Restricted accessCase reportFirst published online 2025-12
Dilemmas of Heritage,Destruction and Memorial: Two Lost ‘Cathedrals’— The Intertwined Fate of the Great Synagogue of Vilna and the Ḥurva Synagogue of Jerusalem
The issue of authenticity, continuity and the reconstruction of lost monuments has been the subject of vigorous debate in the philosophy and methodology of heritage conservation since its inception and especially after the Second World War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. This article discusses the intertwined history of the Great Synagogue of Vilna (Vilnius) in Lithuania and the Ḥurva Synagogue of Jerusalem. Both synagogues, which had been the main ‘cathedral’ shrines for the Jewish communities of Vilna and Jerusalem, were destroyed during the conflict, leaving ruins in their place. After many years of loss and given their importance, an opportunity arose to memorialize or reconstruct these monuments. Special attention is given to the significance of these two synagogues as places of identity and to the way in which changing dynamics in the ethics of heritage management concerning the reconstruction of lost built cultural heritage have affected outcomes at these two sites.
AkermanM. (1998). The evocative character of Louis Kahn’s Ḥurva Synagogue project, 1967–1974. In KühnelB. (Ed.), The real and ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic art: Studies in honor of Bezalel Narkiss on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (pp. 245–253). Center for Jewish Art of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Australia ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra charter: Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance. https://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/
2.
BartetzkyA. (2012). Nation – Staat – Stadt. Architektur, Denkmalpflege und Geschichtskultur vom 19. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert. Böhlau.
3.
BrandiC. (1963). Teoria del Restauro. Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. (Brandi C. 1977). Principles for a Theory of Restoration, translated by D’AmicoA. & FeildenB., ICCROM).
4.
BriedisL. (2016). Vilnius: City of strangers. Baltos Lankos.
5.
BülowW., & ThomasJ. L. (2020). On the ethics of reconstructing destroyed cultural heritage monuments. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 6(4), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2020.11
6.
CameronC. (2017). Reconstruction: Changing attitudes. The UNESCO Courier. https://en.unesco.org/courier/july-september-2017/reconstruction-changing-attitudes
7.
DetryN. (2020). Le Patrimoine martyr: Destruction, protection, conservation et restauration dans l’Europe post bellica. Hermann Éditeurs.
8.
DetryN. (2021). Note sur la restauration post bellica en Europe après 1945. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03697099
9.
FeildenB. M., & JokilehtoJ. (1993). Management guidelines for world cultural heritage sites. ICCROM.
10.
GafniR., MorgensternA., & CassutoD. (Eds.). (2009). The Ḥurva: Six hundred years of Jewish settlement in Jerusalem. Yad Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew)
11.
HoubartC., & DawansS. (2011). Identical reconstruction and heritage authenticity [Conference: Le Vie dei Mercanti]. Safeguard of Architectural, Visual, Environmental Heritage, Capri. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259755749_Identical_Reconstruction_and_Heritage_Authenticity
12.
ICCROM. (2000). Riga charter on authenticity and historical reconstruction in relationship to cultural heritage. https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/publications/2020-05/convern8_07_rigacharter_ing.pdf
13.
ICOMOS. (1964). International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (the Venice charter). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf
14.
ICOMOS. (1994). Nara document on authenticity. https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf
15.
JokilehtoJ. (1994). Questions about authenticity. In LarsenK. E. & MarsteinN. (Eds.), Conference on authenticity in relation to the world heritage convention (pp. 9–25). Preparatory Workshop, Norway. Tapir Publishers.
16.
JokilehtoJ. (2017). Questions of authenticity concerning different cultures and preservation. In Rodrigues dos SantosJ. (Ed.), Preserving transcultural heritage: Your way or my way? Questions on integrity, identity and patrimonial proceedings in the safeguarding of architectural heritage created in the meeting of cultures (pp. 27–36). Caleidoscópio.
17.
KlausnerI. (1934). The history of the Hebrew community in Vilna. Jewish Community of Vilna. (Hebrew)
18.
