The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered
Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper
(80.) 2.40 m (= length of block) plus half the bottom diameter of two columns (most probably = 0.60 m), plus a short distance between the columns and the joints of the stylobate blocks, for a total of 0.10 m or a little more.
(81.) The presence or absence of assembly marks and details such as setting lines, worked surfaces, and cuttings that were used for the positioning and fixing of columns and blocks, and the quality of execution can be indicators of the quality of the construction of a building. Often enough in the private buildings of Delos, these elements are either completely missing or are executed without much care. Cf., e.g., the colonnade in the small courtyard of the Etablissement des Poseidoniastes (GD 57; Delos VI, pl. II). For assembly marks, see Delos XIX, pp. 34-37). In Table 1, for the Portique de Philippe and the Portique d'Antigone, see Delos VII.1 and Delos V, respectively.
- 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 »
(82.) The calculation of the axial spans and number of columns is, in principle, independent of the lower diameter of the columns. If the sockets in the stylobate were conceived for the fixing of a column, then all measurements depended on them. And if the intercolumniations to the north and south of the preserved stylobate block should not vary too much, nine columns must be restored. If the columns are restored independently of the sockets in the stylobate block, the preserved 18.08 m (minus one column diameter = the half-column diameters of the northernmost and southernmost columns, and a few centimeters for the space between the edge of the stylobate and the column at each end) could be divided into seven intercolumniations of at least 2.47 m, framed by eight columns of an optional diameter (at most 0.725 m = the width of the stylobate), as conjectured by Mazur (1935) and Binder (1999, fig. 15) without reference to the visible remains. But then, the third column from the south would have rested immediately north of the cuttings in the preserved stylobate slab, upon which no traces of any column are evident.
White's conjectured restoration (1987, fig. 5) shows three columns on the west stylobate and two each at the north and south; on his schematic plan (fig. 2) columns are missing, but on McLean's plan (1996, fig. 11:1) there are three columns on the west and two at both north and south--obviously in adaptation of White's conjectural restoration. Given the length of the west stylobate (preserved for 18.08 m), three columns (and thus architraves) would have to be restored with axial spacings of nearly 9.00 m, which is absolutely impossible.
(83.) With regard to the longer stylobate, on each end at least half of a column diameter and a few centimeters for the space between the edge and the column must be subtracted: 9.70 m minus ca. 0.70 m (or a little more for columns with a diameter of 0.60 m). Similarly for the shorter stylobate, at one end 9.10 m minus ca. 0.40 m (or a little more), the intercolumniation would have measured slightly less, 2.175 m. The wall could have been decorated with a pilaster aligned with the colonnade.