Maribor Synagogue: Between Facts and Reinterpretation

arts

Article Maribor Synagogue: Between Facts and Reinterpretation

Janez Premk

Research and Documentation Center JAS, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija; [email protected]

Received: 10 November 2019; Accepted: 20 December 2019; Published: 10 January 2020

Abstract: Maribor Synagogue is one of the few preserved medieval synagogues in Central Europe. The renovation of the building between 1992 and 1999, undertaken by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, proved to be much more demanding than originally foreseen. Its architectural shell and architectural elements have served as a reference point for the (visual) reconstruction of related monuments in the wider region. However, the renovation itself has left numerous unanswered questions, especially in regard to the building phases during the Jewish and later Christian use of the building. The present article is the first scientific publication to thoroughly examine the medieval building phases, based on the findings of archaeological research and investigation of the documented and preserved architectural elements. Ground plans are attached for the initial two building phases, related to the archeological charts. The last phase corresponds to the reconstructed version of the synagogue, but convincing evidence relating to its appearance is missing. Although it is practically impossible to provide an entirely accurate building history based on the archival, oral and material evidence so far available, a significant step toward its general comprehension is made.

Keywords: Maribor synagogue; medieval synagogue architecture; archaeology; Jewish heritage in Slovenia; architectural conservation; cultural heritage; reconstruction

1. Introduction In 2014, the architectural conservator Anja Premk and the author of the present article, prompted by the director of the France Stele Institute of Art History in Ljubljana, Barbara Murovec, undertook a thorough re-examination of the available sources on the building history of Maribor synagogue. This resulted in the publication of a pocketbook in Slovenian entitled “Maribor Synagogue” (Premk and Premk 2015), which, although classified as a professional rather than an academic or research text, presented the building history of the synagogue through the ages, scrutinizing the aims of the conservation efforts in the 1990s and proposing our vision of the earliest building phases.1 In a 2018 article entitled Maribor Synagogue Re-examined, I reviewed the preservation history of the building in the last century (Premk 2018) and pointed out some of the dubious conclusions regarding several aspects of the conservation led by the principal chief conservator Janez Mikuž in the 90 s. The actions of the Maribor Regional Office of the Institute for Protection of the Cultural Heritage in Slovenia (IPCHS) included conservation, reconstruction and reinterpretation of the building. The more we delved into

1 The pocketbook is part of the series, entitled Umetnine v žepu (Artworks in the pocket; see https://uifs.zrc-sazu.si/sl/publikacije/ umetnine-v-zepu#v, accessed on 8 September 2019), issued by the France Stele Institute of Art history, published since 2010 as part of the Ljubljana—World Book Capital 2010 program. With a combination of language, appealing to wider audiences while remaining scientiﬁc, the authors focus on art and architectural monuments, also by including them into the wider social context. Although the book on Maribor synagogue was primarily aimed at the wider public, we tried to include as many related data as possible, including new information on the topic.

Arts 2020, 9, 5; doi:10.3390/arts9010005 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2020, 9, 5 2 of 22 the renovation history of the synagogue, the more we were convinced of the veracity of our initial assumption that there was a lack of coordination and cooperation between the project staff involved in the various aspects of its conservation.2 The confusion of the project staff from the outset was pointed out unequivocally by Ruth Ellen Gruber(2002, p. 119): “Some of the initial work was carried out hurriedly and incorrectly, in accordance with local, uninformed ideas of what was Jewish and how a synagogue should look, and was going to have to be removed–including the women gallery”.3 In spite of the more or less substantial alterations of the space through the centuries of later Christian and secular use, Maribor synagogue still remains one of the few preserved medieval Jewish architectural landmarks in the wider European context. Its preservation succeeded thanks to its transformation into the Church of All Saints at the end of the 15th century, after the expulsion of Jews from Styria. The consecration of former synagogues into churches was common practice in Catholicism, with minimal rearrangement required: only the bimah (elevated reading table) had to be removed and the Aron Kodesh (the sacred closet with Torah scrolls) replaced with an altar mensa (Paulus 2007, p. 549). In Slovenia, there are two other (well-documented) instances of such a transformation (the medieval synagogues in Ljubljana and Ptuj)—neither of which survived because of neglect and decay (Hajdinjak 2013; Valenˇciˇc 1992). The main goal of the present article is to point out and interpret the evidence we have so far on the earliest, medieval stages of the building. Unfortunately, our search for the material remains of additional building elements, uncovered during reconstruction and well-documented photographically, as well as in existing documentation, was fruitless. Some of the material is, we assume, stored in the Regional Museum of Maribor (Premk 2018, p. 79, cit. n. 44.) and in the premises of the IPCHS Maribor. Nevertheless, a re-evaluation of the IPCHS documentation and revision of the historical sources have produced fresh insights into the building history and point to the outstanding development of its building structure, almost unparalleled in medieval European synagogue architecture. The last two decades have seen significant advances in studies of Jewish Architecture in Europe, which has been supplemented by the publication of previously unknown or lesser-known historical sources (Borský 2007; Harck 2014; Klein 2017; Kravtsov and Levin 2017; Paulus 2007; et al.). This is also true of the history of the medieval Jewish community in Maribor and its synagogue (Figure1).

2 There were multiple interpretations and ideas as to what to do with the space, which led the Maribor Regional Office of the IPCHS and its director Janez Mikuž to consult foreign experts. Individual experts, such as the architect and art historian Rudolf Klein from Hungary and the architect and town planner Ofer Gaon from Israel, the latter even spending a week in Maribor, issued a professional report with guidelines for the synagogue restoration. See IPCHS, Maribor Regional Office, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga, A letter from Ofer Gaon to Janez Mikuž, 3 October 1997. Furthermore, Professor Rudolf Klein mentored a student, Andrej Šmid, at the Graz University of Technology, who successfully defended his graduation thesis on Maribor synagogue in its urban context (Šmid 1998). However, although foreign experts were (at least briefly) consulted, which is understandable and necessary in such complex projects, it is harder to understand why their suggestions were set aside and other experts willing to share their knowledge, such as Ivan Stopar, were not included in the debate or at least briefed on renovation progress (See Premk 2018, op. cit. no. 13). 3 See also the Jewish Heritage Report written by Ruth Allen and Samuel D. Gruber: “People involved in the project also admit that some of the work to date has been done incorrectly, such as construction of the women’s gallery, which now will be removed” (Gruber and Gruber 2000, p. 148). Arts 2020, 9, 5 3 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22

Figure 1. Maribor Synagogue, view from the northeast. E Exterior.xterior. Photo Photo:: Janez Janez Premk Premk..

2. Historical Historical Sources Sources and and Their Significance Significance In addition to the abundant archival sources relating mostly to the financial financial aspects of Jewish life, the responsa literature written by Rabbi Israel Isserlein and his disciples prov providesides an invaluable cultural resource on the history of the medieval Jewish community in Maribor and the surrounding areas (Eidelberg (Eidelberg 19621962;; Gradivo za Zgodovino Maribora 1975–20191975–2019). There There are are a number of sources, sources, with varying degrees of reliability, whichwhich mentionmention thethe synagoguesynagogue asas wellwell asas otherother communalcommunal buildings.buildings. Jews can can be be traced traced in in Maribor Maribor from from the the second second half half of of the the 13th 13th century century (Germania (Germania Judaica Judaica 1968,1968 p., 4 522,p. 522, n. n.4).4 4). TheThe general general assumption assumption is isthat that the the Jewish Jewish community community in in Maribor Maribor originates originates from from that periodperiod;; however, the two archival sources referring to their existence do not indicate whether they were actually settled settled in in Maribor Maribor at at that that point. point. According According to toVladimir Vladimir Travner, Travner, the the Jewish Jewish quarter quarter in Mariborin Maribor was was recorded recorded for forthe the first first time time in 1277, in 1277, but but he hedoes does not not reveal reveal his hissource source (Travner (Travner 1935, 1935 p., 155).p. 155). Although Although tempting tempting (Paulus (Paulus 2007, 2007 p., p. 202) 202),, it itis isnot not possible possible to to confirm confirm the the existence existence of of either either the the Jewish community community or or the the synagogue synagogue before before the the first first half half of the of 14th the century 14th century on the on basis the of basis the archival of the archivaldocuments documents alone. alone. At first, first, the specialist literature mentioned 1190 as a post quem date for the synagogue, since it supposedly lean leaneded on the outer wall of the the town town wall wall dated dated to to 1190 1190 (Gruber (Gruber and and Gruber Gruber 2000,2000, p. p. 146). 146). HHowever,owever, between between 1255 1255 and and 1275, 1275, the the town town acquired acquired a four-sided a four-sided town wall,town which wall, delineatedwhich delineated approx. approx.25 hectares 25 hectares of a rhombus-shaped of a rhombus- areashaped (Sapaˇc area 2013 (Sapač). The 2013). sides The of sides the rectangle of the rectangle are almost are entirelyalmost entirelystraight; straight; the only the deviation only deviation arises on arises the south on the side, south especially side, espec in theially eastern in the section eastern which section includes which includesthe synagogue. the synagogue. Here, the Here, terrain the to terrain which theto which wall was the adjustedwall was descendedadjusted descended steeply towards steeply the towards Drava theRiver Drava (Figure River2). (Figure 2).

4 Two archival documents are dated to 1274 and 1296. A Jew from Maribor selling a vineyard to the abbot Heinrich of Weingarten is mentioned in the last quarter of the 13th century, but is not being cited as a citizen of Maribor. See (Brugger 2006, p. 182; Mlinariˇc 1996, p. 5).

Arts 2020,, 9,, 5xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 4 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22

FigureFigure 2.2. Townscape 2.Townscape Townscape of of Maribor, of Maribor, Maribor, southeastern southeastern southeastern part part of the ofof town, thethethe town,town,town, with with thewithwith synagoguethe thethe synago synagoguesynagogue andgue Jewish and andand Jewish quarterJewishJewish quarterhighlighted,quarter highlighted, highlighted, 1482, Regional 1482, 1482, Regional Regional Museum Museum Museum of Maribor. ofof Maribor.Maribor.

