Synagogue Studies: Metrology and Excavations

Author(s): Gideon Foerster

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-), Bd. 105 (1989), pp. 129-135
Published by: Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27931364 .
Accessed: 06/04/2012 11:57

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.

Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-).

http://www.jstor.org
 Synagogue Studies: Metrology and Excavations
By Gideon Foerster

In an critical article in this periodical1, Doron Chen chooses to return to the

extremely
perplexing question of the chronology of theCapernaum synagogue.With very few new
argumens at hand he tries to substantiate a late dating of thisbuilding to the fifthcentury
A.D.
As early as 19712 Iwas the first,I believe, to question this late dating,which had been
V. Corbo and S. Loffreda their 1968, 1970 and later3 excavations. I
posited by following
am among those who have become more involved in this matter, contributed
deeply having
to the "data and in that discussion", to Chen
put forward
arguments which according
should now be questioned to see if
they are, in his words, "accurate and valid It is
enough"4.
for these reasons that I wish to comment and elaborate on some of Chen's assertions.
Chen begins his discussion with a ratherodd and disturbing evaluation of thework ofH.
Kohl and C. Watzinger5, statingthat "Their detailed report,published in 1916, contains
an exhaustive account of the lay-outs of the excavated However, their report
synagogues.
does not refer to a single surface find (except many architectural or the
members), stratigra
and its content, metrology or any evidence as to the date of these
phy epigraphic founding
buildings. Yet, relyingon the stylisticparallels, benevolent Severan policies, and the rise of
the Palestinian Patriarchate, Kohl and Watzinger dated all eleven excavated synagogues to
the end of the second and the beginning of the third century A.D. However, recent
excavations and the metrological research at that the
archaeological Capernaum proved
synagoguehad been dated to about twohundred years earlier thanwhen itwas actually built.
Furthermore, another earlier synagogue has been discovered under the present Byzantine
building".
Upon reading these remarksone wonders ifone is at the end of the article or only at the
is clear-cut; Kohl and Watzinger, as well as all those scholars who
beginning: everything
followed theirsuggested chronology, are totallywrong.

1
D. Chen, On the Chronology of the Ancient Synagogue at Capernaum, ZDPV 102 (1986),
134-143.
2
G. Foerster, Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum (Review Article), IEJ 21 (1971),
205-211.
3
V. Corbo-S. Loffreda-A. Spijkerman, La sinagoga di Cafarnao dopo gli scavi del 1969
(Jerusalem 1970); also in LA 20 (1970), 7-117. S. Loffreda, The Synagogue at Capernaum,
Archaeological Evidence for its Late Chronology, LA 22 (1972), 5-29; idem, The Late Chronology
of the Synagogue of Capernaum, IEJ 23 (1973), 37-42; V. Corbo, Cafarnao I: Gli edifici della citt?
(Jerusalem 1975), 113-166; S. Loffreda, Cafarnao II: Las ceramica (Jerusalem 1974); A. Spijker
man, Cafarnao III: Catalogo delle monete della citt? (Jerusalem 1975); V. Corbo, La Synagoga di
Cafarnao (Studia Hierosolymitana 1; Jerusalem 1976), 159-176; S. Loffreda, Potsherds from a
Sealed Level of the Synagogue at Capernaum, LA 29 (1979), 215-220.
4
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 134.
5
H. Kohl-C. Watzinger, Antike Synagogen inGalil?a (WVDOG 29; Leipzig 1916).
 130 Gideon Foerster

This is clearly not the case. In his assessment of them, Chen does great injustice to Kohl
and Watzinger, two who worked in Palestine at the of this
archaeologists beginning
century under difficult conditions and a real in the
extremely produced breakthrough study
of ancient synagogues. Seventy years after its publication their work has not yet been

superseded by any other study on Galilean synagogues. In his evaluation of thework of

