Journal of Ancient Judaism, 4. Jg., 133–148, ISSN 1869-3296 © 2013 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen

A Synagogue in Limyra?

Preliminary Report on a Byzantine Building with Jewish Elements*

Martin Seyer (Austrian Archaeological Institute) and Helmut Lotz (University of Vienna)

This preliminary excavation report brings to the attention of the scholarly public the discovery of a building with two menorot reliefs and a water installation in Limyra (Asia Minor) from the late antique/early Byzantine period.

Limyra (known in the indigenous Lycian language as Zẽmuri) is an ancient city in the south-west region of Lycia, Asia Minor. Its ruins are located ca. 5 km north-east of the modern small town of Finike (fig. 1).1

A number of spectacular individual finds have been made during the ar-chaeological excavations that have taken place since 1969: the Heroon of Perikle, a dynast of the city in the fourth century B. C. E.,2 a ruler-cult build-ing for the Ptolemaic dynasty dating to the early third century B. C. E.,3 and the cenotaph for Gaius Caesar, the grandson and adopted son of Augustus and who died in Limyra in 4 C. E.4 In addition, numerous structures of the Roman Imperial and the Byzantine periods have been discovered, as well as valuable evidence regarding nearly every aspect of civic life and funerary aspects dur-ing every phase of the settlement.5

* We would like to thank first and foremost the General Directorate for Antiquities and Muse-ums of the Republic of Turkey for the annual issuance of permission to excavate. In addition, we would like to thank A. Lange (Vienna), G. Langer (Vienna), J. Magness (Chapel Hill), and Z. Weiss (Jerusalem) for valuable advice.

1 J. Borchhardt, Die Steine von Zẽmuri: Archäologische Forschungen an den verborgenen Was-sern von Limyra (Vienna: Phoibos, 1993). For an overview: http://oeai.at/index.php/limyra.html.

2 J. Borchhardt, Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra: Das Grabmal des lykischen Königs Perikles (Istanbuler Forschungen 32; Berlin: Mann, 1976).

3 Recently: G. Stanzl, “Zur Neuaufnahme der Arbeiten am Ptolemaion in Limyra,” in 40 Jahre Grabung Limyra: Akten des internationalen Symposions Wien, 3.–5. Dezember 2009 (ed. M. Seyer; Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, 2012), 327–42, with bibliography.

4 J. Ganzert, Das Kenotaph für Gaius Caesar in Limyra (Istanbuler Forschungen 35; Berlin: Mann, 1984); J. Borchhardt, Der Fries vom Kenotaph für Gaius Caesar in Limyra (Forschun-gen in Limyra 2; Vienna: Phoibos, 2002).

5 For an overview of the scientific results, see J. Borchhardt et al., “Grabungen und Forschun-gen in Limyra aus den Jahren 1984–1990,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 61 (1991/92 Beiblatt): 125–92; Borchhardt, Zẽmuri; J. Borchhardt et al., “Grabun-gen und Forschungen in Limyra aus den Jahren 1991–1996,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 66 (1997 Beiblatt): 321–426; Seyer, 40 Jahre Limyra.

134 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

Since 2011, the focal point of research at Limyra has been devoted to the ur-ban development, primarily from the Hellenistic until the Byzantine period. Within the framework of these investigations, by means of focused excava-tions in the area of both of the Byzantine city walls of the eastern and western city (fig. 2), information should be obtained regarding the various phases of the urban picture, and of the city plan with its street system and contiguous architecture.6 Of great interest is the question whether a different development of the two city walls can be determined during the Byzantine period. The divi-sion of the settlement into two during the Late Antique/Early Byzantine epoch via the erection of two independent, irregular city walls adapted to the topo-graphical conditions indeed seems to have occurred first and foremost due to the fact that the western arm of the River Limyros should not be integrated into the civic area; it is, however, noteworthy that in the Byzantine period two prestigious buildings, the Bishop’s Church7 and the so-called Bishop’s Palace,8 are found in the eastern city. The urban development of the western city, on the other hand – with the exception of a small area to the north of the city wall of the Classical period – is still widely terra incognita. Since, however, in the Hellenistic period and the early Imperial period, important structures were erected in the western city in the form of the Ptolemaion and the Cenotaph for Gaius Caesar, the question can be raised if, in the course of Christianization, a possible shift in the civic center occurred, with the spiritual-religious focal point being transferred to the eastern area of the city.

