William P. Dicksox.
ARCHITE Cr"!'??).— The native of a town (Erech?, not Archi as in AV of Jos 10-) situated on the north border of Benjamin, probably the modern '.4iK 'Arilc, west of Bethel. Hushal, David's friend (2 S 15^-), belonged to this town. See S \VP vol. iii. sheet xvil. C. R. CosDER.
••ARCHITECTURE.— The influences which formed the architecture of the Hebrews were very diverse. Besides the highly developetl structures of Egypt and Babylon, there was the native .\morlte builcliuL;, and the starting-point of the people themselves from a nomadic life. The great tent of tlie taber- nacle, witli its chamber of wood, must have been the ideal type for a long period to the Hebrews. It is, according to Fergusson's rendering of it (see TAliKUX.viLE), strictly in accord with what may be seen as the system of development from the Bedawi tent at present. A widespread low tent is pitched, fencing of reeds or piles of stone is built around it to make a shelter from storms ; the tent is then carried out over the shelter walls, or else enclosed in a courtyard, and settlements arc thus formed which are compounded of walling for the sides and tent for the covering. Such seems to have been the principle of the tabernacle ; and long after the entrance into Pal. the Hebrews, in
Cfiarlejt .^r-rihrier'.': .^ont
aECHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURE
143
the south at least, continued to depend on tents and skins, instead of building and pottery. The closely inhabited region south of Hebron, where at every mile or two a name of an ()T village is to be found, is absolutely bare of any early building, and not a fragment of .Jewish pottery is to be found there. This shows that the people ret;iined the nomadic type of life although settled on the land.
The Amorite buildiups of brick were massive and imposing to a desert people: 'cities great, and fenced up to heaven ' (Ut 1-*). The thick walls of well-laid brickwork, as seen at Tell Ilesy, were very strong defences, and quite wide enough to have considerable houses built upon the wall (Jos 2"). Woodwork was largely u.sed (Jos 8-') ; but probably for rooting, as no trace of vaulted brick roofs has yet been found. This system of mud- brick building continued to be used throughout the Jewish history, as is seen at Tell Hesy, and alluded to by Kzekiel (13'"-'-); and such building was probably in type, as well as material, a con- tinuation of the Amorite style. What the external appearance of these buildings was, is shown by the figures of forts conquered by the Egyptians in Syria, and represented on the monuments. High blank walls gave no opening or hold for an enemy ; pilasters and towers strengthened the faces and corners of the forts ; and projecting chambers overhanging the more important points enabled the defenders to prevent any sapping or scaling. The gateway was a projecting building in front of the entrance, a plan which enabled the defenders to make it a death trap to any attacking party ; for on forcing the outer gate the besiegers would be confined in a narrow space exposed to cea.seless attack overhead. Defence at this age seems to have been far superior to attack ; and without a siege train such forts could be reduced only by stratagem (as at Ai) or by starvation.
When stone building was required, it appears to have been probably of masonry hewn to tit on the spot, or at least of irregular courses ; for the Jews were astonished at proper construction, with hewn stone all cut regularly in advance, and they remark when neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron was heard in the house while it was in building (1 K G"). The mechanical Phojnicians api)ear to have planned the temple entirely in advance, as the Kgyptians did in early times, marking each stone with its place ; Hiram's builders and the Gebalites being responsible for this work (1 Iv 6"). The stone was sawn with saws, a.s in the best Kgyp. work (1 K 7''). The cause of tins I'luen. superiority in stonework is probably from their occupying a rocky coast where brick is less attiiinable, and a wet coast where stone is the more needful.
Of the architectural forms very little is known directly. The only carvings yet seen, which are certaiidy of the period of the monarchy, are the slabs of Tell He.sy. There a cavetto cornice, like the usual Kgy)). form of the nineteenth dynasty, is carved on a thin slab, which was placed over a doorway as a lintel. From the want of solidity, and the curve of the back, manifestly following that of the face, it is evident that this wa.s not a structural, but only an ornamental member ; like the similar thin stone lintels attached by (wooden?) pegs to the brick wall behind, in the palace of Akhenaten at Tel el-Amariia. What the real nature of the door-crown wa.s has not been lu'cserved ; it may have been of wood, but looking to Kgyp. usage it is more likely to have been an arch of brickwork, like the walls.
The sides of the doorways have also been pre- served, though reversed in re-usc in a later building. They are decorated with pilasters, which
shon- the form of the columns in use at that age. A rounded low stone base supported the stout and clumsy ccluirn, which is even represented as equal in iliameter to the base. At least the ideal was very different from that of the Egyp., whose column was far narrower than its base. The column diminished greatly upward, and was capped at the top by a volute of Ionic nature. In the stonework this volute seems to imitate a coil of metal ; but the whole design appears to come from a decorating of vrooden posts with rams' horns, a similar idea to the bucrania in tir. use. On Assyr. monuments, capitals are represented which have been considered to foreshadow the Ionic ; but the horn form (if it ever existed in these) has been lost, whereas in the earlier Jewish example, which is probably Solo- monic, the coil is nmch more isolated and pronounced.