Kohl and Watzinger Chen's assertion that they did not refer to any surface find is clearly

misleading, though he contradicts himself immediatelyafterwards in the phrase "(except

many architectural members)", thus admitting that his statement is unfounded (see Note 4).
Why was thismost decisive point put inbrackets?What other surfacefindsdid Chen have in
mind? Kohl and Watzinger's is characterized a most detailed treatment of
publication by
every (!) architectural element, the publication of drawings and photographs, detailed
measurements and
verbal and careful
descriptions, comparative study. Can this justify
Chen's statementthat the "report does not refer to a single surface find"?
Chen continues his outrageous assertions by stressing that Kohl and Watzinger failed
to refer to the and its contents. What does he mean? This has also to be
stratigraphy qualified;
and it should be emphasized, the ratherunderdeveloped stratigraphicalknowledge in 1905
that the "excavations" in the eleven synagogues were carried out
notwithstanding, according
to the following astonishingly tight schedule: fjirbet
Summdqa (29th and 30thMarch),
Telh?m (Capernaum) (5th-27th April), ed-Dikke (29thApril-1st May), Umm el-Qandtir
(3rd-6th May), ffirbetUmm el-Amed (8th-12th May), fjfirbetIrbid (13th-17th May),
again Telhum (18th-27th May), M?r n (29th May-1st June), liirbet en-Nabrat?n
(2nd-4th June),Kafr Bifim (6th-13th June),el-G?s (14th- 17thJune) and liirbet el-Kerdze
(4th-13thOctober)6. This was an extremelyshortperiod, inwhich Kohl andWatzinger
were concerned with to enable them to produce a of the
primarily cleaning operations plan
buildings such as is clearly described in the textand shown on theplans. Even in the short
time available, to a number of section in
they managed produce drawings, e.g. Capernaum7
andtfirbet Irbid8, as well as detailed plans of all the buildings they investigated9.It is, of
course, most unfortunate that the Franciscans the site did not allow the German
holding
team to carry out the plan dieser ersten Reise,
they announced: "Die Ergebnisse besonders
die ?berzeugung, da? eine v?llige Freilegung der besterhaltenen Synagoge von Tell Hum
und ihrerUmgebung ein anschauliches Bild von der Bedeutung dieser Bauten anOrt und
Stelle vermitteln k?nnte, veranla?ten die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, die Herren Kohl
und Watzinger im Herbst 1907 nochmals zu einer k?rzeren Reise auszusenden"10.
The work was carried out after that by the Franciscan fathers, without any real report
apart from G. Orfali's book, et ses ruines, des fouilles ?
"Caperna?m d'apr?s accomplies
Tell H?mm par la custodie franciscainede Terre-Sainte" (Paris, 1922). In thiswork, which is
a of Kohl and Watzinger's book, the conclusion reached is that the synago
mostly copy
gue dates to the time of Jesus (sic!). This work is not mentioned inDoron Chen's
evaluation.
He goes on to say that the report does not refer to or any
"metrology epigraphic
evidence" a unfounded accusation. As for metrology, Chen himself
(sic!), totally says that

6
2-3.
7 Ibid.,
21, fig. 39.
8 Ibid.,
/ ., 64, fig. 118 and plate VIII.
9
This part of the work was excluded by Chen for reasons beyond my understanding, Chen, ZDPV
102 (1986).
10
Kohl-Watzinger, Antike Synagogen (note 5), 3.
 Synagogue Studies: Metrology and Excavations 131

his analysis is "based almost entirelyon the surveymade by Kohl andWatzinger"11 !As for
the epigraphic Kohl and Watzinger several
evidence, discuss inscriptions (i.e. all the
evidence found in the synagogues as well as other relevant inscriptions). Not
epigraphic they
-
only do theydeal with theepigraphic evidence theyeven base much of theirchronology on
the most important Severan dedicatory found at among the remains of a
inscriptions Qasium
public building similar in style to the synagogue and dated toA.D. 19712.
I see nothingwrong with dating buildings, as Chen puts ist,"on stylisticand historical
when there is no other material as as the
grounds" available, long dating iswell-founded and

proven conclusively. On the other hand, it is absolutely wrong to try, as Chen does, to date
a - or a whole -
building rather, group of buildings without into consideration
taking
historical, epigraphic and stylistic factors.
Chen's of the material from the Franciscan excavations at
misleading representation
continues. Without to the he states that "twenty
Capernaum referring directly publication
fourByzantine coins were found on the occupational level under the foundations of the
synagogue in trenches Nos. 9,2 and 10 (excavated in 1971)"13. Though no reference
complex
is given, I have found the coins referred to by Chen in Loffreda's report of 197214. No coin
was found beneath the foundations! In addition, therehas unfortunatelybeen no detailed
and proper publication of the coins from the synagogue up to now.
a bitter attack
Chen launches against M. Avi-Yonah, who has difficulties seeing the