KravstovS. (2017). The Great Synagogue of Vilnius: Architecture, meaning, and memory. In AvidanA. & LeganoviJ.č (Eds.), How to commemorate the Great Synagogue of Vilna Site (pp. 98–103)> Litvak World. https://www.academia.edu/35749470/_The_Great_Synagogue_of_Vilnius_Architecture_Meaning_and_Memory_in_How_to_Commemorate_The_Great_Synagogue_of_Vilna_Site_Anna_Avidan_and_Julijana_Leganovi%C4%8D_eds_Vilnius_Litvak_World_2017_98_103https://www.academia.edu/35765692/_The_Great_Synagogue_of_Vilnius_Architecture_Meaning_and_Memory_illustrations
19.
LevinD. (2001). The Litvaks: A short history of the Jews of Lithuania. Berghahn Books.
20.
LevinV. (2012). Appendix: Synagogues, Batei Midrash and Kloyzn in Vilnius. In Cohen-MushlinA., KravtsovS., LevinV., MickūnaitėG., & Šiaučiūnaitė-VerbickienėJ. (Eds.), Synagogues in Lithuania II (pp. 281–340). Vilnius Academy of Arts Press.
21.
MagerT. (Ed.). (2015). Architecture reperformed: The politics of reconstruction. Ashgate.
22.
PiechotkaM., & PiechotkaK. (2004). Heaven’s gate: Wooden synagogues in the territory of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Institute of Art, Polish Academy of Sciences.
23.
RanL. (1974). Jerusalem of Lithuania: Illustrated and documented. Vilner Farlag.
24.
RimkuteK. N. D.The palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania: Or is it?https://www.academia.edu/9562746/The_Palace_of_the_Grand_Dukes_of_Lithuania_or_is_it
25.
RupeikienėM. (2008). A disappearing heritage: The synagogue architecture of Lithuania. karpavičius Publishers.
26.
RuskinJ. (1849). The seven lamps of architecture. Smith, Elder and Co. (republished as: Ruskin, J. (1989). The seven lamps of architecture. Dover Publications).
27.
SeligmanJ. (2020). Between Yerushalayim DeLita and Jerusalem: The memorial inscription from the Bimah of the Great Synagogue of Vilna. Arts, 9(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts9020046
28.
SeligmanJ. (2023). The Bathhouse and Miqva’ot (Ritual Baths) of the Great Synagogue of Vilna, Lithuania. In ReederP. (Ed.), Richard Freund’s legacy of ideas, research and teaching about the Holocaust (pp. 84–104). Cambridge Scholars.
29.
SeligmanJ., & AvniG. (2009). Holy places and religious institutions in the ancient city. In MeironE. & BarD. (Eds.), Planning and conserving Jerusalem: The challenge of the ancient city (pp. 290–315). Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.
30.
SementsovS., LeontyevA., & SantiagoH. (Eds.). (2021). Reconstruction and restoration of architectural heritage. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003136804
31.
Stanley-PriceN. (2009). The reconstruction of ruins: Principles and practice. In RichmondA. & BrackerA. (Eds.), Conservation: Principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths. Elsevier.
32.
StephensB. (2024, December3). What the Notre Dame restoration says about France’s past – and its future. The Conservation. https://theconversation.com/what-the-notre-dame-restoration-says-about-frances-past-and-its-future-245083
33.
ValicieneB., EverattJ. A., KunickyteL., & SteponavicieneL. (Eds.). (2009). Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and its restoration within the context of the European experience: Materials of the International Scientific Conference, 11–12 October 2006. Lithuanian Art Museum, Vilnius.
34.
WajsA., & SpectorS. (2005). Vilna. In SpectorS. & FreundlichB. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Jewish communities, Poland VIII: Vilna, Białystok and Nowogródek districts (pp. 30–92). Yad Vashem.
35.
World Heritage Convention. (2018). Warsaw recommendation on recovery and reconstruction of cultural heritage. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1826/