TheThe archivalarchival archival documents documents documents do do donot not not mention mention mention Maribor Maribo Maribor synagoguer synagoguesynagogue before beforebefore the middle the the middle middle of the of 14th of the the century. 14th 14th century.Untilcentury. recently, Until Until recently, it recently was assumed it, it was was assumed assumed that the thatthat earliest thethe earliest reliable reliablereliable source sourcesource was anwas was announcement an an announcement announcement from from from 1429 proclaiming14291429 proclaiming proclaiming “in der “in “in statder der Marpurgstat stat Marpurg Marpurg in der in in der sinagog”der sinagog”sinagog” (Mlinariˇc (Mlinarič(Mlinari 1996č 1996, 1996,, p. p. p. 8; 8; 8; TošToš Toš 20162016, 2016,, p. p. p. 57). 57). 57).5 5Yet5 Yet the the synagoguesynagogue is ismentioned mentioned in in the the sources sources atat least least twice beforebefore—first before—ﬁrst—first in in a a document document dated dated 4 November4 November 13541354 kept kept in in thethe the AustrianAustrian Austrian State State ArchivesAr Archiveschives (Österreichische(Ö sterreichische Staatsarchiv)Staatsarchiv) in in Vienna, Vienna, and and second second in in (or (or after) 1421, when after the Wiener Gesera, the massacre of Jews, Rabbi Anshel Marburg (also after) 1421,1421, when when after after the the Wiener Wiener Gesera, Gesera, the massacrethe massacre of Jews, of RabbiJews, Anshel Rabbi MarburgAnshel Marburg (also Marpurk) (also Marpurk) (Brugger 2006, p. 68) arrived in town. In the aron hakodesh (Torah ark), he found a letter by (Marpurk)Brugger 2006 (Brugger, p. 68) 2006, arrived p. 68) in town.arrived In in the town.aron In hakodesh the aron(Torah hakodesh ark), (Torah he found ark), a letterhe found by a a Jerusalem letter by a Jerusalem scholar from the third quarter of the 14th century addressed to Austrian “scholars” ascholar Jerusalem from scholar the third from quarter the ofthird the 14thquarter century of the addressed 14th century to Austrian addressed “scholars” to Austrian (Germania “scholars” Judaica: (Germania Judaica: 1350–1519 2003, pp. 835, 842, fn. 89; Grossmann 1977, p. 195, fn. 36).6 1350–1519(Germania Judaica:2003, pp. 1350–1519 835, 842, 2003, fn. 89; pp. Grossmann 835, 842, fn. 1977 89;, p.Grossmann 195, fn. 36). 1977,6 p. 195, fn. 36).6 The document from 1354 is invaluable not only because it mentions Maribor synagogue for the The document from 1354 is invaluable not only because it mentions Maribor synagogue for the firstThe time document but also because from 1354 it explains is invaluable its wider not role only for because Christians itmentions (Brugger 2006, Maribor pp. 159 synagogue–60, No. 782). for the first time but also because it explains its wider role for Christians (Brugger 2006, pp. 159–60, No. 782). firstﬁrstIn time the document,but also becaus because a Maribore it explains town its judge wider Nikolaj role for Pezolt, Christians Maribor (Brugger (Brugger Jewish 2006,2006 judge, pp. 7 Wilhelm, 159–60, 159–60, No. No. and 782). 782). a In the document, a Maribor town judge Nikolaj Pezolt, Maribor Jewish7 judge7 Wilhelm, and a In Maribor thethe document,document, resident a MariboraPaltram Maribor town stated town judge that judge Nikolaj they Nikolaj were Pezolt, callePezolt, Maribord upon Maribor Jewish by the Jewish judge messengers judgeWilhelm, of Wilhelm, the and Count a Maribor and of a MariborresidentPfannberg Paltramresident to go stated togetherPaltram that tostated they Judenshul were that (synagogue).calledthey were upon bycalledThere the , messengersuponthey ordered by the of the messengers the shamash Count (also: of of Pfannberg theshulklapper Count to , goof Pfannbergtogethermessner to— totheJudenshul go synagogue’s together(synagogue). to caretaker)Judenshul There, to(synagogue). ask theythe Jews ordered There, whether the they thereshamash ordered was(also: anyone the shamashshulklapper among (also: them, messner shulklapperwho had—the , messnersynagogue’sa promissory—the caretaker)synagogue’s note from to the askcaretaker) Count the Jews of to Pfannberg. whether ask the Jews there None whether was of the anyone there(Maribor) among was Jews,anyone them however, whoamong had hadthem a promissoryone. who The had anote promissoryshamash from thethen note Count declared from of Pfannberg.thatthe Countall the notesof None Pfannberg. which of the the (Maribor) No (Maribor)ne of the Jews, Jews (Maribor) however, had presented Jews, had however, one. from The the hadshamashrevocation one.then The shamashdeclaredonwards then that were declared all theinvalid notes that (Brugger which all the theand notes (Maribor) Wiedl which 2010, the Jews p. (M 160). hadaribor)8 presented Jews had from presented the revocation from the onwards revocation were ה onwardsinvalid (Brugger were invalid and Wiedl (Brugger 2010 and, p. 160).Wiedl8 2010, p. 160).8

5 Boris Hajdinjak, a historian and director of the Center of Jewish Cultural Heritage Synagogue Maribor in an 5 Boris Borisoral Hajdinjak,Hajdinjak, interview conductedaa historianhistorian by andand the directordirector author inofof 2019thethe CenterCenter disputes ofof theJewishJewish date Cultural Culturaland believes HeritaHerita 1431ge isSynagogue the correct Maribor dating due in an 5 oralBoristo interview Hajdinjak,a mistake inconducted a historian the citation and by of directorthe the author original of the in Center source.2019 disputes of Jewish Culturalthethe datedate Heritage andand believesbelieves Synagogue 14311431Maribor is the correct in an oral dating interview due 6conducted by the author in 2019 disputes the date and believes 1431 is the correct dating due to a mistake in the citation of "הועתק מכתב אשר מצא מה"ר אנשל בארון הקודש במרפורק אחר גזיר' אושטרייך .sourceבשנת קפ"א "the original לפרטלאלף to Grossmanna mistake in (1977, the citation p. 195) :of tothe a original mistake source. in the citation of the original source. "הועתק מכתב אשר מצא מה"ר אנשל בארון הקודש במרפורק אחר גזיר' אושטרייך .בשנת (172 ,קפ"א pp. 119 "לפרטלאלף ,See also (Brugger 2006 .הששי 6 "הועתק מכתב אשר מצא מה"ר אנשל בארון הקודש במרפורק אחר גזיר' אושטרייך בשנת קפ"א "לפרטלאלף :(Grossmann Grossmann(1977 (1977,(1977,, p. p.p. 195): 195):195 6 7 Iudex iudeorum, Christian judge, competent for disputes between Jews and Christians. .(SeeSee See alsoalsoalso ( (BruggerBrugger(Brugger 2006 2006,2006,, pp. pp.pp. 119, 119,119, 172). 172).172 ...הששי 7 8 These types of revocations usually came about during probate hearings, in this case when Ulrich IV. Count 7 Iudex iudeorum iudeorum, Christian,, ChristianChristian judge, judge,judge, competent competentcompetent for disputes forfor dispdisp betweenutes between Jews and Jews Christians. and Christians. 8 Theseof Pfannberg types of revocations died; he passed usually away came on about 23 duringOctober probate 1354 and hearings, was succeeded in this case by when son UlrichJohann IV. of Count Pfannberg, of Pfannberg the 8 These These typestypes ofof revocationsrevocations usuallyusually camecame aboutabout duringduring probate hearings, in this case when Ulrich IV. Count died;last he male passed member away onof this 23 October noble family. 1354 and was succeeded by son Johann of Pfannberg, the last male member of this ofnoble Pfannberg family. died; he passed away on 23 October 1354 and was succeeded by son Johann of Pfannberg, the

last male member of this noble family.

ArtsArts 202020202020,, , 9 99,, , x xx FOR FORFOR PEER PEERPEER REVIEW REVIEWREVIEW 555 of ofof 22 2222

