• General Plan from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
  Tulul Abu el-'Alayiq: general plan
  
  A. Hasmonean palace
  
    1. Central building
    2. Pool complex
    3. Southern wing
    ("the twin palaces")
    4. Fortified palace, on artificial
    surrounded by fosse
  
  B. Herod's first palace
  
  C. Herod's second palace
  
    5.East wing
  
  D. Herod's third palace
  
    6. North wing
    7.Sunken garden
    8. Southern mound
    9. Large pool
    adjacent quarters
    10. Dwellings/Service wing
    11. Industrial installations
  
  Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
• Fig. 2 - Plan of the site
  Figure 2
  
  General plan of the site in the different periods.
  
  

  1. The Hasmonean period—winter palace complex
     
     1. central building
     2. pavilion?
     3. swimming pool
     
     
  2. Early Herodian building
     
     4. winter palace
  
  
  3. Later Herodian buildings
     
     5. southern mound
     6. sunken garden
     7. northern wing
     8. pool [B107]
     9. villa?, superimposed on Hasmonean building

  
  
  Netzer (1975)
  in different periods from Netzer (1975)

• General Plan from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
  Tulul Abu el-'Alayiq: general plan
  
  A. Hasmonean palace
  
    1. Central building
    2. Pool complex
    3. Southern wing
    ("the twin palaces")
    4. Fortified palace, on artificial
    surrounded by fosse
  
  B. Herod's first palace
  
  C. Herod's second palace
  
    5.East wing
  
  D. Herod's third palace
  
    6. North wing
    7.Sunken garden
    8. Southern mound
    9. Large pool
    adjacent quarters
    10. Dwellings/Service wing
    11. Industrial installations
  
  Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
• Fig. 2 - Plan of the site
  Figure 2
  
  General plan of the site in the different periods.
  
  

  1. The Hasmonean period—winter palace complex
     
     1. central building
     2. pavilion?
     3. swimming pool
     
     
  2. Early Herodian building
     
     4. winter palace
  
  
  3. Later Herodian buildings
     
     5. southern mound
     6. sunken garden
     7. northern wing
     8. pool [B107]
     9. villa?, superimposed on Hasmonean building

  
  
  Netzer (1975)
  in different periods from Netzer (1975)

• from Netzer et al. (2001:159-160)

The Synagogue Complex (see Ill. 176 and Plate X) was built at the western end of the above-described row of residential buildings (Area AH). Its eastern part occupied an area some 20 m wide, which originally appears to have been left open (the "open area") and tentatively functioned as a partition between the residences on the east and the Hasmonean palace complex on the west.¹

In the complex's first phase (apparently Hasmonean Stage 4), a longitudinal building, the "Courtyard House," was erected on the eastern half of the open area (see Plan 23). It was not built in alignment with the axes generally used here, and differed from the roughly square structures in the row of residential buildings to its east in that it was strictly rectangular in plan. It included a central courtyard with four rooms (and one cell) on the north and two on the south; one of which served as the entrance room to the building.

Shortly thereafter (approximately in Hasmonean Stage 5), during the Synagogue Complex's second phase, a pillared hall [A(H)600] and an adjacent group of rooms, including a ritual bath (AG106-AG107), were built to the west of this building. The hall, identified by us as a synagogue, has an east-west orientation. It not only occupied the rest of the aforementioned open area, but also penetrated into the adjacent garden of the Hasmonean palace complex (Area AG).² Sole entry into the hall and the unit with the ritual bath was via the earlier Courtyard House on the east, which was thus transformed into an entrance house of sorts. Several years later, during the complex's third phase, a triclinium (AG69³) and a small adjacent kitchen (AG58) were added to the pillared hall on the west. At the same time, large parts of the hall's western and southern walls were demolished and replaced by new walls, while its central western pillar was replaced by one slightly further to the north.

The Synagogue Complex was probably destroyed during the earthquake of 31 B.C.E., or slightly later, as a deliberate act, its remains being covered by a layer of mud-brick debris. Some time later, in the Herodian period, around 25 B.C.E., the northeastern corner of the Main Wing of Herod's Second Palace⁴ was built on top of the hall's western part.

We shall now describe the Synagogue Complex in detail, roughly following the order of its construction; first the Courtyard House (the first phase of the complex), then the synagogue hall (second phase) and the triclinium and kitchen (third phase), ending with a description of the bathing facilities to the south of the hall (second phase). We shall then provide a brief summary of the Herodian remains in this area.

• from Netzer et al. (2001:165-177)

The main element of the Synagogue Complex consisted of a pillared hall [A(H)600] with a small niche (AG104) appended to its northeastern corner (see Plans 25, 26). The hall, entered from the east close to its southeastern corner, was from the outset surrounded by raised aisles, the front sides of which functioned as benches bordering the nave (see Ill. 181). In the hall's initial stage, additional benches might have existed along the western and northern walls. On the west, one bench was apparently built along wall W696, but was demolished during the renovations implemented in the complex's final, third phase (the addition of the triclinium and the kitchen). On the north, one or two benches seem to have existed, but they were apparently looted after the synagogue had gone out of use. A north-south channel, descending from the higher-located Nacaran Conduit, bisected the hall below its floor. It conveyed water to the ritual bath on the south, and also supplied water to a small basin, incorporated in the northern aisle's front bench.

