The Citadel Palace at Dura-EuroposAuthor(s): Susan B. DowneySource: Syria, T. 63, Fasc. 1/2 (1986), pp. 27-37Published by: Institut Francais du Proche-OrientStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4198534Accessed: 02/09/2010 09:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifpo.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Institut Francais du Proche-Orient is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSyria.

http://www.jstor.org

THE CITADEL PALACE AT DURA-EUROPOS

BY

Susan B. DOWNEY

University of California, Los Angeles

The architecture of the Seleucid colony of Dura-Europos is only partially known and is seldom studied, primarily because the development of the city during the periods of Parthian and Roman control has largely obscured the remains of the Seleucid city.' This is especially true in the agora area, though Brown was able to reconstruct the original plan from the few surviving foundations.2 A flat-topped hill on the eastern side of the site, separated from the rest of the town by a deep ravine, was strongly fortified to serve as a citadel. During the period of Seleucid control, the citadel was occupied by two successive buildings, both probably palaces. The plan of the first building is too fragmentary for analysis, but a good deal remains of the second, in spite of the fact that most of its northern portion fell into the Euphrates valley, probably as a result of the earthquake of A.D. 160.3 The Seleucid date of this palace is based largely on the fact that it is built in cut stone, using a foot of ca. 0.35 m. which characterizes the Hellenistic buildings of Dura.4 Since it overlies an earlier building, it must belong to a second period of Seleucid construction, which is placed in the second quarter of the second century B.C. on rather circumstantial grounds.5 Pillet merely

The following short title is used in the notes: Dura Report: The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report on the First (etc.) Season of Work (New Haven 1929-1952).

Other abbreviations follow the system used in the American Journal of Archaeology.

1. For Hellenistic Dura, see M. I. ROSTOVTZEFF, Dura- Europos and its Art (Oxford 1938) 33-38, and A. PERKINS, The Art of Dura-Europos (Oxford 1973), 10-16.

2. F. E. BROWN, Dura Report 9. 1, 3-27. 3. M. PILLET, Dura Report 2, 13-15, PI. IV, XXXI. 1,

2; HOPKINS, ibid., 53-55, PI. XXIX. 4. For this foot, see A. VON GERKAN, Dura Report 7/8,

4f.; F.E. BROWN, Dura Report 9. 1, 4f., 24f. 5. For the date, see PERKINS, The Art of Dura-Europos

(Oxford 1973) 15.

28 SYRIA [LXIII

t. r.

3

FI. R-1T zP

DELa 1

CITADE1 1E HAVTEX,. . (OVPRA - tVRtOP OS 1929)-X -

- Pii -

Fig. 1. Dura-Europos, citadel palace, plan by M. Pillet (Courtesy Dura-Europos Collection, Yale University Art Gallery).

published a plan of the existing remains (fig. 1) with very little speculation about the original form of the structure, but Brown restored the northern portion of the building as consisting of a row of three large iwans.6 (fig. 2) In a forthcoming article I have argued that this restoration is unlikely.7 I would now like to analyse the surviving

6. PERKINS, The Art of Dura-Europos (Oxford 1973) 14 f., P1. 3; ROSTOVTZEFF, Dura-Europos and its Art (Oxford 1938) 46 f., fig. 9, places the palace in the period of Parthian control. A full justification of this recon- struction has never been published.

7. "Two Buildings at Dura-Europos and the Early History of the Iwan", forthcoming in Mesopotamia.

1986] THE CITADEL PALACE AT DURA-EUROPOS 29

Fig. 2. -Dura-Europos, second citadel palace, restored plan by F. E. Brown (Courtesy Dura-Europos Collection, Yale University Art Gallery).

remains of this palace in the light of the new evidence about the palatial and domestic architecture of Seleucid colonies provided by the excavations of AY Rhanoum. The

description which follows is based on the plan drawn by M. Pillet (Dura Reporl 2, P1. 4; here fig. 1) and the study of the remains on the site which I made in the course of a visit to Dura in August 1985 in the company of the French mission headed by Pierre Leriche (fig. A et B). The reconstructed plan drawn by Brown and published by R3ostovtzeff and Perkins is schematic and does not include measurements (fig. 2).