ItItIt is isis necessary necessarynecessary to toto add addadd that thatthat the thethe role rolerole of ofof the thethe shamash shamashshamash was waswas not notnot confined confinedconfined to toto taking takingtaking care carecare of ofof the thethe synagogue synagoguesynagogue (lighting(lighting(lighting thethethe menorahmenorahmenorah andandand hannukiahhannukiahhannukiah candles),candles),candles), bububuttt alsoalsoalso knockingknockingknocking ononon doorsdoorsdoors andandand summoningsummoningsummoning thethethe membersmembers ofof thethe communitycommunity toto everydayeveryday prayers,prayers, andand alalsososo taking takingtaking part partpart in inin various variousvarious matters mattersmatters of ofof the thethe Jewish JewishJewish commune,commune,commune, e.g.,e.g.,e.g., taxtaxtax affairs,affairs,affairs, JewishJewishJewish court,court,court, authenticaauthenticaauthenticationtiontion ofofof documents.documents.documents. Thus,Thus,Thus, hehehe waswaswas aaa messengermessengermessenger ofofof Arts 2020, 9, 5 5 of 22 religiousreligiousreligious andandand generalgeneralgeneral affairs.affairs.affairs. TheTheThe shamashshamashshamash andandand thethethe hazzanhazzan werewerewere presentpresentpresent everywhereeverywhereeverywhere synagoguessynagoguessynagogues existed,existed,Arts 20 20andand, 9, x bothboth FOR PEERrolesroles REVIEW areare specificallyspecifically mentionedmentioned inin thethe responsaresponsaresponsa referring referringreferring to toto Maribor MariborMaribor and andand Judenburg JudenburgJudenburg5 of 22 (Brugger(Brugger(BruggerIt is necessary 2006,2006,2006, p.p.p. 50; 50;50; to JelinJelinJelin addččč thatiiiččč BoetaBoetaBoeta the role 2009, 2009,2009, of pp.pp. thepp. 374–75).shamash374–75).374–75). was not confined to taking care of the synagogue It is necessary to add that the role of the shamash was not confined to taking care of the synagogue (lightingItItIt isisis alsoalsoalso the possiblemenorahpossiblepossible tototo and inferinferinfer hannukiah fromfromfrom thethethe documentdocument candles),document but thatthatthat also ChristiansChristiansChristians knocking hadhadhad on nonono doors reservationsreservationsreservations and summoning aboutaboutabout visitingvisitingvisiting the (lighting the menorah and hannukiah candles), but also knocking on doors and summoning the themembersthethe synagogue;synagogue;synagogue; of the it communityitit waswaswas alsoalsoalso accessible toaccessibleaccessible everyday tototo prayers, them,them,them, asasas and thethethe also buildingbuildingbuilding taking waswaswas part notnotnot in various exclusivelyexclusivelyexclusively matters JewishJewishJewish of the butbutbut Jewish alsoalsoalso members of the community to everyday prayers, and also taking part in various matters of the Jewish functionedcommune,functionedfunctioned as e.g.,asas aaa publicpublic taxpublic aff airs,space.space.space. Jewish999 Significantly, Significantly, Significantly, court, authentication oneoneone ofofof thethethe responsaresponsaresponsa of documents. mentionsmentionsmentions Thus, threethreethree he ororor four wasfourfour specialaspecialspecial messenger seatsseatsseats commune, e.g., tax affairs, Jewish court, authentication of documents. Thus, he was a messenger of reservedof religious for andChristian general guests affairs. in Maribor The shamash Synagogueand the (Josephhazzan barwere Moshe present 1903, everywhere p. 31).101010 synagogues reservedreservedreligious forfor and ChristianChristian general guestsguests affairs. inin TheMariborMaribor shamash Synagogue and the (Josephhazzan werebar Moshe present 1903, everywhere p. 31). synagogues The reading of announcements, public documents, andresponsa promissory notes in Maribor Synagogue existed,existed,The and reading and both both of roles roles announcements, are are specifically specifically public mentionedmentioned document in the s,s, responsaandand promissorypromissory referringreferring notes notesto to Maribor Maribor inin MariborMaribor and and Judenburg SynagogueSynagogue Judenburg is also mentioned in other documents. In 1429 Gregor Schurff presented his confirmatory (isisBrugger (Bruggeralsoalso mentioned mentioned2006 2006,, p. p. 50; 50; inJelinˇciˇcBoetain Jelinčič otherother Boeta documents.documents. 2009 2009,, pp.pp. InIn 374–75).374 –141475).29 Gregor Schurff presented his confirmatory document/charter in synagogues in Graz, Wiener Neustadt, Judenburg, Hartberg, Voitsberg, Bad document/charterIt isIt is also also possible possible in synagogues to to infer infer from from in the theGraz, documentdocument Wiener that Neustadt, Christians Christians Judenburg, had had no no reservations reservations Hartberg, aboutVoitsberg, about visiting visiting Bad Radkersburg,theRadkersburg,the synagogue; synagogue; SanktSankt it it was was VeitVeit also also anan accessible a derccessibleder GlanGlan toto andand them,them, Maribor,Maribor, as the buildingandand inin 1445was1445 was not the notthe exclusively exclusivelyLambergerLamberger Jewish Jewishdocumentdocument but but also was alsowas 9 introducedfunctionedintroducedintroducedfunctioned asininin as a Maribor,Maribor,Maribor,a public public space. space. BadBadBad 9Radkersburg, Significantly,Radkersburg,Radkersburg,Significantly, one JudeJudeJude of nburg,nburg, the responsaresponsa SanktSankt mentions mentions VeitVeit anan three threederder orGlanGlan or four four andandspecial special LjubljanaLjubljana seats seats 10 (Rosenbergreserved(Rosenberg(Rosenbergreserved for for 1914,1914,1914, Christian Christian p.p.p. 13). 13).13). guests guests in in Maribor Maribor SynagogueSynagogue ((JosephJoseph bar bar Moshe Moshe 1903, 1903 ,p. p. 31). 31).10 InTheInIn The1477, 1477,1477, reading reading Emperor EmperorEmperor of of announcements, announcements, Frederick FrederickFrederick III IIIIII issued issuedissued publicpublic a aa document documents,documentdocuments,document stating statingstating and and promissory promissory that thatthat the thethe rabbi rabbirabbi notes notes from fromfrom in in Maribor MariborRadgona RadgonaRadgona Synagogue Synagogue erases eraseserases the thethe fineisfinefineis also ofofof also 121212 mentioned mentionedflorinsflorinsflorins thatthatthat in in DavidDavidDavid other other from documents.from from documents. MariborMariborMaribor In had Inhadhad 1429 1429 tototo paypaypay Gregor Gregor forforfor thethe Schurffthe Schur constructionconstructionconstruction ff presentedpresented ofofof his thethethe his confirmatory JewishJewishJewish confirmatory schoolschoolschool (document((JudenshulJudenshulJudenshuldocument/charter)))/ charter there,there,there, asasas in in hehehe synagogues synagogues wouldwouldwould nonono inlongerlongerlonger in Graz, Graz, bebebe Wiener Wiener livinglivingliving inNeustadt, inin thththee town.town. Judenburg, Judenburg, InIn thisthis case,case, Hartberg Hartberg, thethe referencereference, Voitsberg, Voitsberg, isis Badtoto Bad thethe synagogueRadkersburg,synagoguesynagogueRadkersburg, andandand Sankt notnotnot Sankt Veittototo thethe Veitthe an separateseparateseparate der an Glan der constructionGlanconstruction andconstruction Maribor, and Maribor, ofof andof aaa JewishinJewishJewish and 1445 in schooltheschoolschool 1445 Lamberger ((( theBethBeth Lamberger MidrashMidrash document))) as asas document hadhad washad previously introducedpreviouslypreviously was beeninbeenintroduced Maribor, presumedpresumed Bad in in Radkersburg,in Maribor, thethe literatureliterature Bad Judenburg, (Jelin(Jelin Radkersburg,čččiiiččč Boeta BoetaBoeta Sankt 2009, 2009,2009, Judenburg, Veit p. anp.p. 278). 278).278). der SanktGlan The TheThe term termterm and Veit Ljubljana Judenshul JudenshulJudenshul an der ( in in GlanRosenbergin the thethe legal andlegallegal Ljubljanadocuments1914 documentsdocuments, p. 13). ofof medieval(RosenbergmedievalIn 1477, AustriaAustria Emperor1914, p. alwaysalways 13). Frederick denotesdenotes III issuedaa synagoguesynagogue a document (Kei(Keilll 1998).1998).1998). stating ThisThisThis that isisis the aaa singlesinglesingle rabbi documentdocumentdocument from Radgona referringreferringreferring erases tototo thethethe buildingbuilding finebuildingIn of 1477 12 ofofof, florins Emperor aaa synagoguesynagoguesynagogue that Frederick David ininin MariborMariborMaribor fromIII issued Maribor andandand a document isisis thereforethereforetherefore had to stating pay ofofof forimmenseimmenseimmense that the the construction value.rabbivalue.value. from InInIn thisthisthis Radgona of thecase,case,case, Jewish asaserasesas shownshownshown school the ininin the(thetheJudenshulfine section sectionsection of 12) dealing dealing there,dealing florins as withwithwith that he wouldthe Davidthethe building buildingbuilding nofrom longer Mariborphases phasesphases be later laterlater living had in inin to in ththth payis theisis article, article,article, for town. the construction construction construction construction In this case, most most of the the referenceprobablyprobably Jewish schoolrefers isrefers to the to to (Judenshul) there, as he would no longer be living in the town. In this case, the reference is to the thesynagoguethethe rebuildingrebuildingrebuilding and ofofof not aaa (damaged)(damaged)(damaged) to the separate synagogue synagoguesynagogue construction (Figure(Figure(Figure of 3). 3).3). a Jewish school (Beth Midrash) as had previously synagogue and not to the separate construction of a Jewish school (Beth Midrash) as had previously been presumed in the literature (JelinˇciˇcBoeta 2009, p. 278). The term Judenshul in the legal documents been presumed in the literature (Jelinčič Boeta 2009, p. 278). The term Judenshul in the legal documents of medieval Austria always denotes a synagogue (Keil 1998). This is a single document referring to the of medieval Austria always denotes a synagogue (Keil 1998). This is a single document referring to building of a synagogue in Maribor and is therefore of immense value. In this case, as shown in the the building of a synagogue in Maribor and is therefore of immense value. In this case, as shown in section dealing with the building phases later in this article, construction most probably refers to the the section dealing with the building phases later in this article, construction most probably refers to rebuildingthe rebuilding of a (damaged) of a (damaged) synagogue synagogue (Figure (Figure3). 3).

FigureFigure 3.3. MariborMaribor SynagogueSynagogue withwith thethe JewishJewishJewish towertowertower andandand thethethe leftleftleft bankbankbank ofofof thethethe Drava—viewDrava—viewDrava—view fromfromfrom thethethe southwest.southwest.southwest. Exterior. Exterior.Exterior. Photo: Photo:Photo: Janez JanezJanez Premk. Premk.Premk.

FigureFigure 3. 3.Maribor Maribor Synagogue Synagogue withwith thethe JewishJewish tower and and the the left left bank bank of of the the Drava Drava—view—view from from the the southwest.southwest. Exterior. Exterior. Photo: Photo:Janez Janez Premk.Premk.

999 In In In somesomesome AustrianAustrianAustrian towns,towns,towns, thethethe JewsJewsJews hadhadhad tototo swearswearswear ananan oathoath inin frontfront ofof thethe synagogue,synagogue, andand whenwhen JewsJews werewere 9 involvedIninvolvedinvolved some Austrian in inin the thethe proceedings, proceedings,proceedings, towns, the Jews the thethe had (town) (town)(town) to swear court courtcourt an sat oathsatsat there. there.there. in front Therefore, Therefore,Therefore, of the synagogue, the thethe sy sysynagoguenagogue and when waswas Jews notnot were onlyonly involved thethe centercenter in the ofof Jewishproceedings,JewishJewish lifelifelife (religious,(religious,(religious, the (town) social, courtsocial,social, sat identificational),identificational),identificational), there. Therefore, butthebutbut synagogue alsoalsoalso had,had, at wasat leastleast not onlypartly,partly, the thethe center rolerole of ofof Jewish anan economiceconomic life (religious, andand social, legallegal identiﬁcational), but also had, at least partly, the role of an economic and legal center. It was a place where business center.center.center. ItItIt waswaswas aaa placeplaceplace wherewherewhere businessbusinessbusiness contractscontractscontracts werewerewere concluded,concluded,concluded, wherewherewhere goodsgoodsgoods werewerewere delivereddelivereddelivered tototo andandand alsoalsoalso contracts were concluded, where goods were delivered to and also where business, legal and other contacts with the majority wherepopulationwhere business,business, were made. legallegal See andand (Keil otherother 1998 contactscontacts). withwith ththeee majority majoritymajority population populationpopulation were werewere made. made.made. See SeeSee (Keil (Keil(Keil 1998). 1998).1998). 10 9 In some Austrian towns, the Jews had to swear an oath in front of the synagogue, and when Jews were וזכורניוזכורני וזכורני במרפורקבמרפורק במרפורק שהמקומותשהמקומות שהמקומות בעזרתבעזרת בעזרת אנשיםאנשים אנשים כלכל כל אחדאחד אחד מורישמוריש מוריש מקוםמקום מקום ““ “ :TheTheThe responsa responsaresponsa also alsoalso reveals, reveals,reveals, that thatthat the thethe seats seatsseats were werewere inheritable: inheritable:inheritable 1010 שלו שלושלו of לבנולבנולבנו רקרקרק centerגג' ג'' the מקומותמקומות only אואואו דד'ד'not' עלעלעל was התיבההתיבההתיבה שקושקו'שקו'' synagogueזיצזיצ זיצ"""ללל the היההיההיה הפקרהפקרהפקר ,Therefore לישבלישבלישב שםשם .sat there הנוכרייםהנוכריים court ואמרואמרואמר (town)הגאוןהגאון הגאון זצזצזצ"the" "ללל כשאחדכשאחדכשאחד אינואינואינו ,the proceedings בביהכנבביהכנבביהכנ"""inס סס [[[שיכולשיכולשיכול involvedלישבלישב לישב also”. had, at least partly, the role of an economic and legal במקומוbut ], אז יכול נוכרי ,(identificationalלישב באותו ,social מקום משום ,religious) ברוב life עם הדרת Jewishמלך . .”במקומובמקומו],], אזאז יכוליכול נוכרינוכרי לישבלישב באותובאותו מקום משום ברובברוב עם הדרת מלךמלך center. It was a place where business contracts were concluded, where goods were delivered to and also where business, legal and other contacts with the majority population were made. See (Keil 1998). וזכורני במרפורק שהמקומות בעזרת אנשים כל אחד מוריש מקום “ :The responsa also reveals, that the seats were inheritable 10 שלו לבנו רק ג' מקומות או ד' על התיבה שקו' זיצ"ל היה הפקר לישב שם הנוכריים ואמר הגאון זצ"ל כשאחד אינו בביהכנ"ס ]שיכול לישב .”במקומו[, אז יכול נוכרי לישב באותו מקום משום ברוב עם הדרת מלך

Arts 2020, 9, 5 6 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22

The medieval Jewish community in Maribor ceased to exist after the expulsion of Jews from 11 Styria in 1497 1497 (Mlinarič (Mlinariˇc 2000, 2000 ,p. p. 26). 26).11 TheThe synagogue synagogue and and appertaining appertaining buildings buildings were were purchased purchased by bya wealthy a wealthy Maribor Maribor couple, couple, Barbara Barbara and and Bernardin Bernardin Druckher Druckher,, soon soon after. after. The The last last late medieval mention of the synagogue concerns its transformation into All Saints church. In a 1501 founding letter for the All Saints benefice, beneﬁce, Druckher orders a daily mass service: “ in vunser aufgebauthen khirchen und 12 capeln, so z zuu Mahrburg Mahrburg gelegen, gelegen, die die vor vor zeiten zeiten ain ain sinagog sinagog der der Juden Juden gewesen gewesen…“... (GZM“(GZM 1985, 1985 No., No.8).12 8).It is Itimpossible is impossible to conclude to conclude from from this this passage passage whether whether the the former former synagogue synagogue was was rebuilt, rebuilt, expanded, expanded, rearranged or built entirely anew (Figure4 4).). TheThe buildingbuilding mustmust havehave functionedfunctioned asas aa churchchurch beforebefore 1501, probably probably soon soon after after being being purchased purchased by the by couple the couple after the after 1497 the expulsion 1497 expulsion of the Jews of (Mlinarič the Jews (1996,Mlinariˇc p. 39). 1996 In ,most p. 39).similar In mostcases, similaronly minor cases, spatial only alterations minor spatial were alterations carried out were (Paulus carried 2007, out p. (549).Paulus 2007, p. 549).