The synagogue hall was slightly trapezoidal in shape,¹² with a length of 16 m in the north and 16.3 m in the south, and a width of 11.15 m (all inner dimensions). It was bounded on the north by wall W554 (1.1 m wide), the western continuation of wall W955,¹³ situated ca. 50 cm from the southern sidewall of the Nacaran Conduit. The bottom part of wall W554 served as a retaining wall for the virgin soil behind it. On the east, the hall was bounded by wall W342 (70 cm wide), faced by cobbles and with small pebbles forming the core, all bonded with mud. This wall predated the construction of the hall, serving as the western wall of the Courtyard House on the east, and all the east-west walls of the hall and the bathing facilities (aside from W554 on the north) were built abutting it. On the south, the hall was bounded by wall W343 (75 cm wide), built in a similar manner to wall W342 but abutting it, and on the west by wall W696,¹⁴ most of which was demolished when the triclinium and the kitchen were added, leaving only the northernmost 1.5 m intact (see below). The lower part of the remaining section (up to 1 m above the floor of the aisle) functioned as a retaining wall for the virgin soil behind it, and above this level, the wall was freestanding, with an assumed width of 75 cm.

The hall was entered from Courtyard AG101 on the east (see above) through a 1-m-wide doorway in wall W342, 2.45 m to the north of its southern end (more or less opposite the hall's southeastern pillar). Since the courtyard's floor level was ca. 90 cm below that of the hall's aisles, a rather uncommon solution was found for this difference in height. Inside the doorway (between the doorjambs), three ashlar steps¹⁵ led up to a landing of sorts inside the hall's confines (see Ill. 182).¹⁶ This landing was bounded on the north and south by short walls built between wall W342 on the east and W1180 (the eastern bench) on the west, which actually served as additional steps to the eastern and southern aisles.

The hall's ceilings¹⁷ were borne by twelve pillars located between the nave and the aisles. Five of these supports, positioned at more or less regular intervals of 2.1 m, were located along both of the longer aisles on the north and south, at a distance of 1.5 m from the walls behind them. Worthy of mention is the fact that, whereas the three central pillars in these rows were longitudinally parallel to these walls, the corner ones were rotated 90°, being parallel to the eastern and western walls. Midway between the eastern corner pillars — at a distance of 2.7 m from them — was located another pillar (all of them 1.35 m from the eastern wall). It seems that originally, a similar, central pillar also existed on the west. However, the pillar exposed here (which must have replaced the initial one) was located some 65 cm to the north of the building's longitudinal axis, 3.8 m to the north of the southwestern pillar and only 1.6 m to the south of the northwestern one (all of them 1.75 m from the western wall)¹⁸. To the north of this pillar, an ashlar step (its top at a level of +94.61) was inserted into the low front wall (bench) of the western aisle (see Ill. 183). It was 70 cm long and 35 cm wide.¹⁹ The pillars were rectangular in shape and of slightly varying dimensions (averaging 85 × 70 cm in size), and the best-preserved one attained a height of 50 cm above the hall's floor. They were built of fairly large fieldstones and cobbles bonded with mud,²⁰ and they were coated with white lime plaster on all four sides. The bottom parts of the pillars were partly engaged within the benches, in such a manner that more than half of their width projected into the hall. Worthy of mention in this respect is the fact that the base of the plaster coating on the pillars corresponds to the relative floor levels here. Thus, the base of the plaster on the sides facing the aisles was some 45 cm above that on the sides facing the nave (see Ill. 183).²¹ However, no plaster was found on the front sides of the adjacent low walls/benches.

The nave, surrounded by the aisles, was ca. 12.4 m long and 7.6 m wide. Its floor was revealed at a level of ca. +94.30 (exposed in Loci AG88, AG94, AG64 and AG97) and consisted of beaten earth. The aisles were of slightly different widths: 1.75 m on the north, ca. 1.7 m in the east, 1.8 m on the south and 2 m on the west. Their floor, at a level of ca. +94.75, was located some 45 cm above that of the hall. The low walls separating the aisles from the nave therefore served as retaining walls for the fill behind them.²² Moreover, we are of the opinion that they also functioned as benches for the congregants (see below). They were built of pebbles and cobbles bonded with mud. In the eastern and southern aisles, the low front walls were, as mentioned above, built parallel to the hall's bounding walls, and a fill was poured between them. Virgin soil was reached here (in Soundings AG67, AG71 and AG72) at a level of +94.17. The picture in the western and northern aisles is somewhat different. In the western aisle, part of the floor, consisting of beaten earth, was revealed at a level of ca. +94.75. Moreover, adjacent to the original western boundary (W696) of the hall, a 55-cm-wide strip of small and medium-size pebbles was uncovered at floor level over a length of ca. 9 m. This strip seems to be indirect evidence of an early bench here, which was apparently removed when W696 was demolished in order to make possible the construction of the triclinium and kitchen (see below). The gap in the floor left by the demolished bench was then leveled with pebbles at floor level (see Ill. 184).²³ More evidence of pebble-leveling as a bedding for the floor was noted between this strip and W1182 (the bench between the nave and the western aisle). In the northern aisle, the picture is less clear, but virgin soil was revealed at a level of ca. +94.70. In addition, a 55-cm-wide wall, built of cobbles, was revealed adjacent to W1181 (the bench between the nave and the northern aisle, hereafter termed the "front bench"). It was exposed over a length of ca. 10 m and, theoretically, could have served as the base for a second bench (see Ill. 185). If our assumption is correct, it originally formed a corner with the alleged bench against the western wall, and above it and adjacent to the hall's northern wall, a third bench could have been located.²⁴ In contrast with the situation on the west, where the bench was demolished so that the triclinium and the kitchen could be built, the two missing benches on the north were apparently looted for stones in Herodian times.

