Architecture of Ancient Jewish Houses and Palaces
The most important locus of daily life is the home. In the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods, there was no typically Jewish house. Dwellings were built, and functioned, according to traditions characteristic of populations across the eastern Mediterranean. A common element was the courtyard, but otherwise the architectural layout of the entire house could take any conceivable form. The courtyard was either surrounded or adjoined by several rooms and could be shared among different households. In smaller dwellings, domestic spaces would have been multifunctional, with the same room or rooms being used for a variety of purposes, including food preparation, cooking, eating, storage, and sleeping.
Larger dwellings would have had designated areas for many of these activities, but it would be a mistake to assign a single function to any particular space. The courtyard and (flat) roof were critical components of the home, and many household activities could also take place there. In particular, courtyards were commonly used for baking and cooking and other household industries, whereas roofs would have been ideal for drying foods. Fixed hygienic facilities, such as bathtubs and latrines, were uncommon, but many of the late Hellenistic and early Roman Jewish houses had at least one mikveh, for ritual purification.
In general, houses had fieldstone (limestone or basalt) walls, which could be covered with a coating of white plaster. The floors were either plastered or made of beaten earth. Roofs were flat and built of wooden beams, reeds, and plaster. Often parts of the roof were enclosed, creating a second story. In some arrangements, the upper story was reserved for domestic functions while the ground floor was used for storage, for housing livestock, and for industrial and commercial activities. Walls were sometimes fitted with recesses that served as cupboards, and some houses had their internal space partitioned by “window walls,” which facilitated the diffusion of light and the circulation of air.
Our knowledge of Jewish urban dwellings is somewhat hampered by the dearth of evidence. We know a great deal about urban homes in the early Roman period but less about earlier or later periods—either because later building disturbed previous construction or because many towns and cities in subsequent periods had increasingly international populations. In the absence of recognizable Jewish features, it is often difficult to discern the identity of a dwelling’s inhabitants.
Evidence from the turn of the era (the first centuries BCE and CE) shows that while houses in the more urbanized centers sometimes reflected greater wealth, the difference between urban and rural residences was not necessarily significant. Most urban houses followed the same general blueprint—the courtyard plan—and their sizes are usually comparable to those of rural dwellings. Nonetheless, some houses do reflect a higher level of affluence, primarily in their workmanship, their use of ashlars (hewn, rectangular stone blocks) rather than fieldstones (natural stones), and their stone-paved floors. Some houses were also adorned with modest mosaic pavements and painted walls. The best examples come from residential quarters excavated in Sepphoris, Magdala, Gamala, and Yodefat.
In the upper city in Jerusalem, adjacent to the Temple Mount, archaeologists have uncovered a series of luxurious residences that belonged to the lay and priestly elite. These were large, finely built houses, some having multiple stories and a basement, and many equipped with numerous mikvaot as well as washing facilities. Many of these houses were lavishly decorated with mosaic floors, colored frescoes, molded stucco, and other architectural elements; the furniture was of carved stone. A wealthy residence was also unearthed south of the Temple Mount, in the City of David, which has been tentatively identified (based on Josephus) with the palace of Queen Helena of Adiabene. The extensive borrowing of Greco-Roman architecture and decorative elements reflects a Jewish elite that was aware of and integrated into larger cultural trends across the Mediterranean.
Special mention should be made of the various Hasmonean and Herodian palaces. A prime example is the royal complex at Jericho, where one can see the intersection of Jewish, Greek, and Roman material culture. The Hasmoneans built a series of palaces, largely based on the layout of Greek models and incorporating reception halls with distyle in antis entrances (side walls extending to the front of the porch and terminating with two pillars on either side of an entrance [anta] and a pediment supported by two pilasters or caryatids), colonnaded gardens, triclinia, bathtubs, swimming pools, and also mikvaot. The palaces were embellished with Greek- and Roman-style stucco, frescoes, mosaics, and other architectural elements.
The royal complex at Jericho was developed further by Herod the Great, who built three palaces, a bathhouse, a garden with an adjacent swimming pool, peristyle courtyards, triclinia, and a lavish reception hall, all of which were similarly decorated with molded stucco, colorful frescoes, mosaic floors, and opus sectile (“cut work”—a type of mosaic) pavements. In some of the structures, Herod also employed the Roman technique of opus reticulatum (“netted work”—a type of mosaic in a net-like pattern), whose occurrence is extremely rare in the region. We see many of the same features (opus reticulatum aside) employed in the various palaces or palatial fortresses either built or developed by Herod at Masada, Cyprus, Herodium, and Caesarea Maritima.