In the 2012 campaign, during excavations in the region of the Byzantine city wall in the eastern city directly to the south of the street running into the city through the East Gate (fig. 3), a building remarkable in many respects was discovered (figs. 4, 5). In the first excavation campaign, only a small part in the north-east area of the building could be brought to light; one room was completely excavated and two additional ones were cut into. For this rea-son, no statements regarding its total size can be made at the current time, although it apparently extended farther to the west and – along the city wall – to the south. The eastern room (room 1) reveals dimensions of ca. 14 m2 and is contiguous with the city wall on the city side; this wall was probably built

6 For the first results of this focused research, cf. M. Seyer, “Limyra 2011,” News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas 10 (2012): 59–64; idem, “Urbanistische Forschungen in Limyra/Lykien,” Forum Archaeologiae 63 (VI/2012) (http://farch.net); M. Seyer et al., “Li-myra 2011,” 34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı (2012): 221-34.

7 U. Peschlow, “Die Bischofskirche in Limyra (Lykien),” in Actes du Xe Congrès International d’Archéologie Chrétienne Thessalonique, 28. 9.–4. 10. 1980 (Studi di antichità cristiana 37, 2; Rome: Pontifico Ist. di Archeologia Cristiana, 1984), 409–21; R. Jacobek, “Limyra als Sitz byzantinischer Bischöfe,” in Borchhardt, Zẽmuri, 111–15, 112–13; U. Peschlow, “Nachunter-suchungen an der Bischofskirche,” in Borchhardt et al., Grabungen 1991–1996, 384–90; H. Hellenkemper and F. Hild, Lykien und Pamphylien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 8,2; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004), 688 s. v. Limyra.

8 R. Jacobek, “Die Arbeiten am sog. Bischofspalast (Grabung 1989),” in Borchhardt et al., “Grabungen 1984–1990,” 171–76, 173; Jacobek, “Limyra,” 113.

A Synagogue in Limyra? 135

in the fifth century C. E., yet during the seventh century C. E. was strength-ened and partially newly built as a preventative measure against the threat of Arab invasions.9 The entrance to this room is located in its south-west corner. In its north-east corner is a water basin with sides measuring ca. 1.3 × 1.3 m and with a depth of ca. 1 m; the floor of the basin is covered with marble slabs and its interior and exterior walls are clad in hydraulic mortar (fig. 6). Along the south side inside the basin is a bench made out of hewn stones. The water supply took place by means of a clay pipeline, through which all of the rain water collected from the roof of the building and from the city wall flowed. The basin drained via a pipe in its north-west corner directly onto the street. To the south, outside the basin, as well as along the western wall of the room, are found additional low benches made of hewn stone.

The paving of the room lies ca. 50 cm above the level of the street, and is composed of a variety of materials. Whereas in the south-eastern area slabs of marble and clay, as well as a slab of slate, were laid down, the path from the entrance to the south-west corner of the basin is composed of regularly cut and carefully laid limestone slabs; directly in front of its probable entrance lies a 1.7 × 1.05 m large, artificially broken through limestone slab (transenna), which was originally built into a Byzantine building, probably a church,10 and which was reused in this location in a secondary manner (fig. 7). The north-west corner of the room is, on the other hand, again paved with clay slabs.

To the west, two additional structures are built against this room. The en-trance to the building led from the street into a transversely located vestibule (room 2), with a depth of only ca. 1 m. This was originally partially open at the front, its north façade being articulated by short stretches of wall and wide entrances alternating with each other. Until now, this building has been exca-vated up to a width of 3.7 m, but it apparently extended farther to the west. The unusual location of the entrance speaks in favor of this idea – it is displaced from the center far to the east. This situation suggests that the structure could have been entered by means of a second doorway located farther to the west. The original floor of the vestibule cannot be ascertained, yet at a later period

9 On the Late Antique/Early Byzantine city walls of Limyra, cf. for example U. Peschlow, “Be-festigungen lykischer Städte in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit,” in The IIIrd Sym-posium on Lycia, 7.–10. 11. 2005, Symposium Proceedings II (eds. K. Dörtlük et al.; Antalya: Zero Prodüksiyon, 2006), 601–24; T. Marksteiner, “Die spätantiken und byzantinischen Befestigungen in Limyra im Bereich des Ptolemaions,” in Studien in Lykien (ed. M. Seyer; Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 8; Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, 2007), 29–45.