synagogue built contemporaneous to that of since the styles

Capernaum Hammat-Toveryd,
of the two buildings differgreatly.Chen suggests thatalthough the synagogue atArbela (?)
(Hirbet Irbid) is significantlydifferentfrom thatofCapernaum, the fact that thewall facing
Jerusalem isnot theentrancewall (and not theback wall as Chen calls it) isprobably due to
the topographic situation and isof no significance,since theThora shrine- which is the focal
- was at the wall
point of the synagogue alaways placed facing Jerusalem.
The metrological studies published byChen in recentyearswith relation to the synago
gues, particularly to that of are cited in the article. They are to
Capernaum, widely designed
provide furtherproof of theByzantine dating not only of theCapernaum synagogue but of
other synagogues as well15.

Here, too, the evidence is, at best, twisted. I shall refer mainly to the evidence from

Capernaum.
Chen mentions the early foot-standard of 0.32 m. which he identifies at
Byzantine
Capernaum, saying that ithas already been identifiedin a number of churches in Illyricum16
and Palestine17. What he does not say, however, is that this 0.32 m. foot-standard is used in a

negligible percent of cases. It is the least frequent in Illyricum ,being evident only at one site
(8.5 %) (see note 16). According to Chen, half of themeasured Galilean synagogues in
Palestine have this standard. This is certainly not enough to call it Byzantine or early
when we know that a foot of 0.324-0.328 m. existed e.g. in Etruria
Byzantine, particularly

11
D. Chen, theDesign of the Ancient Synagogues inGalilee, LA 28 (1978), 201.
12
Kohl-Watzinger, antike Synagogen (note 5), 208-209.
13
C hen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 135.
14
Loffreda, LA 22 (1972), 14,17.
15
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 135-139.
16
N. Spremo-Petrovic, Proportions architecturales dans les plans des basiliques de la Pr?fecture de
63-65, 69-71.
17 l'Illyricum (Beograd 1971),
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 138.
 132 Gideon Foerster

and classical Greece18. Yet many more standards existed which were contem
employed
poraneously, as, for example, those of the Acropolis in Athens19.
In his firststudyon the subject20,inwhich hewas more cautious, Chen summed up his
article thus: "The early Byzantine units of measurement, like the Roman and Greek, were in
use for many centuries; thus a more precise definition must on further
chronological rely
comprehensive study of the archaeological evidence." It seems that the basic deficiency in
the interpretation of the metrological systems lies in the fact that there were no fixed
standards for a given period, and our interpretation very much on the system we
depends
choose, and we simplymultiply or divide themeasurements according to our beliefs.This
can be demonstrated here by way of a most interesting example.
In attempting to prove his point, Chen compares the design of the newly discovered
Cardo in Jerusalem with the Capernaum "A close examination of both struc
synagogue21:
tures proves that the axial intercolumnations of the colonnades at and in
Capernaum
measure 2.89 m. or simply9 Byzantine feetof 0.32 m. (fig.3) - a factof
Jerusalem invariably
cardinal It is difficult to see the relevance of this analogy. Therefore
importance." extremely
I wish to add to the discussion the temple of Baal Shamin in Palmyra, which is dated,
to the evidence, to A.D. 130-131. The average axial intercolumnation
according epigraphic
of this is 2.88 and the foot is calculated as 0.2875 m.23. Ifwe
temple m.(!)22, measuring prefer
this to the 0.32 m. standard, we are left with 10 feet for the axial intercolumnation in

