Christians and Christianity, Vol. I: Corpus of Christian Sites in Samaria and Northern Judea 9789654062527
913 97 22MB
English Pages 341 [344] Year 2012
Polecaj historie
Citation preview
The Fi n ds
CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY
CORPUS OF CHRISTIAN SITES IN SAMARIA AND NORTHERN JUDEA
[ I ]
y. M ag e n
[ II ]
The Fi n ds
CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY VOLUME I
CORPUS OF CHRISTIAN SITES IN SAMARIA AND NORTHERN JUDEA
16
13 Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Israel Antiquities Authority
23
Jerusalem 2012 [ III ]
y. M ag e n
3 15
23
Editor: Ayelet Hashahar Malka
English Translation: Edward Levin Copy Editor: Janet Barshalev GIS and Cartography: Yoav Tzionit
Typesetting, Design and Production: Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem Plates, Maps and Printing by Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem
ISBN 978-965-406-252-7
© 2012 Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form without permission from the publisher.
[ IV ]
The Fi n ds
This book is dedicated to Yoav Tzionit for his long-standing contribution to the advancement of archaeological research in Judea and Samaria
[ V ]
y. M ag e n
[ VI ]
The Fi n ds
CONTENTS Preface
IX
Abbreviations
XI
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
1
Yitzhak Magen
Corpus of Christian Sites
93
Yitzhak Magen and Evgeni D. Kagan
Corpus Bibliography
317
[ VII ]
y. M ag e n
[ VIII ]
y. M ag e n
Preface This book is the first of five volumes on Christianity and Christians. The first two volumes (JSP 13–14) consist of the most up-to-date corpus of Christian sites in Judea and Samaria, summarizing the surveys and excavations of the Byzantine period conducted there from the nineteenth century to the present. Two additional volumes (JSP 15–16) will publish some 30 excavation reports of churches and monasteries in Judea and Samaria, including an analysis of the inscriptions they yielded. The last volume in the series (JSP 17) is the final report on the monastery of Martyrius, excavated in the early 1980s, and later reconstructed and renovated, becoming an active tourism site. Most of the churches mentioned in the corpus no longer exist. The construction of new churches in antiquity and in later periods, the erection of mosques, private construction, and Palestinian land development in recent decades led to their destruction. Unfortunately, there has also been major destruction to churches, mosaics, and monasteries located outside Palestinian villages, towns, and cities, in areas transferred to the control of the Palestinian Authority since the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement. The sites in the corpus are ordered from north to south; in addition to the text, each entry contains a bibliography, plans, and photos. The corpus includes churches commemorating biblical narratives or events from the life of Jesus, roadside churches in which pilgrims to the Holy Land could spend the night, monasteries, and churches and chapels that served settlements. Some 80 percent of the churches and chapels discovered belong to the first categories, the remainder being community churches of villages and towns. About 400 churches were discovered in Judea and Samaria; this number excludes those churches destroyed in antiquity or modern times that left neither trace nor mention. The multitude of monasteries, memorial churches, and churches for wayfarers or pilgrims does not prove the existence of a large Christian population resident in the region in the Byzantine period, as many scholars maintain. To the present, no villages or towns with Byzantine residential quarters have been discovered. Similarly, no Byzantine residential quarters have been found in Roman-Byzantine cities; nor is there testimony, even in Jerusalem, to the presence of a large Christian population in the Byzantine period. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, most of the area of Judea, Jerusalem, and southern Samaria was emptied of its Jewish population. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, there was no large Jewish or pagan population to accept it. To massively populate the region, the Christians established monasteries, memorial churches, and churches for the numerous pilgrims. Even together, these could not have comprised a local population of 1,000,000, as some scholars estimated. The paucity of the Christian population in Judea and Samaria is also expressed in the small number of Byzantine tombs unearthed. We should be skeptical of the conclusions drawn by the surveys conducted in the area, that settlement and settlement distribution peaked in the Byzantine period. This volume (JSP 13) discusses the corpus of Christian sites in Samaria and northern Judea, including Jericho. The second volume (JSP 14) includes Christian sites in Judea, including the area south of Jerusalem, the Hebron Hills, the Judean Desert, and the northern Negev. Most of the churches within the bounds of Jerusalem and Bethlehem are not discussed in the corpus. The volume begins with an extensive introductory article that discusses various issues regarding the Byzantine period in the Land of Israel and the geographical division of the
[ IX ]
y. M ag e n
Christian sites. Northern Samaria was inhabited by Samaritans, so that no Byzantine churches were discovered there, with the exception of those in and near the Roman-Byzantine cities. Despite their struggle with the Samaritans, the Christians were unsuccessful in converting or eliminating the latter populace in its entirety. Northern Samaria remained free of churches, and the excavations teach that scholars and surveyors erred when they spoke of churches in this region. Byzantine churches and monasteries begin to appear south of the area of Samaritan settlement, on the geographical line of the road between Tapuah and Qalqiliya, about 10 km south of Shechem. From this line south, to Jerusalem, we find a plethora of churches and monasteries. Many contributed to the completion of this book. I wish to thank: the employees of the Israel Antiquities Authority and its Director, Mr. Shuka Dorfman, for their considerable assistance in this publication; Silvia Krapiwko, of the Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, for her extensive help in collecting material from the archive of the British Mandate period; the archaeologists of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Institute of Archaeology of the Tel Aviv University; the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology of the Bar-Ilan University and the Archaeological Division of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and to the researchers who made their research available to us and allowed the use of photographs and plans from their excavations (a detailed list of figures and sources appears on pp. 95–99). Special thanks to: Yoav Tzionit, for his considerable assistance and limitless devotion in the publication of this volume; Dr. Leah Di Segni, for her assistance with reading the Greek inscriptions; Yael Givol-Barzilai, for her assistance in editing this volume; sketch artist Anna Tzipyn; surveyors Pavel Gertopsky and Felix Portnov; graphic artists Alina Pikovsky-Yoffe and Oleg Drega; photographers Shlomi Ammami, Assaf Peretz and Lior Shapira. Finally, I give my special thanks to Ayelet Hashahar Malka, the editor who took upon herself this impossible task, which she concluded with such great success. May they all be blessed, Dr. Yitzhak Magen Head of Judea and Samaria Publications
[ X ]
y. M ag e n
ABBREVIATIONS AASOR
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AB
Analecta Bollandiana
ADAJ
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
AJA
American Journal of Archaeology
ATQ
IAA Archive, British Mandate Administrative Record Files.
BA
Biblical Archaeologist
BAIAS
Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society
BAR
Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BJPES
Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society
CBQ
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CCSL
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
CNI
Christian News from Israel
CSEL
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
CSHB
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
DACL
Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie
DAGL
Department of Antiquities, Geographical List of the Records Files 1918–48, Jerusalem 1976.
DOP
Dumbarton Oaks Papers
EI Eretz-Israel ESI
Excavations and Surveys in Israel
GCS
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Kirchenväter. Kommission der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
ḤA
Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot
IAA
Israel Antiquities Authority
IEJ
Israel Exploration Journal
JPOS
Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JRA
Journal of Roman Archeology
JRAS
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JSP
Judea and Samaria Publications
JSRF
Judea and Samaria Record Files, in the archive of Staff Officer Archaeology in Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria (unpublished).
JTS
Journal of Theological Studies
LA
Liber Annuus
LCL
Loeb Classical Library
MNDPV
Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Paläestina-Vereins
[ XI ]
y. M ag e n
NEAEHL
E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (eds.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1993; E. Stern, H. Geva, A. Paris and J. Aviram (eds.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Supplementary Volume, Jerusalem 2008.
OC
Oriens Christianus
PEF
Palestine Exploration Fund
PEFQSt
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement
PEQ
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PG
Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca
PJ
Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem
PL
Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina
QDAP
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine
RB
Revue Biblique
REJ
Revue des Études Juives
ROC
Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
SBL
Society of Biblical Literature
SCI
Scripta Classica Israelica
Schedule
Provisional Schedule of Historical Sites and Monuments, Government of Palestine, Jerusalem 1929.
SRF
IAA Archive, British Mandate Scientific Record Files.
SWP II–III
C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener, Survey of Western Palestine II: Samaria; III: Judea, London 1882–83.
TA
Tel Aviv
Tabula
Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni, and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea Palaestina. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, Jerusalem 1994.
ZDMG
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV
Zeitschrift des Deustschen Palästina-Vereins
Anastasius Sinaita, Quaestio
Anastasius Sinaita, Quaestiones et responsiones, J.P. Migne (ed.), PG 89, Paris 1865, cols. 311–824.
Ant.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (LCL), H.St.J. Thackeray, R. Marcus and L. Feldman (transls.), Cambridge 1930–65.
Antonini Placentini Itinerarium
Antonini Placentini Itinerarium, P. Geyer (ed.), in Itineraria et alia geographica (CCSL 175), Turnhout 1965, pp. 127–153.
BT
Babylonian Talmud
Chron.
Chronicles
Chronicon Paschale
Chronicon Paschale (CSHB), L. Dindorf (ed.), Bonn 1832.
Contra Vigilantium
Hieronymus, Liber contra Vigilantium, J.P. Migne (ed.), PL 23, Paris 1883, cols. 353–368.
De Locis Sanctis
Petrus Diaconus, Liber de locis sanctis, I. Fraipont and P. Weber (eds.), in Itineraria et alia geographica (CCSL 175), Turnhout 1965, pp. 37–47; 93–103; 252–278.
[ XII ]
y. M ag e n
Deut.
Deuteronomy
Ep.
Hieronymus, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. I–II, I. Hilberg (ed.), CSEL 54, 55, Vienna 1996.
Epiphanius, Haer.
Epiphanius Constantiensis, Panaarium, sive adversus octoginta haereses, J.P. Migne (ed.), PG 41, Paris 1863, cols. 173–1199; continued in PG 42, Paris 1863, cols. 9–773.
Epiphanius Monachus H. Donner, “Die Palästinabeschreibung des Epiphanius Monachus Hagiopolita,” ZDPV 87 (1971): 42–91. Ex.
Exodus
Expositio totius mundi Expositio totius mundi et gentium (Sources chrétiennes 124), J. Rougé (ed.), Paris 1966. Ezek.
Ezekiel
Gen.
Genesis
Hieronymus, On.
Hieronymus, Das Onomastikon der Biblischen Ortsnamen, mit, der lateinischen Übersetzung (GCS11.i), E. Klostermann (ed.), Leipzig 1904.
Itinerarium Itinerarium Burdigalense, P. Geyer and O. Kuntz (eds.), in Itineraria et alia Burdigalense geographica (CCSL 175), Turnhout 1965, pp. 1–26 Itinerarium Egeriae
Itinerarium Egeriae, E. Franceschini and R. Weber (eds.), in Itineraria et alia geographica (CCSL 175), Turnhout 1965, pp. 35–90.
Jer.
Jeremiah
Josh.
Joshua
JT
Jerusalem Talmud
Judg.
Judges
Leimonarion
Joannes Moschus, Pratum spirituale (Leimonarion), J.P. Migne (ed.), PG 87.iii, Paris 1865, cols. 2847–3112.
Life of Abraamius
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Abraamius, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 273–281.
Life of Cyriacus
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Cyriacus, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 245–261.
Life of Euthymius
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Euthymius, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 1–92.
Life of John
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of John the Hesychast, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 220–244.
Life of Peter the Iberian
John Rufus, The Life of Peter the Iberian, in The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus (SBL 24), C.B. Horn and R.R. Phenix Jr. (eds. and transls.), Atlanta 2008, pp. 2–281.
Life of Sabas
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Sabas, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 93–219.
Life of Theodosius
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Theodosius, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 262–268.
Life of Theognius
Cyril of Scythopolis, The Life of Theognius, in Lives of the Monks of Palestine, R.M. Price (transl.), Kalamazoo, Mich. 1991, pp. 269–272.
M
Mishnah
[ XIII ]
y. M ag e n
I Macc.
I Maccabees (Anchor Bible), J.A. Goldstein (transl.), New York 1977.
II Macc.
II Maccabees (Anchor Bible), J.A. Goldstein (transl.), New York 1983.
Matt.
Matthew
Miracula
Antonius Chozibita, Miracula Beatae virginis Mariae in Choziba, C. Houze (ed.), in Vita Sancti Georgii Chozibitae Auctore, AB 7 (1888): 360–370.
Neh.
Nehemiah
Nicephorus Callistus
Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiasticae Historiae, J.P. Migne (ed.), PG 146, Paris 1865.
Nov.
Corpus Iuris Civilis III. Novellae, R. Schoell and G. Kroll (eds.), Berlin 1928.
On.
Eusebius, Das Onomastikon der Biblischen Ortsnamen, mit der lateinischen Übersetzung (GCS11.i), E. Klostermann (ed.), Leipzig 1904.
Palladius, HL
Palladius, Historia Lausiaca (Texts and Studies VI.i), C. Butler (ed.), Cambridge 1898.
Pliny, NH
Pliny, Natural History IV (LCL), H. Rackham (transl.), London 1945.
Procopius, Buildings
Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings VIII (LCL), H.B. Dewing (transl.), London 1961.
Procopius, Justinian’s Buildings
Procopius of Caesarea, The Buildings of Justinian. By Procopius (Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society II), A. Stewart (transl.), London 1897.
Rufinus, HE Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, J.P. Migne (ed.), PL 21, Paris 1878, cols. 461–540. Sam.
Samuel
Sozomenus, HE
Sozomenus, Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte (GCS 50), J. Bides and G.C. Hansen (eds.), Berlin 1960.
Strabo, Geography
Strabo, The Geography of Strabo VII (LCL), H.L. Jones (transl.), London 1954.
Theodorus Lector, HE Theodorus Lector, Historia Ecclesiastica, J.P. Migne (ed.), PG 86.i, Paris 1865, cols. 165–216. Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae
Theodosii, De situ terrae sanctae, P. Geyer (ed.), in Itineraria et alia geographica (CCSL 175), Turnhout 1965, pp. 115– 125.
Vita Charitonis
Vita Charitonis, G. Garitte (ed.), “La Vie prémetaphrastique de S. Chariton,” Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 21 (1941): 16–46.
Vita Constantini
Eusebius, Vita Constantini, I.A. Heikel (ed.), Über das Leben Constantins (GCS 7), Leipzig 1902.
Vita di Gerasimo
Antonio di Choziba, Vita e Ascesi del nostro santo padre Gerasimo ispirato da dio, che brillò come un sole nel deserto del Giordano, in Nel deserto accanto ai fratelli. Vite di Gerasimo e di Giorgio di Choziba, L. Campagnano Di Segni (transl. and Intro.), Bose 1991, pp. 67–79.
Vita Hilarionis
Hieronymus, Vita sancti Hilarionis eremitae, J.P. Migne (ed.), PL 23, Paris 1883, cols. 29–54.
Vita Porphyriis
Marc le Diacre, Vie de Porphyre évêque de Gaza, H. Grégoire and M.A. Kugener (eds.), Paris 1930.
Vita Theognii
Paulus Elusinus, Vita Sancti Theognii, J. van den Gheyn (ed.), AB 10 (1891): 78–118.
Vitae Prophetarum
Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, Th. Schermann (ed.), Leipzig 1907.
War
Josephus, The Jewish War (LCL), H.St.J. Thackeray (transl.), Cambridge 1927–28.