It seems clear that the palace was divided into a southern and a northern portion, separated by a transverse corridor 2.12 m. wide. The southern section was

organized around a peristyle court beneath which was a cistern. Only the western

part of the court is preserved; the eastern section is broken away. Nine Doric columns can be restored in the southeast corner of the court from the traces on the

stylobate, though only one column was found in silu. The courtyard probably measured approximately twenty meters on a side. A single row of rooms lined the

30 SYRIA [LXIII

south side of the court. None of the surviving rooms on this side of the court is provided with a door to the outside, suggesting that the palace was not accessible on the side which faces toward the city. The largest of these rooms, 9.48 m. long, was open to the court through a portico of three columns; a row of five pillars supported the roof. This chamber, which probably lay on the central axis of the court, was flanked by at least two smaller rooms on either side, though only a small section of the east-west wall of the westernmost one remains. None of these smaller rooms opens onto the court; rather, there is a door from the pillared hall into the room on its east side, and a second door in the eastern wall of that room leads into the next one. Doors on the same axis can probably be restored in the two rooms of the west side of the pillared hall. Brown's restoration (fig. 2) adds two rooms to this row of four on the south side of the court, one at each end. At least five rooms lay on the western side of the court, and Brown adds a sixth, giving two rows of three. This restoration is possible but highly conjectural. These rooms are connected with one another through a complex arrangement of doors. At least two and perhaps all three of the rooms which face the court open onto it. Brown also restores on the east side of the court a group of rooms exactly like those on the west. That there were rooms on the east side of the peristyle seems highly likely, but their arrangement may not have been identical to that on the west. This section of the building resembles the peristyle houses of Hellenistic Greek architecture and the palaces of Pergamon, though the apparently indirect access to the peristyle is unusual.8

To the north of the rooms on the west side of the peristyle court and separated from them by a corridor 2.12 m. wide are the remains of the corner of a large space formed by an east-west wall running parallel to the north wall of the rooms on the west side of the court and two north-south walls separated by a narrow corridor with engaged pilasters facing the interior. The walls are thicker than in the rest of the building (1.40 m., as opposed to 0.99-1.01). The width of the north-south corridor, 1.05 m., is narrowed to 0.75 between the pilasters. The maximum preserved length of the outer of the two north-south walls is 15.30 m., of the inner one 8.69 (measured from its inner corner). There are two preserved entrances into the corridor: a door 0.90 m. wide at the south end, and a second opening 1.12 m. wide in the inner north-south wall which gives access to the corridor from the east. This north-south wall appears to break off just before a second opening. The opening in the south end of the corridor is not shown on the plan reproduced by Rostovtzeff and Perkins, but study at the site shows that it exists. The maximum preserved length of the

8. For peristyle houses, cf. P. BRUNEAU and J. DUCAT,

Guide de Delos (Paris 1965) 34-36, 117-119, 134-137, figs. 25-27; 154 f., fig. 35; 159 f., fig. 36. The palaces of

Pergamon are published by G. KEWERtAU and

Th. WIEGAND, Altertimer von Pergamon, v. 5.1 (Berlin 1930).

1986] THE CITADEL PALACE AT DURA-EUROPOS 31

east-west wall of this section of the building at this time of excavation was approximately 14.20 m., measured from the intersection with the inner north-south wall.9 Two openings, each 1.02 m. wide, pierce this wall, which thus consists of three sections, measuring (from west to east) 3.48 m., 5.91 m., and a fragmentary section 2.78 m. long.