Niche AG104, revealed in the hall's northeastern corner, should be considered, in our view, as the synagogue's most important element. The form in which it was found is clearly not the original one, but the result of a later alteration (carried out during the hall's lifetime) of an existing niche. We shall first describe the niche in its earlier stage, and then in its later one.

The niche was built inside the eastern end of wall W554, and was 1.6 m wide and 1.45 m deep (measured from the southern face of wall W554 to the rear wall), extending beyond the northern face of this wall. It abutted the hall's eastern wall (W342, the original western wall of the Courtyard House) on the east, and was bounded on the west (behind wall W554) and north by 45-cm-wide walls built of cobbles, the bottom parts of which served as retaining walls for the virgin soil behind them (see Ills. 186, 187).²⁵ The bottom part of the wall on the west continued southward up to the northern front bench, which it abutted (see below). The niche was open toward the hall, and was coated on all sides (its walls as well as the floor) with white lime plaster.²⁶ Its floor was revealed at a level of +94.30, being ca. 45 cm below the floor of the aisles and practically at the same height as the floor of the nave. The floor continued southward as a trapezoidal space (1.5 m long and 75–65 cm wide) in front of the niche, in the corner formed by the northern and eastern aisles (see Ills. 187, 188 and Plate XI). It was bounded on the east by wall W342, on the west by the aforementioned southern continuation of the niche's western wall, and on the south by a 30-cm-wide low wall, built between W342 and the northeastern pillar of the hall, and slightly diverging from the general axis here. These walls too were coated with white lime plaster.

In the niche's later phase, a stone structure, which might have replaced an earlier wooden one, was built inside the original niche, basically transforming the earlier space into a permanent, two-storied compartment.²⁷ On the west, a 40-cm-wide wall was built against the western wall of the earlier niche (in the lower compartment), and the same was done on the north, but here, the addition was ca. 20 cm wide.²⁸ On the south, a wall consisting of pebbles and mud was built in alignment with wall W554, in effect separating the niche from the hall (see Ill. 188).²⁹ In its lower part (at the level of the aforementioned trapezoidal space) was a small opening, 35 cm wide and ca. 45 cm high, which provided access to the niche lower compartment.³⁰ In front of its sides were two large, flat stones placed upright, their inner sides coated with white lime plaster (see Ills. 189, 190). At the eastern end of the upper part of the wall on the south (above the floor level of the upper compartment), a doorway of sorts was located, providing entry into the upper compartment (see Ill. 191). It was 67 cm wide and its sides were plastered; its threshold, also coated with plaster, was at a level of +95.11, being ca. 35 cm above the aisles' floor. The floor of the upper compartment, apparently supported by a slightly vaulted substructure of mud borne by the new walls, was termed the "front bench"). It was exposed over a length of ca. 10 m and, theoretically, could have served as the base for a second bench (see Ill. 185). If our assumption is correct, it originally formed a corner with the alleged bench against the western wall, and above it and adjacent to the hall's northern wall, a third bench could have been located.²⁴ In contrast with the situation on the west, where the bench was demolished so that the triclinium and the kitchen could be built, the two missing benches on the north were apparently looted for stones in Herodian times.

Niche AG104, revealed in the hall's northeastern corner, should be considered, in our view, as the synagogue's most important element. The form in which it was found is clearly not the original one, but the result of a later alteration (carried out during the hall's lifetime) of an existing niche. We shall first describe the niche in its earlier stage, and then in its later one.

The niche was built inside the eastern end of wall W554, and was 1.6 m wide and 1.45 m deep (measured from the southern face of wall W554 to the rear wall), extending beyond the northern face of this wall. It abutted the hall's eastern wall (W342, the original western wall of the Courtyard House) on the east, and was bounded on the west (behind wall W554) and north by 45-cm-wide walls built of cobbles, the bottom parts of which served as retaining walls for the virgin soil behind them (see Ills. 186, 187).²⁵ The bottom part of the wall on the west continued southward up to the northern front bench, which it abutted (see below). The niche was open toward the hall, and was coated on all sides (its walls as well as the floor) with white lime plaster.²⁶ Its floor was revealed at a level of +94.30, being ca. 45 cm below the floor of the aisles and practically at the same height as the floor of the nave. The floor continued southward as a trapezoidal space (1.5 m long and 75–65 cm wide) in front of the niche, in the corner formed by the northern and eastern aisles (see Ills. 187, 188 and Plate XI). It was bounded on the east by wall W342, on the west by the aforementioned southern continuation of the niche's western wall, and on the south by a 30-cm-wide low wall, built between W342 and the northeastern pillar of the hall, and slightly diverging from the general axis here. These walls too were coated with white lime plaster.