[ XIV ]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period Yitzhak Magen
It is commonly accepted that the Byzantine period began in 324 CE, when Christianity was proclaimed the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great,1 and ended in 638 CE, when the Arab armies completed their conquest of the Land of Israel.2 In our opinion, while these dates provide general chronological-historical boundaries for the beginning and end of the Byzantine period, they do not reflect the religious, cultural, architectural, and material cultural reality in the Land of Israel between these two fateful events. Initially, Christianity, at the root of the Land of Israel’s formation during the Byzantine period, initially failed to penetrate all strata of the population in the region. In its first century as the Empire’s official religion, Christianity’s influence on the rural population was barely felt. Nor did it disappear immediately upon the Arab conquest of the Land of Israel: churches continued to exist and be built about 100 years after the Arab conquest; and agriculture expanded and flourished after the conquest as it never had during the Byzantine period. If we define the Byzantine period in essence as Christian, then the chronological boundaries of 324–638 CE are unsuitable.3 In the second half of the fourth century CE, during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395 CE), the Land of Israel was divided into three provinces: Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tritia; and in the end of the fourth century a new province, Palestina Salutaris (“the blessed”), was founded. In the fifth century CE the latter annexed Palestina Tritia. Palestina Prima consisted of Judea, Samaria, the coastal region, and the Perea, with Caesarea as its capital. Palestina Secunda encompassed territories in the Jezreel Valley, Galilee, and western Jordan; and Palestina Tritia-Palestina Salutaris covered territory in the south of the land, with its capital in Petra.4 The proclamation of Christianity as the State
religion in place of all forms of paganism did not fundamentally or significantly change the Roman nature of the Land of Israel in the fourth century CE, nor did it immediately alter the population’s religious composition and structure. Christianity penetrated the various strata of the population slowly and intermittently. Most of the priests, monks, and thinkers came from the Graeco-Roman world, receiving their religious and general education there. The nature of Christianity in the Land of Israel was changed by Christian pilgrimage, especially to Jerusalem.5 It took Christianity more than a century to become firmly based and convert large portions of the Land of Israel population, using considerable means in the process.6 The fierce battles waged by Christians against the Samaritans attest to the difficulties facing the Christian emperors as they attempted to impose their rule and religion on the region’s various populations.7 The pagan population, too, did not easily submit, and remained as such in different locations for more than 150 years after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.8 The Christian emperors neither applied religious pressure nor compelled the indigenous population to convert in the early phases of Christian penetration, which slowed the pace of its expansion in the Land of Israel. Some of the reasons for this were connected with Christianity itself and the internal doctrinal struggles being waged within the nascent religion.9 It was only later that Christianity attempted to forcibly impose itself on the population, which resulted in numerous struggles, and even uprisings, such as those of the Samaritans. We maintain that the cardinal reason for Christianity’s lack of success in penetrating the local population of the Land of Israel in its beginnings, and even later, in contrast with the other Roman provinces, may be traced to the closeness of Jews, Samaritans,
[1]
Y. M A G E N
and Christians in terms of their religious roots. The Jews and Samaritans, the two largest populations, did not convert in their entirety despite brutal pressure applied to them.10 In practice, Christianity could draw only upon the pagans for conversion. This population, which strongly resisted Christianity in the beginning, constituted only a minority in the rural sector in Judea and Samaria.11 Furthermore, after the two Jewish revolts—the Great and the Bar-Kokhba Revolts— Judea was emptied of its Jewish population. It has not been determined whether, prior to the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire, the region was filled with a pagan population (from which, as was noted, Christianity drew the majority of its believers), or whether Judea remained almost bereft of inhabitants, as is indicated by the archaeological and historical finds.12 In the fourth and early fifth century CE, the Jews and the Samaritans, who were the majority in the regions of Galilee, Samaria, and southern Judea, rejected Christianity, unlike the pagans.13 All the cities and other settlements inhabited by Jews, and mainly by Samaritans, were the arenas of struggles, at times violent, between these populations and the Christians.14 In its early phases, Christianity was unsuccessful and perhaps unwilling, to convert the Jewish and Samaritan populations, whose religious roots were similar to its own. The fact that Christian churches were not discovered over a Jewish or Samaritan synagogue in rural Jewish or Samaritan settlements, excluding the major cities and Galilean sites, attests to this.15 In Galilee, churches were built in Jewish settlements that had some connection with Christianity, such as Nazareth, Capernaum, Tiberias, and Sepphoris.16 Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, parts of Judea and southern Samaria were devoid of Jews in the third, fourth, and early fifth century CE, so that even if the authorities wanted to convert the Jewish population, there was not always a population to proselytize.17 The Arab conquest and the end of the Byzantine Empire’s rule in the East did not totally eliminate the Christian population, which had grown in the sixth and seventh centuries CE. The Christian population continued to exist after the conquest until the middle of the eighth century CE.18 The iconoclasm imposed by
the decree of the Umayyad caliph Yazid II in 721 CE over synagogues and churches in the Land of Israel and in Transjordan19 proves that synagogues and churches continued to exist, and some were even rebuilt, for about a century following the Arab conquest. The excavations conducted at numerous sites in Judea and Samaria yielded many Umayyad finds. In contrast, not a single mosque that could be dated with certainty to this period was discovered in the rural region.20 Similarly, we possess no unequivocal evidence that the large population during the Umayyad period that was active in the region and engaged in extensive oil production was Islamic.21 Islam, like Christianity, succeeded in striking roots and converting the local population only about 100 years after the Land of Israel had fallen to the Arabs. The discovery of Byzantine pottery from the late fourth and early fifth century CE at various sites does not necessarily indicate the presence there of a Christian population, unless a church from that period was discovered. Not every place where a Christian church was found was also a Christian settlement (see below).22 Likewise, the discovery at various sites of Early Islamic pottery, mainly Umayyad, is not necessarily indicative of an Islamic population. It is more likely that a Christian, Jewish, or Samaritan population continued living there after the Arab conquest and worked the land, following the directives of the Umayyad caliphs. Based on the numerous archaeological excavations conducted at various sites, we find that two types of sites continued to exist after the Arab conquest: (1) Christian settlements and monasteries, Jewish and Samaritan settlements23; (2) settlements and monasteries abandoned by local inhabitants in the wake of the Arab conquest, turned into state industrial enterprises for oil or pottery production, or into agricultural farms, sheep farms, etc.24 We have no information about the origin and religion of the population that operated the second type of settlement. As regards the production of pottery vessels, we know, based on the impressions found on the handles of jars produced at en-Nebi Samwil, that the factory was Muslim owned.25 The time from the ascendancy of Christianity in 324 CE to the end of that century is to be defined, by any architectural, artistic, and material cultural
[2]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
evidence that Muslims displaced the local population and settled in its towns and villages in Judea and Samaria immediately following the Arab conquest.27 Nor is there testimony to extensive conversion of the Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan populations in this period to Islam. These populations apparently began to disappear in the Land of Israel only in the Abbasid period, and even later. The waning of the Jews, Samaritans, and Christians did not always ensue from conversion to Islam: some adopted Islam, while the majority fled or were physically eliminated.28 What had happened to Christianity and early Byzantine rule would also be the case several hundred years later regarding Islam and early Arab rule in the Land of Israel. The Arab rule was initially unsuccessful in converting the Land of Israel’s Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan inhabitants to Islam. This was due to: a lack of manpower to replace the existing populations; the absence of a massive physical presence of a Muslim population; and the lack of individuals to man governmental and religious positions in the newly conquered areas. The conversion of a population that dwells in its own land is a difficult, protracted, and at times even impossible process, despite harsh and repressive compulsory measures.29 In its beginnings, Christianity’s situation in the Land of Israel was worse than it would be for Islam, since the former had to convert the mainly pagan members of the Roman civil and military establishment before converting the population of the Land of Israel.30 Nascent Christianity, divided and factious, found it especially difficult to convert the population of the Land of Israel, especially the Jews and the Samaritans with whom there was harsh religious rivalry. We need only mention the return to the former religions that occurred in the time of Julian the Apostate, more than 30 years after Christianity had become the official religion; this undoubtedly significantly delayed Christianity’s becoming well established, and demonstrates that it had not yet struck roots in the Land of Israel.31 Although the Muslims had conquered the Land of Israel as a people with an established religion, their military and religious population was small and incapable of dispossessing the inhabitants of the Land of Israel and of Syria, at least during the first decades
parameter, as the continuation of the Late Roman period, and not as the beginning of a new period—the Byzantine period. Additionally, in considerable parts of Judea and Samaria, the Late Roman period also continued with respect to the population’s religion, which until the early fifth century CE was mainly pagan. The beginning of the Byzantine-Christian period is to be established in the early fifth century CE, upon the massive construction of churches in urban and rural settlements and the erection of monasteries (albeit the sources tell of a few monasteries established by the first monks in the fourth century CE). The early fifth century CE also witnessed the intensified conversion of the population of the Land of Israel to Christianity. The Byzantine-Christian period did not begin with the erection of the first churches built by Emperor Constantine and his mother, Helena, when Christianity gained official status. The numerous Christian sources composed in the Land of Israel in the fourth century CE and the large numbers of pilgrimages to the Land created the impression that this century marked the apex in terms of population size, but archaeological excavations conducted in the Land of Israel show this to be incorrect. In our opinion, there is no reason to divide the Byzantine period into Early Byzantine and Late Byzantine, since the first phase of the Byzantine period, in the fourth century, is in every respect a direct continuation of the Late Roman period rather than the beginning of a new period.26 The second phase of the Byzantine period differs from the first phase in every respect. Their only connection is the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. It should be emphasized that Christian penetration to the Graeco-Roman world preceded, and was speedier than, its penetration to the Land of Israel for several reasons, some of which were listed above. The end and almost total elimination of the Christian presence in the Land of Israel and Transjordan should not, in our opinion, be dated to the Arab conquest, but only 100 years later, upon the conclusion of Umayyad rule and the rise of the Abbasids in the middle of the eighth century CE. In the material culture, the architecture, and the size and religion of the local population, we see continuity between the Byzantine and Umayyad periods. There is no
[3]
Y. M A G E N
Settlement in the Land of Israel in the Byzantine Period
following the conquest.32 In the Abbasid period, the center of government moved from Damascus to Baghdad, and the Land of Israel became more remote. At this point, the local population succumbed to the Arab tribes, and the sharp demographic decline of the Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan populations began. The local population of the Land of Israel began to wane in the late eighth century CE.33 When studying Christian sites in Judea and Samaria and the region’s population and material culture for an archaeological discussion, the accepted chronological boundaries used, from the beginning of the Byzantine period in 324 CE to the Arab conquest of the Land of Israel in 638 CE are not always useful, especially when focusing on the material culture. This determination will be of importance when we discuss the survey results that ascribe pottery vessels from the fourth to eighth centuries CE to the Byzantine period. As mentioned above, Christian settlements and churches in the Land of Israel were not established upon the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion, and did not cease to exist upon the Arab conquest. This fact will be of significance in the continuation of our discussion, when we relate to the unequivocal determination of all the surveys published to the present, that the Byzantine period marked the zenith of the distribution of sites and the population size in the Land of Israel. In light of the above, and of the difficulty in distinguishing between Late Roman and Byzantine pottery, we need to be cautious regarding conclusions drawn from the surveys, and even regarding those conclusions indicated by archaeological excavations, since at times they are too general, and relate to the Late Roman period as part of the Byzantine period. The same issue of material cultural continuity is to be found in the second half of the seventh century CE, following the Arab conquest. Based on the plentiful finds discovered in monasteries and settlements that continued to exist after the Arab conquest, and as can be seen in the growth enjoyed by the Negev after the Byzantine period, the agricultural growth in many locations, attributed to the Byzantine period, actually occurred, or continued and intensified, in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. In our estimation, agricultural activity reached its zenith in the Early Islamic rather than Byzantine period.34
It is commonly accepted in scholarly research to think of the Byzantine period as the zenith according to every possible parameter: settlement distribution and number of inhabitants, agricultural produce, wine production, and according to many, oil production, as well.35 All the published surveys teach that the number of sites that were inhabited in the Byzantine period is greater than in any other historical period. The construction of religious structures like churches and Jewish and Samaritan synagogues peaked in this period, as well as the number of monasteries. Most of the Jewish and Samaritan synagogues were built specifically in the period when Christianity became the official recognized religion of the Roman Empire.36 We possess a wealth of historical and literary sources from the Byzantine period. Most of the historical research was based on the wealth of Church sources and Jewish sources (Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud). Although the numerous and detailed historical sources from this period are an important resource for our knowledge of the period,37 as their concerns are religious, the political, military, geographical, and civil (the daily life of the simple person) picture does not always find expression in them, thereby detracting from our true understanding of life in the Roman and Byzantine periods. In addition to these sources were the many inscriptions discovered in Jewish synagogues, Samaritan synagogues, and churches. Many scholars thought that agricultural activity reached its peak during the Byzantine period. Viticulture and wine production had already reached a peak during the fifth century CE, unparalleled even during the Second Temple period. The Land of Israel exported fine wine to all the Mediterranean lands.38 The wines of Gaza and Ascalon were deemed to be the finest, and were sold in many lands.39 Sophisticated winepresses were found in every site with a Christian settlement in the Byzantine period, including those in regions where grapes had not previously been grown.40 In addition to winepresses, industrial installations for the production of pottery jars for exporting wine were discovered in the coastal plain. Wine began being produced on an intensive scale in the Land of Israel in the fourth century CE, upon the start of the extensive
[4]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Based on the parameters listed above and additional testimonies, some scholars concluded that the population of the Land of Israel—Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan—peaked in the Byzantine period. This faulty conclusion recurs in all the surveys conducted in most regions of the Land of Israel. This issue is cardinal for understanding the Byzantine period and its problems, and will be the subject of a separate discussion (below).
Christian pilgrimage movement from Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, and other Mediterranean lands, where wine was an important component of Christians’ daily diet, culture, and religious rites, reaching a peak in the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Wine production increased exceptionally, mainly from the Hasmonean period to the end of the Second Temple period, steeply declining following the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Wine production resumed on a large scale in the fourth century CE; at times with renewed use of Second Temple-period agricultural estates and fields, and winepresses from that period.41 Many scholars thought that olive cultivation and oil production reached their peak in the Byzantine period, but a new study of oil presses showed that oil production in the Land of Israel was at its height in the Early Islamic period, and that many industrial oil presses had been erroneously dated to the Roman and Byzantine periods.42 Historical sources do not mention that the Land of Israel was a producer and exporter of olive oil in the Byzantine period, although they make many references to the export of wine.43 Likewise, there is no archaeological proof of significant Byzantine expansion of grain cultivation and of the introduction of new strains, of which the Rabbinic sources report.44 Any research attempting to locate large cultivated plots and attribute them to the Byzantine period, or to any historical period, without unequivocal archaeological proof, lacks a scientific foundation.45 When we find agricultural installations, like oil presses or winepresses, in areas unsettled in recent centuries, with agricultural terraces close to settlements or monasteries, we may assume the use of these terraces for vines and olive groves, as in the Naḥal Modiʿim region. We believe that many of the agricultural terraces that are visible today in this region and in additional locations in Judea and Samaria, but were not in use in recent decades, were most probably installed in the Early Islamic period for the cultivation of olive trees. During this period, the number of oil presses reached unparalleled heights in the Land of Israel.46 The erroneous assumption that the cultivation of grains reached its peak in the Byzantine period ensues from another erroneous one: that the population was at its height, with an accordingly maximal need for grain to feed millions of inhabitants.
Byzantine Site Distribution in Judea and Samaria Based on the surveys, the Byzantine period had the most extensive site distribution of any period. Every region surveyed shows a sharp rise in the number of sites. All discussions of the survey maps note this dramatic increase, as well as a decline in the Early Islamic period. Due to the scanty and partial publication of the Byzantine pottery vessels in most of the published surveys, we do not know how the pottery of that period was classified. Does it include pottery vessels from the fourth century CE, from the fifth to the first half of the seventh century CE, or from the second half of the seventh to the early eighth century CE (the Umayyad period)? Some of the pottery vessels from this period do not differ from Byzantine pottery. Archaeological excavations conducted at many sites revealed that most of the monasteries and the Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan settlements were not abandoned by the local population following the Arab conquest, but continued to exist afterward for about a century. Those that were abandoned acquired a new function in the Early Islamic period, becoming agricultural or sheep farms, or factories for the production of oil or of pottery vessels. Often, at a Christian site the quantity of Byzantine pottery vessels unearthed is considerably smaller than that of the Early Islamic period. The excavators’ explanation for this phenomenon is that the site was cleaned before renewal during later periods, but this explanation is not always correct. Frequently, everyday domestic activity was much more extensive in the Early Islamic period than during the existence of the Christian site, especially for monasteries. Thus, the conclusion reached in most of the survey discussions, that the
[5]
Y. M A G E N
industry, or sheep raising. The numerous surveys of these sites did not discern the archaeological and historical changes that occurred over the centuries, nor did they take note of the ceramic, stratigraphic, and architectural division of the site and its finds. Many surveys defined these sites as Roman villas or as Roman-style Byzantine monasteries.48 The archaeological continuity described above is not characteristic solely of monasteries, and also applies to villages and towns.49 The argument that site distribution reached its peak in the Byzantine period must be reconsidered in light of recent excavations and research. The surveys provide an unreliable picture of settlement distribution. Attribution to the Byzantine period based on the pottery vessel finds of surveys is usually imprecise, because the surveys were incapable of dating precisely periods and events. At times, their inclusion under the definition of the “Byzantine period” is the consequence of the impossibility of dividing pottery vessels from the fifth to early eighth century CE typologically and chronologically. The determination of site distribution and the estimation of population size in any historical period are usually based on surveys, together with the excavations conducted in the same region. When discussing periods with defined and characteristics pottery vessels, such as the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, and even the Persian era, the data, generally speaking, are quite clear, albeit at times incomplete or imprecise. However, when examining later and successive periods, like the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Herodian periods to the Great Revolt, and sometimes even to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, on the one hand, and the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods, on the other, the division into periods is more complicated, and the pottery vessels of successive periods become more difficult to differentiate, due to the continuity of the same vessel types over long periods. When a survey speaks of the “Roman period,” it is not always clear whether the intent is to the late Second Temple period, the time of Bar-Kokhba, the second, third, and early fourth century CE, or to only one of these periods.50 It is similarly difficult to differentiate between pottery vessels from the late first century CE and those from the early second century CE, from the Great Revolt to
number of settled Byzantine sites declined sharply during the Early Islamic period, is sometimes incorrect, and even runs counter to the conclusions that emerge from the excavations of monasteries and settlements in Judea and Samaria. Their conclusion resulted from a lack of objective tools and means for distinguishing between Byzantine and early Umayyad period (midseventh to early eighth century CE) pottery vessels. The decline in settlement distribution repeatedly mentioned in the surveys did not, in our opinion, occur immediately following the Arab conquest, but only in the late Umayyad period, when religious extremism set in among the Umayyad caliphs, and especially in the Abbasid period. The severe attacks on Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan populations also began then, with the consequent massive abandonment of settlements. Great caution should be taken when we relate to the assertions and conclusions appearing in various surveys regarding a broad Byzantine site distribution and a declining Early Islamic one.47 When surveys define a site as Byzantine, the duration of its actual existence, estimated on the basis of the pottery vessels, is some 300 years, from the mid-fourth to the mid-seventh century CE. To this time span, we should add the pottery vessels from the late third and early fourth century CE, which, not having changed, were also defined as Byzantine; as well as the Umayyad pottery vessels, especially at sites where the local population continued to exist. The pottery vessels did not suddenly change when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, nor did they do so upon the Arab conquest; rather, there is a continuity of the Byzantine patterns and shapes. To summarize, when the surveys speak of the “Byzantine period,” the intent is to the pottery vessel finds that span a period of more than 400 years. The Land of Israel underwent momentous historical upheavals during the course of this lengthy period, and far-reaching changes took place at each site. If we take, for example, monasteries like Kh. Deir Samʿan, Deir Qalʿa, Kh. Deir Daqle, Kh. el-Kiliya, or the monastery of Martyrius, they were initially built as Roman fortresses in the late fourth century CE. Monasteries were installed in them in the fifth and sixth centuries CE; and in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods, oil presses were installed, and they became oil production sites, or sites for agriculture,
[6]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Aerial photograph of the monastery Deir Samʿan in western Samaria, on the road between the Shephelah and Shechem. The monastery was built in a late fourth century CE Roman fortress by Theodosius I and his son Arcadius.
An additional methodological difficulty when we seek to examine the reliability of the surveys is the paucity of illustrations of the ceramics in their publications. Furthermore, the surveys did not note the difficulty in distinguishing Byzantine from Umayyad pottery vessels. The difficulties were noted, for the first time, in the survey of Mt. Ephraim conducted by I. Finkelstein et al.51 The publication used a separate rubric for what was defined as the Byzantine-Umayyad period.52 The surveys conducted in Judea and Samaria did not always divide the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries CE into secondary periods. This explains why the Byzantine period is defined as the peak in settlement distribution, when this period actually consists of several completely separate historical periods. The surveyors made the
the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. This is also the case in later periods: at times pottery vessels are given a broad chronological definition—the fifth to the seventh or even eighth centuries CE. The physical condition of the vessels poses an additional difficulty. Pottery vessels collected in surveys are usually in the form of small, worn sherds. This is unlike in excavations, where as a general rule, pottery vessels are more abundant and diverse, and include whole vessels, enabling more precision regarding the vessel’s shape and its typological and chronological definition. Furthermore, an archaeological excavation yields a wealth of additional finds, such as coins, glass vessels, and metal artifacts, which are usually uncovered in a stratigraphic context, thus enabling the proper definition and chronological division of the periods and pottery vessels.
[7]
Y. M A G E N
the surveys. It should be stressed that errors such as those we noted were also made regarding various sites after archaeological excavations, as well. The surveys and excavations did not detect that the peak period for olive cultivation and oil production in outlying regions, in which oil had never been produced, came in the Early Islamic period.53 Sole reliance on surveys is liable to lead to erroneous archaeological-historical conclusions that at times are the opposite of those discovered in an archaeological excavation, and are far removed from the archaeological and historical truth. Scholars attempt to glean more precise and extensive scientific information from surveys than the latter are capable of providing. When examining the results of a survey conducted in an area familiar to us from historical sources and archaeological excavations, we often doubt that the survey is referring to this same area. In Samaria, home of the Samaritans, the surveys were unable to identify
basic methodological error of attempting to define historical periods by means of pottery vessels of prolonged existence, when the chronological division of these finds was not always clear to them. In terms of differentiating its pottery vessels into phases, the Byzantine period is the most problematic one in the surveys. The results of the surveys conducted in Judea and Samaria that present a picture of peak site distribution during the Byzantine period, followed by a decline in the Early Islamic period, are to be regarded with caution, not because of the surveyors’ lack of expertise or understanding regarding the pottery vessels, but rather because of the paucity of the finds and the difficulty in discerning the subtle differences between the pottery vessels in order to distinguish between the successive periods. The picture that emerged from excavations of previously surveyed sites differs from that offered by
The monastery of Deir Qalʿa, in western Samaria, was built in a huge Roman fortress in the late fourth century CE, on the road between the Shephelah and Shechem. Deir Qalʿa and Deir Samʿan were built in the same building style and probably at the same time, apparently during the reign of Justinian.