FigureFigure 4. BuiltBuilt-in-in window on the northern façade with the dedicatory inscription of the Druckher couple, whowho purchasedpurchased the the building building after after the the expulsion expulsion of theof the Jews Jews in 1497 in 1497 and turnedand turned it into it All into Saints All Church.Saints Church. Photo: Photo Janez: Premk.Janez Premk.

3. Archaeological Research ThoroughThorough archaeologicalarchaeological researchresearch of of medieval medieval synagogues synagogues is inis in many many cases cases a precondition a precondition for thefor clariﬁcationthe clarification of a of building’s a building’s history. history. Until Until recently, recently, the mainthe main issues issues facing facing researchers researchers concerned concerned the methodologicalthe methodological shortcomings shortcomings of medieval of medieval archaeology archaeology as well as aswe thell as ownership the ownership of the of buildings. the buildings. Since theSince renovation the renovation of the Mariborof the Maribor Synagogue Synagogue in the 1990s,in the a 1990s, noteworthy a noteworthy step forward step forward has been has made been in themade research in the of research medieval of Jewish medieval synagogue Jewish architecture synagogue and architecture archaeology and (synagogues, archaeologymikvehs (synagogues,, Talmud school,mikvehs cemeteries),, Talmud school, particularly cemeter inies), France, particularly Germany, in and France, Austria Germany, (Harck 2014 and; Paulus Austria 2007 (Harck; Synagogen, 2014; 13 Mikwen,Paulus 2007; Siedlungen Synagogen, Jüdisches Mikwen, Alltagsleben Siedlungen im LichteJüdisches Neuer Alltagsleben Archäologischer im Lichte Funde Neuer2004 Archäologischer). Archaeological Funde 2004).13 Archaeological research could also offer answers to the numerous questions related to the

11 In 1496, the Emperor Maximilian issued a decree on expelling the Jews from Styria and Carinthia. The deadline for their 11 departureIn 1496, the was Emperor6 January 1497. Maximilian See (Mlinariˇc issued 2000 a, p.decree 68). on expelling the Jews from Styria and Carinthia. The 12 Indeadline English for translation: their departure “ ... in our was built 6 January church and 1497. chapel, See located(Mlinarič in Maribor, 2000, p. which 68). used to be a synagogue before”. 13 More than 240 locations of medieval synagogues have been identiﬁed in these countries. 12 In English translation: “…in our built church and chapel, located in Maribor, which used to be a synagogue before”. 13 More than 240 locations of medieval synagogues have been identified in these countries.

Arts 2020, 9, 5 7 of 22

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22 research could also offer answers to the numerous questions related to the (presumed) locations of medieval(presumed) synagogues locations of in medieval Slovenia; however,synagogues Slovene in Slovenia; archaeology however, has paidSlovene little archaeology attention to has the highpaid andlittlelate attention Middle to Ages. the high To date,and late only Middle Maribor Ages. Synagogue To date, hasonly been Maribor the focus Synagogue of archaeological has been the research focus 14 (ofMikuž archaeological 1994). Without research the (Mikuž owners’ 1994). consent,14 Without the law the does owners’ not allow consent, any interventionsthe law does intonot allow buildings, any especiallyinterventions when into they buildings, are not subjectespecially to monumentwhen they protection.are not subject to monument protection. The need for archaeological supervision quickly arose during work on the Maribor Synagogue building, which was follo followedwed by protective archaeological excavations under the leadership of Ivan Tušek. Research was carried out in the main hall, in the area north and west to it, as well as along the outer section of the eastern façade (Figure5 5).). TheThe resultsresults werewere publishedpublished inin twotwo separateseparate reports,reports, butbut there is some inconsistency between the two and a lack lack of of thorough thorough analysis analysis and and exact exact documentation documentation of the architectural findingsfindings ((MikužMikuž 19941994,, 19991999).). Aware Aware of the insuinsufficienciesfficiencies in the archaeological excavation, Marjan Teržan, chiefchief restorer, suggestedsuggested leavingleaving a section of the synagogue floor floor covered by wooden wooden beams, beams, which which could could easily easily be removed be removed in the case in of the additional case of archaeological additional archaeological examination 15 (Figureexamination6). (Figure 6).15

Figure 5. Eastern façade after removal of the annexed building. The The openings in the wall with the rosette window and portal, leading to the lower floor ﬂoor of the northern annex annex,, are clearly visible. Photo: Photo: The Maribor Maribor Regional Regional O ﬃ Officece of theof the Institute Institute for Protection for Protection of the of Cultural the Cultural Heritage Heritage in Slovenia in Slovenia(IPCHS), Fond(IPCHS), Maribor—Sinagoga. Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.

14 At two other known locations—Ptuj and Ljubljana, and similar cases on the Austrian side, the former synagogues in Radgona (Bad Radkersburg) and Brežice (Friesach)—the archaeological excavations could attest to or refute the presumed locations. See (Hajdinjak 2013; Kurahs 2014; Valenˇciˇc 1992). 15 An extensive interview with Marjan Teržan was carried out by the author in 2019. Teržan objected to several strategies decided upon by the principal chief conservator, such as the vault system in the entrance hall. Unfortunately, the vertical positioning of the wooden beams in the floor creates a more church-like feeling of the space oriented towards the altar (Klein 2019). In the case of additional archeological research in the future, the floor should become unified.

14 At two other known locations—Ptuj and Ljubljana, and similar cases on the Austrian side, the former synagogues in Radgona (Bad Radkersburg) and Brežice (Friesach)—the archaeological excavations could attest to or refute the presumed locations. See (Hajdinjak 2013; Kurahs 2014; Valenčič 1992). 15 An extensive interview with Marjan Teržan was carried out by the author in 2019. Teržan objected to several strategies decided upon by the principal chief conservator, such as the vault system in the entrance hall. Unfortunately, the vertical positioning of the wooden beams in the floor creates a more church-like feeling of the space oriented towards the altar (Klein 2019). In the case of additional archeological research in the future, the floor should become unified.

Arts 2020, 9, 5 8 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

Figure 6. View of the southern wall with the niche and part of the floor ﬂoor covered by by wooden beams. beams. Interior. Phot Photo:o: Janez Janez Premk Premk..

A recapitulation and critical reinterpretation of the archaeological examination carried out soon after the initiation of the works in 1992 are thus necessary toto unearthunearth thethe oldestoldest buildingbuilding phases.phases. At first,first, after the removal of the ceramic floor,floor, remnants of pebble stones, medieval and newer ceramic chards, and remnants of Gothic architectural stone elements (a piece of of stone stone ornamentation, ornamentation, broken ribs made of sandstone, two large brick plates) were were discovered discovered in in a a half half-a-meter-a-meter deep deep layer, layer, under a cement screed in the main hall ((MikužMikuž 19941994,, p.p. 6). When the floors floors in the main hall were further deepened to the gra gravelvel and conglomerate layers, widened foundations made of larger quarry stones and bound by lime mortar made of fine fine sand appeared next to the northern, northern, eastern, and southern walls. It It was was only only pointed pointed out out in the firstfirst archaeological report report in in1994 1994 that that these the foundations,se foundations, with the with foundations the foundations lying north–south lying north discovered–south ondiscovered the western on the side, western could side, have could formed have a smaller formed structure, a smaller probablystructure, the probably synagogue the synagogue from phase from one (Figurephase one7). The(Figure research 7). The also research showed also that showed along the that entire along length the entire of the length southern of the side, southern the foundations side, the arefoundations built in a are uniform built in and a evenuniform manner, and even and thatmanner, it is thickerand that than it is the thicker foundations than the on foundations the remaining on threethe remaining mentioned three sides. mentioned This means sides. that This the means building that leaned the building on the olderleaned town on the wall. older The town expanded wall. innerThe expanded foundations inner next foundations to the northern next andto the eastern northern side and are onlyeastern 30 cmside wide are andonly are 30 younger,cm wide whichand are is confirmedyounger, which by the is layerconfirmed of ruins by onthe which layer theyof ruins were on built which (Mikuž they were 1994 ,built p. 6) (Mikuž (Figure 1994,8). p. 6) (Figure 8).

Arts 2020, 9, 5 9 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

Figure 7. UnearthingUnearthing of of the the wall wall foundations foundations lying lying north north–south,–south, forming the western wall of a smaller building, probably the oldest synagogue phase. Interior. P Photo:hoto: The The Maribor Regional Office Oﬃce of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.Maribor—Sinagoga.

Figure 8. The expanded inner foundations, running parallel to the southernsouthern side. Interior. View of northeast corner. Photo: The Maribo Mariborr Regional Office Oﬃce of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.Maribor—Sinagoga.

It is hard to understand why such an important finding finding—the—the foundations of of a a smaller smaller space, space, which might even have functioned as the firstfirst synagogue—wassynagogue—was omitted from the finalfinal conservation reports. We We ar aree convinced that the smaller smaller space space indeed indeed predated predated the the later later expansions expansions of of the the building. building. There is also solid evidence of its original,original, sacredsacred functionfunction ((PremkPremk andand PremkPremk 20152015,, p.p. 54).54). Besides the foundations, fragments of small Gothic columns columns were were also also disco discoveredvered (Mikuž (Mikuž 1994,1994, p. 7). The stone stone pieces pieces of small small Gothic Gothic columns, which were a constituent part of a bimah, were were found during the excavations of the former medieval synagogue in Vienna and belonged to the third phase