In the niche's later phase, a stone structure, which might have replaced an earlier wooden one, was built inside the original niche, basically transforming the earlier space into a permanent, two-storied compartment.²⁷ On the west, a 40-cm-wide wall was built against the western wall of the earlier niche (in the lower compartment), and the same was done on the north, but here, the addition was ca. 20 cm wide.²⁸ On the south, a wall consisting of pebbles and mud was built in alignment with wall W554, in effect separating the niche from the hall (see Ill. 188).²⁹ In its lower part (at the level of the aforementioned trapezoidal space) was a small opening, 35 cm wide and ca. 45 cm high, which provided access to the niche lower compartment.³⁰ In front of its sides were two large, flat stones placed upright, their inner sides coated with white lime plaster (see Ills. 189, 190). At the eastern end of the upper part of the wall on the south (above the floor level of the upper compartment), a doorway of sorts was located, providing entry into the upper compartment (see Ill. 191). It was 67 cm wide and its sides were plastered; its threshold, also coated with plaster, was at a level of +95.11, being ca. 35 cm above the aisles' floor. The floor of the upper compartment, apparently supported by a slightly vaulted substructure of mud borne by the new walls, was located at a height of ca. 60 cm above the lower compartment's floor (see Ill. 192).³¹ A 10-cm-high shelf was built along the western and northern walls. Furthermore, the central 70 cm of the northern shelf was 25 cm higher. The shelves were ca. 35 cm deep, and were coated, together with the walls and floor of the upper compartment, with white lime plaster.³²

From the above description it becomes clear that much effort was invested in the construction of the niche. Since the area of the niche was dug below the floor of the aisles from the very outset, it seems reasonable to assume that already then, a double-storied structure existed here. It might have been made of wood, and was apparently destroyed by a fire,³³ an event that inspired the users of the hall to replace it by a permanent, stone structure. The latter was very carefully planned and built, and the fact that it was entirely coated with plaster, including the lower compartment, which was not visible, only adds to its significance. We therefore assume that it was used for the storage of sacred scrolls; the lower compartment (genizah) as a permanent repository, and the upper one for those scrolls which were still in use. A panel made of wooden planks apparently covered the small area in front of the niche at the same level as the floor of the aisles.³⁴ It could be removed whenever the need arose to store damaged or defective scrolls in the genizah.

As mentioned above, the hall was bisected by a channel which conveyed water from the Nacaran Conduit on the north to the ritual bath on the south (see Ill. 193), and at the same time supplied water to a small basin located in the northern aisle, to the northwest of the central pillar there. The part of the channel below the hall's floor was not in alignment with the part in the northern aisle, but was located some 30 cm to its east (see Ill. 194 and below).

The northernmost preserved part of the channel, which sloped down steeply — a "mini-waterfall," was attached to the southern face of wall W554 (see Ills. 195, 196, 197).³⁵ It then continued more or less horizontally (its bottom at ca. +94.80) to the southern end of the aforementioned basin, where it again sloped down,³⁶ this time against the southern face of the northern front bench. In its first-mentioned steeply sloping part, the channel was 35 cm wide, whereas its continuation was only 12 cm wide. Its sidewalls were built of cobbles and were coated on both sides, together with the channel's bottom, with hydraulic (ash-lime) plaster. At the bottom of the second steep slope (see note 36), an elongated stone was located, and it seems that a second, lower basin might have existed here. Beneath the eastern half of the stone, the beginning of the second part of the channel (below the hall's floor) was revealed (Ill. 198 and Plate XI). The latter, major part of the channel also had sidewalls built of cobbles, but they were coated only on the inside with gray hydraulic plaster instead of white lime plaster. It was 25 to 30 cm wide and deep, and its sidewalls had been raised once by the addition of a layer of fairly flat, unplastered stones (see Ill. 194). It was covered with stone slabs, two of which were found in situ. After crossing the nave, it continued in a straight line below the southern aisle, passed through wall W343, and ended in Pools AG106 and AG107 of the ritual bath (see below).

The aforementioned basin in the northern aisle, ca. 35 × 32 cm in size and about 55 cm deep, was located to the northwest of the central pillar in the northern row and to the east of the first part of the channel (see Ill. 197). It was inserted in the front west. This offshoot was located in alignment with the northern edge of the basin, and entered it close to the latter's northwestern corner (see Ill. 199). As to the drainage system, the southern rim of the basin (which was lower than that on the other three sides) was rounded and plastered, and functioned as an outlet. Plaster remains on the western side of the pillar to the east of the basin suggest the presence of another, lower basin in front of the northern front bench (see above), which collected the overflowing water. The entire setup is sophisticated and might point to some ritual requirements for the use of the water here.³⁷ A patch of plaster revealed to the north of the first-mentioned basin linked up with the plaster coating on the channel's eastern sidewall here (see Ill. 199). Its preserved width (east-west) was ca. 40 cm, and it appears to end on the east in a more or less straight line. We do not know with certainty what purpose it served, but it seems that its existence should be related to the assumed presence of the upper benches here. We are of the opinion that in the area of the channel's slope down wall W554 and the basin, there was a ca. 90-cm-wide gap in the two upper benches.³⁸ This gap apparently started immediately to the west of the channel and ended to the east of the basin. Thus, the area to the north of the basin (and east of the channel) was coated with plaster to protect the surface from moisture caused by splashing water.