[8]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
that is the subject of our discussion, this geographicalhistorical division is purely technical, and is of no historical, archaeological, or settlement significance for the Byzantine period. To facilitate our discussion, we will present each region separately, in accordance with the division of the 1967–1968 survey. It should also be emphasized that the same settlement picture is indicated in each of these regions in the Byzantine period, despite the considerable differences between them in terms of geography, history, and inhabitants. The surveyors point to a rise in the number of sites in the Land of Judah, and in certain instances, an increase in their size.60 The broad knowledge of the sites and villages in the Land of Judah provided by the excavations and surveys conducted over the years teaches that this assertion is groundless. The survey’s data teach that 127 Byzantine sites were discovered in the hill country, and 26 in the Shephelah, more than twice those attributed to the Roman period. We do not know the surveyors’ intent in their definition of the “Roman period”: the Second Temple period, the time of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, or the period following the uprising until the dominance of Christianity? The survey made another unfounded assertion: “The location, nature, and at times fundamental plan of current-day villages and towns originate in the Byzantine period.”61 Thousands of trial excavations conducted in Palestinian settlements since 1967 found not even a hint of this. Furthermore, with the exception of a few churches discovered in the Palestinian villages and towns, not a single Byzantine residential quarter came to light. Most of the archaeological remains in the towns and villages are medieval, Mamluk, and Ottoman. The Byzantine period left no mark on the Palestinian towns and villages. The survey of the Judean Desert and the Jericho Valley shows an increase from 27 sites in the RomanByzantine period, to 90 in the Byzantine period.62 It is unclear what these chronological definitions represent. The survey of the Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim mentions settlement expansion and an increase in installations, for example pools, in the Byzantine period: from 60 sites in the Roman period, to 117 in the Byzantine period. The quantity of Early Islamic sites is not noted.63 The survey of the Land of Ephraim and Manasseh found some 200 sites from the Roman and Byzantine
various Samaritan historical events. In the second, third, and fourth centuries CE Samaria underwent great settlement recovery and growth, accompanied toward its end by a religious renaissance and the construction of synagogues.54 Mt. Gerizim once again served the Samaritan community as a prayer site.55 In the late fifth and early sixth century CE, the Samaritans engaged in a harsh struggle, and the revolts ended in devastation and ruin for the Samaritans.56 The renewed flourishing of the Samaritan settlement began in the late Byzantine period and continued in the Umayyad period,57 when large oil presses were built.58 The Samaritan population began declining in the late eighth century CE, in the Abbasid period, and continued its decline up to the Crusader conquest. The historical events that were generally defined as Byzantine and portrayed as the zenith of settlement distribution and growth in Samaria, went unmentioned in the surveys conducted in Samaria. The historical picture presented above is based on archaeological excavations and historical sources, not on the surveys. In light of our reservations regarding the reliability of the data provided by surveys on Byzantine site distribution and pottery differentiation, we will provide a short review of the data that emerged from surveys conducted in Judea and Samaria in the past 50 years. In all the surveys conducted to the present that offer a quantitative estimate of sites from different periods, the number of Byzantine sites is always much greater than that of any other period. The surveys usually show a dramatic rise in the number of sites following the Roman period. In addition, all the surveys emphasize the decline in the number of sites in the Early Islamic period (638–1099 CE). We cannot know whether this assertion relates to the beginning of the Umayyad period following the Arab conquest, the end of the Umayyad period, or the Abbasid period, which witnessed the dramatic settlement decline in the Land of Israel and the flight of its inhabitants. The Archaeological Survey 1967–1968 surveyed extensive areas in Judea and Samaria.59 Southern Judea was divided into three regions: the Land of Judah, the Judean Desert, and the Jericho Valley. Northern Judea was divided into the Land of Benjamin (southern Samaria) and Mt. Ephraim, while northern Samaria was defined as the Land of Ephraim and Manasseh. It should be noted that for the period
[9]
Y. M A G E N
found 74 Byzantine sites, but only 23 Early Islamic sites.71 The survey of the Mt. Ephraim region (whose southern sites were also published in the Benjamin Hill Country survey) distinguished between the pottery vessels from the Byzantine, Byzantine-Umayyad, and Umayyad periods.72 The pottery vessels at many sites are dated to the Byzantine-Umayyad period.73 The apparent reason for the Byzantine-Umayyad definition is the inability to distinguish between the vessels of the two consecutive periods, since many of the Byzantine vessel shapes continued in use in the Umayyad period. The Mt. Ephraim survey, like the Benjamin Hill Country survey, emphasizes that most of the sites were settled in the Byzantine period. There is a great disparity between the surveys and the excavations. Numerous excavations were conducted in the same areas of Judea, Benjamin, and southern Samaria, where the above surveys were conducted, shedding new light on the region. The archaeological excavations indicate the agricultural growth that began in the late third and fourth century CE, and a return (not necessarily by Jews) to Jewish lands abandoned during the Great Revolt.74 In the late fourth century CE, towers and fortresses were built in the areas abandoned by the Jews after their revolts.75 In the sixth century CE, monasteries were built in those fortresses, most apparently by Justinian I (527– 565 CE), but some, even earlier. In the Umayyad period oil presses, agricultural farms, sheep farms, and industrial factories for pottery vessel production were established in these monasteries.76 Most of the pottery finds unearthed in the excavations of these sites belong to the Early Islamic period.77 Not only did most of the sites continue to exist in the Umayyad period, and at times also in the Abbasid period, but agricultural and industrial activity intensified; the proliferation of pottery vessels indicates the presence of the many workers required for the extensive agricultural activity. All this mandates a fundamental reexamination of the finds collected and dated to the Byzantine period, to determine if this period indeed marked the zenith of agricultural and settlement activity. The survey of the Manasseh Hill Country covered broad areas in northern Samaria. According to the surveyors, the number of sites in the area surveyed, from Naḥal ʿIron to Naḥal Shechem, rose from 84
period. The surveyors speak of the construction of agricultural estates with industrial installations like winepresses and oil presses. In their opinion, the proliferation of agricultural installations from the Roman and Byzantine periods attests to the extensive development of cultivated areas on the hillslopes64— again, a vague, unfounded statement. The 1967–1968 survey cannot serve as the basis for scientific research on the Byzantine period regarding site distribution or archaeological and geographicalhistorical facts. The chronological distinctions made in the survey are unfounded, and reliance upon these data when determining site distribution will likely lead to mistaken conclusions regarding site distribution in the Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods. The latter period was not mentioned as being the dominant one in various sites, despite its prominence in all the excavated sites. The survey of the Benjamin Hill Country, published some 20 years after the 1967–1968 survey, reveals a similar picture of Byzantine site distribution in the Benjamin and Ephraim region.65 Survey maps of the area defined as the northern part of Beit Sira, Ramallah, and el-Bireh, show a pronounced increase in the number of Byzantine settlements: 76 sites; with a decline in the Early Islamic period, for which only 33 sites are listed.66 It is unclear in which phase of the Early Islamic period this change happened. The survey map of the south of Beit Sira reveals that the Byzantine period marked the zenith of settlement distribution: 25 sites. The survey emphasizes that the area is characterized by agricultural farms.67 The survey maps of the south of Ramallah and el-Birah and of the north of ʿEin Kerem included 117 Byzantine sites, the height of distribution in the area, with a decline in the number of sites in the Early Islamic period.68 In the survey map of Wadi el-Makkuk, too, we see an increase in the number of sites in the Byzantine period: 34; while only 16 were discovered in the Early Islamic period.69 The archaeological site of Kh. el-Kiliya, in the settlement of Rimonim, excavated in the area of the Wadi el-Makkuk map, contained a fourth century CE fortress, a Byzantine monastery, and an Early Islamic sheep farm. Most of the pottery vessels found at the site and the major part of the construction are dated to the Umayyad period,70 as is the case at other sites, as well. The survey map of the eastern part of Jerusalem
[10]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
The monastery of Kh. el-Kiliya, located in the hill country of eastern Samaria. It was built in a late fourth century CE Roman fortress that had protected the road that went to the Jordan Valley via Wadi el-Wahitah.
91 Byzantine sites and 125 Late Roman sites. The settlement distribution declined in the Early Islamic period, which the surveyor dated to 632–1099 CE.81 The survey of the Shechem Syncline, in northern Samaria, revealed 75 sites that the surveyor dated to the Late Roman period (70–313 CE); in the Byzantine period, which he dates to 313–632 CE, the number of sites reached a new high of 133; and this quantity declined in the Early Islamic period to only 70 sites.82 While according to surveys, in Samaria the Byzantine period was the peak period of settlement in the area, the archaeological excavations present a different picture. The area flourished in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, when four of the largest cities established in the Land of Israel came into existence: In the Roman period Sebaste and Neapolis replaced the Samaritan cities of Samaria and Gerizim, respectively. Many Samaritan and pagan settlements were built
sites in the Late Roman period (until 324 CE) to 97 in the Byzantine period.78 The number of sites dropped in the Early Islamic period79; here, too, Byzantine site distribution presumably reached heights unknown before or after. The survey of the Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert revealed 70 sites in the Late Roman period; their number doubled in the Byzantine period, before decreasing to only 55 in the Early Islamic period.80 The survey of this area does not relate to the Samaritan revolts. There is no mention of the ensuing destruction, deaths, and massive Samaritan flight in the Byzantine period—testimony which finds expression in the archaeological excavations. In the survey of another region of the Manasseh Hill Country, from Naḥal Bezeq to the Sartaba, the surveyor begins the Byzantine period in 313 CE, and ends it in 632 CE. In the Byzantine period there were fewer sites in this area than in the Late Roman period:
[11]
Y. M A G E N
Byzantine sites does not correlate with the number of tombs unearthed in the area of the survey. The recently published survey of the Map of Amaẓya, which covered areas in western Judea and the Judean Shephelah, is the most detailed and complete survey conducted to the present in any area in Judea.86 An area of 100 sq. km (10×10 km) yielded 813 sites that contain building remains or sherds. Of the total number of sites on the map, 573 contain Byzantine pottery vessels. The survey further emphasizes that a total of 1,538 sites containing Byzantine pottery vessels were documented throughout the Judean Shephelah. Of the sites on the map: 103 were defined as settlements; 1 was defined as a fortress; 27 contained “scattered buildings” (the intent is unclear); 24 were farmsteads; 96 each contained a single structure; 34 were burial sites; 6 contained roads; 7 yielded a concentration of installations; 1 was a cultic site, 89 contained testimony to agricultural activity; and Byzantine sherds were found scattered in 185 sites. How are we to understand the tremendous settlement distribution in the Map of Amaẓya in the Byzantine period? According to the surveyor, this distribution indicates maximal utilization of all areas suitable for urban and agricultural settlement.87 The survey results indicate the presence of one urban or rural settlement per sq. km, on average. We wish to emphasize, once again, the problematic nature of how the surveys used pottery vessels to date the Byzantine period. Does this include pottery vessels from the fourth to seventh centuries CE, and perhaps also the eighth century CE, i.e., 400 years of settlement? Were the large agricultural sites discovered Byzantine or Umayyad, a datum apparently unknown to the surveyor himself. In any event, only some 100 of the 573 sites are settlements, and by the limited number of churches and burial sites, we can by no means be certain that these were large, flourishing settlements. The survey reports of 22 churches. Every structure of ashlar construction was included in this list, despite a lack of clarity regarding the structure’s definition. Structures that were definitely churches were uncovered in Ḥ. Beth Loya (with a possible monastery there) and Beth ʿAwwa (probably more than a single church). A chapel was found at Ḥ. Qaṣra. In Kh. Ṭawas, on the outskirts of the area of the Map of Amaẓya (this site does not appear in the survey),
around these cities in the Roman period (second and third centuries CE). The construction of Samaritan synagogues began in the fourth century CE. These historical events are absent in the surveys, including the one of western Samaria.83 Samaria experienced great growth during the second to fourth centuries CE, not in the Byzantine period. The numerous tombs discovered in Neapolis and Sebaste are almost all Roman, and very few Byzantine tombs were found; we will discuss this issue below. The Samaritan revolts, which had such fateful consequences for the Samaritan community, began in the second half of the fifth century CE, the same period in which, according to the surveys, Byzantine sites flourished. The picture of Samaria in the Byzantine period presented by the surveys resembles that indicated by the numerous surveys conducted in the rest of the Land of Israel. However, in Samaria, Christianity did not flourish in this period and churches were not built; rather it experienced ruin and abandonment following the revolts. We do not understand how the surveys argue for a dramatic increase in the number of sites in Samaria in the Byzantine period. The survey of Jerusalem, conducted within the city’s municipal bounds, contains four map surveys: the ʿEin Karem map (101; sheet 13–16); the Jerusalem map (102; sheet 13–17); the Bet Leḥem map (105; sheet 12–16); and the map of Talpiyot (106; sheet 12–17).84 Byzantine Jerusalem extended over the entire area of the present-day Old City. There were many inhabited areas—monasteries and residential quarters—beyond Jerusalem’s walls. Monasteries were densely situated around the city, and about 40 have been discovered in and around it. In addition to the dense distribution of monasteries, numerous oil presses were discovered. The surveyor maintains that this attests to the large-scale production of olive oil in the Byzantine period.85 This conclusion is inaccurate, and as we noted, most of the industrial oil presses belong to the Umayyad and Abbasid, rather than Byzantine, periods. The surveyor did not offer an estimate of the number of Byzantine sites, but according to his description, their number is higher in this period than in the Early Islamic one. The number of sites from the latter period is about one fifth of that in the Byzantine period. The large number of
[12]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
identification of sacred sites mentioned in Jewish and Christian sources.91 Many surveys with a Christian focus were conducted in the nineteenth century, in an attempt to identify monasteries mentioned in the sources. When archaeological excavations were first conducted in the Land of Israel at the beginning of the twentieth century, they focused on the large biblical tels, paying less attention to Christian sites.92 The archive of the British Mandate period (IAA) is replete with reports of the discovery of churches as a result of construction and road building; some of those churches were published by a few scholars. There is scant information from the years 1948– 1967 on the uncovering of archaeological remains resulting from salvage excavations. Church bodies and clerics continued to research and excavate Christian churches and monasteries. After 1967, a comprehensive survey—the Archaeological Survey 1967–1968—was conducted in Judea, Samaria, and the Golan Heights that revealed previously unknown archaeological remains.93 Due to the haste with which the survey was conducted, and especially, published, the surveyors did not make use of or incorporate the great quantity of archival material, available either in published form or in archives, on the excavations and surveys conducted in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. This disregard of everything previously surveyed and excavated was its great deficiency. Today, the survey still serves as a fruitful source of information and references, despite not providing a full archaeological picture, and at times being misleading regarding the Byzantine-Christian period in Judea and Samaria. An effort was made in the 1970s and 1980s to consolidate the historical and archaeological information on the churches and monasteries discovered in the Land of Israel.94 In the 1980s and 1990s comprehensive general surveys were conducted in Judea and Samaria, such as the Manasseh Hill Country survey, the Mt. Ephraim survey, and the Benjamin Hill Country survey.95 A survey was conducted in the municipal territory of Jerusalem,96 and a comprehensive survey, recently published, was conducted in the area of the Map of Amaẓya; a large part of the latter consists of the Hebron Hills and part of the Judean Shephelah.97 In the 1980s two focused surveys of monasteries were conducted that added
a church was discovered, as well.88 Four additional sites might possibly contain church remains. The rest lack any testimony to the presence of a church, and the surveyor himself expresses doubt regarding the existence of a church at some of the sites. The surveys conducted in the area of the Map of Amaẓya in the nineteenth century and subsequently did not come upon any evidence of additional churches. How can we reconcile the small number of churches with the 573 Byzantine sites discovered in an area of 100 sq. km? If the population here was Christian, when did it come to the area or convert to Christianity, and where did it observe its rite? This region was inhabited by Idumeans and Jews. It suffered severe harm in the Great and Bar-Kokhba Revolts. Eusebius’ Onomasticon makes no mention of Jewish or Christian settlements in the early fourth century CE in this region. Thus, if there was a large population in the area in the fourth century CE, as the surveyor argues, then it was not Jewish or Christian, but pagan or Idumean. There is a major discrepancy between the historical and archaeological reality and what the surveyor claims. Our understanding of the Byzantine period, based on the surveys, is deficient. Most of the results of surveys in other parts of the Land of Israel that relate to the Byzantine period were summarized by Y. Tsafrir, and we need not repeat them.89 The picture of settlement distribution in the Byzantine period is identical in them all.
Christian Sites in Judea and Samaria The dozens of surveys and thousands of excavations and soundings conducted in Judea and Samaria over the course of the past two centuries has enabled us to paint a broad picture of the distribution of the Christian churches. Most of the surveys conducted by travelers and researchers during the nineteenth and early twentieth century preceded the wave of construction that damaged and even caused the disappearance of many archaeological remains. These remains included hundreds of churches.90 Most of the early surveyors were Christians who sought proof for and identifications of the narratives of the Old and New Testaments, and many engaged in the discovery and
[13]
Y. M A G E N
Despite the lack of archaeological data since the latter took responsibility for those areas, and the intentional destruction of the archaeological remains of churches and monasteries due to accelerated construction and intensive agricultural activity, and obviously, the increased looting of antiquities, we can draw quite a good picture of the distribution of Christian sites in Judea and Samaria from the archival material amassed before 1995, and after that year in Area C (controlled by the State of Israel). However, our knowledge of the scope of Christian settlement in the Palestinian villages, towns, and cities is still incomplete. Many of the churches had already been destroyed in antiquity, and nineteenth century surveyors repeatedly stressed that the mosques in the Palestinian villages were built over or near Byzantine and Crusader churches, making use of their building stones and other architectural components. Most of the churches in the Palestinian cities and villages whose existence was reported in the nineteenth and early twentieth century have vanished. In recent years, monasteries and churches located in open areas beyond the bounds of the Palestinian settlements, as well, have been destroyed and are disappearing. The results of surveys and excavations conducted in the past 40 years in Palestinian cities and villages do not indicate a massive construction wave of churches and residential structures in the private and rural sectors during the Byzantine period. Neither churches nor residential quarters that would have housed numerous Christians were found, nor large numbers of tombs that would have served the millions of people posited to have lived in the Land of Israel in that period. The wealthy individuals who contributed to the construction of churches, some of whom might have dwelled in the towns and villages, did not build themselves grand houses there with magnificent mosaics. The rich and magnificent architecture characteristic of the churches and monasteries did not penetrate the rural private sector in Judea and Samaria, even in settlements that could be categorized as towns. Our abovementioned comments pertain not to the Roman-Byzantine cities, although even there, the question is not simple. The inevitable question is whether there were densely populated towns and villages and Roman-Byzantine style living quarters in Judea and Samaria. In any case, the thousands of
important information concerning the distribution of monasteries in the Judean Desert.98 In addition to these surveys, since 1967 many Christian sites were surveyed, excavated, and documented by archaeologists of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria.99 Additionally, thousands of random soundings have been conducted, the majority following requests for building permits in Palestinian settlements. An archaeological sounding was conducted for every house built in Judea and Samaria, and if archaeological remains were uncovered, the results were documented. Between 1976 and 1996 there was a great deal of Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria, both public and private, as well as construction of roads and army camps, and laying water and electricity lines. In the past decade many excavations were conducted in the vicinity of the Security Fence between Judea and Samaria and the State of Israel, in which numerous sites were surveyed and excavated. During my time as Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, I supervised the excavations and their finds, in both the Palestinian private and public sectors and the Israeli civilian and military spheres. Most of the excavations, which included cities, towns, villages, and open areas, were random, and accordingly, so was the information we received. The randomness of the excavations was an advantage because it gave a broad picture of the extent of Byzantine construction and of the distribution of churches in the inhabited villages. In addition to all this, in recent years we initiated dozens of excavations of monasteries and other Christian sites. Since 1995, following the signing of the IsraeliPalestinian Interim Agreement, we have received no archaeological data regarding the discovery of Byzantine monasteries or churches in the territory of the Palestinian Authority. We know of the intensive construction of hundreds of thousands of new buildings constructed in Areas A and B, but Christian archaeological finds of interest have not been published. We fear that most of the buildings were constructed without proper archaeological supervision. Moreover, we know of the damage and destruction of many previously excavated churches, monasteries, and mosaic floors that were transferred to the Palestinian Authority.