The size of the northern section of the palace is naturally impossible to determine. The absence of interior supports in the preserved section of the floor suggests that the main space was an open court, in spite of the fact that the most logical explanation for the greater thickness of the walls in this section would seem to be the need to support a roof.10 Assuming the approximate correctness of the symmetrical arrangement of the rooms on the east and west sides of the peristyle court postulated by Brown, the northern section of the building is likely to have projected beyond these rooms by an equal distance on each side, giving a total east-west length of approximately seventy meters. Probably additional doors pierced the east-west wall at regular intervals, and it is likely that there was a second narrow corridor at the east end. The northern area of the palace may of course have been subdivided in some fashion.

Fg A

Fig. A. - Dura-Europos, Citadel. General view from the Redoubt Palace.

9. The calculation of 15.60 published in Mesopotamia is incorrect.

10. Cf. my article in Mesopotamia.

32 SYRIA [LXIII

Thus, the palace appears to be clearly divided into two sections; one with relatively

small rooms on at least two and probably three sides of a peristyle court, and a second which was probably an open court with a narrow corridor at least at its west end.

The east-west passage and the narrow north-south corridor together isolate the northern

section of the palace. Brown's plan (fig. 2) suggests that these two parts were connected. He restores an east-west wall running from the corner of the southwestern room by the court, where there appears to be a wall spur, and met by a second wall

running north-south, beginning at the end of the outer of the two walls which form

the isolating corridor in the northern part of the building. The schematic plan shows

