#prostylos

Prior to 1909 the natives had removed some of the debris from the interior, for their own building purposes, and had partly revealed the important features which Mr. Barnes was able more thoroughly to uncover. These consist of two interior columns on the east side of the cella at its northern end. These two columns are 3.09 m. apart on centers, and are the northernmost two in a row of three set on axis with the pilaster on the east side of the great arch which spanned the cella at its south end. The discovery of these columns presupposes the existence of a similar colonnade on the west side of the interior of the cella. The columns themselves were elevated upon pedestals the exact height of which could not be determined; the measurements of their details are as follows: diameter of shaft at base — 63 cm., diameter below capital = 60 cm., diameter of capital above shaft = 61 cm., height of capital = 65 cm. 

The height of the columns could not be determined with complete accuracy; but is easily conjectured from other heights which are known. From an examination of the great mass of fallen details lying inside the cella, the former existence of several features may be assumed; first, from fragments of architrave frieze and cornice, an interior entablature; second, from a series of voussoirs of arches of broad span, transverse arches over the cella; third, from smaller voussoirs, a number of narrower arches; fourth, from slabs of different sizes, a stone roof over the whole interior. Without the discovery of the interior columns these details and the features which they represent could never have been conjectured; with their discovery the task of restoration becomes comparatively simple. 

The pedestals of the interior columns were approximately 1.50 m. high (Ill. 315 Section A-B.), the columns upon them could have been but little more than 6.30 m. tall including bases and capitals; and upon the columns must be set the entablature described by G. Robinson,3 and still represented in fragments. There can be little doubt that the high transverse arches sprang from the top of the entablature rather than directly from the capitals and breaking through the entablature; for the arches, if sprung from the lower level, would have required abutment from the side walls, and the well preserved north wall shows no much provision in its smooth unbroken surface. 

On the other hand, these arches springing from the top of an entablature would receive abutment at their haunches from a roof of stone slabs over the side aisles; this roof is represented in a salient corbel moulding still in place near the top of the north wall. (Ill. 315, Section C-D). I have placed narrower, longitudinal, arches directly above the entablature to carry the inner ends of the slabs of the aisle roofs, and I have placed the slabs of the roof of the main aisle upon slanting gables over the great arches after the manner known to have been adopted in one of the small temples at cAtil,4 and in other buildings of the Hauran in both Nabataean and Roman times. The roof above the south end of the temple is wholly conjectured; that over the north porch is restored in connexion with the resto- ration of the porch itself. So much of this porch has been spared that there should be no great difficulty in working out a scheme for its probable form as originally constructed. The presence of the end of a block of the architrave on the top of the capital of the column on the right of the middle as one enters, with its mouldings returned horizontally from the angle, gives proof that this entablature was not arched above the middle inter-columniation in the usual way (cf. Ill. 292), but in the manner shown in Plate XXII. The architrave, which is drawn as plain in the elevation on small scale (Pl. XXII), is, in reality, ornamented in the manner shown in the larger detail of Plate XXIII. The small voussoir shown on the same plate is probably from a relieving arch over the doorway. The outer arch is so wide that a frieze and cornice carried over it along with the architrave in the manner which was usual in the Hauran would elevate the crown to such a height that no raking cornice could be placed upon it without departing from every precedent for pediment angles known in Syria, and I believe Mr. Barnes’ restoration of the gable to be the only one possible. Whatever minor differences of opinion may arise with regard to the restoration of the minor details of this temple, its significant features remain to make it one of the most im- portant buildings for the history of architecture in Syria. A plan of a temple presenting a triply divided end opposite to the entrance i. e. a real sanctuary with side chambers, and a naos triply divided by rows of columns, is sufficiently suggestive; but a temple spanned by a series of transverse arches and roofed all over with slabs of basalt is indeed to be regarded as a prototype of one of the great branches of Christian architecture.