Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.
http://www.jstor.org
M.?j
0
M ,
--- J M
modern study and exploration of
ancient synagogues (1934).
The past decade has witnessed
an unprecedented flurry of activity
in Israel, in the West Bank, and on
the Golan Heights. As a result of
this new work, a much-needed
ItI period of scholarly reevaluation in
the field of synagogue studies has
evolved. It was only a few years
ago, before work commenced at the
site of Khirbet Shemac (Teqoca ha-
Galilit) under the aegis of the
American Schools of Oriental
Research (Meyers, Kraabel, and
Strange 1976), that a kind of
scholarly rigidity reigned in the field.
The struggle between Franciscan
excavators of Capernaum and
o 5 0 5 0O
IML-
0
a 0 0 0 M various Israeli archeologists over a
,
late chronology2 (Avi-Yonah 1973b:
EN GEDI GERASA GAZA BET ALFA 43-45) hopefully marks the end of
an era which understood the
evolution of the ancient synagogue
as being characterized by a
developmental typology such as we
have noted above (Avi-Yonah
1973a). Startling new discoveries at
Gamla in the Golan, at Tarichaeae
(Magdala) on the western shore of
the Sea of Galilee, and at Herodium
and Masada in the Judean wilder-
0
SI
5 1 0 5 10 0500
I L I
ness have established that the
M M
MM 51 1 M
earliest synagogues in ancient Pales-
IFAHo .
01
5 .L.
,, tine existed in the Ist century C.E.
The full publication of these
discoveries doubtless will be signifi-
cant for understanding the nature of
the development of the synagogue
building itself. For the later periods
the final publication of the Israeli
discoveries at Susiyah, Eshtemoca,
En-gedi, Rehov, Beth-shan, and
other new sites will further elucidate
a ' many other key issues.
0 5 5
The Basilica
HAMMAT ESHTEMOA KHIRBAT SUSYA JERICHO The major results of earlier archeo-
GADER logical investigations produced a
view of the origin and development
161
I 14 A6 8
Synogogue I I 2 3
IZ] r~5#7
1' Left: Two phases of Khirbet Shemac
synagogue. Right: Isometric reconstruction
of KhirbetShemacsynagogueshowing
3 ?4 #?6 ASl trafficpatterns.
Synagogue II
New data are thus bringing new a fixed receptacle for the Torah had stages on the long south wall, differs
insights. While the material from been adopted. Among the known from its closest parallels at Susiyah
Gush Halav alters somewhat the broadhouse synagogues, however, the and Eshtemoca in Judea by having
older views, it underscores the bema is the most widely attested internal columnation running east-
capacity of an individual religious feature and always is situated on the west, 900 off the wall oriented
community for originality within Jerusalem-orienting wall. The broad- toward Jerusalem. None of the
certain boundaries. The overall house represents one resolution of other broadhouse synagogues exca-
architectural forms, however im- the awkward about-face required by vated to date has supporting
mersed within the Greco-Roman the basilica: the worshiper could columns in the sacred area; rather,
provincial world they may be, reflect enter as easily through the short they use radically widened walls to
a freedom from rigidity that is wall (and face the Torah shrine) as support their superstructure.3
refreshing to the student of Roman through the long wall opposite the It should be underscored that in
provincial art. shrine. Or, the broadhouse simply this discussion the dates arrived at
may represent an independent for the phases and salient features of
The Broadhouse predilection for an architectural type the synagogues at Khirbet Shema',
The broadhouse synagogue receives which already had a lengthy history Gush Halav, and Meiron are based
its designation because its wall of in ancient Palestine. upon the chronological data pro-
orientation is one of the longer, or Both solutions find attestation vided by "critical loci" recovered
broader, walls as opposed to the in the first and only Galilean during excavation. In every case
shorter end-wall in the basilica. broadhouse excavated: at Khirbet these data synchronize well with the
Despite the fact that the oldest Shemac, just I km south of ancient chronological data recovered from
known example of this type comes Meiron. Conclusive dating of two the rest of the site. They are the
from Dura Europas and dates from major phases of the Khirbet Shemac result of careful consideration of all
the first half of the 3rd century C.E., broadhouse synagogue to the 3rd ceramic and numismatic materials in
this type of building in Palestine and 4th centuries C.E. once again conjunction with geological informa-
was traditionally thought to be late forces students of ancient synagogues tion available about ancient earth-
(4th century C.E.) and transitional to put aside preconceived develop- quake patterns in Upper Galilee.
(that is, between the Roman basilical mental notions of stages in their The three sites lie in a region of
and the Byzantine apsidal syna- history and study the evidence alone. intense earthquake activity, from
gogue). In general, its appearance Khirbet Shema', while clearly a ancient times until the present. In
seems to coincide with a time when broadhouse with orientation in both fact, the Safed-Gush Halav-Meiron