the outer north-south wall as continuing beyond the corridor, but study at the site

~~~~~~~~~aw .

; >,.t , - V

Fig. B. Dura-Europos, second Citadel Palace, view from northwest.

shows that this continuation does not exist. This portion of Brown's restoration

seems unlikely, in part because it necessitates that the southwest corner of the enclosure

walls run down into the ravine. The northern section, with its probable large open court, could have served for

1986] THE CITADEL PALACE AT DURA-EUROPOS 33

official purposes, while the southern section, with its relatively small rooms around a peristyle court, was probably residential. No traces remain of installations which could indicate the functions of these smaller rooms. The residential, private character of the southern section is further emphasized by the apparently indirect access to the court. As stated above, there was apparently no access from the outside into the rooms on the south. The peristyle court could be approached either through the east-west corridor which separates the two parts of the palace or even more indirectly through the smaller rooms on its west side. Obviously, there may have been an entrance or entrances into the peristyle from the northern portion of the building. The plan of the surviving remains, however, suggests that access from one section to the other was restricted by the relatively narrow corridor between them.

While the southern section of the building recalls the palaces of the Hellenistic world, such as those of Vergina in Macedonia and at Pergamon, the northern section, however it should be restored, is different.11 In contrast, the other palace known at Dura, that of the inner redoubt, belongs to the Hellenistic Greek peristyle type.12 This palace, the entire plan of which is known, is also smaller than the citadel palace would have been.13

The clear division into two sections, with a residential portion on one side of a large space which was probably a court, recalls the palatial and to a lesser extent the domestic architecture of Ai Khanoum. A relationship with Ai Khanoum is suggested also by one of the most peculiar features of the Dura building: the narrow corridor which runs along the west side of the northern space. In the article in Mesopolamia I suggested the isolating corridor of Babylonian temples as a possible source for that feature, and that suggestion may be correct. However as I pointed out, in Babylonian temples the isolating corridors are placed beside interior, covered rooms.14 The

11. For Vergina, see M. ANDRONIKOS and Ch. MAKARONAS, Td 'Av6xropo r; Bepyivcet (1961); M. ANDRONIKOS, Vergina, the Prehistoric Necropolis and the Hellenistic Palace (Lund 1964). For Pergamon, see n. 8 above.

12. M. PILLET, Dura Report 4, 21-27, PI. III. Cf. P. BERNARD, Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum I (Paris 1973), 114, n. 7. Bernard does not mention the citadel palace at Dura.

13. The difficulty of calculating the size of the northern section of the citadel palace has already been noted. The dimensions of the south portion cannot be calculated exactly, but the north-south extent would have been ca. 27 m. Assuming the approximate correctness of Brown's symmetrical arrangement of rooms on the east and west sides of the court, the east- west length can be conjectured to have been approxima- tely 47 m.

14. For isolating corridors in Babylonian temples, cf. the Temples of Nimach and Ninib and Temple Z in Babylon: R. KOLDEWEY, Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa (15. WVDOG), Leipzig 1911, 14, 21, Pls. III, V, VII; and Esagila, also in Babylon: F. WETZEL and F. H. WEISSBACH, Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon, Esagila und Elemenanki (59. WVDOG), reprint Osnabruck 1967, after the original edition (Leipzig 1938), 4-7. David STRONACH has suggested that a circumambu- latory corridor separating a central courtyard from a building's periphery first appears in an Achaemenid building at Altin Tepe in the Bactrian oasis: "On the Evolution of the Early Iranian Fire Temple", in Homma- ges el Opera Minora, vol. XI: Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce (Leiden 1985) 610-612, fig. 3.2.

34 SYRIA [LXIII

architecture of Al Khanoum provides a more cogent parallel for the use of an isolating corridor beside a large, probably open space.

Four examples of residential architecture are known at Ai Khanoum: two houses, one in the south quarter, the other outside the walls, and two blocks in the palace. These residential units have been analyzed by Paul Bernard and Henri-Paul Franefort, who characterize them as belonging to a megaron type.15 In all cases, the residential area, which generally includes baths and a kitchen, is placed at one side of a large court. In the private houses the rooms of the residential section are arranged around three sides of a large room fronted by a vestibule with two columns in antis. This large chamber is separated from the smaller rooms by an isolating corridor (figs. 3, 4). In the house outside the walls (fig. 4), this corridor not only surrounds the "megaron" unit, but also extends across the width of the court, and a second corridor encloses the entire house. The large court can apparently be entered only through a relatively small door in the corridor which separated the court from the residential unit.

The residential sections of the palace problably date to the second quarter or the middle of the second century B.C.,16 approximately contemporary with the second citadel palace at Dura. The same organizational principles seen in the private houses characterize these sections of the palace (Blocks II, III, and IV; figs. 5, 6, 7). In the southernmost of the residential blocks (fig. 6), a corridor surrounds the court together with a bicolumnar vestibule and the two rooms which flank it, thus separating this entire unit from the residential area proper. The residential unit lacks the large central chamber seen in the private houses. To the west of this block is another residential complex consisting of two files of rooms placed at the west side of a large Doric peristyle court (fig. 7). The easternmost of these residential units, including its court, is entirely surrounded by an isolating corridor, and a second corridor separates the court with its vestibule and flanking rooms from the other rooms. The corridors at Ai Khanoum provide axes of circulation and at the same time restrict access between various parts of the building. Francfort sees these residences as divided into three sections: dwelling rooms, reception room, and court, to which the vestibule is attached.'7

Bernard derives the plan of the palace, with residential and administrative areas united in one ensemble, from the Achaemenid palaces of Mesopotamia, as known at Susa and Babylon. He argues that, in spite of a certain superficial similarity between the "megaron" plan of the houses at Ai Khanoum and the prostas houses of Greek

15. P. BERNARD, Journal Asialique 246 (1976) 252- 266; H.-P. FRANCFORT, Le Plateau iranien et l'Asie centrale des origines ai la conqueHe islamique (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la Recherche scientifi- que, no. 567) Paris 1977, 267-280. For the residential sections of the palace, see also Bernard, CRAI 1975, 168- 171, and CRAI 1976, 288-293. The house in the south

quarter is published by Bernard in CRAI 1970, 310-316, the house outside the walls in CRAI 1974, 281-287.

16. FRANCFORT, op. cit. (supra, n. 15), 270, gives a date in the second quarter of the second century, while Bernard, CRAI 1976, 288, suggests ca. 150.

17. FRANCFORT, op. cit. (supra, n. 15) 270-274, 280, figs. 3-5.

~~~~~- U

IF ijFig. 3. Fig. 4._

1,-9'I -

- I

F..............................* .........

