The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered
Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper
(63.) As conjectured by White (1987, p. 147, n. 62) and Binder (1999, p. 312, n. 168).
(64.) As suggested by plan III in GD, which shows a wall ca. 60 m west of GD 80 running parallel to it but proceeding farther south. This wall could have formed the west facade of the insula to which the building belongs, or that of a separate insula. In any case, the two parts of this one large insula or two separate insulae were separated by two quarries and were laid out on several terraces sloping downward from west to east (Fig. 1). As already mentioned, at least the eastern area or insula was positioned according to a preconceived plan, but such a plan cannot be reconstructed for the western area or insula due to insufficient evidence.
- 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 »
In GD, pp. 207-208, few constructions south of GD 80 are mentioned: a possible lighthouse on the small cape immediately to its south, and a "fabrique de pourpre" (GD 80.1) quite far to the south. By comparison, the remains of several walls on the shore and submerged in the sea testify that the area immediately north of the building was quite densely built up. As early as 1907/1908, this area was identified as a small harbor with moles and quays; see Delos XXXIX, pp. 122-123, documents VI, XXXIII; Vallois 1953, pl. I; Bruneau 1970, pl. A; Papageorgiou-Venetas 1981, pp. 105-106, fig. 85; GD, plan III.
(65.) Many tile fragments found during excavation of the site are testimony to the existence of sloped roofs; see Plassart 1914, pp. 524-525; Bruneau 1970, p. 483. Such tiles could have covered the porticoes and rooms. Note that henceforth the terms "west stylobate" and "west portico" will be applied to the north-south stylobate and the associated portico (which is normally referred to as "portico C" in the literature), west in relation to the north and south porticoes that are reconstructed here (see below).
(66.) Bruneau 1970, p. 483.
(67.) This might equally hold true for the southernmost block of the marble step, which is either crudely worked or broken (Fig. 27), so that if there was any anathyrosis, it is no longer evident. Its east face is completely worked, like that of its counterpart at the north.
(68.) As the remains of the "late" walls crossing the north and south porticoes at the west, and roughly aligned with the line of the west stylobate, are above the level of the foundation of the west stylobate (see Bruneau 1970, pls. B, C, F), it seems unlikely that the excavators failed to notice aligned foundations to the north and south of the stylobate; therefore, such foundations must have been completely destroyed in the remodeling phase. At best, one could search for predecessors of the north and south walls of the courtyard and try to define their possible extent. If nothing were found, both solutions would still be possible in theory, even if not provable.
(69.) The reconstruction of porticoes in the north and south was also proposed by Mazur (1935), White (1987, pp. 150-152, n. 78), and Binder (1999, pp. 308-314, fig. 15), but neither White nor Binder takes into account Bruneau's arguments against this reconstruction.