[14]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
In the corpus of Christian sites we also mentioned sites whose identification as churches is doubtful, as well as those known from the outset not to contain church remains. They were included because they are mentioned in the scholarly literature and in surveys from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as Christian sites, and these identifications had to be disproved. Many reasons led us to examine the Christian sites in Judea and Samaria. We will list only a few: (1) this is an area that has been surveyed and excavated over the course of many years; (2) the largest number of Byzantine churches and monasteries discovered in the Land of Israel came to light in this region, which, according to the surveys, was the most heavily populated region in the Land of Israel; (3) most of the Christian sacred sites mentioned in the Old and New Testaments are located in this region; (4) peoples whose religious outlook on life was similar to that of the Christians lived here in the Second Temple period and in that preceding the Roman Empire’s recognition of Christianity: the Jews, the Samaritans, and to some degree, also the Idumeans, who were close to the Jews, albeit not religiously, but in their culture, and shared historical memories (the biblical Patriarchs). The Jews were almost eradicated following the BarKokhba Revolt, leaving only a small number of settlements, mainly in the southern Hebron Hills. We maintain that the Idumeans did not disappear after their conversion by John Hyrcanus I, and continued to exist until the official recognition of Christianity. The Samaritans dwelled in Samaria, where they constituted the main population group in the fourth and fifth centuries CE.102 In the corpus we will seek to examine, classify, and distinguish between the Christian sites. One of the central questions that will occupy us is: how many of the churches were churches of settlements, monastery churches, dedicatory churches, or churches of the hospices served by monks and priests, established on the roadside? This question is of great importance; its answer might hint at the number of inhabitants in the Byzantine period in Judea and Samaria, and in the Land of Israel as a whole, and of their ethnic composition. The distinction between a church that served a Christian community in a village or town numbering some 1,000–1,500 inhabitants, and a
random excavations and numerous surveys conducted have produced no documentation or publication of a Byzantine Christian neighborhood or residential quarter in the rural sector, nor even of a single house, that might indicate that millions of people (according to scholarly estimates) lived there. The excavations indicate that all the structures defined by scholars as Roman or Byzantine villas were actually fourth century Roman fortresses that had become monasteries in the Byzantine period. Surprisingly, to exemplify a house from the Byzantine period, scholars continually return to the structure excavated by Y. Hirschfeld in Susya, a Jewish settlement that, based on the pottery vessels accompanying the publication, could definitely have been erected in the Early Islamic period.100 Byzantine structures will undoubtedly be discovered in the future, and based on the monasteries, we already know what structures from this period look like. Notwithstanding this, the disparity between the multitude of monasteries and churches and the lack of extensive private construction remains unresolved. We will discuss this question below.
The Corpus of Christian Sites in Judea and Samaria The corpus of Byzantine Christian sites (in this and the following volume) is based on the surveys and excavations conducted in Judea and Samaria from the nineteenth century to the present. Many of the churches that were visible and were surveyed in former centuries no longer exist. The sites in which remains of Christian churches were discovered and that are included in this corpus are merely part of a much larger group that was lost before surveys were first conducted in the nineteenth century.101 The churches, and mainly the monasteries, that escaped harm were isolated and distant from settlement centers. This situation changed in recent years. The intentional destruction of Christian sites has worsened considerably in the past century. Isolated monasteries and mosaic floors are being destroyed on a daily basis by the Palestinian population. This leads us to conclude that the actual number of Byzantine churches and monasteries greatly exceeded the number discovered by the various surveys and excavations and appearing in this corpus.
[15]
Y. M A G E N
became part of the administrative district of the city. In the northwest of Samaria was an additional Jewish toparchy, Narbata. Scholars disagree regarding the precise location of this region.105 To the west, Samaria was bounded by the territory of Caesarea and Antipatris.106 Its border to the east is unclear; at any rate, it did not include the Jordan Valley. It is less clear where its southern boundary, between the Samaritan and Jewish populations, passed before the destruction of the Second Temple.107 In the fourth century BCE, Alexander the Great found Samaria to be a consolidated administrative unit (province), headed by the governor Sanballat, with its capital in the city of Samaria, the administrative center of the entire region.108 Samaria and Mt. Gerizim were destroyed by John Hyrcanus I and his sons.109 We do not know what happened in Samaria in the Hasmonean period, or whether the Hasmoneans attempted to settle Jews in the region, other than in Narbata and ʿAqraba. We assume that the northern boundary of extended Judea, which included parts of the historical Land of Benjamin and the southern Mt. Ephraim, was not extended northward following the Hasmonean conquest. The Hasmoneans did not build in Samaria, nor did they populate it with Jews.110 In the Roman and Byzantine periods, the southern boundary of the Samaritan settlement apparently ran some 10 km south of the Roman city of Neapolis. This boundary, confirmed by the discovery of Samaritan synagogues, ritual baths, and sarcophagi, had apparently separated extended Judea and Samaria before the destruction of the Second Temple. The Romans, and certainly the Byzantines, did not permit the Samaritans to move south of this line, despite the abandonment of most of the Jewish population there following the destruction of the Second Temple.111 The two previously established Roman cities of Sebastiya (Samaria) and Neapolis (Shechem) were located in Samaria. Sebastiya was inhabited mainly by pagans (from the beginning of the Hellenistic period) and a small number of Samaritans. A considerable Samaritan population resided in Neapolis, alongside the pagan inhabitants. Both cities were similar, with their pagan religion and temples and Roman administration and culture.112 Most of the population in the villages and towns around these cities was Samaritan, with a pagan minority. Sebastiya had
monastery, dedicatory, or roadside church that served a small community of monks whose numbers did not exceed 10–40 or pilgrims on their way back to their homeland or continuing to other regions after a short stay in the area, is highly significant. Today, as well, most monasteries are inhabited by only a few monks. The definition of a Christian site as a monastery, on the one hand, or as a village or town, on the other, is of great importance, not only for calculating the Christian population of Judea and Samaria, and of the Land of Israel as a whole, in the Byzantine period, but for an understanding of the proliferation of the Christian churches, and the social and religious structure and ethnic composition of the Christian population during this period.
Christianity in Samaria Samaria can be divided into three strips. The northern strip, inhabited by Samaritans, was almost completely empty of Christian settlements, with the exception of those in the Roman cities and their immediate surroundings. South of it was a strip, only a few kilometers wide, that bordered on the Samaritan region; it was sparsely populated with Christian settlements, some of which were destroyed during the Samaritan revolts and were not restored. South of these settlements were the monasteries that had been established in Roman fortresses. The third, broad strip, which includes the historical Land of Ephraim and the Land of Benjamin (northern Judea), borders on Jerusalem and is replete with monasteries and Christian settlements. Before the destruction of the Second Temple, the two southern strips were mainly inhabited by Jews. To understand the distribution of Christian settlements in Samaria, we must first review the history of the region and of the Samaritans who populated it. Samaria was always a distinct geographical and administrative unit.103 Josephus writes that the Samaritans lived between Galilee and the Land of Judea (War 3:48). Samaria began in the village of Ginea (Jenin) and ended in the vicinity of the toparchy of Acrabbene (ʿAqraba; War 3:55),104 which was inhabited by Jews until the destruction of the Second Temple, or perhaps until the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. After Neapolis was established, Samaria was annexed to its territory and
[16]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
religion than in the Roman period. The journey of the monk Bar Tzoma of Netzibin in 400 CE,119 and the description by Antoninus of Placentia in 570 CE,120 after the Samaritan uprisings, teach that the Samaritan population was conservative and unyielding, and extremely punctilious in its observance of the Samaritan religion, both before and after the Samaritan rebellions. The statement by Procopius of Justinian’s success in converting the Samaritans to Christianity in the wake of their revolts121 has no basis in the other contemporaneous historical sources, and especially not in the considerable archaeological finds produced by the excavations in Samaria. Christianity failed to forcibly convert the Samaritans as a people living on its land. The new religion undoubtedly succeeded in proselytizing individual Samaritans who lived in the Roman cities,122 but the archaeological and historical picture that emerges from Samaria is that Christianity failed to impose itself on the Samaritan people and turn Samaria into a Christian region. Sebastiya and Neapolis, like all the Roman cities in the Land of Israel, were inhabited by a diverse, mainly pagan population; these two cities also had Samaritan residents. Upon Christianity’s recognition as the official religion of the Empire, the religious leadership in the cities changed from pagan to Christian. The temples to the Roman pantheon were abandoned, but not immediately. Many pagans retained their beliefs and continued worshiping their gods until the end of the fourth century CE, and even later.123 Consequently, when we discuss the distribution of churches and Christianity in Samaria, a clear distinction must be drawn between the Roman cities, with their mixed populations, and the surrounding rural population. In Samaria, the Samaritan population differed in both in origin and religion from the populace of the Roman cities. Eusebius did not specify the religion of settlements that were neither Christian nor Jewish, so we cannot know with certainty which settlements in Samaria were Samaritan, and which were pagan. This uncertainty is compounded by the tendency of some of the Samaritans in the second and third centuries CE to assimilate, culturally and possibly also religiously, into the pagan population. We possess no unequivocal archaeological finds from these centuries, such as the names of Samaritan inhabitants, synagogues, or ritual baths, which would
a separate administrative district, the “territory of Sebaste,” that was mainly pagan and continued to exist until the Byzantine period; we know this from the Onomasticon of Eusebius.113 The last passage of the Rehov Inscription, which is concerned with the laws of the Sabbatical year and tithes, contains a list of 18 or 19 settlements, most probably pagan, in the territory of Sebaste.114 According to the halakhic conception of the Jews in the Babylonian Exile, the commandments “dependent upon” the Land of Israel are applicable only in the parts of the Land to which they return, and the agricultural produce of entire regions in the Land of Israel is exempt from the laws of tithes and the Sabbatical year. These settlements, the “permitted towns,” were most likely not Samaritan, but pagan. Sebastiya and the settlements within its territory were mainly pagan, some afterwards becoming Christian. Upon Christianity’s rise to dominance as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the abrogation of idolatry, at least officially, the Samaritan community enjoyed economic growth, and mainly, a religious revival headed by Baba Rabbah.115 This prosperity occurred in the interim period between Constantine’s proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 324 CE and the rise, in the midfifth century CE, of the radical Christian emperors who decided to forcibly impose Christianity on the Samaritans. The height of this struggle came during the reign of Zeno and the establishment of the church of Mary Theotokos on Mt. Gerizim in 484 CE, and it continued in the time of Justinian I.116 The Samaritan community had flourished in the fourth and early fifth century CE: synagogues were built, and the Samaritans were permitted to go up to their temple at Mt. Gerizim and renew their rite, for the first time in some 400 years.117 The prolonged Samaritan revolt, which began with the erection of the church on Mt. Gerizim, continued in the reign of Justinian in the sixth century CE.118 The archaeological finds confirm the assimilation that challenged the Samaritans in Samaria and in the Roman cities in the second and third centuries; only the dominance won by Christianity in the fourth century CE returned the Samaritans to their original religion. When the Byzantine emperors began to forcibly impose Christianity, they found a Samaritan community in Samaria that was more determined to maintain its
[17]
Y. M A G E N
which resulted in the desecration and burning of the bones of John the Baptist by pagans.129 It should be emphasized that in the early phases, the Christian struggle in Sebastiya and elsewhere was directed against the pagans, and not against the Samaritans, who were a minority in the city.130 While no monumental Byzantine church has come to light in Sebastiya, there almost certainly were one or more churches in the city. Although Byzantine Sebastiya was not large like the other Roman cities in the Land of Israel, the Christian religious establishment deemed the speedy conversion of the city and its surroundings to be of great importance. This is can be inferred from the traditions they created regarding the presence of the tombs of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah, and mainly, that of John the Baptist, who, after Jesus, was one of the major figures in Christianity. In addition, only a year after the Empire’s official recognition of Christianity, a Christian community existed in Sebastiya, for which a bishop was appointed. This bishop, Marinus, participated in the Council of Nicaea, held in 325 CE. Additional bishops of the city are mentioned from the fourth to sixth centuries CE: Eusebius participated in the Council of Seleucia (359 CE); Satunis (or Nilus) took part in the Council of Constantinople (381 CE); Eleutherius participated in the Council of Lydda in 415 CE131; Constantine participated in the Council of Ephesus (449 CE); Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem, appointed the monk Marclon bishop of Sebastiya (494–516 CE)132; Pelagius participated in the Council of Jerusalem in 536 CE; and Anatolis participated in the Council of Constantinople in 553 CE. Stephan, an additional bishop of Sebastiya,133 was not mentioned in the sources, but his name came to light on a lintel (see below). Although no churches were discovered in Sebastiya, it seems that the city had a large Christian community that was a center for Christian settlements in the territory of Sebaste. The Christians viewed Sebastiya as a major Christian settlement, and almost certainly aided it financially, due to its location within a dense Samaritan population. Since this was a RomanByzantine city controlled by the central authorities, it was not difficult to impose Christianity in the early phases of Christianity’s being the official religion of the Empire.
enable us to distinguish between Samaritan and pagan settlements.124 In any case, there were no Christian settlements in Samaria in the early fourth century CE. The change, which began in the Roman cities, occurred during the fourth and early fifth century CE.
Churches and Christian Sacred Sites in the Roman-Byzantine Cities in Samaria In the Byzantine period, the city of Sebastiya was small, compared to Neapolis. Based on extensive excavations conducted in the former, it did not contain numerous large churches like those in Jerash (Gerasa).125 Sebastiya was hallowed in Christianity by the traditions that the prophets Elisha and Obadiah, and John the Baptist, were buried there.126 These and many more traditions are completely absent from both the Old and New Testaments, and became widespread only after Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Empire. It is unclear whether these traditions were based on early traditions of unknown origin, and they were certainly not based on those of the Samaritans, whose only prophet was Moses and who undoubtedly did not acknowledge Elisha, Obadiah, and John the Baptist as sacred figures. Most of the Christian sacred sites acquired this standing in the fourth century CE, as part of an attempt by the Christian religious establishment and some monks to seek roots in the Old and New Testaments that would enable them to expand their sphere of influence and facilitate it in many regions of the Land of Israel. This quest led to the establishment of dedicatory churches in those locations. Some of the Christian sacred site traditions, such as the burial place of famous biblical and New Testament personages, were conceivably based on early Jewish or Samaritan traditions. No Byzantine sources mention a church at Sebastiya, except for a passage assumed to be from Egeria’s travels (381–384 CE) that appears in a composition by Peter the Deacon (twelfth century).127 This passage might refer to the Crusader church of John the Baptist, the remains of which are still extant. No Byzantine remains were discovered in the church, except for a section of a wall on the northern side and two capitals bearing a carved Maltese cross.128 There are reports of riots that occurred in Sebastiya in 360–363 CE, during the reign of Emperor Julian the Apostate,
[18]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
of the Samaritan religion. He almost certainly came from a Samaritan family that had assimilated into the Roman religion and culture.138 There are no archaeological reports on the existence of churches in Neapolis. In the sources, only Procopius mentions a church, relating that on Pentecost, Christians would assemble in the church, the bishop Terebinthus officiating before the altar. The Samaritans burst into the church, killed many of the Christians, and attacked the bishop.139 This Samaritan act ignited a religious struggle between Christians and Samaritans that continued for many years. M. Avi-Yonah identified this church, which he referred to as the episcopal basilica, with a structure having a gabled roof and west–east in orientation, presented in the Madaba Map close to the theater and south of the decumanus of Neapolis.140 An additional bishop of Neapolis, Germanus, who aided the Samaritans, was mentioned in the writings of Marqah, from the third or fourth century CE, which because of its Samaritan source, should be regarded with caution.141 The en-Nasre mosque was most probably built over the church. The mosque, west–east in orientation, is divided into three halls, and has granite columns and capitals of Roman-Byzantine style.142 V. Guérin opined, in his description of Nablus and the qasba of Shechem, that some of its mosques were converted Byzantine churches. He asserted that the Jami el-Kabir mosque (the “Great Mosque”) was a Christian church of John the Baptist, according to one version, or of James, the son of Alphaeus (the Apostle James), according to another.143 The mosque is decorated with Corinthian capitals, and either the church was originally built in the Crusader period, or a church already stood there in that period. He also mentions Jami al-Hadrá (the Green Mosque) in the old Samaritan quarter. Guérin cites the Samaritan view that this mosque was built over a synagogue, a fact proven true in the archaeological excavations conducted at the site.144 A Samaritan inscription incorporated in the mosque was found.145 Not all of Guérin’s identifications of churches are to be accepted, and some of the architectural items in Shechem that he depicts as belonging to churches actually derived from structures in Roman Neapolis. In a related example, a renewed examination of seats with inscriptions, discovered in the east of the city and
Despite these circumstances, the dense Samaritan population that encompassed the city did not allow Christianity to increase its numbers and develop in the rural sector. The settlements around Sebastiya included Samaritan settlements like el-Khirbe, situated some 2.5 km southwest of Sebastiya, in which a Samaritan synagogue was unearthed, as well as a few Christian settlements. The ʿEin Harun spring, located about 2 km south of Sebastiya, supplied the city with water; it yielded a tunnel containing a chapel with an apse bearing crosses on its walls.134 A lintel in the tomb of esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh, 2 km north of Sebastiya, bore a three-line Greek inscription, accompanied by crosses, that mentions a bishop of Sebastiya named Stephan, who constructed a chapel to John the Baptist.135 The architectural items with the inscription found in the sheikh’s tomb were most probably in secondary use from a church in Sebastiya. We would expect to find more Christian sites— churches and monasteries—around Sebastiya. The question arises whether such sites existed, and were attacked and razed during the Samaritan uprising or by the Muslims in some phase, or whether the Christians feared building churches (and certainly isolated monasteries), and even populating pagan settlements close to Samaritan ones and distant from the city. The penetration of Christianity into Neapolis was more complex. The city contained a large Samaritan population, which also encompassed the city with a dense band of settlements. Neapolis was a pagan city, as was expressed in its cultural and sports institutions: a hippodrome, a theater, an amphitheater, a boule (city council), and a temple of Zeus Hypsistos.136 It has not been determined whether the city had a Christian population prior to Christianity’s recognition as the official; we assume that this was the case in Neapolis, as in the other Roman cities. The only testimony that might allude to this is the case of Justin Martyr, a Greek philosopher and author and a native of Neapolis, who converted to Christianity in the time of Hadrian (133 CE).137 Justin left Neapolis and was executed in Rome for his Christian activity. We do not know whether he converted to Christianity while still in Neapolis, or only later, after he had left the city. Justin Martyr attests that he was of Samaritan extraction, despite the Greek names of his father and grandfather and his ignorance
[19]
Y. M A G E N
Aerial photograph of the Qasba of Shechem-Nablus, established over the ruins of the Roman city of Neapolis. At the center is one of the mosques, which according to some scholars was built on the remains of a Byzantine church.