Arts 2020, 9, 5 10 of 22 during the excavations of the former medieval synagogue in Vienna and belonged to the third phase of theArts building 2020, 9, x FOR (Heigert PEER REVIEW 2000, p. 192). But in the case of Maribor Synagogue, such an identification10 of 22 of the columns is mere speculation, since to our knowledge they were neither properly documented of the building (Heigert 2000, p. 192). But in the case of Maribor Synagogue, such an identification of nor preserved. the columns is mere speculation, since to our knowledge they were neither properly documented nor A square stone foundation was uncovered in the central part of the hall. Based on the archaeological preserved. report, itA was square used stone as the foundation base of a column was uncovered in the church’s in the architecture central part (Mikuž of the 1994 hall.). InBased the concluding on the conservationarchaeological report, report, the conclusionit was used as about the base the lateof a Medievalcolumn in originthe church’s of the architecture column was (Mikuž changed: 1994). InWe the expected concluding to conservation find the foundations report, the conclusion of bimah, about oneof the the late most Medieval important origin of parts the column of the wassynagogue changed: furnishings, which was generally brick built, however, precisely in the place where,We accordingexpected to to find the the analogy, foundations the bimah of bimah, should one stand, of the a most column important of a later parts date, of the which supportedsynagogue the furnishings, 19th century which vaults, was was generally standing. brick (Mikuž built, however,1999, pp. precisely 26–27) in the place where, according to the analogy, the bimah should stand, a column of a later date, which In the 19th century, the room was used for secular rather than ecclesiastical purposes. The question supported the 19th century vaults, was standing. (Mikuž 1999, pp. 26–27) arises as to whether a younger column could be leaning on an older foundation. It seems unusual thatIn during the 19th the century, 19th century the room renovations, was used for a secular foundation rather would than ecclesiastical have been purposes. made for The only question one of the twoarises supporting as to whether columns a younger of the vaults—the column could other be wasleaning not on found an older during foundation. archaeological It seems investigations. unusual Furthermore,that during the the most 19th commoncentury renovations, location of a bimahfoundationwould would be in have the middlebeen made of the for space, only one as supportedof the two supporting columns of the vaults—the other was not found during archaeological investigations. by responsa literature and numerous analogies. However, it is true that in the case of a two-column Furthermore, the most common location of a bimah would be in the middle of the space, as supported division of the space, the bimah might have been slightly shifted towards the eastern column by responsa literature and numerous analogies. However, it is true that in the case of a two-column (Paulusdivision 2007 of, p.the 532). space, the bimah might have been slightly shifted towards the eastern column (Paulus 2007,The p. existence 532). of a preserved foundation of the medieval column would support the assumptions about theThe possible existence division of a preserved of the foundation prayer room, of the somethingmedieval column that waswould very support common the assumptions in synagogue architectureabout the in possible the Middle division Ages. of Examples the prayer of room, medieval something Ashkenazi that was synagogues very common in which in synagogue the space was dividedarchitecture with one, in the two, Middle or even Ages. three Examples columns of aremedieval known Ashkenazi (Paulus 2007 synagogues, pp. 512–17). in which We the believe space that the foundationwas divided indeedwith one, supported two, or even one three of the columns two medieval are known columns (Paulus belonging 2007, pp. 512 to– the17). second We believe stage of the buildingthat the foundation (Premk and indeed Premk supported 2015, p. one 43). of the two medieval columns belonging to the second stage ofAlso the building interesting (Premk was and the Premk discovery 2015, ofp. 43). a 140 cm 110 cm large foundation next to the eastern × wall of theAlso hall interesting (Figure9 was). In the the discovery adjacent of wall, a 140 a cm niche × 110 for cm keeping large foundation the Torah next scrolls to the in eastern the synagogue wall (Aronof Kodeshthe hall) (Figure was found 5). In ( Mikužthe adjacent 1994 ,wall, p. 26). a niche The for new keeping interpretation the Torah of scrolls the findings in the synagogue answers the (Aron Kodesh) was found (Mikuž 1994, p. 26). The new interpretation of the findings answers the question of this foundation. In the hall with two columns, the location of the console on the east wall question of this foundation. In the hall with two columns, the location of the console on the east wall would be in the upper part of the niche, thus, the niche for keeping the Torah had not yet existed at that would be in the upper part of the niche, thus, the niche for keeping the Torah had not yet existed at time.that The time. Torah The Ark Torah must Ark have must been have of been a di ffoferent, a different, free-standing free-standing type andtype was and placed was placed on an on elevated an landing;elevated it was landing; this foundation it was this foundation that was discovered that was discovered (Premk and(Premk Premk and 2015Premk, p. 2015 43)., p. 43).

FigureFigure 9. View 9. View of theof the eastern eastern wall. wall. The The Torah Torah Ark Ark must must have have been been of of a a di different,ﬀerent, free-standing free-standing typetype and wasand placed wason placed an elevated on an elevated landing—the landing foundation—the foundation of which of which can be can seen be seen on the on leftthe sideleft side of the of picture.the picture. Interior. Photo: The Maribor Regional Office of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga. Interior. Photo: The Maribor Regional Oﬃce of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.

Arts 2020, 9, 5 11 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

In the archaeological sketchsketch of the findings,findings, the southern wall can be seen, doubled by a parallel running narrower foundationfoundation approximatelyapproximately aa metermeter toto thethe north.north. It is made of dry stones stones from from larger river pebbles, pebbles, forming forming part part of theof the protective protective wall. wall. It protects It protects the dry-stone the dry foundation-stone found andation the walkingand the surfacewalking for surface the defenders for the defenders on the inner on side the ofinner the sidesouthern of the town southern wall. The town surface wall. Theis additionally surface is confirmedadditionally by confirmed the discovery by the of thediscovery walled-in of passagethe walled on- thein passage southeastern on the corner southeastern of the present corner eastern of the wallpresent of the eastern synagogue wall of ( Mikužthe synagogue 1999, p. 7)(Mikuž (Figure 1999 10)., p. In 7) the (Figure southwestern 6). In the corner southwestern of the hall, corner a fragment of the ofhall, the a embrasure fragment of of the the original embrasure town of wall-which the original was town later wall split-which by a built-in was later elongated split bywindow-was a built-in visibleelongated (Mikuž window 1994-was, p. 2).visible It is (Mikuž possible 1994, that thisp. 2). part It is of possible the wall that was this built part next of tothe the wall Drava was Riverbuilt fornext defense to the Drava purposes, River and for therefore defense purposes, existed even and before therefore overall existed fortification even before of the overall settlement fortification in the 13thof the century settlement (Sapaˇc in the 2013 13th). Incentury this case, (Sapač the 2013). building In this of the case, synagogue the building was of not the envisioned synagogue togetherwas not withenvisioned the construction together with of the the originalconstruction town of wall, the original but could town have wall, been but erected could afterhave abeen fire, erected traceable after in thea fire, archaeological traceable in excavations. the archaeological On the outer excavations. side of the On eastern the outer wall side of the of synagogue, the eastern at wall a depth of the of 3.5synagogue, m, a scorched at a depth layer andof 3.5 burnt m, a woodenscorched beams layer wereand burnt found, wooden along with beams a topsoil were found, layer with along remnants with a oftopsoil human layer bones with underneath remnants of it. human The archaeological bones underneath report it. mentions The archaeological the possibility report that mentions these bones the belongpossibility to the that victims these bones of a fire belong of a wooden to the victims roof construction, of a fire of a possiblywooden setroof up construction, for the defenders possibly along set theup for inner the side defenders of the townalong wall the inner (Mikuž side 1994 of ,the p. 8).town wall (Mikuž 1994, p. 8).

Figure 10. Eastern wall of thethe synagoguesynagogue duringduring excavations.excavations. Interior. Photo: The Maribor Regional OOfficeﬃce of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.Maribor—Sinagoga.

It would be logical for the destroyed sections to have been restored as soon as possible, perhaps ﬁnancedfinanced by private funds; in this case, Jewish moneymoney wouldwould havehave beenbeen welcome.welcome. The structure of the southern wall of the the façade façade shows shows at at least least two two medieval medieval construction construction phases. phases. The older was built in straight even layers with partially carvedcarved stone elements, connected with lime mortar, while the younger phase, made of uneven layers, was was put put in in place place to to repair repair the the older older one. one. The collapse could have happened because of damage to the defense system sustained during an attack, a ﬁrefire or becausebecause ofof lacklack ofof maintenancemaintenance ((MikužMikuž 19941994,, p.p. 8). The later Christian use of the building is attested to by four skeletal graves which were found in the central part of thethe hall.hall. These were not Jewish burials, potentially linked to the adjacent Jewish cemetery, since the deceased in the second grave had his hands folded on his stomach and a rosary wrapped around them. He died a violent death, as his skull was pierced with a sharp object. Next to

Arts 2020, 9, 5 12 of 22 cemetery, since the deceased in the second grave had his hands folded on his stomach and a rosary Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22 wrapped around them. He died a violent death, as his skull was pierced with a sharp object. Next to one of thethe deceased,deceased, thethe bones bones of of a a child child were were found. found. Thus, Thus, the the graves graves point point to theto the former former Christian Christian use useof the of building the building (Mikuž (Mikuž 1994, pp. 1994, 6–7). pp. They 6–7). might They also might be connected also be connected to the Turkish to the siege Turkish of Maribor siege of in 1532Maribor (Mlinariˇc in 1532 2001 (Mlinarič). At that 2001). time At the that town time wall the had town not yetwall reached had not the yet Drava, reached so thethe buildingDrava, so stood the buildingright on thestood front right line. on the front line. During the the probation probation of of the the wall, wall, an an entrance entrance portal portal made made of ofgrey grey sandstone sandstone was was discovered discovered on theon thewest west side side of the of hall, the hall, on the on lower the lower level. level. It was It separated was separated from fromthe ground the ground floor with floor three with stairs three (Figurestairs (Figure 7). It had 11). a Itrod had-shaped a rod-shaped profile, profile,a spiral ascroll spiral and scroll was and made was in made the late in theGothic late period Gothic (Mikuž period 1994,(Mikuž p. 19941). The, p. right 1). The side right of the side portal of the was portal sufficiently was su ffipreservedciently preserved so that reconstruction so that reconstruction was possible, was althoughpossible, althoughthe realization the realization of the stairs of the lacks stairs historic lacks accuracy, historic accuracy, as recorded as recorded by the chief by the restorer. chief restorer. There wereThere spolia were spoliafound foundon the onlower the area lower of area the portal, of the portal,dating datingto before to before1400. Another 1400. Another fragment fragment of a portal of a wasportal discovered was discovered on the onnorthern the northern wall of wall the western of the western extension, extension, belonging belonging to the last to the synagogue last synagogue phase (Mikužphase (Mikuž 2000, pp. 2000 164, pp.–65). 164–65).

Figure 11. TheThe entrance entrance portal portal to to the the main main hall hall from from the the west, west, a a fragment fragment of of a a rod rod-shape-shape profile. proﬁle. Photo: Photo: The Maribor Regional OOfficeﬃce of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.Maribor—Sinagoga.

A small niche was also revealed in the eastern part of the the southern southern wall; wall; however, however, it was poorly preserved due to numerous reconstructionreconstruction eeffortsﬀorts (Figure(Figure 12 8).). Several Several reconstructions reconstructions of of the the windows windows were visible in the southern wall of the hall, while two older reconstructions in in stone stone were were visible, visible, although notnot thethe latest,latest, Gothic Gothic one. one. Also Also intriguing intriguing are are two two arched-topped arched-topped windows windows in the in westernthe western wall wallof the of western the western extension, extension, which were which wrongly were wrongly identiﬁed identified as Romanesque as Romanesque and belong and most belong probably most to probablythe initial to phase the initial of the phase extension of the hall extension (cf. Mikuž hall 2000 (cf. ,Mikuž p. 165). 2000,16 p. 165).16

16 Marjan Teržan argues in the oral interview that they did not belong to the alleged older (Romanesque) building on the western side of the present annex, but form part of the annex, opening outwards and not inwards.

Arts 2020, 9, 5 13 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

Figure 12. A niche in the southern wall of the hall. Interior. Photo: The Maribor Regional Office of the Figure 12. A ni nicheche in the southern wall of the hall. Interior. Photo: The The Maribor Maribor Regional Office Oﬃce of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga. IPCHS, Fond Maribor—Sinagoga.Maribor—Sinagoga.

Fragments of former vault bays, keystones and profiles proﬁles of (door) frames, which were used as construction material in later reconstructio reconstructions,ns, were found during the probing of the building’s walls 1717 (Figure 139).).17

Figure 13. Architectural elements found during excavations. Only few fragments are displayed in Figure 13.13. ArchitecturalArchitectural elementselements found found during during excavations. excavations. Only Only few few fragments fragments are displayedare displayed in situ, in situ, others are missing. Interior. Photo: The Maribor Regional Office of the IPCHS, Fond Maribor— otherssitu, others are missing. are missing. Interior. Interior. Photo: Photo: The Maribor The Maribor Regional Regional Oﬃce of Office the IPCHS, of the Fond IPCHS, Maribor—Sinagoga. Fond Maribor— Sinagoga. Sinagoga.

