Dualing Duras

It is a pretty exciting time for scholars of Early Christian architecture and archaeology. A new generation of scholars is returning to fundamental problems and sites in our field with new ideas and renewed vigor. There is no better example of this than TWO major articles on the Christian building at Dura Europos appearing in two major archaeology journals in the past week Journal of Roman Archaeology and the American Journal of Archaeology. These two articles approach the Dura Europos Christian building with new eyes (and, in one case, new approaches) to consider whether it continues to support traditional typologies of Early Christian architecture.

(I have a theory that the growing interest in disciplinary syntheses like the Oxford Handbook series and various “very short,” “short,” and “introduction”  books have pushed scholars to re-invest in “basic research” in the our discipline. These books are part of an effort by publishers to find ways to generate revenue even as the market for the traditional monograph becomes increasingly limited. In other words, some of this new interest in traditional topics may be driven by the changing economic landscape of academic publishing.)

For folks who don’t know, the Christian building at Dura-Europos is one of the earliest known Christian buildings. It is remarkable not only for its 3rd century date, but also its state of preservation which includes a baptismal installation and vivid wall painting. Traditionally scholars have argued that the Dura-Europos building is a house transformed into a church and this has supported arguments for the emergence of Christian architecture from domestic predecessors. In fact, the Dura-Europos Christian building has become a kind of type site for the so-called “domus ecclesiae” or (colloquially) house church which scholars reckoned was the earliest location for Christian worship. This, in turn, informed an evolutionary typology that saw Christian worship space develop from houses to basilica style public buildings which combined domestic elements with public ones as Christianity emerged as a public cult.   

Camille Leon Angelo and Joshua Silver’s article, “Debating the Domus Ecclesiae at Dura Europos: the Christian Building in Context,” appears in the next issue of Journal of Roman Archaeology. It uses quantitative analysis and 3D modeling of the Christian building to argue that there was no overlap between the building’s Christian and domestic function. They show that the adaptations made to the architecture of the building, although seemingly minor, changed the interior space to make it immediately distinct from houses elsewhere in Dura. In particular, the absence of places for food preparation and sleeping made it hard to imagine that traditional domestic activities took place in the Dura building. Moreover, they argue that the closing of the courtyard cistern deprived the building of a water source and the modification of the interior space changed illumination patterns creating new public and private areas. The sharp division between the function of the building for worship and its function as domestic space undermined arguments for the domestic origins of Christian worship in the “house church.”

Pettegrew, in contrast, sees the Dura-Europos building as retaining some of its domestic functions even after its conversion to a church. He argued that the cistern may have continued to function after the renovation of the courtyard. Like Angelo and Silver, Pettegrew also approaches Dura-Europos through a careful study of the archival material for the excavations, but rather than using quantitative analysis and 3D reconstruction, he digs into the complicated correspondence of the project’s architect, archaeology, and, ultimately, Carl Kraeling who was responsible for its publication. Without over simplifying a complex argument, Pettegrew, like Angelo and Silver calls into question long-standing disciplinary categories of the “domus ecclesiae” as well as the notion of the visibility of domestic activities in the archaeological record. In other words, Pettegrew observes that it may be impossible to discern whether a division existed between worship space and domestic space at the Dura-Europos Christian building.

In the end, scholars of Early Christianity will likely find both articles enriching. The innovative analysis performed by Angelo and Silver contextualizes the Dura building in Durene domestic architecture. Pettegew’s article traces conversations between the scholars responsible for the excavation, documentation, and publication of the building. Both articles show the continued vitality of discussions surrounding basic concepts in the study of ancient religions and architecture as well as showing how even one of the best known buildings in the ancient world can benefit from ongoing scholarly attention. 

For more on the ongoing conversation about Dura-Europos across disciplines, check out the latest installment of Pasts Imperfect which includes a link to a pre-print of the Angelo and Silver article.