(John 4:21–22). This was especially so since by the time that Christianity became the official religion, many Samaritans were in an advanced stage of assimilation into pagan culture and into its religion, whose temple stood on Mt. Gerizim, as is attested by the city coins of Neapolis.152 This explains the paucity of sites with a religious tradition from the New Testament that were hallowed in Samaria, with the exception of Jacob’s Well and the identification of the tomb of John the Baptist in Sebastiya. In the first phases of the penetration of Christianity, the Christians did not sanctify Samaritan sites, except for those mentioned in the Old Testament. Even Mt. Gerizim was not regarded as holy by the Christians, despite its being the Mount of Blessing, and despite the establishment of the church of Mary Theotokos over the Samaritan temple. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 CE) notes in his portrayal of Mt. Gerizim, “Here the Samaritans say that Abraham offered
ascribed to Christian sects146 following the account of Epiphanius,147 showed that the stone seats were in secondary use, and came from the Roman period, from either an odeon or a boule.148 The Samaritans did not receive Jesus amiably on his visits to Samaria because he was a Jew, and there was hostility between the Samaritans and the Jews at that time.149 Before the destruction of the Second Temple, nascent Christianity did not make a great impression on the Samaritans, who saw it as an imitation of Judaism.150 The Christians regarded the Samaritans, as well as the Jews and the pagans, as posing a threat to the future of Christianity in the Land of Israel.151 Nonetheless, the Christians regarded themselves as the new Israel, and held the Jews (the old Israel) in respect. They thought of the Samaritans as a religious anomaly. The Christians showed no interest in the Samaritans and their sacred site at Mt. Gerizim, according to the New Testament
[20]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
sacrifice” (Itinerarium Burdigalense 587, 3).153 That is the only time Abraham was mentioned regarding Mt. Gerizim. He probably questioned the Samaritan tradition, despite mentioning it. The Christians rejected the traditions regarding the Samaritan sacred sites; as well as the Samaritan tradition that identified Mt. Gerizim with Mt. Moriah, as we learn from the writings of Procopius.154 They were even doubtful regarding Mt. Gerizim’s location. Mt. Gerizim appears on the Madaba Map both near Shechem, and near Jericho, according to the teaching of R. Eliezer, who situated Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal in the vicinity of Jericho (JT Soṭah 7:3a).155 R. Eliezer’s version is less accepted in Judaism. Even if the Christians used Samaritan traditions regarding the identification of sacred sites, they attributed them to the Old Testament, and not to the Samaritans. Such identifications included Joseph’s Tomb,156 Jacob’s Well,157 the plot of land purchased by Jacob, Ḥuzn Yaʿqūb,158 and the tombs of the priests from the line of Aaron and the 70 elders at ʿAwarta.159
A Roman well known as Jacob’s Well is located east of Neapolis (see below). Like the other sites mentioned above, its source lies in a tradition from the Old and New Testaments, while its location is based on a Samaritan tradition that parallels the Old testament tradition of the wells that Isaac dug in the Negev (Gen. 26:18–34). This identification was part of the JewishSamaritan controversy regarding biblical sacred sites, which revolved mainly around the identification of Mt. Moriah as being either in Jerusalem or at Mt. Gerizim. This disagreement apparently began in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and continued until after the destruction of Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem.160 The Christians did not limit their sacralization efforts to sites connected with the New Testament, Jesus, and Christianity; they also adopted the sacred sites mentioned in the Old Testament. Their attempts to take control of the Samaritan biblical sacred sites began in the late fourth century CE, reaching their peak about 160 years later, with the construction of a church on Mt. Gerizim. Such actions led to additional tension
Aerial photograph of the church of St. Mary Theotokos and the surrounding complex built on Mount Gerizim. The church was founded in 484 CE by Zeno and enlarged by Emperor Justinian. It was established in the Samaritan sacred precinct after the temple remains there were destroyed.
[21]
Y. M A G E N
details concerning the location of Jacob’s Well and the church. He writes that Neapolis and Sychar are different places, and relates that Paula “entered the church that is built on the ridge of Mount Gerizim around Jacob’s Well” (Ep. 108, 13).167 Jacob’s Well does not issue from a ridge on Mt. Gerizim but is located in the valley northeast of the Mount. It has not been determined whether this flaw in his description resulted from a lack of knowledge, or can be explained by his faulty recollection of the journey he had taken with Paula in 386 CE and had written about only 18 years later; or whether Hieronymus was referring to another spring, possibly ʿEin Dafna, that issued at the foot of Mt. Gerizim.168 Peter the Deacon mentions a church at Jacob’s Well, and further relates that a church stood at the tomb of St. Joseph,169 which we should regard as highly questionable, since there is no archaeological testimony or mention in Christian sources that a church had been built at Joseph’s Tomb. Terrae Sanctae by Theodosius, dated to the early sixth century CE, mentions Jacob’s Well and Joseph’s Tomb, but does not speak of the presence of churches at these sites.170 The hill of Phinehas in Mt. Ephraim, where Eleazar son of Aaron was buried (Josh. 24:33), is another sacred site with roots in the Samaritan and biblical tradition, and is mentioned in Christian sources. Samaritan tradition places the burial site in the village of ʿAwarta, and to the present, Samaritans believe that Eleazar son of Aaron, and Phinehas and his sons Abishua and Ithamar, are buried there.171 This sacred site is mentioned in the journey of Paula.172 As few sacred sites in Samaria are linked to the life of Jesus, the Christians needed the biblical sites preserved in Samaritan traditions to sanctify Samaria and strike Christian roots in the region. Mt. Gerizim was the hallowed mount on which the blessing was delivered (Deut. 11:29–30). It was sanctified in the tradition of the Samaritans, and as mentioned above, a temple had already been built upon it in the Persian period (fifth century BCE).173 In the fourth and early fifth century CE, when Christianity sought to establish a physical presence in every place mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, Mt. Gerizim was an active Samaritan ritual site, as is indicated by the scores of Samaritan inscriptions, written in Greek, unearthed in the sacred
between Christians and Samaritans, culminating in the Samaritan revolts that resulted in the nearextermination of the Samaritans. Samaritan sources tell of Christian attempts, prior to the Samaritan revolts, to take control of the Samaritan sacred sites in the time of Emperor Marcian (450–457 CE),161 about 30 years before the erection of the church at Mt. Gerizim.162 Jacob’s Well was one of the first places in Shechem to be sanctified by the Christians. The well is mentioned in the New Testament (John 4:20–29) as the place where Jesus met the Samaritan woman. The woman apparently lived in the village of Sukkar (Sychar), identified with the village of ʿAskar, north of Jacob’s Well.163 A plentiful spring, known as ʿEin ʿAskar, issues forth in the village, to the present. It is unclear why the Samaritan woman, an inhabitant of Sychar, walked hundreds of meters, or even more, to draw water from Jacob’s Well, which was distant from her village. The encounter might have taken place in ʿEin Sychar, and not at Jacob’s Well, a Roman well probably installed in the second century CE (when Neapolis was established), rather than in the time of Jesus (Second Temple period). The identification of the place where Jesus and the Samaritan woman met was changed from the spring in ʿAskar-Sychar to Jacob’s Well to impart a twofold sanctity to the site, from both the Old and New Testaments.164 Jacob’s Well is mentioned in very early Christian sources. The Bordeaux Pilgrim mentions it, clearly distinguishing it from Sychar-ʿAskar: A thousand paces from there is the place named Sychar, from which the Samaritan woman descended to the place where Jacob dug a well from which to draw water, and our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with her. There are plane trees which Jacob planted and a bath that is supplied with water from this well (Itinerarium Burdigalense 588, 3–5). Eusebius speaks of Sychar as being in the plot of land that Jacob purchased, but makes no mention of Jacob’s Well.165 In contrast, in his Latin version of the Onomasticon, Hieronymus relates that a church stood there in his time.166 In his account of the journey of Paula, in a letter that Hieronymus himself wrote to her daughter Eustochium in 404 CE, he adds puzzling
[22]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
this act would fan the flames of rebellion, as is attested by the massive fortifications raised around the church, the likes of which were unparalleled in the Land of Israel in the Byzantine period. Two reasons were responsible for the long period that passed between Christianity’s recognition as the official religion of the Empire and the establishment of the church: the Christians’ fear of violent Samaritan opposition, and their lack of religious interest in Mt. Gerizim, as a result of the prophecy by Jesus.
compound.174 The erection of the church over the Samaritan temple did not ensue from the sanctity of the site for Christians. The latter believed the Jewish version, that Mt. Moriah is in Jerusalem, and therefore they apparently did not have a religious reason for battling the Samaritans for Mt. Gerizim.175 That the Christians did not sanctify Mt. Gerizim can be seen from the account in John 4:20–21, in which the Samaritan woman says: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus responds: “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” Although Procopius was almost certainly familiar with what was written in John, he intentionally distorted what Jesus said in order to justify the establishment of the church. He writes:
Christian Sites in Northern Samaria As we mentioned, thousands of archaeological excavations and soundings prompted by construction have been conducted in Judea and Samaria. To the present, no structure that can be identified with certainty as a church has been discovered in the rural sector in northern Samaria, except for the remains of the church at Bardala,179 regarding which we are doubtful. Samaria, and especially the Roman cities, flourished from the second through the mid-fifth century CE. Public structures were built: theaters, a hippodrome, amphitheaters, a boule, temples, magnificent mausoleums, and Samaritan synagogues. There was also extensive private construction in the rural sector. Consequently, the discovery of columns or architectural details, some of marble, incorporated in mosques or other sites in Samaria is not unusual, and does not always indicate the existence of a church. Additionally, chancel columns or architectural details bearing crosses might very well have been moved from place to place, even over great distances.180 Neither is a public structure that is east–west in orientation, with an external apse, necessarily a church. The Samaritan synagogues discovered at Kh. Samara and Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan) are east–west in orientation, facing Mt. Gerizim, and each has an external apse.181 Surveys from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries defined these sites as churches. In the first stages of the excavations of the synagogue at Ḥ. Migdal, the Samaritan synagogue was defined as a church.182 A review of the sites in Samaria shows that Samaritan synagogues and churches were not built next to one another in the same settlement, except, of course, in the Roman-Byzantine cities. Thus, the excavators’
But when Jesus, the Son of God, was in the body and went among the people there, He had a conversation with a certain woman who was a native of the place. And when this woman questioned Him about the mountain, He replied that thereafter the Samaritans would not worship on this mountain, but that the true worshippers [referring to the Christians] would worship Him in that place (Procopius, Buildings V, 7). In addition to Mt. Gerizim and the Temple Mount were the sacred sites of the Cave of Machpelah and Elonei Mamre, which were connected with the Patriarchs. The Christians did not sanctify the Temple Mount, in order to fulfill Jesus’ prophecy of its destruction (Matt. 24:1–2; Mark 13:1–2; Luke 21:5–6),176 and during the reign of Justinian, they even dismantled stones from the Temple Mount walls to build the Nea Church.177 They sanctified the Cave of Machpelah and Elonei Mamre, building churches at these sites.178 The Christians’ destruction of the remains of the precinct in Jerusalem, and their establishment of churches on Mt. Gerizim and at Elonei Mamre, were part of the Christian struggle against sacred sites at which Jews, Samaritans, and Idumeans offered prayers. The destruction of the temple remains and the establishment of a church on Mt. Gerizim, some 160 years after Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, were meant to punish the Samaritans and attempt to convert them. The Christians knew that
[23]
Y. M A G E N
The Samaritan synagogue at Kh. Samara in western Samaria. The synagogue is built with an atrium, narthex and apse, like a church, and faces east toward Mt. Gerizim, like the synagogue in Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan). The synagogue’s structure and orientation led a number of researchers to erroneously define it as a church.
[24]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
no remains of a Byzantine church.191 At the site of ʿEin Abus a terracotta ampulla bearing a cross was discovered,192 but it is difficult to determine the identity of a settlement or population based on only a single find. In ʿAttil, it is doubtful whether the remains discovered there belong to a church; they could belong to some Roman structure.193 In Baḥan, what appears to be a monastery or church was discovered on the main road between Caesarea and Neapolis; the site is located in the northern Shephelah, outside Samaria and beyond the area of Samaritan settlement.194 A tomb with Byzantine oil lamps bearing crosses was uncovered at Silet edhDhahr, in the territory of Sebaste. The site’s proximity to Roman Sebastiya might explain finding a tomb with crosses, or even a Christian site there.195 Remains of mosaics attributed to a church came to light at ez-Zababide. There is no proof that they belong to a church, and could also have come from a Samaritan synagogue or some sort of Roman structure.196 The structure at Kh. Jabaris was defined as a church and monastery, but does not exhibit the characteristics of a church in either shape or plan. Benches encompassing the inside walls are not typical of a church, and it was a mistake to define the structure as such.197 This might have been some Roman structure or a Samaritan synagogue. A structure defined as a church was discovered at Bardala, which is more in the administrative territory of Scythopolis than of Samaria.198 This seems to be an eastward-facing basilica structure, but the nature of the excavation and publication hinder drawing the unequivocal conclusion that this is a church. The presumed cross depicted in the mosaic might very well be a rosette embellishment. Isolated churches on the outskirts of Samaria or around the Roman cities cannot change the general picture of the distribution of Christian settlements in northern Samaria. In the rural sector, populated mainly by Samaritans, there were very few Christian settlements and churches. It might be argued that the severe damage the latter suffered in the Samaritan revolts prevents us from uncovering and identifying them today, but it seems impossible to us that a church could be so completely razed that no physical evidence would remain. An additional phenomenon that should be emphasized is the absence of
assumption that a monastery existed at Ḥ. Migdal is questionable. The sheikh’s tomb, erected over the Samaritan synagogue, yielded two marble chancel columns with four holes for inserting a brass cross, or some other ornament. The chancel columns used to decorate the sheikh’s tomb were almost certainly brought to the site in secondary use, and definitely did not belong to the synagogue. At any rate, no church or monastery has been discovered at Ḥ. Migdal. An additional phenomenon worthy of our attention is the existence of settlements in Samaria, from the Crusader period to modern times, with churches and Christian communities, e.g., Burqin, ʿAbud, and etTaiyiba.183 These communities had churches, but it is not certain that the latter were founded in the Byzantine period, or that a Christian population was present in the Byzantine period. Northern Samaria contains very few sites that owe their sanctity to the Bible or the life of Jesus. In his journeys to Samaria, Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans (Luke 9:51–53). At that time, relations between the Jews and Samaritans were hostile.184 The only narrative relating to Jesus in northern Samaria is the miracle of the healing of the 10 lepers (Luke 17:11–19). The New Testament source does not specify where in Samaria the miracle was performed. Two versions exist: in one, it occurred in Jenin, where the cave of the lepers can be seen; and in the other, it took place in Burqin.185 Jenin, the northernmost large settlement in Samaria, is surrounded by a number of sites containing Christian remains. There is no unequivocal testimony to the existence of a church in Jenin itself.186 The claim of an early church under the ʿEzz ed-Din mosque in Jenin was examined, and the excavations found no Christian remains. A small late church was found in Burqin, which had a population of 90 Greek Orthodox Christians in the nineteenth century.187 This does not prove the existence of a Christian community in the Byzantine period; Christians might have settled there in or after the Crusader period. A stone with a cross in a tomb was discovered at Kh. Balʿame.188 Guérin mentions the presence of architectural items in the old mosque in ʿArrabeh, which, in his opinion, was built over a church; his claim is unfounded.189 ʿArrabeh was probably a Samaritan settlement.190 Excavations conducted at Kh. Firasin revealed
[25]
Y. M A G E N
of monasteries and Christian settlements begins south of this line. This was the same boundary that separated the Jewish and Samaritan settlements; the Romans did not permit the Samaritans to cross this boundary and go southward, not even after the Jewish settlement’s abandonment in the Great and the BarKokhba Revolts. We believe this region to be “Har ha-Melekh,” abandoned at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, remaining mainly desolate, and settled not by Samaritans, but by a meager pagan population.203 ʿAqraba was the northeastern point of this boundary,204 and is mentioned by Eusebius, who states that this is the northeastern boundary of Judea, and that in his time there was a very large village, almost nine Roman miles east of Neapolis, east of the road to Jericho. The region is called Acrabbatine.205 The large village of ʿAqraba mentioned by Eusebius almost certainly contained a pagan population in the third century CE, not a Samaritan one; the population was definitely not Christian or Jewish, for he would have mentioned this. ʿAqraba contains Christian remains, and might have contained two monasteries206; but here, too, a Christian presence in the village is not unequivocal, and is based on Christian sources. An additional settlement located to the west, at the same latitude as ʿAqraba, is Deir ʿIstiya. Although the name alludes to the existence of a monastery and the name of the settlement sounds Greek, this might have been the location of a Crusader rather than Byzantine Christian settlement.207 In the village, Guérin found architectural items and crosses that had been destroyed.208 In Qarawat Bani Ḥasan it was presumed that there were Christian remains under the Sheikh ʾAli el-Amanat mosque, and Guérin saw a lintel with a cross in secondary use in the mosque entrance.209 The trial excavation conducted in the mosque uncovered neither a church nor Christian finds.210 A basilica church was unearthed at Kh. el-Buraq, some 3 km south of Qarawat Bani Ḥasan and 5.5 km southwest of Deir ʿIstiya.211 This is the sole unequivocal testimony to a basilica church in a Christian rural settlement in northern Samaria. Attacked and burned in the Samaritan revolts, the church was not restored.212 Christian settlements that bordered on the Samaritan region and were unprotected by walls and towers, did not survive the Samaritan revolts; and Christians apparently did not return to them after the revolts had
monasteries in northern Samaria. If the settlements were incapable of withstanding the Samaritans, this was certainly so for the monasteries, which were secluded and had few inhabitants. Monasteries began being built only in tremendous fortresses in southern Samaria, beyond the area of Samaritan settlement. Even the exceptional church built in the Samaritan area, in the sacred compound on Mt. Gerizim, with a surrounding system of fortifications the likes of which are unknown in the Byzantine period, was attacked by the Samaritans. Even before, and especially after their revolts, the Samaritans’ hatred of the Christians did not allow for coexistence in shared or adjoining villages. In contrast, the Jews and Christians frequently lived in adjoining villages, and sometimes even in the same ones.199 The Samaritans apparently coexisted more amicably with pagans than with Christians, as seen in the Roman cities. In the late Byzantine period, after the Samaritan revolts, the Byzantine emperors returned the Samaritans to their land, to prevent serious damage to Samaria’s agriculture and economy, and a steep drop in tax revenues.200 From all the above-mentioned givens, we can draw a number of conclusions: (1) the harm suffered by the Samaritan population was less grievous than it was portrayed in the Christian sources, and their expulsion from Samaria was not total; (2) the Christians were unsuccessful in converting the Samaritans, in contrast to the claims by Procopius. If individuals converted to Christianity, this was only for the sake of appearances201; (3) the Christians did not have sufficient Christian manpower in the Samaritan villages to work the land and dispossess the Samaritans. In any event, the Christians continued to fear the latter, and most of the Christian settlements and monasteries bordering on Samaritan settlements were established in defensible Roman fortresses. No Christian outlying settlements were discovered in northern Samaria, and if they existed, they were destroyed.202 In the area north of the line of the present-day CrossSamaria Highway, some 10 km south of Neapolis, which we defined as the southern boundary of the Samaritan settlement, there were hardly any churches in settlements or monasteries, except in the Roman cities and their immediate surroundings. The presence
[26]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
religious. To compensate for the lack of a large Christian population that could fill the various regions of the Land of Israel, Christians established memorial churches at sacred sites and monasteries. The residence and burial place of Joshua the son of Nun in Timnathserah (Josh. 19:50) is mentioned by Eusebius, who relates that the city of Timnah (Thamna) is “on a mountain,” and that in his time, the tomb of Joshua was visible.216 The accepted identification is with Kh. Tibne.217 Timnah, another site and apparently unassociated with Joshua, is mentioned by Eusebius in the territory of Diospolis, on the road to Jerusalem.218 In his account of the journey of Paula, Hieronymus mentions the tomb of Joshua son of Nun at Timnathserah.219 Peter the Deacon tells of a church established 20 Roman miles from Jerusalem,220 in memory of Joshua. Guérin writes at length about the tomb of Joshua, which he claims to have discovered. The tomb that he describes is to be dated to the Roman period.221 Shiloh is an additional, important sacred site. Eusebius notes that the site is situated in the territory of Ephraim, where the Ark of the Covenant is located, 12 Roman miles from Neapolis, in the ʿAqraba (Acrabbatine) district.222 Hieronymus does not mention a church at the site in his Latin translation of Eusebius.223 Peter the Deacon writes of a destroyed temple at Shiloh.224 In the letter written by Hieronymus to Paula’s daughter in 404 CE, giving an account of Paula’s journey in 386 CE (Epistula 108) he tells about a ruined altar, but again does not mention a church.225 However, in a letter to Marcella (Epistula 46), a wealthy Roman matron to whom Paula and her daughter wrote about sacred sites in the Land of Israel (a letter apparently actually written by Hieronymus), mention is made of a church at Shiloh.226 The letter is dated to the late fourth century CE.227 The early church discovered at Shiloh228 is dated by L. Di Segni to the same time, but we date it to the early fifth century CE.229 If the church had stood in 404 CE, when Hieronymus wrote the letter to Paula’s daughter, he would almost certainly have been cognizant of this and have mentioned it in the letter. We should therefore question the existence of a church at Shiloh at such an early date. Four churches were unearthed at Shiloh. Two churches at the foot of the tell were built one over
been suppressed. A lintel with a cross was found in secondary use in a house in ʿIzzun ʿAtme, west of Kh. el-Buraq.213 Yarḥiv, in the northern Shephelah, on the western edge of Samaria, contains another site that the excavators think contains Christian remains, but we doubt that the site was Christian.214 There was a great paucity of Christian settlements in northern Samaria, due to the fear of a Samaritan response.