During the lifetime of the synagogue, the need arose to add to the hall a triclinium, which apparently had to have direct contact with the hall, and an adjacent kitchen. The only available space was on the west, and it seems that the triclinium was located adjacent to the hall's southern half intentionally. Visual contact between those reclining in the triclinium and whatever was happening in the hall was apparently a prerequisite, and therefore, the hall's central pillar on the western side was demolished and rebuilt some 65 cm further north, enlarging the open space in front of the triclinium.³⁹ As a result, most of the hall's western wall (and the entire bench in front of it⁴⁰) and part of the southern one had to be demolished for this purpose. Furthermore, it is clear that all these operations called for the removal of part of the roof. We shall first describe the triclinium and the hall's new boundaries on this side, and then the kitchen.

Triclinium AG69, located to the west of the hall's southern half, was a U-shaped structure open on the east (toward the hall), with a length (north-south) of 5.2 m and a width of 4.1 m. It stood within a room (6.4 × 4.9 m in size) bounded on three sides by walls, which was built specially for this purpose (see Ill. 200). As a matter of fact, wall W696 (the hall's western wall) was demolished, together with the tentative bench in front of it (see above), up to a point 1.5 m from the hall's northwestern corner (see below, Kitchen AG58), and the westernmost 3.5 m of hall's southern wall (W343) were removed down to the foundation. This part was then replaced by a new wall (W1190), located 60 cm further to the south, which continued 5 m beyond the hall's former western limit, thus forming the triclinium's southern boundary. The bottom 50 cm of W1190 served as a retaining wall, consisting of a facing one-stone thick against the virgin soil.⁴¹ Wall W1190 was preserved to a height of 50 cm on the west, and 25 cm on the east. Above the virgin soil, the freestanding part of the wall had an estimated width of 60 cm. On the west, the new room was bounded by wall W1191, built in a manner similar to wall W1190 on the south, and on the north by wall W1187. In contrast to walls W1190 and W1191, W1187 was built entirely freestanding. It was 55 cm wide, and functioned as a partition wall between the triclinium and the kitchen. All the new walls were built of medium-size to large cobbles. The gap left between the couches of the triclinium and the surrounding walls served as passage. It was ca. 60 cm wide on the south and north, and ca. 70 cm wide on the west.⁴² Its beaten-earth floor was revealed at a level of +94.74 on the north, +94.84 on the west, and +94.82 on the south. The triclinium's couches were built of mud which contained a few cobbles (see Ill. 200), and were coated with white lime plaster on all sides. [Their tops have not been preserved, but a piece of a plastered upper corner was found upside down in front of the northern couch in the western aisle (see Ills. 201, 202).] The southern couch, 1.3 m wide, was preserved to a height of 30 cm above the floor area bounded by the couches (see below). The couch on the west was 1.34 m wide and preserved to a height of 40 cm, whereas the one on the north was 1.26 m wide and least well preserved (to a height of 10–15 cm). They enclosed an area 2.75 × 2.65 m in size, the floor of which was carefully coated with thick, ash-lime plaster which sloped from the southwest (+94.87) to the northeast (+94.74).⁴³ The northern edge of the floor ended in a small ledge of sorts, which suggests that a plank, probably made of wood, was used here during the plastering (see Ill. 203).

Kitchen AG58, located to the west of the pillared hall⁴⁴ and adjacent to the triclinium, had the shape of a right-angled triangle (the sides of the right angle being 4.5 m long along wall W1187 and 3.5 m long along wall W98) (see Ill. 176). As mentioned above, in order to add the triclinium and the kitchen to the hall, the latter's western wall (W696) was mostly demolished, and the virgin soil, which was here at a high level, was excavated and removed. Along the kitchen's eastern side, wall W696 was replaced by a 45-cm-wide freestanding wall (W98), built of pebbles and mud. A 1.3-m-wide opening at its northern end provided access from the hall to the kitchen (see Ill. 204 and Plate XI). Some time later, the width of this opening was reduced to 74 cm by a short wall, crudely built against the kitchen's northeastern corner.⁴⁵ On the northwest, the kitchen was bounded by wall W1195 (the hypotenuse of the triangle), the bottom part of which served as a retaining wall for the virgin soil behind it (here rising to a height of ca. 80 cm above the kitchen's floor). Above this level, the wall was freestanding and attained an assumed width of 60 cm. On the south, the kitchen was bounded by wall W1187, which separated it from the triclinium on the south (see above). The corner formed by this wall and wall W98 on the east has not been preserved; however, below it, large, flat ashlars were revealed (see Ill. 184 and note 23).

The kitchen's floor consisted of beaten earth revealed at a level of +94.75. In the southeastern corner, a rectangular platform, 1.2 × 1.0 m in size and 20 cm high, was exposed. It was built of mud bricks (ca. 30 × 40 cm in size) and its upper surface was hardened by fire (see Ill. 205). The platform was bounded on the north and west by cobbles. The material finds within the kitchen were relatively rich, and included cooking pots and plates.

