDY, J.-M. DENTZER, P.-M. BLANC (eds), Hauran II.
Les installations de Si‘ 8. Du sanctuaire à l’établissement viticole. Beyrouth, 40–109.
16
DENTZER-FEYDY J., DENTZER J.-M., BLANC P.-M. (eds), 2003. Hauran II. Les installations de Si‘ 8. Du
sanctuaire à l’établissement viticole. Beyrouth.
DUNAND M., 1934. Le Musée de Soueida. Inscriptions et Monuments Figurés. Paris.
FREYBERGER K. S., 1998. Die frühkaiserzeitlichen Heiligtümer der Karawanenstationen im hellenisierten
Osten. Zeugnisse eines kulturellen Konflikts im Spannungsfeld zweier politischer Formationen. Mainz.
GAWLIKOWSKI M., 1981. Aus dem syrischen Götterhimmel. Zur Ikonographie der palmyrenischen Götter.
Trierer Winckelmannsprogramme, 1/2, 17–26.
GAWLIKOWSKI M., PIETRZYKOWSKI M., 1980. Les sculptures du temple de Baalshamin de Palmyre. Syria, 56,
421–52.
GLUECK N., 1965. Deities and Dolphins. London.
GRAF D. F., 2004. Nabataean Identity and Ethnicity: the Epigraphic Perspective. Studies in the History and
Archaeology of Jordan, 8, 145–54.
GROS P., 1996. L’Architecture Romaine. vol 1. Les monuments publics. Paris.
HOMES-FREDERICQ D. (ed), 1980. Inoubliable Pétra. Le royaume nabatéen aux confines du desert. Brussels.
INGHOLT H., 1963. A Colossal Head from Memphis, Severan or Augustan? JARCE, 2, 125–45.
ISAAC B., 1990. The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East. Oxford.
JONES A. H. M., 1931. The Urbanization of the Ituraean Principality. JRS, 21, 265–75.
KALOS M., 1999. Un sanctuaire d’époque hellénistique en Syrie du sud: Khirbet Massakeb. Topoi, 9/2, 777–
94.
KALOS M., 2003. Le sanctuaire de Sahr al-Ledja. Nouvelles données archéologiques. In K. S. FREYBERGER,
A. HENNING, H. VON HESBERG (eds), Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen Orient. Rahden, 157–68.
KANELLOPOULOS C., 2004. The Temples of Petra: an Architectural Analysis. AA, 221–39.
KOKKINOS N., 1998. The Herodian Dynasty. Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. Sheffield.
LARCHÉ F., ZAYADINE F., 2003. The Qasr al-Bint of Petra. In G. MARKOE (ed), Petra Rediscovered. London,
199–213.
LICHTENBERGER A., 2006. “Auf Adlerflügeln”. Über den Adler als Träger des lebenden Kaisers. In F. S.
W ERNER GAUER, N. KREUTZ, B. SCHWEIZER (eds), Tekmeria. Archäologische Zeugnisse in ihrer
kulturhistorischen und politischen Dimension. Paderborn, 183–204.
LYTTELTON M., 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. London.
MACDONALD M. C. A., 2003. Languages, Scripts, and the Uses of Writing among Nabataeans. In G. MARKOE
(ed), Petra Rediscovered. London, 37–56.
MACMULLEN R., 2000. Romanisation in the Time of Augustus. New Haven.
MCKENZIE J., 1990. The Architecture of Petra. Oxford.
MERCKLIN E. von, 1962. Antike Figuralkapitelle. Berlin.
MEYNERSEN S. F., 2003. Zwischen Fremdeinfluß und Eigenständigkeit. Hellenistisch-kaiserzeitliche
Tierplastik in Südsyrien. In K. S. FREYBERGER, A. HENNING, H. VON HESBERG (eds), Kulturkonflikte im
Vorderen Orient. Rahde, 125–42.
MILLAR F., 1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge.
MOUNIF L., 2003. Notes sur la technologie des sculptures en basalte. In K. S. FREYBERGER, A. HENNING, H.
VON HESBERG (eds), Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen Orient. Rahden, 219–22.
NEGEV A., 1977. The Nabataeans and the Provincia Arabia. In H. TEMPORIN, W. HAASE (eds), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.8. Berlin, 520–686.
NETZER E., 2003. Nabatäische Architektur. Mainz.
PAAES III = W. K. PRENTICE, 1908. Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Publications of an American Archaeological
Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900. Part III. New York.
PAAES IV = E. LITTMANN 1904. Semitic Inscriptions. Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition
to Syria in 1899-1900. New York.
PARLASCA K., 1967. Zur syrischen Kunst der frühen Kaiserzeit. AA, 547–68.
17
PATRICH J., 1996. The Formation of the Nabataean Capital. In K. FITTSCHEN, G. FOERSTER (eds), Judaea and
the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Symposium
Göttingen 1988. Göttingen, 197–218.
PELEG O., 2006. Herodian Architectural Decoration. In The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder.
Tübingen, 320–38.
PETERS F. E., 1977. The Nabataeans in the Hawran. JAOS, 97, 263–77.
PPUAS = 1907-34. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-5 and
1909 Divisions I-III. Leiden.
PPUAS II A = H. C. BUTLER 1907 and 1919. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological
Expedition to Syria in 1904-5 and 1909. Division II Ancient Architecture in Syria. Section A Southern
Syria. Leiden.
PPUAS III A6 = E. LITTMANN, D. MAGIE Jr., 1916. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological
Expeditions to Syria in 1904-1905 and 1909. Division III Greek and Latin Inscriptions in Syria. Section
A Southern Syria Part 6 Si‘ (Seeia). Leiden.
PPUAS IV A = E. LITTMANN, 1914. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to
Syria in 1904-1905 and 1909. Division IV Semitic Inscriptions Section A Nabataean inscriptions.
Leiden.
PPUAS IV C = E. LITTMANN, 1943. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to
Syria in 1904-1905 and 1909. Division IV Semitic Inscriptions Section C Safaitic inscriptions. Leiden.
RONZEVALLE S., 1937. Notes et études d’archéologie orientale: Jupiter Héliopolitain, nova et vetera. MUSJ,
21, 1–181.
SARTRE M., 1982. Trois Études sur l’Arabie Romaine et Byzantine. Brussels.
SARTRE M., 1985. Le peuplement et le développement du Hauran antique à la lumière des inscriptions
grecques et latines. In J.-M. DENTZER (ed), Hauran I. Recherches Archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud
à l’époque Hellénistique et Romaine. Vol. 1. Paris, 189–204.
SARTRE M., 2001. D'Alexandre a Zénobie. Paris.
SARTRE-FAURIAT A., 2001. Des Tombeaux et des Morts. Monuments Funéraires, Société et Culture en Syrie
du Sud du 1er s. av. J.-C. au 7e s. apr. J.-C. Beyrouth.
SCHLUMBERGER D., 1969. Der hellenisierte Orient. Baden-Baden.
SCHMIDT-COLINET ET AL., 1978. Die Nabatäer. Ein Königreich in der Wüste. Bonn.
SEYRIG H., 1940. Ornamenta Palmyrena antiquiora (antiquités syriennes 32). Syria, 21, 277–327.
STARCKY J., 1985. Les inscriptions nabatéennes et l’histoire de la Syrie du Sud et du Nord de la Jordanie. In
J.-M. DENTZER (ed), Hauran I. Recherches Archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époque
Hellénistique et Romaine. Vol. 1. Paris, 167–82.
THOLBECQ L., 2007. Hérodiens, Nabatéens et Lagides dans le Hawrān au Ier s. av. J.-C.: réflexions autour
du sanctuaire de Ba‘alshamīn de Sī‘ (Syrie du Sud). Topoi, 15, 285–310.
W ADDINGTON W. H., 1870. Inscriptions Grecques et Latines requeillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. Vol. 3.
Paris.
W ARD-PERKINS J. B., 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture. London.
W EBER T., 2003. Ein Denkmal der Herodier in der syrischen Basaltwüste. In K. S. FREYBERGER, A. HENNING,
H. VON HESBERG (eds), Rahden Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen Orient. Rahden, 257–76.
W EBER T., 2006. Sculptures from Roman Syria. Worms.
W ENNING R., 1987. Die Nabatäer – Denkmäler und Geschichte. Göttingen.
W ENNING R., 1990. Die Nabatäer. In H.-P. KUHNEN (ed), Palästina in Griechisch-Römischer Zeit. Munich.
W ENNING R., 1993. Das Ende des nabatäischen Königreiches. In A. INVERNIZZI, J.-F. SALLES (eds), Arabia
Antiqua. Hellenistic Centres around Arabia. Rome, 81–103.
W ENNING R., 2001. Hauranite sculpture. In J. M. PIDGETT (ed), Roman Sculpture in the Art Museum
Princeton University. Princeton, 312–47.
W OOLF G., 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilisation in Gaul. Cambridge.
18