Christian Sites in Southern Samaria The further south we go in Samaria, and the further from the Samaritan area, the greater the number of Christian sites. This region was replete with monasteries and Christian settlements, and before the destruction of the Second Temple, its population was mainly Jewish. The small number of sacred sites in Samaria connected to the New Testament compelled the first Christians to identify and hallow sites from the Old Testament. It is questionable whether Jews in the Second Temple period sanctified First Temple tombs and historical sites, as the Christians did in the fourth century CE. The Temple, Jerusalem, and the synagogues built in Jewish settlements filled the Jews’ religious needs. Even the location of Moses’ burial site was said to be unknown (BT Soṭah 13b), so that sacrifices and incense would not be offered at his tomb; nor are the tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron mentioned by the rabbis in the Second Temple period or given attention in the Jewish sources.215 Christian sources contain almost no geographical references to Second Temple period sacred Jewish sites not connected to the New Testament. Unlike the Jews, the early Christians urgently sought First Temple period sites that they could sanctify and at which they could establish a physical presence in Samaria, Judea, Jericho, Mt. Sinai, Mt. Nebo, etc. Since there were relatively few sites from the New Testament connected with the life of Jesus in these regions, early Christians established them at Old Testament sites. They did so to enable the rapid penetration of Christianity into various regions of the Land of Israel, under the guise of discovering and sanctifying biblical sites. While the centrality of adherence to the Bible in Christian religious life should be emphasized, the explanation for this phenomenon was not only
[27]
Y. M A G E N
tradition,234 while a church at the site was not mentioned in the letter on the journey of Paula.235 Bethel is an additional sacred site, which Eusebius places 12 Roman miles from Jerusalem.236 The Bordeaux Pilgrim mentions it, corrupting its name to Bethar.237 Peter the Deacon mentions a church there.238 The letter to Marcella speaks of a church at Bethel,239 but Hieronymus’ letter to Paula’s daughter and his Latin version of the Onomasticon makes no mention of such a church.240 Theodosius confuses the name Bethel with Bethsaida, and does not mention a church.241 It is puzzling that churches would be established in such an early period at places and sites for which we have no testimony to the presence of Christian populations. Is it possible that churches would be established without a Christian population to protect and maintain them? It should be emphasized that reports of churches in these places are given only in
the other. As mentioned above, the earlier church was established in the early fifth century CE; while the later one continued in use until the Umayyad period.230 Two additional churches were discovered to the south and are dated to the sixth century CE; one of them continued being active until the Umayyad period.231 Peter the Deacon’s work mentions a church at the Kiriath Jearim; it was apparently a late one, as it is difficult to imagine a church having been built in the fourth century CE. He mentions Kiriath Jearim as being the location of the Ark, giving a distance of 9 Roman miles from Jerusalem.232 Theodosius speaks of Shiloh as being 9 Roman miles from Jerusalem, in an apparent reference to Kiriath Jearim. In the continuation of his account, he relates that Shiloh is 9 Roman miles from Emmaus, obviously confusing the two locations.233 Peter the Deacon also mentions the presence of a church at ʿAwarta, the burial place of Eleazar and Phinehas according to Samaritan
En-Nebi Samwil, situated on the main road between Jerusalem and the Shephelah. In the Byzantine period, a monastery was built called Deir Samwil, and in the Crusader period, a large fortress was built called the “Mount of Joy.”
[28]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
late fourth century CE, and would explain why the monastery is named after him. This theory seems reasonable. In the fourth century CE, as we have seen, many of the New and Old Testament sacred sites were identified and defined, and Samuel’s tomb was most probably determined to be at Mizpah—the en-Nebi Samwil site. Many of the identifications of the sacred sites were made by Hieronymus and other churchmen, especially the monks, who sought to draw pilgrims to the Holy Land, and in many instances functioned as tour guides for pilgrims and other visitors, as was the case in the journey of Egeria.
Peter the Deacon’s work, which is attributed to Egeria but was written in the medieval period, and should therefore be regarded with caution.242 Some sort of monument, and not churches, might have been erected at these holy places, such as Joseph’s Tomb. An additional sacred site is en-Nebi Samwil.243 The Umayyad inscriptions discovered at the site tell us that in the Byzantine period, the place was called Deir Samwil—the monastery of Samuel.244 Samuel was buried at Ramah (I Sam. 25:1; 28:3), but it seems that in the Byzantine period, Ramah was confused with Mizpah. Maccabees relates that Mizpah is opposite Jerusalem.245 Mizpah is usually identified with enNebi Samwil. Eusebius says that Ramatha, in the Land of Benjamin, is the city of Samuel, and adds that it is 6 Roman miles from Jerusalem, which suits enNebi Samwil, not Ramah, the site in the present-day village of er-Ram.246 He states that Mizpah is in the Land of Benjamin, but the distance from Jerusalem, 6 Roman miles, is more suited to en-Nebi Samwil than to Tell en-Nasbeh, which too, is identified with Mizpah.247 Theodosius states that the distance between Jerusalem and Ramah, where Samuel is buried, is 5 Roman miles, which is more closely the distance to en-Nebi Samwil.248 The monastery of Samuel is also mentioned by Procopius.249 In the Byzantine period, Samuel’s burial place was also identified with Shiloh.250 It seems that in the late fourth century CE a Roman fortress was built at en-Nebi Samwil, on the Jerusalem–Emmaus road; and in the sixth century CE a monastery was built in the fortress. This monastery was named after Samuel, and the site was identified with biblical Mizpah. Hieronymus relates an interesting story concerning Samuel’s bones. He writes that in the time of Emperor Arcadius, Samuel’s bones were transferred from their original place in the Land of Israel (the location is unclear) for re-interment at Chalcedon, in Asia Minor.251 Emperor Theodosius I and his son Arcadius built the fortresses in Judea and southern Samaria.252 Is it possible that during the construction of the fortress, a tomb was found and identified as that of the prophet Samuel, whose bones were then removed because it was improper for them to be kept in a military stronghold? This might show that the identification of the site with the burial place of the prophet Samuel existed earlier than the
Christianity in the Region of Jericho The region of Jericho was replete with monasteries and pilgrim hospices in the Byzantine period. Christian sources mention many sacred sites in and around Jericho, which was an important monastic center. Despite the numerous references in the sources, there is no archaeological testimony to urban settlement or agricultural growth in this period. After Jerusalem, Jericho was one of the most important cities in the Second Temple period, and the Hasmoneans and Herod built their winter palaces there.253 Situated on the central pilgrimage route to Jerusalem from Galilee and Perea, it was noted for its agricultural fertility.254 Jericho was known mainly for the cultivation of balsam. Josephus,255 Strabo,256 and Pliny257 tell of this plant, as well as of palm trees, whose dates were a central component in the Second Temple period diet, and were used for the production of date honey; both plants were plentiful. Bountiful springs issued in Jericho, and thanks to proper channeling, their water irrigated extensive areas around the city; it suffices to mention the ʿEin es-Sulṭan (Spring of Elisha), ʿEin Duyuk (Naʿaran), ʿEin el-ʿAuja, ʿEn Hogla, and the enormous quantities of water from the springs in Wadi Qelt that were channeled to the tremendous pools in the Hasmonean palaces and the many gardens and industrial areas encompassing them. Thanks to a large financial investment and proper use of the large quantities of water there, in the Second Temple period Jericho became a veritable garden, an oasis in the desert. This growth was not limited to Jericho, and was also enjoyed by the surrounding settlements, like Naʿaran
[29]
Y. M A G E N
Agriculture in Jericho today. It probably looked like this in the Second Temple period, when it was the second most important city, after Jerusalem, and was known for its produce. Despite its proliferation of monasteries and importance in Christianity during the Byzantine period, Jericho became a wasteland at that time, due to the lack of population and agricultural development.
presence. And after it, too, was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem, due to the lack of faith of its inhabitants, another city was built for the third time, which is visible to the present, and the remains of the first [cities] exist to this day (On. 104:25–31).
to the northeast, Archelais to the north, el-ʿAuja, and Phasaelis. Jericho and its settled environs were destroyed in the late Second Temple period. There is no historical or archaeological testimony to the fate of Jericho after its destruction, or whether it was inhabited in the Roman period. The archaeological finds seem to indicate that a center, of unclear nature and role, was established at Archelais (Kh. el-Beiyudat) in the Roman period; a roadside church that served travelers was later incorporated in this center.258 Eusebius relates about Jericho in the late third century CE:
The meaning of Eusebius’ statement “another city was built for the third time, which is visible to the present” has not been determined. Was the intent to a city established at Jericho in the Roman period, a city for which we possess no information, and of which no remains have been discovered despite extensive excavations conducted there—both planned scientific excavations and unplanned excavations conducted as a result of private and public construction? Eusebius mentions additional sites in the Jericho
Jericho is a city that was crushed by Joshua, who smote its king. In place of it, he built another. [...] and our Lord Jesus Christ honored it with His
[30]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
An additional narrative connected with Jesus in Jericho concerns Qurunṭul (the Mount of the Forty), where Satan tested him (Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–12). On this mount, northwest of Jericho, a monastery by this name was built.267 The narrative is reminiscent of Moses’ stay on Mt. Sinai for 40 days, and is connected with Elijah the prophet’s stay in Wadi Cherith. Two additional narratives connected with Jesus and Jericho are the healing of the blind man (Matt. 9:28–34; Mark 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43), and Jesus’ stay in the house of Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19:1–8).268 Jericho is shown on the Madaba Map as a town with a church, the Church of Elisha.269 The above-mentioned sacred sites and additional ones are mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim, but he relates nothing of the city or of its inhabitants and churches.270 Some of these sacred sites are mentioned in the description of the journey of Paula271 and by Peter the Deacon.272 Theodosius, as well, mentions Jericho, the baptismal site in the Jordan, and additional sacred sites.273 Antoninus of Placentia is the only source to speak at length of Jericho, the dates and grapes that grow there, and its sacred sites. He writes that Jericho looks like the Garden of Eden, and that its walls are in ruins.274 It is unclear whether his intent was to the walls of Jericho in his time, which were damaged by an earthquake, or to the walls of the city when it was conquered by Joshua (Tell es-Sulṭan). More than 10 monasteries and pilgrim hostels were discovered in Jericho. Based on Byzantine sources, it was one of the most sacred sites, and an important monastic center. Even though Jericho was the seat of the bishop,275 there is no testimony to the presence of a Byzantine city with a large urban and rural population there. There are no finds of a flourishing agriculture, like that in Second Temple period Jericho, the latter described at length by Josephus and Strabo and partially unearthed by archaeological excavations (agricultural areas and the presence of irrigation channels common in the Second Temple period). The extensive areas settled in the Second Temple period, and the large agricultural areas that were active and yielded harvests, like those around the Hasmonean palaces, were not inhabited or worked in the Byzantine period. Thousands of tremendous cisterns and pools were built in the most remote monasteries in the Byzantine period, and it would have been easy to
area: Naʿaran (Nueima), a Jewish village 5 Roman miles from Jericho259; and Galgala, a ruined site 2 Roman miles east of ancient Jericho that the Gentiles worship as a temple.260 How did Galgala become sacred for the Gentiles? For which Gentiles? And when was a pagan altar, or any altar at all, established at the site? All these questions have not been clarified. Eusebius writes in a similar vein in his description of Elonei Mamre in Hebron, that the terebinth where Abraham encamped was visible in his day, and that the Gentiles worshipped it.261 As regards Elonei Mamre, we know from the depiction by Sozomenus that Jews, Arabs, and Gentiles, in addition to Christians, participated in the rite there. In addition to Jericho, Christianity also hallowed Wadi Cherith (I Kings 17:3), where Elijah went into hiding, and which is identified with Naḥal Perat, apparently Wadi Qelt. Obviously, Mt. Nebo, the burial place of Moses situated east of Jericho in Transjordan is an extremely important religious site for Christians, and has many churches.262 Jericho is sacred for Christians as a consequence of the Old Testament stories and Jesus’ presence in the city. The Israelite conquest of Canaan, the fall of the walls of Jericho, and the house of Rahab, which was hallowed in Judaism, as well, were of great interest to the faithful and pilgrims.263 According to Christian sources, the house of Rahab was visible until late in the Byzantine period.264 The spring that served as the source of Jericho’s fertility was named after the prophet Elisha. The Old Testament connected Christians with: the prophet Elijah and his heavenward ascent from the Jordan River; Mt. Nebo—Moses’ burial place; the Israelites’ crossing of the Jordan; and the location of Gilgal; and the New Testament connected them with the life of Jesus and his presence in Jericho. An example in the New Testament appears in Matthew 17:12–13, which alludes to Elijah’s appearance there in the image of John the Baptist. Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist is deemed, to the present, to be one of the central events in Christianity. The baptismal site is identified with the place where Elijah and Elisha, as well as the Israelites, crossed the Jordan River (Josh. 3:13; II Kings 2:8).265 At the site of Elijah’s heavenward ascent, Helena, mother of Constantine, ordered the construction of two churches, one named after John the Baptist, the other, after Elijah.266
[31]
Y. M A G E N
develop Jericho’s water sources and make it flourish as it did in the Second Temple period. Few Byzantine tombs were discovered in the city, unlike the many tombs from the Second Temple period.276 Where were the tens of thousands of residents of the Byzantine city buried? This same question will be raised again when we discuss burial in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria. If, according to the accepted scholarly view, the period was the zenith of settlement distribution, what happened to Jericho? Where are the agriculture, settlements, and burial sites of the second most important city, after Jerusalem, and one of Christianity’s sacred cities? It is specifically in the Umayyad period that we witness the renewed growth of agriculture in Jericho and its environs.277
Extensive excavations conducted at Kh. el-Beiyudat (Archelais), north of Jericho, unearthed a large and magnificent basilica church with inscriptions bearing the names of donors, but there is no trace of a Byzantine settlement.278 Why would such a church have been constructed without a nearby town or village? This church was probably on a main road and served passersby; and the donors’ names should not necessarily be attributed to a settlement at the site.279 A Byzantine church, even a large and magnificent basilica church, does not necessarily prove the existence of a settlement. Our intent was not to portray the history of the region of Jericho, in particular, in the Byzantine period, but to clarify, once again, a phenomenon that recurs in additional locations. Despite its sanctity
The monastery of Deir Ḥajla, located southeast of Jericho, should apparently be identified as the monastery of Gerasimus. Founded in the fifth century CE by the famous monk Gerasimus, it exists to this day.
[32]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
The monastery of Qaṣr el-Yahud is located east of Jericho, near the site in the Jordan River where John baptized Jesus. The site is associated with the monastery and church of St. John the Baptist, built by Emperor Anastasius.
and additional sources.280 They toured Egypt and Syria, ascended Mt. Sinai and Mt. Nebo, and traveled to distant places to meet with monks and hermits. Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the sacred sites existed prior to the recognition of Christianity as the official religion, but on a small scale. There was also pilgrimage to places outside the Land of Israel and its immediate surroundings.281 Furthermore, pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the sacred sites in the Land of Israel was the subject of numerous disagreements within Christianity, and some voices were raised in opposition to the pilgrimage movement.282 The Land of Israel, especially Jerusalem, enjoyed central standing among all the sacred pilgrimage sites. Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem and his death and resurrection transformed the city into a focal point for pilgrimage, especially during the Byzantine period. Many Byzantine Christian sites were discovered in and around Jerusalem and on the main roads that led to the city, mainly monasteries and memorial
for Christianity and its numerous monasteries and churches, Jericho was sparsely populated; it exemplifies an area in Byzantine times described by many Christian historical sources and having multiple churches, monasteries, and sacred sites, but with no extensive urban or agricultural settlement.