• from Netzer et al. (2001:182-184)

The Herodian remains, being very close to the surface, were meager and partial (see Ill. 200). They were located on top of the layer of mud-brick debris⁵³ which sealed the Hasmonean remains here. At least two stages — postdating the Hasmonean complex — were noted. The earlier one represented the construction of Herod's Second Palace, and the later one apparently coincided with subsequent developments in the area (see Plan 27).⁵⁴

Less than 30 cm above the remains of Triclinium AG69, the northeastern corner of the stylobate surrounding the elevated garden of the Main Wing of Herod's Second Palace was exposed.⁵⁵ To its north and northeast, the eastern unit of the wing's northern rooms was revealed above the northwestern part of the synagogue hall itself.⁵⁶ Herodian wall W696⁵⁷ was built on top of the remains of W98, the eastern wall of Kitchen AG58, whereas wall W1202 (one of the tentative benches along the hall's northern side) served as the foundation of wall W576. The Main Wing of Herod's Second Palace was bounded on the north by wall W545, built parallel to and ca. 1 m to the north of wall W554, the northern wall of the synagogue and the earlier estate wall here. On the east it was bounded by wall W551-W600, the northernmost 6 m of which were revealed more or less above the center of the earlier pillared hall. The northern part of this section was preserved to a maximum height of 45 cm, whereas only one course remained in the southern part (see Ill. 195).

Some 4 m to the south of wall W546, and parallel to it, the base of a wall (W666) was revealed to the north of Pool AG107 of the ritual bath of the Synagogue Complex. Above this pool and around it, the area was leveled by means of a fill of small stones, contemporaneous with W666. In Locus A(H)603-A(H)61.8 to the south of (former) wall W554 and to the east of W552, a pavement of small stones (with unknown boundaries) was revealed at a level of +95.22. It was laid above the layer of mud-brick debris covering the synagogue, and appears to be contemporaneous with Herod's Second Palace.

Partly built on top of the remains of the northeastern corner of Herod's Second Palace, four walls were revealed: east-west walls W1035 (75 cm wide and located to the north of W554), W1034 (70 cm wide and located 2.8 m to the south of W1035) and W1036 (ca. 2.20 m to the south of W1034; only its southern face is preserved), and north-south wall W552 (65 cm wide and running parallel to and 2.70 m to the east of W551). A floor of beaten earth at a level of ca. +95.50⁵⁸ [in Locus A(H)616] and a tabun (baking oven) found in situ against wall W552 apparently related to these walls. To the east of the tabun, patches of gray hydraulic plaster, which might have belonged to an installation, were exposed.

Silo A(H)608 was revealed in the northern part of Courtyard AG101, its northern end being built at the expense of wall W351, the northern wall of the earlier courtyard. The silo was 2 × 2 m in size (inner dimensions) and its unplastered sidewalls had a width of ca. 30 cm and were built of small fieldstones. Its preserved depth was ca. 50 cm, and its floor consisted of beaten earth overlying virgin soil at a level of +93.85, which was actually the floor of the former, Hasmonean courtyard here (see above). It is therefore obvious that the silo was dug into the mud-brick layer that covered the area here after the buildings had been destroyed, apparently by an earthquake. It was later used as a dump. The material finds recovered from it were rich, including, among the ash and tabun fragments, a large amount of pottery and glass and stone vessels, all of which can be dated to the Herodian period.

Above Rooms AG100 and AG105 [in Loci A(H)236 and AG108], as a matter of fact above the layer of mud-brick material that covered their floors, a beaten-earth floor was revealed at levels of +94.55 and +94.94 respectively. The floor above Room AG100 appears to be contemporaneous with Silo A(H)608, and the latter's original depth below the floor can therefore be estimated at 70 cm. The lower floor is apparently an eastward continuation of the one revealed in Locus A(H)616 (see above), and thus postdates Herod's Second Palace.

A few more sections of walls (e.g., W1198) were exposed above Room AG112, the northeastern room of the Courtyard House, and beyond its eastern limit. Only their southern faces were preserved, and even though no clear picture of a plan could be discerned, they were more or less parallel to the remains of the Courtyard House (and therefore not in conformity with the grid generally used here).⁵⁹

• from Netzer et al. (2001:184-188)

Three phases were distinguished in the Synagogue Complex,⁶⁰ which was built on the eastern fringe of the Hasmonean Palace complex, between it and the row of structures beginning with the residential houses in Area AH and ending in the Industrial Area (see Ill. 218). The first phase comprised the erection of the Courtyard House, which initially either had a domestic function or was used for communal purposes.⁶¹ During the second, major phase, the synagogue hall and the ritual bath with the adjoining bathrooms were constructed; we are of the opinion that from this time onwards, the complex was used as a synagogue. In the third phase, the triclinium and the adjacent kitchen were added. The complex was probably in use until its destruction, apparently by the earthquake in 31 B.C.E.

Since Locus A(H)600 is the major element in this complex, two basic questions arose during the study of its remains. Firstly, was this structure planned as a courtyard surrounded by colonnades, or as a hall? Secondly, if it was a hall, what purpose did it serve?

In attempting to answer the first question, we compared Locus A(H)600 — and the structures accompanying it — with other relevant Hasmonean and Herodian edifices at the site and elsewhere in Judea. Many of these complexes and buildings included courtyards, with or without surrounding colonnades. But in point of fact, none of them was surrounded by pillars, as was Locus A(H)600. [The only exception is the Western Court of the Twin Palaces here at Jericho,⁶² which was bordered on one side by a pillared colonnade; however, in this case, the pillars probably bore a second (colonnaded) story and therefore appear to be more justified.] Moreover, Locus A(H)600, with its lower, central area surrounded by low walls, lacks the general features of the courtyards at Jericho.