17 Very few preserved fragments are displayed in situ; it was impossible to trace all the missing material for the needs of the present research.

17 Very few preserved fragments are displayed in situ; it was impossible to trace all the missing material for 17 Very few preserved fragments are displayed in situ; it was impossible to trace all the missing material for the needs of the present research. the needs of the present research.

Arts 2020, 9, 5 14 of 22

During examination of the ruins, part of a broken Jewish tombstone was found in the cave on the outer side of the northern wall of the building as were some other fragments on the excavation area.18 It was probably shattered during previous construction eﬀorts.

4. Medieval Phases of the Building Based on archaeological findings only, it is evident that there were several construction phases, which had begun as early as the Middle Ages. Part of phase one are the foundations of the sacred space, which is 1/3 shorter than the reconstructed hall and concludes at the wall. This space is almost square (Figure 14), although the sides do not meet at a precise right angle. The foundations lie north–south, however, enclosing an area of approximately 7.5 cm 7.3 m (cf. Paulus 2007, pp. 402–3). × This includes the niche on the southern wall, located in the axis of the space. Bearing in mind that the niche belonged to the oldest medieval phase of the building, it was probably used for religious purposes. If the uncovered space was indeed the oldest phase of the synagogue, the niche could have functioned as a Torah Ark. This is further supported by a limestone screed with the imprints of the pavement, which was found during archaeological excavations, next to it. The screed extends to the niche, as documented in the archaeological sketch, and was probably the original (sub)pavement of the synagogue (Premk and Premk 2015, p. 54) (Figure 15). The southward orientation deviates from the common practice in this part of Europe of positioning synagogues eastward. This might have been because of the location of the oldest Jewish burial ground in Maribor, which supposedly adjoined the eastern side of the synagogue (Mikuž 1994, p. 8).19 Thus, the most sacred part of the synagogue was turned away from the cemetery, but still in the direction of Jerusalem, within a tolerated deviation. Based on the research, the windows also point towards two reconstruction phases before the last, Gothic one—there are traces of windows on the left and right of the niche. One would enter from the side, as is usual for a synagogue, probably from a built vestibule. It is possible to compare the ground plan of the first discovered phase of the synagogue with the first phase of the synagogue in Erfurt, dated between 1250 and 1270. The first synagogue in Judenplatz in Vienna (Figure 16), dated around 1250, and the original synagogue in Rouffach (Alsace) (Paulus 2007, pp. 487–92, 515), which also stood next to a cemetery and was built ca. 1290, have almost a square ground plan as well. The first phase of the Maribor Synagogue could have been built in the last third of the 13th century, although there is insufficient historic evidence to support such an early date.

18 The Maribor historian also witnessed one of “the many existing” tombstones—that of the Jewish woman Rosa (Puff 1847, p. 46). 19 The first cemetery is not mentioned in the known archival sources, but there are quite a few other testimonies. Vladimir Travner mentions the location as adjacent to the synagogue, beside the city walls. He further argues that in spite of the religious prohibition, the cemetery had to have been placed in the confined area of the ghetto (Travner 1935, p. 155). The toponym of Judenfriedhof is well preserved and can be traced on historic postcards as late as 1915 (held in Regional archives Maribor). Preserved tombstones and tombstone fragments found in the wider area of the Jewish quarter provide material proof, as well as partially readable fragments built into the walls of the building as spolia (Mikuž 1994, p. 2). Unfortunately, we can only guess as to the exact location and appearance of the fragments, since they were not properly documented. They might be identified with some of the fragments shown in the synagogue on permanent display. Preliminary Georadar (GPR) scanning carried out by the IPCHS in 2004 in the area between the synagogue and the so-called Jewish tower also revealed objects in the ground, possible cemetery leftovers. The report is kept by the IPCHS, Ljubljana. Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, 5 15 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

Figure 14. Ground plan of the first synagogue phase. Architectural drawing: Nejc Bernik, based on a Figure 14. templateFigure by14. GroundAnja Ground Premk. planplan ofof thethe ﬁrstfirst synagogue synagogue phase. phase. ArchitecturalArchitectural drawing:drawing: NejcNejc Bernik,Bernik, basedbased onon aa templatetemplate by by Anja Anja Premk. Premk.

Figure 15. Figure 15. ArchaeologicalArchaeological sketch sketch of ofthe the findings findings inserted inserted into into the the ground ground plan plan of of the the first first synagogue synagogue phase. Archaeological sketch: Mihela Kajzer Cafnik, 1994. Yellow designates screed, and red stands for phase.Figure Archaeological 15. Archaeological sketch: sketch Mihela of Kajzethe findingsr Cafnik, inserted 1994. Yellow into the designates ground plan screed, of the and first red synagogue stands brown soil. The walls are built with stone and mortar; purple designates brick. The archeological chart forphase. brown Archaeological soil. The walls sketch:are built Mihela with stone Kajze andr Cafnik, mortar; 1994. purple Yellow designates designates brick. screed, The archeologicaland red stands clearly reveals the first structure, as shown by the overlaying groundplan. The unearthed foundation chartfor brown clearly soil. reveals The thewalls first are structure, built with asstone shown and bymortar; the overlayingpurple designates groundplan. brick. The archeological unearthed of the western wall with the three other sides form an almost square space. The most intriguing finding foundationchart clearly of the reveals western the wall first with structure, the three as shownother sides by the form overlaying an almost groundplan. square space. The The unearthed most is the screed (yellow), which is extended precisely into the southern wall to the niche, located in the intriguingfoundation finding of the is westernthe screed wall (yellow), with the which three is other extended sides precisely form an intoalmost the square southern space. wall The to themost wall of the reconstructed hall. It points to the southward positioning of the first synagogue, a deviation niche,intriguing located finding in the wallis the of screedthe reconstructed (yellow), which hall. Itis poiextendednts to the precisely southward into positioningthe southern of wall the firstto the from the usual eastward orientation. The narrow wall, running parallel to the southern wall, was most synagogue,niche, located a deviation in the wallfrom of the the usual reconstructed eastward orientation.hall. It points The to narrowthe southward wall, running positioning parallel of tothe the first likely used as support for a wooden defense system. southernsynagogue, wall, a was deviation most likely from usedthe usual as support eastward for orientation.a wooden defense The narrow system. wall, running parallel to the southern wall, was most likely used as support for a wooden defense system.

Arts 2020, 9, 5 16 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

FigureFigure 16. 16.Vienna, Vienna, the the first first synagogue synagogue phase, phase, ca. ca. 1250. 1250. Sketch: Sketch: AnjaAnja Premk.Premk. In the 14th century, the number of Jews in Maribor was growing, and the synagogue needed to In the 14th century, the number of Jews in Maribor was growing, and the synagogue needed to be enlarged. In 1354, when it was first mentioned in the sources, the building had probably already be enlarged. In 1354, when it was first mentioned in the sources, the building had probably already been extended. The expansion is also connected to the abandonment of the cemetery next to the been extended. The expansion is also connected to the abandonment of the cemetery next to the synagogue and the purchase of the land for the cemetery outside the city walls, first mentioned in 1367 synagogue and the purchase of the land for the cemetery outside the city walls, first mentioned in (Mlinariˇc 1996, p. 6). At that time it was possible to orientate the synagogue towards the east, and with 1367 (Mlinarič 1996, p. 6). At that time it was possible to orientate the synagogue towards the east, the inclusion of the anteroom into the hall, it was possible to expand the synagogue by one third and and with the inclusion of the anteroom into the hall, it was possible to expand the synagogue by one thus obtain a ground plan ratio of 2:3 (Figure 17). The western wall of the hall had to be demolished third and thus obtain a ground plan ratio of 2:3 (Figure 13). The western wall of the hall had to be and a column was built on its foundations. Together with the second column—the foundation of demolished and a column was built on its foundations. Together with the second column—the which was uncovered through archaeological research—the space was divided, with a bimah standing foundation of which was uncovered through archaeological research—the space was divided, with a between the columns (Figure 18). Based on the findings, the columns stood slightly further apart than bimah standing between the columns (Figure 14). Based on the findings, the columns stood slightly the ideal thirds, which was not uncommon for the spatial organization of a synagogue (Paulus 2007, pp. further apart than the ideal thirds, which was not uncommon for the spatial organization of a 512–17). The column supported the ceiling, which was divided into six square vault bays—at the top synagogue (Paulus 2007, pp. 512–17). The column supported the ceiling, which was divided into six of which, three discovered wreath-rimmed keystones with an outset of perpendicular crossed ribs may square vault bays—at the top of which, three discovered wreath-rimmed keystones with an outset of have been placed (Premk 2018, pp. 87–89). The identification of the three keystones as forming part of perpendicular crossed ribs may have been placed (Premk 2018, pp. 87–89). The identification of the the same vault is additional confirmation of our two-column theory (Figure 19). The outset angle of the three keystones as forming part of the same vault is additional confirmation of our two-column two keystones with the grape is slightly different to the angle of the two others, which can be simply theory (Figure 15). The outset angle of the two keystones with the grape is slightly different to the explained by the minimally dissimilar dimensions of the two middle bays (Premk 2018, pp. 79–82). angle of the two others, which can be simply explained by the minimally dissimilar dimensions of The reason it was initially assumed that they formed two different building phases is the fact that due the two middle bays (Premk 2018, pp. 79–82). The reason it was initially assumed that they formed to the perpendicular outset of the ribs, a three-bay division of the space would not have been possible. two different building phases is the fact that due to the perpendicular outset of the ribs, a three-bay Besides, three additional keystones forming the vault of the three southern bays are missing. However, division of the space would not have been possible. Besides, three additional keystones forming the in the final conservation report, the possibility of a six-bay division of the vault, supported by two vault of the three southern bays are missing. However, in the final conservation report, the possibility columns, was completely left out of consideration (Premk 2018). The eight discovered consoles also of a six-bay division of the vault, supported by two columns, was completely left out of consideration correspond to this arrangement, however, the three outside buttresses do not, meaning that they were (Premk 2018). The eight discovered consoles also correspond to this arrangement, however, the three not yet built to their present height at that time. They were lower and perhaps extended much later outside buttresses do not, meaning that they were not yet built to their present height at that time. because of the static demands of the new construction (Premk 2018, p. 82).20 Modifications of the They were lower and perhaps extended much later because of the static demands of the new southern wall are also visible from the archaeological sketch. construction (Premk 2018, p. 82). 20 Modifications of the southern wall are also visible from the archaeological sketch.

20 The principal chief conservator Janez Mikuž did not cite any of the reports and articles on the building published by the previous director of the IPCHS, Maribor Regional Oﬃce, Jože Curk. Curk considered several possible vault schemes, even a nine cross rib vault. Also, he did so without being familiar with the emerging archeological ﬁndings in the early 1990s. See ( Curk 1966 , p. 71). 20 The principal chief conservator Janez Mikuž did not cite any of the reports and articles on the building published by the previous director of the IPCHS, Maribor Regional Office, Jože Curk. Curk considered several possible vault schemes, even a nine cross rib vault. Also, he did so without being familiar with the emerging archeological findings in the early 1990s. See (Curk 1966, p. 71).

ArtsArts 20202020,, 99,, 5x FOR PEER REVIEW 1717 ofof 2222 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

Figure 17. Ground plan of the second synagogue phase. Architectural drawing: Nejc Bernik, based on FigureFigure 17.17. Ground plan of the second synagogue phase.phase. Architectural drawing:drawing: Nejc Bernik, basedbased onon a template by Anja Premk. aa templatetemplate byby AnjaAnja Premk.Premk.