Pilgrimage in Jerusalem and Its Environs A wave of Christian pilgrimage spread throughout the Land of Israel, as a result of Christianity’s recognition as the official religion, its striking roots, and its expansion throughout the Roman Empire. The rite of martyrs and visits to monks and religious figures of renown and standing led many pilgrims to tour the Holy Land in order to gain a better understanding of the narratives and places mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. The pilgrims prepared themselves for their journey to the Holy Land by reading Scripture
[33]
Y. M A G E N
The Church of All Nations, Gethsemane, at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives was already one of the main Christian pilgrimage sites in early Christianity and therefore abounds in churches and monasteries. Jesus and his disciples often stayed on the Mount of Olives, which overlooks the Temple Mount, and from whose peak, according to Christian belief, Jesus went to heaven.
his first monastery near there in 330 CE. In that same period an additional monk, Chariton, who came from Iconium in Asia Minor (present-day Konya, in southern Turkey), became active. He founded three monasteries: the laura at Pharan, in 330 CE; the laura of Douka (Deir el-Qurunṭul) in 340 CE; and the laura of Souka (the Old Laura), in Wadi Khureitun, in 345 CE.285 They were followed by other, no less famous monks. The annals of the fathers of monasticism in the Judean Desert and their monasteries were recorded by a few monks. Cyril of Scythopolis, for example, wrote of Euthymius, Sabas, John the Hesychast, Cyriacus, Theodosius, Abraamius, and Theognius, devoting a special volume to the life of each.286 The Life of
churches dedicated to individuals and events cardinal to Christianity. Christian site distribution in the region was apparently closely related to the phenomena of pilgrimage and monasticism, and to the development of the city.
Monasteries Monasticism in the Land of Israel was part of a large monastic movement centered in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt, that spread throughout the Christian world.283 Hilarion is commonly viewed as the father of monasticism in the Land of Israel.284 He was born in Thabatha (Umm al-Tut) near Gaza and established
[34]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Chariton was written by an anonymous monk287; the Life of Hilarion was composed by Hieronymus288; the Life of Gerisimus was written by an anonymous monk289; and there are additional compositions by other authors. Most of the above sources relate to monks and monasteries in the Judean Desert, and in Jericho, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem. It has been estimated that there are over 100 monasteries in these regions. In Judea and Samaria an additional 100 monasteries were discovered. There are also scores of monasteries in other areas of the Land of Israel for which we possess no sources of historical information beyond the excavations and inscriptions in monastery mosaics that come to light from time to time. These include monasteries that are larger and more magnificent than those mentioned extensively in Christian sources. The subject of monasticism and monasteries has
been of interest to many scholars, beginning in the nineteenth century, but most followed the Christian sources and were concerned mainly with the monasteries in the Judean Desert, for which there is historical documentation.290 The other monasteries have not been thoroughly discussed in scholarly research. Out of the 340 Christian sites identified with certainty in the corpus, we know of some 70 monasteries in the Judean Desert, about 40 monasteries in and around Jerusalem,291 more than 35 monasteries in southern Samaria and northern Judea, and approximately 50 monasteries in Judea and the southern Hebron Hills. Thus, there are about 200 monasteries in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine period. The list of 200 monasteries is probably not final; we should add the memorial churches established at sacred sites, and churches at way stations and at pilgrim hospices.
Aerial photograph of Khan el-Aḥmar, located in present-day Mishor Adummim. The monastery is identified with the monastery of Euthymius, who was one of the most important and revered monastic fathers in the Byzantine period, and had many disciples who then held important positions in the Christian religious establishment. The monastery was built in the fifth century CE, beginning as a laura and subsequently becoming a coenobium.
[35]
Y. M A G E N
Jerusalem there were “very few houses and people.” The quickest and easiest way to gain a Christian foothold in Jerusalem, and in many additional places in the Land of Israel, was to establish monasteries, memorial churches at sites sacred from the Old or New Testaments, and churches and hospices for passersby. In the above-mentioned case, the monastery served Georgian pilgrims. Christian pilgrims who came to the Land of Israel built, resided in, and invested monies in monasteries, and not in residential quarters in the villages and towns, e.g., Hieronymus and Paula in Bethlehem.293 We find a similar phenomenon in Jericho. The meager population around Jerusalem in the third and fourth centuries CE is striking, as well. The survey conducted around Jerusalem located only two villas from that period, in ʿEn Yaʿal and in Kh. er-Ras, near Shuʿfat.294 The agricultural and rural area around the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem) was sparsely populated, with few settlements, and indeed, was mostly desolate. A similar picture emerges in the area of Benjamin and southern Ephraim. If we were to prepare a site distribution map for the years 180–200 CE for the above-mentioned areas, it would probably contain almost no sites, a fact clearly indicated by the archaeological finds. After the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, only a small number of populated settlements remained in Judea and the vicinity of Jerusalem.295 The slowness of Christianity’s spread in Judea, Jerusalem, and southern Samaria ensued, primarily, from the paucity of the population as a whole, and the absence of a pagan population, which supplied most of the new religion’s proselytes. The main Christian population of Jerusalem and the monasteries arrived in the fourth century CE, as part of the pilgrimage movement to Jerusalem and the sacred sites.296 The monasteries provided a solution for the absorption of the tens of thousands of pilgrims and the speedy settlement of those Christians who wanted to reside in the Holy Land. The monasteries enabled a Christian presence at strategic locations and at sites hallowed by the Old or New Testaments. In this period Christians began to identify and establish a presence at sacred or historical sites, which they sought to transform into pilgrimage sites. The sacred sites identified in the fourth century CE
Monks, in addition to priests, officiated in these churches. More than two thirds of all the churches and chapels discovered in Judea and Samaria were built that were neither in villages nor towns, and did not serve the local Christian population. How are we to explain the gap between the large number of churches and chapels that served monasteries and passersby and the small number of those built in villages, towns, and cities to serve the local population, which according to scholars, were at their peak? Incidentally, based on these numbers, we cannot be certain that there were even 120 churches for the urban and rural sectors in Judea and Samaria. In our opinion, the number was much smaller than the proposed one, with many of the churches in this group belonging to monasteries and way stations. To illustrate this, note the testimony of Peter the Iberian, a Georgian nobleman who lived and was active in Jerusalem, where he established a monastery in the first half of the fifth century CE. In his biography, which is preserved in Syriac translation, it is written: When it was rebuilt by Christian Emperor Constantine, the Holy City, Jerusalem, at first was still sparsely populated and had no [city] wall, since the first [city] wall had been destroyed by the Romans. There were but few houses and [few] inhabitants. Thus, when the high priests and bishops, who later on were in Jerusalem, desired that a multitude of inhabitants should dwell in the city and that a multitude of buildings should be built, they gave authority to anyone who wished and was able to take any spot he pleased without payment [and] without price in any part of the city in order to build thereon a dwelling. At that time the blessed Peter also chose for himself a place up toward the [Church of the] Holy Zion, in what is called the “Tower of David,” the prophet. He built therein a monastery… (Life of Peter the Iberian 64.93).292 Jerusalem’s sorry state is ascribed to the first third of the fourth century CE, the time of Constantine the Great, while its factual description belongs to the fifth century CE. In the mid-fifth century CE, a century after the recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the Byzantine Empire, Peter the Iberian attests that in
[36]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
The monastery of Deir Mar Jiryis is located in Wadi Qelt, near the road to Jericho. The monastery is identified with the monastery of Choziba, built in the fifth century CE, and still exists today. Built as a laura, it subsequently became a coenobium.
[37]
Y. M A G E N
The monastery at ʿEin Fara is located in Wadi Fara, near the source of the spring. Also known as the monastery of Pharan, it was founded in the fourth century CE by the monk Chariton, one of the fathers of early monasticism, and exists to this day.
to Jericho, and on her visit to Mt. Nebo.299 The monasteries encouraged the pilgrimage movement, which was the source for the expansion of the general and monastic Christian populations. The monks established hospices both in their monasteries, e.g., that of the monastery of Martyrius, and in Jerusalem and Jericho, to receive the pilgrims.300 Most of the pilgrims almost certainly returned to their own lands, only a minority remaining in the Land of Israel. The monastery became a convenient and immediately available place in which to reside. It did not require especially taxing work, and supplied the pilgrims’ religious needs. The hospice played an important role in the tradition of hospitality practiced by the monasteries, and the
quickly became destinations for visits by thousands of pilgrims from throughout the Christian world. Monasteries and churches were built at these sites, almost certainly with funds from the authorities and the ecclesiastical establishment.297 Monks and priests, some of whom came with the large-scale pilgrimage movement to the Holy Land, were settled there to take physical possession of those sites.298 The monasteries became pilgrimage sites, and the monks, tour guides for the sacred sites. In addition to holding masses and conducting prayers in their churches, the monks also accompanied caravans of pilgrims. An outstanding example is the journey of Egeria, who on her travels to Mt. Sinai, was aided by monks, who joined her on her journey from Jerusalem
[38]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
explain the multiplicity of chapels in the monastery of Martyrius.302 Hosting pilgrims in the monasteries contrasted with the monastic idea of seclusion. However, hospitality is anchored in Christianity, as is written in the Epistle to Romans (12:13): “Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality.” In the first stages of the penetration of Christianity, the establishment of monasteries was an easy and convenient solution for housing the monks who came from throughout the Christian world. It allowed the sparse population of large parts of Judea and Samaria without forcibly imposing Christianity on the local population of pagans, Jews, and Samaritans, as would happen later. The ecclesiastical establishment (the bishops and the Patriarch of Jerusalem) joined together with the military and civil establishments in founding the monasteries. This cooperation is attested by the
pilgrims received their services for free. Those who had the means were generous in their donations for the maintenance of the hospices and monasteries; some initiated the establishment of monasteries, while others preferred to settle in them. The many hospices established for the convenience of pilgrims and monks from abroad, and the considerable assistance extended to them, explains the close connection between the establishment, growth, and expansion of the monasteries and the intensification of the religious pilgrimage movement to the Holy Land. There were sectoral monasteries, most of whose population came from the same land, such as that of Peter the Iberian. Some monasteries contained groups of monks from different lands, who did not always share a common language, speaking Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc. During prayers the monks split up into a few groups,301 which, in our opinion, would
Aerial photograph of Kh. el-Muraṣṣaṣ, located in the center of present-day Maʿale Adummim. Built in the fifth century CE, it has been identified as the monastery of Martyrius, a disciple of Euthymius, who later became the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The monastery is one of the biggest discovered to date in the Land of Israel to survive in its entirety.
[39]
Y. M A G E N
livelihood independently, not even from agriculture, as is commonly thought.307 Grapes were cultivated by the monasteries for wine, mostly for their own use, and some vegetables were grown, also for their own consumption. We do not accept the assumed existence of monasteries whose population earned its living from agriculture, or of monasteries that were combined with agricultural farms. Nor should we assume that the monks, who came to the Holy Land for religious reasons, would suddenly become farmers, working the land and building sophisticated oil presses; this required much skilled labor, especially for olive harvesting and crushing. The proliferation of monasteries and churches in Judea and Samaria does not indicate a large population during the Byzantine period, but rather an attempt to quickly populate the empty land with churches and monks, some of whom came from Christian lands in the Byzantine Empire. In addition, we cannot know how many monks resided in those remote monasteries, or if all were populated. For the proliferation of churches and chapels in Judea and Samaria, extensive use was made of Roman structures; and sacred sites that were identified and sanctified could then, with religious justification, be used for the establishment of a monastery or church there. Certainly, at least some of the monks returned to their homeland at some point in their lives, possibly in old age. Rufinus, for example, was a priest from Aquileia, Italy, who lived for many years in a monastery on the Mount of Olives before returning to Italy to live out the remaining years of his life.308 Some left after being appointed to ecclesiastical posts in other lands.309 This might explain the relative paucity of tombs in the monasteries. According to one opinion, the monks were buried outside the monasteries, while the priests and monastery heads were interred in the monastery itself.310 There is no archaeological proof for this view. Christian sources relating the annals of the monks, and especially those of the founding fathers of monasticism in the Judean Desert, give the impression that all the monasteries were built upon the latters’ initiative, at times even physically building them, which would aggrandize them and their activity, but this is far from the reality. The establishment of the many monasteries and churches was a governmentalecclesiastical enterprise, based mainly on funding
handing over of dozens of fortresses and towers, erected by Theodosius I and his son Arcadius, for use by the monastic population.303 The allocation of lands for viticulture, the establishment of wine presses for wine production, and the establishment of tremendous water systems that included pools and cisterns, were possible only with the permission and funding of the authorities and the emperor. The establishment of monasteries in Roman fortresses and the extension of aid to the monasteries increased during the reign of Justinian I.304 The great wave of construction expressed in the establishment of churches and monasteries, and their renovation and expansion, occurred in the first half of the sixth century CE, in both the southern Hebron Hills and southern Samaria. Justinian converted military fortresses, mainly those at the desert’s edge and those that bordered on Samaritan settlements, into fortified monasteries. At times the conversion only included minor alterations, such as the addition of a chapel and residential cells. Consequently, the establishment of the monasteries in Judea, at the desert’s edge, and in southern Samaria is to be regarded as a governmental undertaking for the speedy population of areas bordering on Samaritan settlements and on the Saracens, nomads who inhabited the desert. The numerous rolling stones found in monasteries at the desert’s edge indicate that even in the sixth and seventh centuries CE, the security problems faced by the monasteries had not been resolved.305 Theodosius tells of a church built by Anastasius in which monks dwelled. These monks received six gold coins (solidi) annually from the imperial treasury for living expenses.306 Was this a singular occurrence, or was this the model for monastic settlements at the desert’s edge—a policy that began in the time of Anastasius, or even earlier, and continued, to an even greater degree, in the reign of Justinian? It is doubtful that the hundreds of monasteries established in the Byzantine period were maintained solely by donations, especially those neither built on the waysides to function as hospices for passersby, nor sacred sites. The donations by the ecclesiastical establishment, which was wealthy in its own right, were insufficient to fill their needs. Even if the monks led modest lives, they needed to purchase basic necessities. They certainly did not earn their
[40]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
and infused with a sense of mission, and its arrival in the Land of Israel was not motivated solely by these individuals’ Christian obligation for pilgrimage to Jerusalem; it was also driven by a profound religious consciousness.317 A considerable number of churches were discovered that were not part of any settlement or monastery. Theodosius tells of 24 churches on the Mount of Olives,318 and Antoninus of Placentia writes of the masses of monks he saw on the Mount, along with the hospices for men and for women.319 Large basilica churches were built alongside roads and sacred sites, but extensive excavations conducted around them did not uncover remains of settlements that would justify the churches’ dimensions. In addition to their ritual use, the churches apparently also functioned as hospices for passersby.320 These churches, larger and more spacious than the small chapels built in the monasteries, were erected and financed by the central authorities, both religious and civil, and by donations of pilgrims of means. Some were established in or near existing Roman structures from the late fourth century CE, as were some of the monasteries. A basilica church was discovered at Kh. el-Beiyudat, north of Jericho, on the main route of the Jordan Valley. This church probably served passersby, rather than a settlement.321 There almost certainly were hospices and churches for passersby within Jericho itself, such as the way station near the Spring of Elisha. Antoninus of Placentia tells of the two hospices of the John the Baptist Monastery, and of the house of Rahab, which had become a hospice in his time.322 There was a roadside church for passersby in Maʿale Adummim, in the place associated with the Good Samaritan.323 The site had functioned as a way station as early as the Second Temple period, and continued in use in the third and fourth centuries CE as a military fortress that protected passersby, as is related by Eusebius and Hieronymus.324 The latter, during his journey with Paula, was the first to connect Maʿale Adummim with the story of the Good Samaritan.325 A church, residential rooms for monks and for those who officiated there, and a courtyard in which animals could be kept were built in the sixth century CE. This was unquestionably a hospice and church for passersby that were incorporated into the sacred site.
by the central government, and also on donations by pilgrims and the wealthy. While the monastery heads might have the initiated and sought funds for their establishment, they were not the financiers and implementers.
Roadside Dedicatory Churches and Hospices The abundance of Christian journeys throughout the Byzantine Empire led to the need to care for the pilgrims, both religiously and in terms of their personal safety. Christians were forbidden to spend the night in non-Christian hospices, for fear of the licentiousness that was rife in such places.311 Hospices were sometimes erected next to monasteries, thereby tightening the bond between the monasteries and the wave of Christian pilgrims. Cyril writes of a large number of hospices established by monks, mentioning that the Souka monastery at Tekoa (the Old Laura) had a hospice in Jerusalem that was sold to the monastery of Euthymius for 200 gold coins.312 Sabas built a hospice for pilgrims from abroad, also purchasing cells in Jerusalem that he turned into a hospice for his laura. He also acquired two hospices for the monastery of Castellion: one in Jerusalem, and the other in Jericho.313 When the priest and monk Abraamius came to the Land, he initially stayed in one of the hostels.314 Theodosius, the renowned Judean Desert monk, first served as a monk in the monastery of the Kathisma Church, only afterwards leaving for the Judean Desert, where he established his own monastery.315 As mentioned above, monks and priests aided pilgrims on their journeys, accompanied them, and served as tour guides of the sacred sites. At times, pilgrims were escorted by an imperial guard, in addition to the accompanying guides, priests, and monks.316 The great efforts invested by the heads of the monastic movement in the establishment of pilgrim hospices demonstrates their appreciation of the potential for increasing their strength and numbers among the Christian population in the Land of Israel. Christian pilgrims, monks, and priests, who came from throughout the Byzantine Empire, constituted a pious and devoted population that contributed greatly to the inculcation of Christianity among the local inhabitants. It was better educated
[41]
Y. M A G E N
The Inn of the Good Samaritan is located on the roadside between Jerusalem and Jericho. The site was built next to the remains of a palace from Herod’s time and served as a way station during the Second Temple period. During the Byzantine period it was used as a roadside church.
and way station for passersby in the Byzantine and Crusader periods.328 Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, north of Jerusalem, on the Jerusalem–Lod (Diospolis) road, also yielded a large and magnificent church and living quarters for priests and monks.329 No finds came to light around the site that would indicate a large Byzantine settlement, certainly not one that required such a large church. The site functioned as a Christian way station. The church at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin was encompassed by a wall, and probably functioned, already in the fourth century CE, as a Roman way station for protecting passersby. From Kh. el-Laṭaṭin the road continues westward, passing through Beth-horon. Today the steps of that Roman road are visible nearby. Remains of a church were discovered here, as well as remains of a chapel,
A monastery complex containing a large hospice was discovered east of Jerusalem, in the area of Mt. Scopus. In the opinion of the excavators, its location close to the ancient main route between Jerusalem and Jericho teaches of the presence of a way station here for pilgrims going to Jerusalem.326 If their deduction is correct, this is a monastery combined with a way station, like the monastery of Martyrius.327 In our opinion, additional monasteries and hospices for passersby were established in Late Roman fortresses and sites in the Judean Desert and in Jericho; this subject has apparently not been fully researched. The en-Nebi Samwil site, north of Jerusalem, controlled the route between the Shephelah and Jerusalem, and most likely served as a monastery
[42]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
east of the settlement, near the road.330 The place is mentioned by Eusebius, who writes of two villages, Upper and Lower Beth-horon, 12 Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Nicopolis.331 The church might have served both passersby and inhabitants of the settlement situated there, who possibly earned their livelihood from the brisk movement of pilgrims to Jerusalem. Two churches were discovered on the continuation of the road. At Kh. Faʿush, which began as a tower established along the road in the fourth century CE, a small church was uncovered.332 The road continued northward, and at Kh. Huriya, there was another fourth century CE Roman structure; it incorporated a large basilica church and adjoining hospice, which was probably also inhabited by monks and priests who served passersby. In a later period a way station was established at the site.333 Additional sites along the road to Lod include basilica churches that were defined as monasteries, but might actually have been way stations inhabited by priests and monks: the church
in Mevo Modiʿim,334 the church in Kh. Zakhariya,335 and the church at Kh. Ḥarmush.336 Southern Samaria, too, has monasteries built in Roman fortresses on the main route from Shechem (Neapolis) to Aphek (Antipatris), which might also have served as way stations for passersby.337 Churches were discovered on the Jerusalem–Emmaus (Nicopolis) road, e.g., Deir el-Azhar,338 and on the Jerusalem–Bethlehem route, e.g., the Church of the Kathisma339; and they were almost certainly present on the Jerusalem–Beth Guvrin (Eleutheropolis) road. The subject of churches for passersby along ancient Roman-Byzantine roads has not been seriously researched, nor has that of the establishment of churches in fortresses and towers built in the fourth century CE. Apparently, additional roadside churches and monasteries were erected for use by Christian pilgrims. The combination of a monastery and a pilgrim hospice is mentioned by Antoninus of Placentia. He states that a fortress containing the St. Georgius hospice, where passersby find a sort of
Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, located on the road to Jerusalem. In the Byzantine period a roadside church was built at the site.