1 Kropp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Kropp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Kropp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andreas Kropp

Limits of Hellenisation: Pre-Roman basalt temples in the Hauran

Fig. 1 – The Hauran in the 1st c. BC and AD (© the author).

Fig. 2 – Sī‘, map of the area

of fluted acanthus leaves,

The site of Sī‘ (Greek

Fig. 4 – Sī‘, plan of the Temple of Baalshamin (Butler, PPUAS II A 6, frontispiece).

Fig. 6 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin,

Fig. 5 – Sī‘, plan of the Temple of Baalshamin (DENTZER-FEYDY, DENTZER, BLANC

rily a sign of proximity to the kings of Petra.

Fig. 7 – Sī‘, Temples of Baalshamin and “Dushara”, reconstructed plan (Butler

head found nearby, now in the Louvre, perhaps depicts this

Fig. 10 - Sahr al-Ledjā, plan of the temple (KALOS

The outer enclosure had two columns forming

Fig. 12 – Sī‘, south temple, reconstruction of the

build houses and behave in a civilised manner, or,

Decoration and significance

Ḥaurān suggests that its artists were drawing on their

Fig. 15 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, reconstruction of theatron

Fig. 16 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, reconstruction of

and finally undulating grape-vine at the inner edge.

grapes, pomegranates, figs, birds and various

Fig. 18 – Sī‘, Temple of Baalshamin, relief portrait of

cornice with large acanthus leaves as

Dr. Andreas Kropp

I warmly thank J. Dentzer-Feydy for helpful advice.

You might also like