10 Here one thinks first of all of the two churches known so far in the lower city of Limyra: the Bishop’s Church in the eastern city or the church, also with two floors, near the Ptole-maion (fig. 2). For a bibliography on the Bishop’s Church, see above n. 7; for the church near the Ptolemaion, see A. Pülz, “Eine frühchristliche Kirche beim Ptolemaion in Limyra,” in Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift für J. Borchhardt I (eds. F. Blakolmer et al.; Vienna: Phoibos, 1996), 239–50; A. Pülz and P. Ruggendorfer, “Kaiserzeitliche und frühbyzantinische Denk-mäler in Limyra,” Mitteilungen zur Christlichen Archäologie 10 (2004): 52–79 (esp. 67–76).

136 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

that is as yet unclear, it was raised to its current level by means of numerous secondarily used stone slabs and pillars,11 which were deliberately broken for this purpose. Two of the stone slabs are chancel screens decorated with an im-age of a menorah, with one of them additionally displaying a shofar, the other a lulav (figs. 8–11).

A passageway situated exactly in the axis of the entrance to the street led to a farther room (room 3), the floor of which was completely paved with square and rectangular clay slabs; these are however partially ripped out in the north-western area. The height of this floor is – as with that of the vestibule – lower than that of room 1 and accords with the level of the street paving. Along the east wall of room 3, the remains of two additional benches of hewn stone can be recognized.

Numerous fragments of roof tiles were found on the floors of all the rooms, documenting the collapse of the roof. In the northern region of room 1 were found, in addition, many fragments of window glass directly on top of the floor slabs. This room therefore was apparently provided with a window onto the street, a window that collapsed onto the floor when the building was destroyed. From the same room, numerous broken pieces of marble slabs and limestone slabs from barriers were uncovered; these served as revetment for the walls and probably also for the benches, and fell down when the building collapsed.

The history of the building cannot at the moment be precisely determined, not least because the lowest levels lie up to 30 cm below the high ground-water level, and furthermore the ground consists of muddy earth, rendering an exact stratigraphy almost impossible. Nevertheless, already after the first excavation season, three different building phases can be recognized (fig. 5). The first structure in this location existed probably already in the Roman Im-perial period and therefore before the erection of the Late Antique city wall in the fifth century C. E. and the street leading through the East Gate. After the strengthening of the wall in the seventh century C. E., the building was enlarged in the course of a redesign, and was built up against the wall. In the course of these alterations, parts of the north wall and the south wall of room 1 were constructed and the northern façade of the vestibule was closed off. At this time, room 1 could still be accessed via a small entrance from the street. In a final building phase, the water basin and the benches were built, and the north wall of room 1 was closed off. In connection with this, the unusual pav-ing was laid down on the floor. The floor slabs, consisting of differing materi-als, originate at least in part from older, already destroyed structures and were used here secondarily; the most striking piece in this regard is the transenna, mentioned earlier.

11 The reason for these measures was the gradually increasing ground-water level in the entire alluvial plain, which during the Byzantine period became a serious threat for the eastern area of the city of Limyra and was one of the causes for its decline in the tenth century. Today, the Late Antique road in the region of the East Gate and the floors of both rooms 2 and 3 lie ca. 30 cm below water level.

A Synagogue in Limyra? 137

The unusual appearance and the fittings of the building, as well as the chan-cel screens laid down in a secondary usage as the flooring of the vestibule, raise the legitimate question of the function and meaning of the structure. This question cannot be answered with certainty after the first excavation campaign, since only a small part has been excavated and decisive evidence is still lacking. Room 1, however, with its water basin in the north-east corner, the unusual flooring and the at least partial wall revetment of marble, clearly played an important role. In the north-west corner of the wall of the water basin there is an indentation with a width of ca. 0.60 m and a depth of ca. 0.25 m. At first glance it seemed that here the wall had broken, since a number of worked blocks of the wall, built in layers of dry mortarless construction, had fallen down; yet upon closer inspection it can be confirmed that in this loca-tion there was an entry point into the basin. This entry point and the bench along the south wall inside the basin – without doubt a bench for seating – re-veal that this basin served for washing.