Jerusalem and inCapernaum, which ismuch more convincing than the 9 Byzantine feet
suggested by Chen.
The 0.288 m. foot-standard fits the Capernaum better than its 0.32 m.
synagogue
counterpart and yields the following results in comparison with the latter:
Inner length 80ft. = 23.04 m. (23.00 measured)
Innerwidth 60ft. = 17.28 m. (17.28 measured)
Axial width of thenave 32ft. = 9.216 m. ( 9.27 measured)
Width of the lateralaisles 14ft. = 4.032 m. ( 4.005 measured)
Width of the transverseaisles = 2.736m.
9.5ft. ( 2.715 measured)
Axial intercolumnation 10ft. = 2.88 m. ( 2.89 measured)
The constructivewidth of thewall is not known.
-
The modular pattern : 80ft. 20 Palm, ft. 4 =
F
60ft.= 20 Palm. ft. 3
If a particular standardwas indeed used overwide areas, one of Palmyran originwould
certainly have been preferred to a so-called standard, since the style and content of
Byzantine
synagogue decor is verymuch in keeping with that of Roman temples and other public
buildings inSouthern Syria.As for theCardo, an earlierRoman phase has been suggestedby
Y Ts afri r and rejected by Chen24.
18
A. Balland et ai, Les Architectures (1962-1967) (Fouilles de l'?cole Fran?aise de Rome ? Bolsena
[Poggio Moscini] 2; Paris 1971) and J E. Jones et al., An Attic Country House below the Cave of
Pan at Vari, BSA 68 (1971), 422-423, note 159.
19
ibid.
20 Jones,
LA 28 (1978), 202.
21 Chen,
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 139.
22
Th. Wiegand, ed., Palmyra. Ergebnisse der Expeditionen von 1902 und 1917
(Berlin 1932),
119.122?.
23
P. Le Sanctuaire de Baal Shamin ?
24 Collart-J. Vicari, Palmyre, vol. I (Roma 1969), 109-125.
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 138 and note 15.
 Synagogue Studies: Metrology and Excavations 133

Before I wish remark on Tsafrir's

to refer to Chen's suggestion that a
continuing,
Roman foot-standard was in the Capernaum
used He accuses him of
synagogue fa?ade.
- a mere
however, all other dimensions of the building folklore of metrology"25.
"ignoring,
How, for example, does Chen calculate his "Byzantine" foot-standard of the Cardo? Does
he include in his calculations more than the axial intercolumnation? And what about the
columns and the entablature?26 Yet he regards this as "a fact of cardinal importance". All of
are limited to the other dimensions
Chen's metrological studies of the synagogues plan. No
-
are recorded or considered such as those of the bases, columns, capitals and entablature,
which are essential.This ispossibly themost fundamentaldeficiency inChen's metrological
studies of the synagogues, in addition towhat has been said above and will be discussed
below.
Chen's most statement his metrological studies and their
Perhaps alarming concerning
m. in the
significance is as follows27: "I was able also to identifytheByzantine foot of 0.32
design of the at
synagogue (tfirbet/en-)Nabrat?n inGalilee. Thus this synagogue should be
dated to the too" (sic!). He goes on to say, "The results of the recent
Byzantine period,
excavations atNabrat?n, published by E. M. Meyers and members of his team, fully
seems clear now. Wherever one
corroborate my own chronological findings"28. Everything
finds a building and measures the 0.32 m. foot-standard, one can stop and date the
excavating
building to theByzantine period. Is this really the case? The Nabrat?n excavations, in fact,
have proven exactly theopposite. It is true thatMeyers dated the lastphase of the synagogue
to theByzantine period, but ifChen is rightin establishing the0.32 m. standard as the foot
in this last phase, he has proven at the same time that the earlier,Roman phase, built in
? A.D. 250 and destroyed in themiddle of the fourthcenturyA.D., also employed the0.32
m. standard foot since except for the addition of 2.95 m. to the northern end of
(Byzantine),
the synagogue thewidth and intercolumnation (in facteven thewalls and columns) of the
remained the same. Thus one has to assume a similar system for the
building metrological
synagogue of the Roman period.
To conclude the discussion on themetrological solutions to the chronology of the
synagogues suggested by Chen, I would like to cite J. Boardman's opinion concerning
classical Greece. He considers the search for exact standards unfruitful owing to the wide
use (not just two main Such efforts, he notes, prove only that a
variety of units in standards).
basic standard was used on a single building, with no necessary to any other
correspondence
since so much on the mason's measure. This, he says, was perhaps
building, depended
marked off but not checked a national standard29.
against
Atthe end of a two-page discussion Chen further dispenses with the historical, architec
tural and stylistic studies of scholars such as Kohl and Watzinger, Avi-Yonah, Levine,
-
Ts afri r and others and that he does in the light of "the vast stratigraphical, numismatic,
ceramic and metrological evidence"30 In not a single sentence is he able to substantiate
(sic!).
his totaldisregard for the synagogue studieswhich preceded his metrological discoveries.

