The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered
Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper
(37.) Plassart 1914, pp. 523-524.
(38.) Delos VI, fig. 65; Delos VIII, pp. 261-286; Ginouves 1992, pls. 22-24.
(39.) For a deep step below the threshold and the positions of pivot and bolt holes in the step, see the Etablissement des Poseidoniastes (GD 57), room E, in Delos VI, fig. 65.
(40.) The inconvenient gap thus created between the tread of the threshold and the outer set of holes was probably bridged with a wooden frame or platform.
- 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 »
(41.) Marks created by the sliding of the valves that pivoted in the inner holes are visible on the north and central thresholds (Figs. 11, 12), testifying to a longer first phase or to intensive use. Moreover (Bruneau 1970, pl. E), contrary to the general custom in Delos, the left (here south), not the right, leaf of the north door seems to have been used much more intensively; as the outer, west sets of holes are near the edges of the lower steps of the thresholds, sliding valves hardly could have left marks, thus providing hints about the primary direction of circulation.
(42.) As proposed by White (1987) and his followers; see McLean 1996, p. 195; Hachlili 1998, pp. 37-38; also Binder 1999, pp. 299-300.
(43.) The exterior northwest corner of A is still under earth and the original southeast and southwest corners of the gneiss building are not preserved. So it cannot be ruled out that one of the other corners, or even all four, included stabilizing marble blocks as well.
(44.) The field plan in Bruneau 1970 (pl. B) shows the east wall of A/B with northern and southern portions that are not as thick as the central portion, suggesting that the former are older than the latter. Elsewhere in Bruneau 1970 (pl. E), however, a detailed plan and elevation of the same wall does not reflect this arrangement, nor does the archaeological evidence.
(45.) This base was slightly shifted after its excavation and, by 1913, was situated directly in front of the wall; see Plassart 1914, p. 525, for the photograph taken in 1913.
(46.) See in detail Bruneau 1968, pp. 683-691.
(47.) See Bruneau 1970, pl. VIII:1, 2.
(48.) See Bruneau 1970, pl. VIII:1.
(49.) This corner cannot be judged with certainty because its exterior is not visible (see following note). The remarkable difference between the two wall systems that meet at the southwest corner of D6 speaks for itself, however; these walls certainly do not belong to the same phase, as stated by Binder (1999, p. 308, n. 160). His view leads him to a quite desperate conclusion: Since he has noted that, in contrast to the south wall of the D-complex and courtyard C, the north wall of C is not bonded to the original shell of the building, he must assume some later damage to that end of the building, which suggests repairs at the point at which the walls intersected. Obviously, he did not notice the stucco in the joint between the intersecting walls at the northwest corner of C, nor the remarkable similarity of the south and north walls of C.
(50.) Today this wall is not visible from the exterior, being completely covered by a modern wall that is built in a technique similar to that of the granite wall system. The modern wall seems to predate the excavation, for it was partially destroyed during the excavations in 1912 and rebuilt in 1913; see Plassart 1914, pp. 524-525, with photographs taken in 1912 and 1913.