First and foremost, all of these inner courtyards have a visual and/or physical connection with the buildings they accompany (or certain important rooms in them). In our case, such connection is entirely missing; Locus A(H)600 was added to a house which already contained a courtyard in proportion to the latter's size, and its sole connection with this house was via a regular doorway.⁶³

Most of the inner courtyards within the palaces at Jericho were not only provided with a drainage system, but were also paved, or (if there were gardens within these courts) were surrounded by paved passages, which not only enabled a convenient walk around the courtyard, but also protected the surrounding structures against moisture. These features are not present in Locus A(H)600. (The channel bisecting it below the floor surface could not have served as a drainage channel for the "courtyard," since it conveyed water to the ritual bath, which had to remain ritually pure.) Moreover, the setup of entry into Locus A(H)600 via steps leading up to the surrounding colonnades, while the central part was at a lower level, is not only illogical, but also entirely absent in the courtyards revealed throughout the site and elsewhere. In addition to these "architectural" discrepancies, the data collected during the excavation of Locus A(H)600 also refute the exposure of its central part to the elements.⁶⁴ The floor here consisted of beaten earth typical for covered rooms, and not the packed layer of topsoil characteristic of courtyards and/or gardens.

In any event, the triclinium added later to the structure should not be regarded as a “garden triclinium,” but rather as a structure with a more specific function. The only similarly constructed triclinium revealed at Jericho was located in the Eastern Court of the Twin Palaces, and undoubtedly functioned as a “garden triclinium.” It was located inside a garden (with only a tree to provide some shade), offering people a place to rest and enjoy the surroundings and fresh air, and its setup (inside a garden) can not be compared to that of the triclinium under discussion (within a room). It depended on the Twin Palaces' kitchens for a supply of food, and did not have, as in our case, an adjacent kitchen built specially for this purpose.⁶⁵

It thus follows that the only reasonable reconstruction of Locus A(H)600 is as a covered hall with a basilical section, surrounded by aisles on all four sides (see Ill. 219). The pillars, to our mind, supported the roofs, but also made possible the construction of walls with clerestory windows on top of them and thus the creation of a taller, well-illuminated nave.

This brings us to the second, crucial question — the hall's function. In theory, it might have been used, from the outset, for secular purposes, such as receptions or banquets. However, in the rich repertoire of contemporaneous halls at our disposal (in the Hasmonean period and even in the following Herodian period), here in Jericho and elsewhere in the Land of Israel, we have no parallel examples, particularly with reference to the setup of a lower-lying nave surrounded by aisle-benches of sorts.⁶⁶ Moreover, also missing in this context is a proper residential building which would justify, in view of its size, layout and decoration, a reception hall on this scale.⁶⁷ The lack of any proper, visual connection between the hall and the Courtyard House, and the fact that the former offered no view of the landscape, should also be mentioned here. Another difficulty lies in the position of the entrance, which relates to the aisles and not to the nave.⁶⁸

Once the probability of Hall A(H)600 being used for receptions and banquets is rejected, the proposal of an alternative function remains a difficult problem: industrial activity? a sophisticated storage facility? a place to house animals? None of these seems feasible for the discussed building.

In order to solve this problem, one should take into consideration the following facts:

1. the discussed hall probably had a basilical section with sufficient daylight at its center;
2. it contained benches sufficient for the seating of ca. 150 men and women;⁶⁹
3. it contained a sophisticated niche;
4. it contained a small water basin;
5. a unit consisting of a ritual bath and two tentative bathrooms was built at the same time as the hall and adjacent to it;
6. a U-shaped triclinium and a small adjacent kitchen were appended to the hall, on its western side, an addition which called for a major operation of demolition and construction.

Nonetheless, the hall was clearly the main element in the entire complex; it occupied 57% of the total area, or 67% of the total roof area (61% and 70% respectively, if the triclinium is included in the hall's area).

As a bet knesset (house of assembly) per se, Hall A(H)600 could accommodate a rather large audience seated on the benches that surrounded its nave. In any event, a Second Temple period synagogue, as generally viewed by scholars,⁷⁰ was more like a community center where social and political matters were discussed, court was held, charity funds were collected,⁷¹ lodgings could be provided,⁷² and in particular a place where sacred texts and the Law (commandments) were studied and taught.⁷³ All these functions can readily be associated with Hall A(H)600 and the adjacent Courtyard House at Jericho.

Hypothetically, if the complex at Jericho had been excavated prior to the exposure of the other synagogues from the Second Temple period in the Land of Israel, its identification might have given rise to a dilemma. However, since comparable halls have been exposed and identified as synagogues, the function of the hall under discussion was more easily recognized.

The two main elements which made our identification more definitive were, no doubt, the sophisticated niche and the triclinium (appended later to the hall). In the context of a synagogue, the double-storied niche can readily be related to the storage of scrolls in its upper compartment and the use of the lower one as a genizah. (In any event, it would be nearly impossible to explain it in another context.)

