The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered
Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper
[FIGURE 24 OMITTED]
In short, GD 80 was obviously integrated into an extended insula, probably marking its south end and serving as the starting point for the development of its eastern part. There was, most probably, no neighbor to the south, at least not south of courtyard C. As there are no doorways in the extant west and north facades of the building, the walls to its west and north certainly did not define rooms that belonged to it, (63) but in all likelihood were constructed for separate neighboring edifices.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
Even though the orientation of the building differs considerably from that of all fully excavated buildings in the Quartier du stade, it corresponds with the layout of the Rue meridionale and the many walls visible south of that street, that is, to the south of Ilot II (see above, Fig. 1). Because the history and urban development of this quarter have not been examined to date, it must remain open whether its construction proceeded from south to north or vice versa; whether GD 80 influenced the orientation of its immediate surroundings or was itself conditioned by a preconceived urban layout for this quarter; and whether the building had neighbors to the west and southwest. (64)
COURTYARD C
Although the visible form and extent of courtyard C can be assigned safely to the granite wall system, the constructions within it could have been established independently, that is, together with another wall complex or even several wall complexes. As mentioned previously, the reconstruction of the eastern part of GD 80 is highly problematic, starting with the first gneiss building.
From the existing evidence, one is moved to reconstruct a courtyard bounded by at least three porticoes. Foundations a and d on Bruneau's plan (see Figs. 2, 3) are so wide and so clearly parallel to, and equal distances from, the north and south walls, respectively, that they must have delimited corridors or ambulatories. These spaces were nearly as wide as the distance between the existing north-south stylobate and the west wall, and had to be roofed as well because the benches along the north wall of C continue east of the line of the stylobate and were, most probably, not exposed to the open sky. (65)
Yet two details seem to defy such a reconstruction: (1) the northernmost block of the marble step below the west stylobate is worked on its east face with the intention that it should be seen, and (2) it displays on its north face an anathyrosis that extends from the west and bottom edges of the block over most of the block's width and height (Figs. 25, 26). These points suggest that the west colonnade continued north and that the abutment of a north colonnade with the west colonnade would not have been planned. (66) Two explanations can be offered for this phenomenon. First, the northernmost slab of the marble step is just spoil: the anathyrosis on its north face would not have been visible in another context, such as a peristyle with three (or four) wings, and its east face had been fully worked for the original context but was only partly visible when reused here. (67) Second, the block in question testifies to two phases in the history of the west colonnade: the colonnade originally continued farther north--and maybe also farther south (Fig. 27)--and was only subsequently incorporated into a three- or four-winged peristyle, such a transformation requiring that it be shortened to join with the new north and south colonnades. Further excavation might reveal whether one of these two solutions is correct, or if there could be others. (68)