FigureFigure 18. 18.Archaeological Archaeological sketch sketch of theof ﬁndings the findings inserted inserted into the into ground the plan ground of the plan second of the synagogue second Figure 18. Archaeological sketch of the findings inserted into the ground plan of the second phase.synagogue Archaeological phase. Archaeological sketch: Mihela sketch: Kajzer Mihel Cafnik.a Kajzer The hall Cafnik. was extendedThe hall was towards extended the west, towards which the is synagogue phase. Archaeological sketch: Mihela Kajzer Cafnik. The hall was extended towards the whywest, the which western is why wall the of western the initial wall building of the initial had to building be pulled had down. to be Partpulled of thatdown. wall Part was of usedthat wall as a west, which is why the western wall of the initial building had to be pulled down. Part of that wall foundationwas used as for a foundation one of the twofor one columns, of the dividingtwo columns, the new dividing space the into new six squarespace into vault six bays square and vault two was used as a foundation for one of the two columns, dividing the new space into six square vault naves.bays and The two foundation naves. The for the foundation Tora Ark for can the be seen Tora on Ark the can eastern be seen side. on A fewthe tombstones,eastern side. located A few bays and two naves. The foundation for the Tora Ark can be seen on the eastern side. A few betweentombstones, the twolocated columns, between were the also two revealed, columns, which were turned also revealed, out to be which of later, turned Christian out to origin. be of later, tombstones, located between the two columns, were also revealed, which turned out to be of later, Christian origin. Christian origin.

ArtsArts 20202020,, 99,, 5x FOR PEER REVIEW 1818 ofof 2222 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 19(. a)Maribor Synagogue, three keystones(b) with an outset of perpendicular(c) crossed ribs, Figurebelonging 19. 19. Maribor toMaribor the second Synagogue, Synagogue, phase threeof the three keystones building keystones: with (a) a anwith keystone, outset an ofoutset decorated perpendicular of perpendicular with crossed an eight ribs, crossedpointed belonging ribs,star, tobelonging(b) the a secondkeystone to the phase with second of a the motif phase building: of of a the grape (a )building a keystone,on a :pointed (a) decorated a keystone, shield, with decoratedencircled an eight bywith pointed a coilan eight star, consisting ( bpointed) a keystone of star two, with(intertwiningb) a akeystone motif ofgirdles, a with grape a(c ) motifon a keystone, a pointed of a grape decorated shield, on encircled a pointedby a turban by shield, a coilgirdle consistingencircled made of byof rounded two a coil intertwining consistingbelts. Photo girdles, of Janez two (intertwiningPremkc) a keystone,. girdles, decorated (c) a by keystone, a turban decorated girdle made by a of turban rounded girdle belts. made Photo of rounded Janez Premk. belts. Photo Janez Premk. WhenWhen the synagogue was turned towards the east, a new Torah Ark location had to be found. AccordingAccordingWhen totothe thethe synagogue constructionconstruction was ofofturned thethe vault,vault, towards thisthis the areaarea east, waswas a notnotnew formedformed Torah asArkas aa niche,locationniche, whichwhich had to wouldwould be found. havehave weakenedAccordingweakened thetheto the wall,wall, construction butbut waswas instead of the freestanding—thefreestanding vault, this area—the was foundation not formed next as to a theniche, east which side attests would to have that. TheweakenedThe windows windows the werewall, were alsobut also rebuiltwas rebuilt instead then then forfreestanding the for ﬁrst the time—the first—the time foundation discovered—the discovered next segments to the segments east ofthe side lancet attests of the windows to lancet that. couldThewindows windows also could belong were also to thisbe alsolong phase rebuilt to this (Mikuž then phase 2000 for (Mikuž the, p. 164).first 2000, time When p. —164).the When hall discovered was the expanded, hall segments was expanded, a new of the anteroom lanceta new hadwindowsanteroom to be builtcouldhad andto also be was builtbelong constructed and to wasthis phaseconstructed on the (Mikuž western on 2000, the side. westernp. Numerous 164). Whenside. similarNumerous the hall examples was similar expanded, of examples synagogues a new of fromanteroomsynagogues that timehad from canto bethat be built found time and can in was Europe. be found constructed The in Europe. most on famous the The western most Old Newfamous side. Synagogue Numerous Old New in Synagogue similar Prague examples (last in quarterPrague of ofsynagogues(last the quarter 13th century) from of the that 13th has time ancentury) identicalcan be has found ground an identical in Europe. plan in grounda The 2:3 ratio,most plan famous dividedin a 2:3 Old byratio, two New divided columns, Synagogue by whichtwo in columns, Prague also do not(lastwhich correspond quarter also do of notthe entirely correspond13th tocentury) the idealentirely has thirds an to identical the (Paulus ideal ground 2007 thirds, pp. plan (Paulus 437–48) in a 2007,2:3 (Figure ratio, pp. divided20437).– Two48) by(Figure columns two columns,16 divide). Two thewhichcolumns synagogue also divide do not space the correspond synagogue in Worms entirely and space in Judenplatzin to Worms the ideal and in thirds Vienna in Judenplatz (Paulus (2nd phase, 2007, in Vienna beginningpp. 437 (2nd–48) of phase,(Figure the 14th beginning 16 century)). Two ascolumnsof wellthe 14th (Heigert divide century) the2000 synagogueas) (Figure well (Heigert 21 space). 2000) in Worms (Figure and 17 ).in Judenplatz in Vienna (2nd phase, beginning of the 14th century) as well (Heigert 2000) (Figure 17).

FigureFigure 20.20. Prague, Old New Synagogue, last quarter ofof thethe 13th13th century.century. Sketch:Sketch: Anja Premk.Premk. Figure 20. Prague, Old New Synagogue, last quarter of the 13th century. Sketch: Anja Premk. TheThe thirdthird constructionconstruction phasephase oror thethe rebuildingrebuilding ofof thethe synagoguesynagogue datesdates backback toto 1477,1477, whenwhen thethe building of a Jewish school (Judenshul) in Maribor is mentioned. The last synagogue phase is connected buildingThe third of a construction Jewish school phase (Judenshul or the) rebuilding in Maribor of isthe mentioned. synagogue Thedates last back synagogue to 1477, when phase the is to extensive restoration work and arrangements on the town wall in and after 1465, resulting also buildingconnected of to a extensive Jewish school restoration (Judenshul work) in and Maribor arrangements is mentioned. on the The town last wall synagogue in and after phase 1465, is in construction of the “Jewish tower” in 1477 (Mlinariˇc 2000, pp. 54–55). The rebuilding was most connectedresulting also to in extensive construction restoration of the “Jewish work and tower” arrangements in 1477 (Mlinarič on the 2000, town pp. wall 54– 55). in and The afterrebuilding 1465, likely carried out along with general fortiﬁcation of the city wall (Sapaˇc 2013, p. 16), although there resultingwas most also likely in construction carried out of along the “Jewish with general tower” fortification in 1477 (Mlinarič of the 2000, city pp. wall 54 – (Sapač55). The 2013, rebuilding p. 16), might have been additional reasons, such as a landslide, mentioned in the report on the archeological wasalthough most there likely might carried have out been along additional with general reasons, fortification such as a landslide, of the city mentioned wall (Sapač in the 2013, report p. 16), on excavations (Mikuž 1994), or weakening of the southern part of the synagogue wall, caused by the althoughthe archeological there might excavations have been (Mikuž additional 1994), reasons,or weakening such asof thea landslide, southern mentioned part of the synagoguein the report wall, on Baumkircher conquest of Maribor in 1469 (Germania Judaica: 1350–1519 2003, p. 837, n. 13c). thecaused archeological by the Baumkircher excavations conquest (Mikuž 1994),of Maribor or weakening in 1469 ( Germaniaof the southern Judaica: part 1350 of– the1519 synagogue 2003, p. 837, wall, n. caused13c). by the Baumkircher conquest of Maribor in 1469 (Germania Judaica: 1350–1519 2003, p. 837, n. 13c).

Arts 2020, 9, 5 19 of 22 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22

FigureFigure 21.21. Vienna, secondsecond phase,phase, beforebefore 1296.1296. Sketch: Anja Premk.Premk.

The Jews Jews had had to to also also take take care care of the of wallthe wall delimiting delimiting the southeastern the southeastern section section of the Jewish of the quarter. Jewish Inquarter. this phase, In this the phase, synagogue the synagogue hall was rebuilthall was in therebuilt late in Gothic the late style. Gothic The windowsstyle. The withwindows a segmental with a archsegmental and both arch of and the both discovered of the discovered late Gothic late portals Gothic could portals be placedcould be in placed this phase, in this although phase, although there is athere possibility is a possibility that the that portals the portals were built were when built thewhen synagogue the synagogue was turned was turned into a into church, a church, before before 1500. The1500. raising The raising of the buttressesof the buttresses would havewould necessitated have necessitated changes changes to the vault. to the We vault. can presumeWe can presume that due tothat static, due thereto stati isc, a there possibility is a possibility of a more of elaborate, a more elaborate, star-like vault,star-like transmitting vault, transmitting force to theforce walls to the in awalls more in even a more manner. even manner. Maybe that Maybe is what that theis what Maribor the Maribor historian historian Rudolf Gustav Rudolf PuGustavff saw Puff in the saw first in halfthe first of the half 19th of the century, 19th century, when he when mentioned he mentioned “the richly “the ribbed richly stoneribbed vaulting stone vaulting of the ceiling, of the ceiling, whose supportingwhose supporting stones emanatestones emanate into finely into chiselled finely chiselled stars” ( Pustars”ff 1847 (Puff, p. 1847, 45). Nevertheless,p. 45). Nevertheless, the Gothic the windowsGothic windows had already had already been changed been changed before Pu beforeff’s writing, Puffʼs sincewriting, he only since saw he only “remains saw of“remains four windows of four withwindows a pointed with arch,a pointed two rectangulararch, two rectangular and one rose and window” one rose ( Puwindow”ff 1847, p.(Puff 45). 1847, A niche p. 45). in theA niche eastern in wallthe eastern was also wall discovered; was also discovered; by reconstructing by reconstructing the vault, it the was vault, possible it was to possible move the to Torahmove Arkthe Torah away intoArk theaway wall, into although the wall, it isalthough difficult it to is discern difficult the to real discern proportions the real from proportions the preserved from documentation the preserved alone.documentation There is serious alone. doubt There as is to serious the dimensions doubt as of to the the reconstructed dimensions version, of the especiallyreconstructed in relation version, to theespecially height of in the relation consoles to the supporting height of the the vault, consoles and dimensions supporting of the the vault, windows, and dimensions which must of have the beenwindows, shorter which during must the have synagogue been shorter phase during (Klein 2019the synagogue). Besides, thephase two (Klein keystones 2019). with Besides, the outset the two of sharp-anglekeystones with crossed the ribs,outset used of sharp in the-angle reconstruction crossed ribs, of the used main in hall, the mightreconstruction have been of initially the main located hall, inmight the entrance have been hall. initially Was the located lack of in the the additional entrance hall. two keystonesWas the lack of the of the entrance additional hall the two reason keystones that the of medievalthe entrance cross hall ribbed the reason vault wasthat notthe reconstructedmedieval cross in ribbed spite of vault the entirely was not preserved reconstructed medieval in spite consoles? of the Becauseentirely preserved of the (late) medieval Baroque consoles? reconstruction Because of of the the vault (late) in Baroque the entrance reconstruction hall, its medieval of the vault origin in the is nearlyentrance lost, hall, in spiteits medieval of the two origin preserved is nearly Gothic lost, arched-topped in spite of the windowstwo preserved and preserved Gothic arched consoles-topped with thewindows onset ofand the preserved cross ribbed consoles vault. with Another the onset question of the concerns cross ribbed the northernvault. Another annex. question If it at all concerns existed inthe the northern medieval annex. period, If it it at probably all existed was in built the duringmedieval the period, last synagogue it probably phase was or built later during and consisted the last initiallysynagogue of aphase single or floor. later Sinceand consisted there are initially literally of no a material single floor. remains Since of there a vault are system, literally as no described material byremains the Maribor of a vault historian system, Pu asff ,described and the argumentation by the Maribor for historian the reconstructed Puff, and the version argumentation remains far for from the convincing,reconstructed speculation version remains about the far last from synagogue convincing, phase sp willeculation have toabout be left the out last of synagogue future considerations. phase will Thehave same to be holds left out true of for future many considerations. other questions The linked same to holds the former true for synagogue many other in Maribor, questions such linked as the to windowthe former and synagogue door positioning, in Maribor, the northern such as annex, the window which mightand door or might positioning, not yet have the northern been built annex, in the lastwhich synagogue might or phase might (if not yes, yet it have certainly been must built have in the consisted last synagogue of a single phase and (if not yes, two it floors,certainly as inmust the reconstructedhave consisted version), of a single the locationand not oftwo the floors, bimah, as and in the locationreconstructed of women. version), the location of the bimah, and the location of women. 5. Conclusions 5. ConclusionsFour medieval construction phases can therefore be identified:

PhaseFour medieval one of the constru synagoguection (13thphases/14th can century); therefore be identified: •  Phase two of the synagogue (towards the middle of the 14th century); • Phase one of the synagogue (13th/14th century);  PhasePhase three,two of the the late synagogue Gothic phase (towards of the the synagogue middle of (1465–1477);the 14th century); •  Phase three, the late Gothic phase of the synagogue (1465–1477);

Arts 2020, 9, 5 20 of 22

The late medieval church phase (1498–1501), which most probably left the sacred space • architecturally intact.

Almost nothing was said about the first two phases in the final conservation report, although, as shown in this article, they are better traceable from the archaeological and architectural points of view. The archaeological examination, lacking a contemporary methodological approach and in documentary precision, still provided solid support for the definition of the earliest building stages. The preserved archival and secondary source documents attest to it, as does the architectural examination of the documented building elements. The archaeological findings should have been taken into account during the decision-making process at the very beginning of the conservation project. In the analytical phase, conclusions were drawn too quickly, focusing only on a limited number of findings. By relying on the height of the outside buttresses and ignoring the changes in the architectural shell, the archaeological and architectural remains became obsolete and did not fit into any other reconstruction schemes but the one realized. In order to find convincing evidence for the last medieval building stage, and to create a virtual reconstruction of the initial two phases, archaeological research must be carried out, which focuses on a wider area of the synagogue, beyond the scope of the main hall, and utilizes modern technology. This must also be accompanied by a thorough analysis of the preserved testimonies relating to the former sanctuary. Many questions regarding the architectural history of the building thus still remain unanswered. However, with all the evidence and intriguing conclusions provided in this article, rebutting previous theories and interpretations, a solid foundation for further research has already been put in place.

Funding: The research was conducted as part of bilateral project entitled Digitization of Jewish Heritage in Slovenia, cofounded by Slovenian Research Agency, project code NI-0003 (B), and Ministry of Science and Technology of the State of Israel. Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the architects Anja Premk and Nejc Bernik for their contributions, Nika Vaupotiˇcfor her preceding translation and Neja Podbevšek and Kirsten Hempkin for proofreading. Conﬂicts of Interest: The author declares no conﬂict of interest.

References

Borský, Maroš. 2007. Synagogue Architecture in Slovakia: A Memorial Landscape of a Lost Community. Bratislava: Jewish Heritage foundation-Menorah. Brugger, Eveline. 2006. Geschichte der Juden in Österreich. Österreichische Geschichte. Wien: Ueberreuter. Brugger, Eveline, and Birgit Wiedl. 2010. Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden in Österreich im Mittelalter. 2 vols. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, pp. 1339–65. Curk, Jože. 1966. Urbanistiˇcno-gradbenizgodovinski oris I. Casopisˇ za Zgodovino in Narodopisje 37: 6–95. Eidelberg, Shlomo. 1962. Jewish Life in Austria in the XVth Century; as Reﬂected in the Legal Writings of Rabbi Israel Isserlein and His Contemporaries. Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. Germania Judaica. 1968. 2 vol. Avneri, Zvi, ed. Tübingen: Mohr. Germania Judaica: 1350–1519. 2003. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr. Gradivo za Zgodovino Maribora. 1975–2019. 2–11 vols. Maribor: Pokrajinski Arhiv. Grossmann, Avraham. 1977. A Fourteenth Century Ashkenazi Letter of Vision and Chastisement. Cathedra 4: 190–98. Gruber, Ruth Ellen. 2002. Virtually Jewish: Reinventing Jewish Culture in Europe. The S. Mark Taper Foundation Imprint in Jewish Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gruber, Ruth Ellen, and Samuel D. Gruber. 2000. Jewish monuments in Slovenia. Casopisˇ za Zgodovino in Narodopisje 2: 1–2. Available online: http://www.sistory.si/cdn/publikacije/8001-9000/8011/2000_1-2_Casopis_ za_zgodovino_in_narodopisje.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2019). GZM. 1985. Gradivo za Zgodovino Maribora. 11 vols. Maribor: Pokrajinski Arhiv. Hajdinjak, Boris. 2013. Judje srednjeveškega Ptuja. In Slovenski Judje: zgodovina in holokavst: Pregled raziskovalnih tematik 2. Edited by Irena Šumi and Hannah Starman. Maribor: Center of Jewish Cultural Heritage Synagogue, pp. 62–88. Arts 2020, 9, 5 21 of 22

Harck, Ole. 2014. Archäologische Studien zum Judentum in der Europäischen Antike und dem Zentraleuropäischen Mittelalter. Schriftenreihe der Bet Tfila-Forschungsstelle für jüdische Architektur in Europa. 7 vols. Petersberg: Michael Imhof. Heigert, Heidrun. 2000. Die Spätmittelalterliche Synagoge in Wien (13–15. Jahrhundert). Casopisˇ za Zgodovino in Narodopisje, Review for History and Ethnography = Judovski Zbornik. Available online: http://www. sistory.si/cdn/publikacije/8001-9000/8011/2000_1-2_Casopis_za_zgodovino_in_narodopisje.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2019). JelinˇciˇcBoeta, Klemen. 2009. Judje na Slovenskem v Srednjem veku. Judje na Koroškem, Štajerskem, Kranjskem, Goriškem, v Trstu in Istri v Srednjem veku do Izgonov v Letih 1496–1515. Ljubljana: Slovenska Matica. Joseph bar Moshe. 1903. Leket Yosher: Orach Hayyim. Edited by Jakob Freimann Jeruslem. Berlin: Itzkowski. (In Hebrew) Keil, Martha. 1998. In der Juden Schul-die mittelalterliche Synagoge als Gotteshaus, Amtsraum und Brennpunkt sozialen Lebens. Frankenland. Zeitschrift für Fränkische Landeskunde und Kulturpflege 4: 252–60. Klein, Rudolf. 2017. Synagogues in Hungary, 1782–1918: Genealogy, Typology and Architectural Significance. Budapest: Terc. Klein, Rudolf. 2019. The Medieval Synagogue in Maribor. Context, Architecture and Restoration. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_5o7WHv9Y&list=PLhFhF0KvGfSXVPhwtAZeVdlhrK0JJWJ04& index=3.Youtube (accessed on 30 October 2019). Kravtsov, Sergey R., and Vladimir Levin. 2017. Synagogues in Ukraine: Volhynia. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center and Center for Jewish Art. Kurahs, Hermann. 2014. Verwehrte Heimat: Die Jüdische Geschichte Radkersburgs vom Mittelalter bis in die Gegenwart. Wien: Lit-Verl. Mikuž, Janez. 1994. Jewish Temple-the Synagogue in Maribor. Report on Archeological Excavations. Maribor: Zavod za varstvo naravne in kulturne dedišˇcineMaribor. Mikuž, Janez. 1999. Sinagoga v Mariboru: Raziskave, rekonstrukcija, restavracija in prezentacija. Letno Poroˇcilo, Zavod za Varstvo Naravne in Kulturne Dedišˇcine 4: 18–41. Mikuž, Janez. 2000. Nekdanja Židovska Cetrtˇ in Nekdanja Sinagoga v Mariboru. Casopisˇ za Zgodovino in Narodopisje, no. 12. Available online: http://www.sistory.si/cdn/publikacije/8001-9000/8011/2000_1-2_ Casopis_za_zgodovino_in_narodopisje.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2019). Mlinariˇc,Jože. 1996. Mariborski Židje v Zadnjih Desetletjih pred Izgonom iz Mesta, Njihov Izgon in Sledovi. Katalogi. 7 vols. Maribor: Pokrajinski Arhiv. Mlinariˇc,Jože. 2000. Judje na slovenskem Štajerskem do njihove prisilne izselitve v letu 1496. Casopisˇ za Zgodovino in Narodopisje 36: 49–70. Mlinariˇc,Jože. 2001. Turki in Maribor v prvi Polovici 16. Stoletja ter Družina Willenrainerjev. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Paulus, Simon. 2007. Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter: Überlieferung und Bestand. Schriftenreihe der Bet-Tfila-Forschungsstelle für Jüdische Architektur in Europa. 4 vols. Petersberg: Imhof. Premk, Janez. 2018. Maribor Synagogue Reexamined. Acta historiae artis Slovenica. no. 1. Available online: http://uifs1.zrc-sazu.si/files/file/AHAS_23_1_WEB_N.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2019). Premk, Janez, and Anja Premk. 2015. Mariborska sinagoga. vol. 12. Umetnine v žepu. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Puff, Rudolf Gustav. 1847. Marburg in Steiermark, Seine Umgebung, Bewohner und Geschichte. Gratz: Andr. Leykam’schen Erben. Rosenberg, Arthur. 1914. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Juden in Steiermark. Wien and Leipzig: Wilhelm Bräumiller. Sapaˇc,Igor. 2013. Mariborski Srednjeveški Obrambni Sistem: Znanstveno Teoretiˇcniin Projektni Elaborat. Available online: http://www.maribor.si/dokument.aspx?id=20281 (accessed on 1 October 2019). Šmid, Andrej. 1998. Jüdisches Kulturzentrum, Synagoge, Architekturzentrum und drei Plätze. Master’s thesis, Technische Universität, Graz, Austria. Synagogen, Mikwen, Siedlungen Jüdisches Alltagsleben im Lichte Neuer Archäologischer Funde. 2004. 19 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Schriften des Archäologischen Museums Frankfurt. Toš, Marjan. 2016. Prekletstvo judovske skupnosti v Mariboru–520 let po izgonu Judov iz mesta. Casopisˇ za Zgodovino in Narodopisje 87: 38–60. Available online: https://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC- TU8Y35PC/7e088e58-b1ad-4c97-b093-dc52842919e5/PDF (accessed on 30 October 2019). Arts 2020, 9, 5 22 of 22

Travner, Vladimir. 1935. Mariborski ghetto. Kronika Slovenskih Mest 2: 154–59. Valenˇciˇc,Vlado. 1992. Židje v Preteklosti Ljubljane. Ljubljana: Park.

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).