The probable existence of triclinia in the synagogues of the Second Temple period, and their use for symposia and communal meals, has already been suggested by several scholars,⁷⁴ and the major effort invested in appending a triclinium to the hall at Jericho only adds to its importance there.⁷⁵

A major argument in defining the building at Jericho as a synagogue is the many points of resemblance to the synagogue at Gamla, exposed in the late 1970s by S. Gutman.⁷⁶ As at Gamla, the complex in Jericho contains a variety of rooms in addition to a hall surrounded by pillars (versus columns at Gamla) and benches. In any event, we assume that both these halls had flat roofs, those of the aisles being lower than that of the nave, in order to make possible the installation of clerestory windows. Although the number and arrangement of the benches in the hall at Jericho differ from those at Gamla, the position of the front benches around the nave is similar.⁷⁷ In both cases, the orientation was toward the center, the location for the Torah-reading, etc. In both halls, a niche was revealed, probably built incidentally into the longitudinal, northern wall. In Jericho, as at Gamla, a channel was revealed inside the hall, supplying water to a small basin (identified at Gamla by Gutman as a gurna, a basin for hand-washings). The water channel at Jericho terminated in a ritual bath, as was probably also the case at Gamla.

As to the architectural character of the two synagogues under discussion, in both cases the presence of the hall was not emphasized from the outside. This also applies to their entrance doors. In any event, the architecture of the hall at Gamla was much more elaborate.

Both synagogue halls reflect, to our mind, a prototype common in Second Temple times. (The synagogues at Masada and Herodium, "improvised" there during the Great Revolt, also reflect, to a great extent, the same prototype.⁸⁰) One might assume that buildings erected for the same purpose, but of a higher architectural standard than the one at Jericho, existed at least in large cities such as Tiberias,⁸¹ Sepphoris,⁸² Caesarea,⁸³ and Jerusalem.⁸⁴ It can be assumed that the famous Alexandrian synagogue, which might have been built in the days of the Second Temple, as described in the Tosefta,⁸⁵ belongs to this category.⁸⁶ In all likelihood, the synagogue halls at Gamla and Jericho possibly reflect a tradition that could have taken form in Ptolemaic Egypt. In any event, the influence of Egyptian art and architecture on nearby and distant countries is a known fact.⁸⁷

1. an orientation toward the center of the hall
2. a hall surrounded by benches on all sides
3. the use of supports (columns or pillars) in order to create a basilical section;
4. the lack of any architectural expression of the synagogue hall in the outer appearance of the building (or complex), as well as the lack of an emphasized entrance;
5. the presence of a niche within the hall, possibly intended for the storage of the Holy Scriptures
6. the connection to a water supply, if possible.

It is important to mention that to date, no structures which could be interpreted as synagogues have been revealed as integrated elements either in the exposed Hasmonean palaces or in any of the Herodian ones,⁸⁸ edifices that should have served those residing in the palaces and their guests. The synagogue complex at Jericho was apparently built in order to serve the residents in the nearby buildings (Area AH), who were presumably high officials, connected in one way or another with the Royal Estate, as well as the palace’s servants and year-round maintenance staff who lived in the vicinity or elsewhere in Jericho.

In any event, the newly found synagogue at Jericho is, to our mind, an important contribution toward a clearer picture of the development of synagogues in general, and in the Land of Israel in the days of the Second Temple in particular, from the Hasmonean period onward.

• from Netzer et al. (2001:233)

The remains of Cypros, a palatial fortress from the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, are located ca. 3 km to the southwest of the present-day city of Jericho and ca. 1.3 km to the southwest of the complex of winter palaces. The site (map reference 1904.1392) is located on a conical hill known as Tell el-`Aqaba, occupying its summit (ca. 15 m above msl¹) and a lower-lying, fairly level shoulder, to the southeast (see Ills. 267, 268 and Plate XVI). The conical hill has two distinctive features: it offers a splendid view of the entire Plain of Jericho (as well as the mountains east of the Jordan and the northern part of the Dead Sea), and it directly overlooks Wadi Qelt and the ancient road to Jerusalem that passed at the foot of the hill.²

Two main historical sources, Strabo and Josephus in particular, provide us with important data relating to Cypros:

Pompey seized the city, .... Moreover, he gave orders to rase all the walls and, so far as he could, destroyed the haunts of robbers and the treasure-holds of the tyrants. Two of these were situated on the passes leading to Hiericus, I mean Threx and Taurus, and others were Alexandrium and Hyrcanium and Machaerus and Lysias and those in the neighborhood of Philadelphia and Scythopolis in the neighborhood of Galilaea.

(Strabo, Geogr., 16. 2. 40)

At Jericho, again, between the fortress of Cypros³ and the former palace, the king constructed new buildings, finer and more commodious for the reception of guests, and named them after the same friends.⁴

(Josephus, War I, 407)

Above Jericho he built the walls of a fortress, remarkable alike for solidity and beauty, which he dedicated to his mother under the name of Cypros.

(Josephus, War I, 417)

And above Jericho he built a place notable for its security and most pleasant to stay in, which he called Cypros after the name of his mother.

(Josephus, Ant. XVI.143)

It was now that the insurgents took the fortress called Cypros, which dominated Jericho, massacred the garrison and leveled the defenses.

(Josephus, War II, 484)

The site was first surveyed in 1925 by A. Alt, who noticed a few walls on the slopes of the hill and a square building with a cistern on the shoulder to the southeast.⁵ The site was resurveyed by Kelso and Baramki in 1950,⁶ by Harder together with students of the Deutschen evangelischen Institute in Jerusalem in 1959,⁷ and by Z. Meshel in 1967.⁸