25
Ibid., 138, note 11.
26
Ibid., 139.
27
Ibid.
28 at en-Nabratein,
E. M. Meyers et al, Second Preliminary Report on the 1981 Excavations Israel,
BASOR 246 (1982), 40-43, fig. 2-3.
29
Boardman et al., Art and Architecture of Ancient Greece (London 1967), 12.
30 J.
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 141.
 134 Gideon Foerster

Inmy article of 1971 and elsewhere31I have tried to avoid underestimating the signifi
cance and results of the excavations at the archaeological evidence
Capernaum, evaluating
and reconciling itwith thehistorical and art-historicalconsiderationswithout denying any
of the finds. I believe the synagogue of Capernaum was its masonry and
planned, prepared
foundations laid, in the second halfof the thirdcenturyA.D. It is extremelydifficultto say
whether construction stopped
at one
point and continued only after a long cessation, or
whether therewas a serious deterioration in the state of the building, so that itneeded a
thorough repair,consisting in the renewalof the floors and the fillsupporting them. It is this
which accounts for the late material pottery and coins in the fill. Some of the architectural
decoration may also have been renewed at this later stage; hence the later traces on a few
architectural elements, as art historians.
suggested by
In the last chapter of his article Chen reveals the details of the earlier synagogue
"discovered under the present Byzantine as mentioned in his introduction. He
building"32,
to a
attaches great importance suggestion put forward by V. Corbo and S. Loffreda33,

thoughhe differsfrom themon the size of the earlierbuilding34.

The idea is that the basalt walls, which had been regarded as the foundation of the
synagogue, are the walls of the earlier, first century synagogue of the
Capernaum virtually
roman centurion and St. Peter. Yet the nature of the basalt walls is clearly that of foundations

supporting thewhite limestonewalls of the synagogue.The basalt walls arewider than the
well-cut upper limestone walls and are of smaller stones, sometimes cut, but mostly field
stones which were not The floors A and, are not very
probably free-standing35. possibly,
convincing as floorsof a public building, ifat all36.1 am not aware of the comparable use of
walls on any older buildingwhich remained all at one height andwithout a change inplan37.
However, if these basalt walls are indeed the walls of the first century synagogue, their
measurement standard should, since are identical to the later walls, also be the
they
Byzantine foot! Chen concludes38, "Pottery recovered under pavements of the earlier

synagogue at dates to the fourth century A.D. This

Capernaum singular discovery ipso facto
clinches the debate concerning the construction date of the present monument. As shown,
the at
chronology by Kohl and Watzinger Capernaum and elsewehre in Galilee proved
incorrect." Once his statements are unfounded. To the best of my knowledge neither
again
Corbo nor Loffreda has maintained in any of his works that they recovered fourth century

pottery beneath the pavements of the early

synagogue39! Chen goes on to say, "The long
maintained 'three types' theory on ancient synagogues in Israel, mainly based on the initial
German also failed."
dating, ultimately

31
21 (1971), 205-211.
32 FoERSTER,IEJ
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 134.142-143.
33
V. Corbo, Resti della synagoga del primo secolo a Cafarnoao (Studia Hierosolymitana 3; Jerusalem
1982), 313-357, especially 337-341, and S. Loffreda, Ceramica ellenistico-romana nel sottosuolo
della synagoga di Cafarnao (Studia Hierosolymitana 3; Jerusalem 1982), 273-312.
34
Loffreda, ibid., 312.
35
Corbo, ibid, (note 33), foto 9, fig. 1-9.
36
Ibid., fotos 12-13.
37
See note 34.
38
Chen, ZDPV 102 (1986), 143.
39
Chen's statement on page 142 that the "ceramic repertoire beneath the upper basalt pavement
(?)
under the aisles dates till the end of the fourth century A.D." is also not to be found in Loffreda's
report!
 Synagogue Studies: Metrology and Excavations 135

The "three-types theory" is not a theorybut a classificationwhich may lack in some

details but isvalid nevertheless. It is at firstregional,but in its lastphase of the sixthcentury
the apsed basilical synagogue buildings are chronologically and geographically spread all
over Palestine.
I have not dwelt upon many other problems in Chen's article. My intention in writing
these remarks was to warn the reader against relying on extreme viewpoints which demand a
lotof everyone else but nothing of thewriter himself.