Fig. 3. Ai Khanoum, house in south quarter (Courtesy Paul Bernard). Fig. 4. -Ai Khanoum, house outside the walls, plan by J.-C1. Liger (Courtesy Paul Bernard).

Fig. 5. -Ai Khanoum, palace, southern section, plan by J.-C1. Liger (Courtesy Paul Bernard).

36 SYRIA [LXIII

Fig. 6. | Fig..7. . . . . . . . . . . . . F6--

Fig. 6. Ai Khanoum, palace, residential unit (Courtesy Paul Bernard). Fig. 7. Ai YKhanoum, palace, west residential block (Courtesy Paul Bernard).

Asia Minor, the house type of Ai Khanoum also has its origin in Achaemenid palaces, this time at Persepolis. He notes, however, the absence at Persepolis of one of the most distinctive features of the residential architecture of Ai Khanoum, the corridor which separates the central room from those which surround it.18 This "megaron" type of plan with an isolating corridor is so far known only in Bactria and may in fact be local.

Evidently, there are major differences between the houses and palace of Ai Khanoum on the one hand and the second citadel palace of Dura-Europos on the other. Most important, the distinctively Bactrian "megaron" does not appear at Dura. Peristyles do not appear in the two private houses so far known at Ai Khanoum, and the two peristyle courts in the palace are large,19 closer in size to the northern

18. Journal asialique 264 (1976) 252-266. 19. Court no. 1, with Corinthian columns on all four

sides, measures 136.80 m. east-west by 108.10 m. south- north, larger than the likely east-west extent of the

northern part of the Dura building. (P. BERNARD and M. LE BERRE, Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum I, Paris 1973, 17) The Doric court beside the residential units III and IV measures 46 m. on a side. (BERNARD, CRAI 1976, 292).

1986] THE CITADEL PALACE AT DURA-EUROPOS 37

portion of the Dura building, assuming that that section was in fact an open court. At least the enormous Corinthian peristyle in the palace at Ai Khanoum must have served for public purposes.20 The peristyle in the Dura palace, on the other hand, might be considered analogous to the principal rooms in the Ai Khanoum residences, as its position and large size in relation to the surrounding rooms might suggest. This idea is supported by the clear separation of this whole section of the building from the northern area by a corridor. The seemingly indirect access to the southern part of the Dura building also recalls the residences of Ai Khanoum. The isolating corridor along the west end of the northern part of the Dura palace also finds its best parallels in the buildings of Ai Khanoum, particularly the house outside the walls and the two residential sections of the palace. The Dura corridor is narrower than the isolating corridors at Ai Khanoum (0.75-1.05 m., as opposed to approximately 2 m. at Ai Khanoum)21 but is wide enough to walk through.

Perhaps then the Dura palace and the buildings at Ai Khanoum represent experiments by Seleucid architects for use in the eastern colonies. The relationship between the Seleucid Temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura and the two temples so far discovered at Ai Khanoum supports this idea. As I have demonstrated in my Mesopotamia article, the plans of the temples in the two cities are similar, in both cases of essentially Mesopotamian derivation. The temples of Ai Khanoum are Mesopotamian in outer appearance as well, while the architects of the Dura building gave it a superficially Greek appearance by the use of a Doric entrance porch. The use in the southern section of the citadel palace of a peristyle court surrounded by rooms, a type familiar from Greek domestic and palatial architecture, is consistent with this respect for Greek practice, while the northern section, with its isolating corridor, differed from Greek building types. In the residences of AY Khanoum, particularly the palace, the architects apparently combined forms of Achaemenid and local origin with Greek elements. The buildings of Seleucid Dura and those of Ai Khanoum, for all their differences, show a common interest in creating a new architecture based on principles derived from Greek and earlier Near Eastern architectural forms.

20. Bernard points out the difference in function between this court and the peristyles of Greek palaces: Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum I (Paris 1973) 113f.

21. Measurements for Al Khanoum taken from published plans.