With the design of the flooring inside room 1 it can be seen that the basin had a special significance, which raised it above the level of an object of daily use. It is certainly no coincidence that the paving slabs that were laid from the entrance to the basin are substantially larger than in the other areas of the room. Apart from that – and departing from the other paving slabs – they are also completely regularly worked and accurately placed, so that they define a clear path through the room (fig. 12).12 Directly in front of the entrance into the basin lies the elaborately worked transenna, which in addition to its practi-cal purpose – it is designed to help the water trickle away, when those bathing climb out of the basin – obviously also served as a particular accentuation of the entrance to the basin. The path to and from the basin is therefore particu-larly emphasized, which may be understood as evidence that the washing that took place there is not to be understood as ordinary cleaning of the body. In this connection it is noteworthy that the water supply for the basin was car-ried out by means of rain water probably collected on the roof of the building, so that it was taken from the natural water circulation, thereby fulfilling an important criterion for a mikveh. With a length along the sides of 1.3 × 1.3 m the basin is indeed small, and also its depth from the top rim of the entrance to the floor is, with 0.75 m, very shallow, yet these dimensions are entirely ad-equate for complete immersion of a seated person. Naturally, an interpretation of the basin as a mikveh merely through considering it in isolation is problem-atic. In this instance, whether it fulfilled all the necessary criteria, based on its appearance and its fittings, would need to be examined, even if customs and practices of Jews in the diaspora, and their buildings and their decorations as

12 Also the isolated slate slabs directly in front of the bench to the south of the basin appear to be highlighted compared to the surrounding stone- and clay slabs. Conceivably they served as the basis for a coal brazier for heating room 1, whereby they would be in a causal relation-ship with the basin.

138 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

well as their internal structure, etc., traditionally closely followed local cir-cumstances and customs.13

In any event, the chancel screens decorated with the menorah decoration, laid down as paving in the vestibule, need to be considered as a further indica-tion that the basin in Limyra can be viewed in connection with a Jewish struc-ture. Even if these were laid down for secondary usage, to raise the floor level against the gradually rising groundwater, they nevertheless indicate that a synagogue was once located in the immediate vicinity, since they are without doubt slabs that separated the Torah shrine.14 Such slabs have been found in many synagogues near the Torah shrine.15 It is therefore not improbable that the excavated building was itself a synagogue. As mentioned previously, the evidence for such an interpretation is nevertheless not adequate enough after the first excavation campaign: the characteristic elements of a synagogue such as, for example, the Torah shrine itself or the “Seat of the Elders” are lacking, nor have any inscriptions with unambiguous content been found yet. Our in-terpretation is based provisionally only on a connection of the elements pres-ent, namely the basin – supplied with rain water and also architectonically emphasized –, the valuable fittings of room 1, and the slabs with the menorah.

Nevertheless, even if the basin is actually a mikveh, this in itself is not firm proof that the building was a synagogue, since mikva’ot generally constituted independent structural units and, for this reason, are very infrequently found in a structural relationship with a synagogue. Until now, the only mikveh from antiquity under discussion as connected with a synagogue is the cistern in a building on Delos (GD 80), but neither its interpretation, nor that of the build-ing as a synagogue, is secure.16

A Jewish community is not yet attested at Limyra; the only evidence to date for Jewish inhabitants is provided by the Greek inscription on a rock tomb in one of the necropoleis of the city, which describes it as Εἰούδα εἰρόν.17 It can

13 Not least due to this reason, which is always emphasized in the scientific debates regard-ing Judaism, it is planned to integrate specialists in the excavation and the analysis of the complex, as well as to present and discuss the finds on a broad scientific basis as quickly as possible.

14 The pillars to support the slabs also corroborate this, as they were laid down at the same time.

15 R. Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1.35; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 77.

16 The identification of the building in Delos as a synagogue remains problematic since the time it was first identified as such in 1913. Although it is listed as a synagogue in, e. g., Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art, 35–39, and L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 100–5, both citing earlier lit-erature, recently L. Matassa has expressed great skepticism about this interpretation: L. Matassa, “Unravelling the Myth of the Synagogue of Delos,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007): 81–115.

17 M. Wörrle, “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykien V: Die griechischen In-schriften der Nekropolen von Limyra,” Chiron 25 (1995): 387–417, 400–1; W. Ameling (ed.), Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II: Kleinasien (TSAJ 99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004),

A Synagogue in Limyra? 139

nevertheless be assumed that Limyra had a Jewish minority, since such a pop-ulation was present in every larger town of the south coast of Asia Minor,18 and numerous epigraphic pieces of evidence exist for Jews and Jewish establish-ments in Lycia and Pamphylia.19 Recently, the first archaeological evidence for a Jewish community in Lycia has been discovered in the form of a synagogue in the central Lycian city of Andriake.20

As stated above, the building history of the structure in Limyra is not yet completely clear. A terminus ante quem in the fifth century C. E. is provided by the first city wall in this location, yet it can be assumed that the entire area of the east city was already settled in the Roman Imperial period.21 When and for what purpose the building was originally erected cannot at the moment be stated with certainty. Room 1 was in any event laid out during the course of an enlargement of the building after the expansion of the city wall in the seventh century C. E. In the course of a later renovation or redesign, the water basin and benches were built in and the floor was repaved.

Therefore it is not utterly improbable that the building in fact represents a synagogue, for which a pre-existing house was adapted; nevertheless, a com-plete uncovering of the complex is necessary in order to be more certain on this point. Such a complete excavation is, however, no guarantee that decisive criteria such as the Torah shrine might be discovered. Even if the building was used at least temporarily as a synagogue, the chancel screens with the meno-rah – which were intentionally broken up to be used secondarily as paving – suggest that the building in its final phase fulfilled another function, and that the Jewish symbol was thereby deconsecrated and reused for profane purpos-es. That the elaborately equipped room 1 was thereby untouched should not be surprising. If, for example, the complex was rebuilt into a domestic residence, this room could have been used as a bathroom without cultic significance.

It remains to summarize the fact that the building discovered during the 2012 excavation campaign in Limyra contains elements that suggest that a synagogue was located in its immediate vicinity. It is to be hoped that its complete excavation, the scientific examination of the building and all of its equipment, as well as clarification regarding the political-social environment

221; M. Wörrle, “Die griechischen Sepulkralinschriften von Limyra,” in Limyra: Studien zu Kunst und Epigraphik in den Nekropolen der Antike (eds. J. Borchhardt and A. Pekri-dou-Gorecki; Forschungen in Limyra 5; Vienna: Phoibos, 2012), 411–29, 415, where this inscription is dated as “Hellenistisch oder kaiserzeitlich.”

18 Hellenkemper and Hild, Lykien und Pamphylien, 139.19 Hellenkemper and Hild, Lykien und Pamphylien, passim.20 N. Çevik, Ö. Çömezoğlu, H. S. Öztürk and İ. Türkoğlu, “A Unique Discovery in Lycia: The

Ancient Synagogue at Andriake, Port of Myra,” Adalya 13 (2010): 335–66.21 Evidence for this is suggested by, amongst other things, the Roman baths, which were in-

tegrated into the northern city wall in the Byzantine period, as well as the remains of a Roman bridge over the Limyros river in the area of the Ottoman monastery (tekke) (fig. 2); the main communication route to the bordering towns in the east, Korydalla, Rhodiapolis, and Gagai, led over this bridge.

140 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

of the city and of the province of Lycia in the time under question, will allow for a conclusion whether or not this structure was itself a synagogue, and if the water basin in room 1 was actually a mikveh. The discovery of an ancient synagogue in Limyra would be rated as sensational, in any case, in the ar-chaeological investigation of this city and of the entire region, and would offer an excellent opportunity to study scientifically the material legacy of Jewish life in the Late Antique/Early Byzantine city.22

References of figures: fig. 1: N. Sautner, fig. 2: Ch. Kurtze, fig. 4: P. Brandstätter, fig. 5: H. Lotz and N. Gail, figs. 3, 6–12: R. Hügli; all: © ÖAI, Grabung Limyra

22 For further preliminary excavation reports, see M. Seyer, “Urbanistische Forschungen in Limyra (Lykien),” ArchäologieÖsterreichs 24 (2013) 55-63; idem, “Limyra 2012,” News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas 11 (2013) 83-89; idem, “Limyra 2012,” 35th Kazý Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý (2013): forthcoming.

A Synagogue in Limyra? 141

Fig. 1: Limyra, View from the acropolis hill

142 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

Fig. 2: Limyra, City plan

A Synagogue in Limyra? 143

Fig. 3: Limyra, Excavation at the East Gate

Fig. 4: “Jewish Building”, Aerial photo

144 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

Fig. 5: “Jewish Building”, Ground plan

A Synagogue in Limyra? 145

Fig. 6: Water basin (Mikveh?)

Fig. 7: Broken through limestone slab (Transenna)

146 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

Fig. 8: Chancel screens with menorah in situ

Fig. 9: Slab 1: Menorah and Shofar, front side

A Synagogue in Limyra? 147

Fig. 10: Slab 1: Menorah and Shofar, back side

Fig. 11: Slab 2: Menorah and Lulav

148 Martin Seyer and Helmut Lotz

Fig. 12: Stone slabs leading to the basin