[43]
Y. M A G E N
the archaeological picture of the Byzantine period is incomplete, we possess sufficient data for a detailed analysis of this region, subject to the limitations mentioned above, i.e., the insufficient information on the presence of churches in the Palestinian towns and villages. The area examined includes seven 10×10 km survey maps, comprising a total area of 700 sq. km. The data on which we based our findings are: the 1967–1968 survey; the survey of the Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim; the Jerusalem survey, which encompasses the municipal area of the city344; additional surveys and excavations conducted since 1967 by the archaeologists of the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; surveys conducted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries345; surveys with a specific focus on Byzantine churches; and many diverse archaeological excavations.346 The maps examined are the northern Wadi elMakkuk map (sheet 14–18), the south of the el-Bireh map (sheet 14–17), the south of the Ramallah map (sheet 14–16), the south of the Beit Sira map (sheet 14–15); and the southern maps, which consist of the Jordan Valley (sheet 13–18), the east of the Jerusalem map (sheet 13–17), and the north of the ʿEin Kerem map (sheet 13–16), which also includes the municipal bounds of Jerusalem. The continuation of map 13–17 is map 102, and that of map 13–16 is map 101 in the Jerusalem survey. As we mentioned, it is noteworthy that all the surveys published to the present repeatedly emphasized that settlement distribution and the number of churches and monasteries reached their height in the Byzantine period. For example, the survey of Benjamin and southern Mt. Ephraim surveyed 544 settlements, 326 of which were dated to the Byzantine period. Also characteristic of the Benjamin and southern Mt. Ephraim, and the Jerusalem surveys are: (1) The small number of Byzantine tombs, compared to the large number from the Second Temple period. If Jerusalem and Judea reached their maximal growth in the Byzantine period, how are we to explain this datum? (2) The 700 sq. km examined yielded monasteries, churches, agricultural installations (mainly winepresses), and possibly also agricultural farms, villages, and towns that are dated to the Byzantine period. To the present, however, not a single residential quarter
refuge and the monks find sustenance, was located at the 20th Roman mile from the city of Elusa (Ḥaluẓa).340 In addition to roadside churches that served as way stations for pilgrims or as memorial churches, large basilica churches were built in peripheral regions where there was no nearby Christian Byzantine settlement. These churches served the nomadic Saracen population that had converted to Christianity. Prime examples of this are the three churches at Herodion341 and the church at Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir.342 Kh. Bureikut, as well, contained an especially large church, and it is doubtful that there was a large enough Byzantine village there to justify the establishment of a church of this size.343 These large churches were built without an accompanying settlement, unlike the Jewish and Samaritan synagogues, which were built in cities, towns, villages, and agricultural farms to serve the local resident population. The situation was different for the Byzantine churches. Most of the chapels and churches served monasteries, religious memorial sites, and way stations. The chapels were, for the most part, built in monasteries, and the large basilica churches were erected to meet the needs of pilgrims who came to the Holy Land. Basilica churches were also built in villages, for the local population, but these were relatively few in number. More than two thirds of the churches did not serve the rural or urban populaces. There is an unbridgeable gap between the scholarly assumption that a large Christian population lived in the Land of Israel in the Byzantine period, which is based in part on the large number of churches, and the sparsity of churches erected in the villages, towns, and Roman cities. We should add to this the sparsity of Christian Byzantine private construction and the small number of graves.
Christian Sites around Jerusalem The historical-biblical areas of Benjamin and southern Mt. Ephraim (northern Judea of the Second Temple period) are replete with churches and monasteries. The area bounded by Ramallah and the villages north of it, the Jordan Valley to the east, Jerusalem to the south, and the Shephelah to the west, was surveyed many times, and extensive archaeological excavations were conducted, including in the area surrounding Jerusalem beyond the walls. Although
[44]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
The Church of St. John the Baptist, located in the center of ʿEin Kerem in Jerusalem. It was founded in the fifth century CE. ʿEin Kerem abounds in churches and monasteries and was already a sacred site in the Byzantine period due to tradition and its identification with as “one of the cities in Judea,” mentioned in Luke 1, 39, and the birthplace of John the Baptist.
[45]
Y. M A G E N
The Church of the Visitation, located in the southern part of ʿEin Kerem; a chapel stood here in the Byzantine period. According to tradition, John the Baptist’s parents’ home stood here, and here his parents were visited by Mary.
[46]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
The Russian monastery, located in the south of ʿEin Kerem. The church is dedicated to St. Zacharias, father of John the Baptist.
[47]
Y. M A G E N
map 13–17, with the area bordering on Jerusalem, was densely settled; but here, too, most of the sites were monasteries and memorial churches, not churches meant to serve the Christian population in the villages. It should be reiterated that according to Christian sources, more than 24 churches were located just on the Mount of Olives, which is in the map area. The monastery of Martyrius is situated at the southeastern corner of map 13–17, and further to the west is the area containing the settlements of elʿEizariya and Abu Dis. The latter area was replete with Byzantine churches and monasteries that were renewed in the Crusader period, some of which exist to the present. The el-ʿEizariya area is identified with Bethany (Beit Aniya), which was not far from Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives, and which was hallowed in Christian tradition as the site where Jesus brought Lazarus back to life.358 Monasteries were established in the area, e.g., the Russian church and the Italian nunnery. Two basilica churches were built “close to the tomb of Lazarus, that is visible to this day” (On. 58:17); one was the church of St. Lazarus.359 A chapel was discovered 0.5 km east of the Bethany site, in Burj el-Aḥmar.360 An additional, small monastery came to light in Ras Abu Subeitan.361 A basilica church belonging to the settlement was found at ʿAnata.362 Monasteries were discovered at Wadi Faraʿ: ʿEin Faraʿ (the monastery of Pharan),363 Qalʿat Musa,364 ʿEin el-Fawwar,365 and Ras eṭ-Ṭawil (Pisgat Zeʾev).366 Additional monasteries were unearthed at Kh. el-Maṣaniʿ, in the vicinity of Shuʿfat,367 and at Deir Ghazali, the latter with a chapel and a way station.368 The eastern edges of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives have many churches and monasteries, including the Eleona church.369 Northern and western Jerusalem, north of the Old City walls, too, are replete with monasteries: in Ramat Polin,370 en-Nebi Samwil,371 ʿEin Kerem,372 the Valley of the Cross,373 and a monastery and way station at Kh. Sheikh Badr (Binyanei ha-Ummah).374 As was noted, Jerusalem and its immediate environs contained more than 40 monasteries and churches. The area on the southeast of the el-Bireh map (sheet 14–17), as well, meets with the desert’s edge, but most of the area in its west is an agricultural area that was populated during the First and Second Temple periods. Eusebius mentions a large village at Mukhmas
from this period has come to light. It is inconceivable that the elements of the public-religious construction did not enter the private sphere. Is it possible that finely built private houses with mosaic floors would not be discovered in a region so densely populated? This lack of the discovery of private construction is characteristic of all of Judea and Samaria and the Jerusalem area. The Wadi el-Makkuk map (sheet 14–18) and the Jordan Valley map (sheet 13–18) revealed churches, and especially monastery chapels, that were not attached to residential settlements. Most of the area of these two maps is located in east, at the desert’s edge, which was uninhabited during most historical periods.347 Map 14–18 includes only three monasteries: Kh. ez-Zakhaliq,348 Kh. el-Kiliya,349 and Khallat ed-Danabiya.350 Map 13–18, of the more southerly area, contained only monasteries and way stations. A number of monasteries are situated in Wadi Qelt (Naḥal Perat): ʿEin el-Fawwar,351 the monastery of Choziba,352 the monastery of Euthemius,353 Kh. Handoma,354 Deir Mukallik,355 and the Church of the Good Samaritan Inn, which was, as noted, a way station.356 Despite a few scholars’ claim of a dramatic rise in population size in the Byzantine period, we find no new settlements in areas on the desert’s edge, and there is no development of desert agriculture in either these areas or in Jericho and the Jordan Valley.357 The only settlement undertaken at the desert’s edge and in the Jericho area in the Byzantine period consisted of sparsely populated monasteries that were characterized by meager agricultural production and economic development. The settlement distributions in the two more westerly maps—the south of the el-Bireh map (sheet 14–17) and the east of the Jerusalem map (sheet 13–17) significantly differ from that portrayed in the abovementioned maps. The more northerly of the two maps includes Ramallah, a settled and flourishing region, and map 13–17 includes Jerusalem, the center of Christianity in the Land of Israel and at the center of the area of the intensely populated Byzantine Christian settlement. The eastern part of the two maps is still in the region that may be defined as the desert’s edge, in which most of the settlement consisted of monasteries. On the other hand, the western part of
[48]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
The Monastery of the Holy Cross, located in the Valley of the Cross in western Jerusalem. Founded in the sixth century CE, it exists to this day as a Greek Orthodox monastery. According to Christian tradition, the monastery was built on the spot of the tree from which Jesus’ cross was made.
(biblical Machmas). It is unclear who inhabited the village in his time, for if the residents had been Jews or Christians, Eusebius would have specified this.375 A basilica church that served the local population was found in the settlement.376 The monastery of Firminus (el-ʿAleiliyat) is located in Wadi Suweinit.377 A church was found at Beitin (Bethel); apparently very ancient, it was already mentioned in late fourth century CE sources.378 Rammun contains a settlement church,379 and Kh. el-Mukatir, a basilica church, which scholars believe to be a monastery.380 A church, possibly that of a monastery, was uncovered at Kh. Ḥaiyan, south of Deir Dibwan.381 Most of the churches in the south of the Ramallah map (sheet 14–16) and in the north of the ʿEin Kerem
map (sheet 13–16) belong to monasteries, with the exception of Kh. el-Laṭaṭin and Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta, which were basilica churches; Kh. el-Laṭaṭin patently functioned as a roadside church for passersby; Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta, although built on the route, might also have served residents of the village of Beit ʿUr el-Fauqa (Beth-horon).382 Two additional churches, built on the Jerusalem–Lod road, were discovered at Kh. Faʿush383 and Kh. Huriya.384 It is doubtful that a Byzantine church stood at Gibeon (el-Jib),385 or at Kh. el-Biyar.386 As mentioned above, monasteries were built at enNabi Samwil (and possibly also a way station),387 and at Kh. el-Maṣaniʿ.388 In the area of the southern maps (105, 106), close to Jerusalem, mainly monasteries were discovered.389
[49]
Y. M A G E N
to the subject at hand is: did the Idumeans disappear in the Great and Bar-Kokhba Revolts, like the rest of the Jews in Judea and the Judean Shephelah, or did they view themselves, and were seen by the Romans, as pagans, continuing to survive in the region as Idumeans until the Byzantine period, when they converted to Christianity? The answer to this issue will have far-reaching significance for understanding the nature of Christianity in southern Judea. If the Idumeans were fully Jewish, and seen as such by the Romans, they should have disappeared almost completely, like the Jews in the Great Revolt, and especially in the BarKokhba Revolt; and all of southern Judea should have been abandoned in the wake of these revolts, like other areas inhabited by Jews. The archaeological and historical testimonies, however, teach that Idumea was not completely depopulated in consequence of the revolts. Although the region was greatly devastated by Jewish rebels led by Simeon Bar Giora during the Great Revolt,394 the Idumean population remained there after the revolt. While Josephus relates that the Idumeans attempted to aid in the defense of Jerusalem in the Great Revolt, he disparages them, defining them as a separate people that retained its religious and national character; and he even indicates a clear boundary between Judea and Idumea.395 In consequence of the Great Revolt, many Jews fled to the outlying regions of Judea: the Dead Sea area, the southern Hebron Hills, and the southern Judean Shephelah.396 These Jews, who hid in the numerous caves in the area, would later constitute the core that led the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, which resulted in the annihilation of the Jewish population, except for the few that managed to survive in the most distant and remote locations. These Jewish survivors of the revolt, some of whom were Jewish-Christians, populated the settlements in the southern Hebron Hills mentioned by Eusebius.397 Eusebius’ Onomasticon and the archaeological excavations conducted in the southern Hebron Hills and the southern Dead Sea region indicate that only seven Jewish settlements and two Christian ones survived. Eusebius lists seven Jewish settlements in the southern Hebron Hills, in most of which a synagogue was revealed: Iutta (Yaṭṭa), Eshtemoa (esSamuʿ), ʿEn Rimmon (Ḥ. Rimmon), Anaea (ʿAnim),
Most of the churches and Byzantine sites discovered in the area surrounding Jerusalem belong to monasteries. The periphery of holy Jerusalem did not consist of Christian villages and towns densely populated by Christian farmers; while in the Second Temple period, Jerusalem had been surrounded by towns and villages with Jewish farmers, who had supplied the agricultural needs of Jerusalem.
Christianity in Southern Judea The region south of Jerusalem—the historical land of Judah—has an abundance of churches, monasteries, and Christian settlements. Judea suffered greatly in the Great and Bar-Kokhba Revolts, and was almost completely emptied of its Jewish population, and to a certain degree, of its Idumean population, as well. The cardinal questions we faced were: who dwelled in southern Judea when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, and of what origin were the Christians who populated the region in the fifth and sixth centuries CE—pagan, Jewish, or Idumean? In the Second Temple period, Judea was populated by Jews and Idumeans, whom most scholars deemed to be a single people. Its north was inhabited by Jews, and its south, by Idumeans who penetrated the region after the destruction of the First Temple. The unanimous scholarly view, following the historians Josephus and Strabo, is that the Idumeans were converted by John Hyrcanus I and became Jews.390 We are of the opinion that while a formal act of conversion was indeed conducted by the Hasmoneans, it was unsuccessful in the end,391 and the Idumeans continued to maintain their original culture and religion, worshiping the Idumean god Qos, and the Christians continued to view them as Pagans. While individual Idumeans might have converted to Judaism, the Idumeans as a people did not. It should be emphasized that Judahite cultural and religious elements from Jews who remained in Judea after the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests were incorporated into Idumean religion and culture.392 This affinity led the Hasmoneans to attempt proselytizing the Idumeans. They sanctified places in the Hebron Hills that were connected to the Patriarchs, like the Cave of Machpelah and Elonei Mamre.393 In light of this, one of the central questions pertaining
[50]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
them in the Onomasticon. His position was also the official one of Christianity. Eusebius calls southern Judea by its Jewish name, “Daroma,” and not by its Greek name, Idumea. When he mentions Elonei Mamre in the Onomasticon, he states that it is the place where Abraham met the angels, and that pagans worship it.406 Sozomenus, who lived in the first half of the fifth century CE, relates that after the church was established at Elonei Mamre by Constantine, the indigenous population, people from more distant parts of Palestina, the inhabitants of Tyre, Arabs, and Jews celebrated a holiday there in the summer season.407 Was this mention of the indigenous population an allusion to the Idumeans? The continued sacred status of the ritual site at Elonei Mamre and the maintenance, throughout the Roman-Byzantine period, of the unblemished sanctity of the Cave of Machpelah, point to Idumean settlement continuity in the Hebron Hills. The Romans, and after them the Christians, clearly distinguished between the Jews and the Idumeans, regarding the latter to be a pagan populace. The archaeological finds in the central Hebron Hills corroborate this. No synagogues or ritual baths were found in the entire region. The few stone vessels and coins from the Great Revolt discovered in the caves of the Hebron Hills and the Judean Shephelah408 had been brought by the Jewish population that fled during and after the destruction of the Second Temple from Judea and Jerusalem to the desert’s edge; as was the case with coins brought to Qumran and Masada, and preserved there.409 In our opinion, if written scrolls and other organic objects had been preserved in these areas, many more scrolls would have come to light in the southern Hebron Hills and the Judean Shephelah than in the Qumran-Masada area. The inescapable conclusion is that the Idumeans continued to dwell in the Hebron Hills as pagans, in religion and culture; otherwise, we would have to assume that after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt and the area’s abandonment by Jews and by Idumeans who converted to Judaism, the Hebron Hills would suddenly have been filled with tens of thousands of pagan inhabitants who came from elsewhere and later converted to Christianity—a scenario that has no basis in the historical sources or the archaeological finds. An intriguing fact, unexamined by scholars, is that
ʿEn Gedi, Chermela (Kh. el-Karmil), and Thala.398 No synagogue was discovered in Chermela, but one did come to light in Susya, a settlement not mentioned by Eusebius. The Jewish population in Chermela might have moved to Susya following the Roman military presence in Chermela, which became a military center, and later, a Christian center.399 In any event, only churches were discovered in Chermela, and in the fifth and sixth centuries CE, it was a Christian site.400 A synagogue was found in Maʿon; Eusebius mentions the settlement, without specifying the identity of its inhabitants.401 In addition to the seven Jewish settlements, Eusebius lists two Christian settlements: Iethira (Yattir) and Anaea (ʿAnim).402 If there were additional Jewish or Christian settlements, Eusebius would have mentioned them, just as he lists Noorath (Naʿaran), which is distant from the Hebron Hills, as a Jewish settlement, and in which a synagogue was later revealed.403 The nine Jewish and Christian settlements were located at the southern edge of the Hebron Hills and the south of the Dead Sea. The two Christian settlements probably were populated by Christians of Jewish origin that fled Jerusalem after the Great Revolt. Apparently, the nine settlements consisted of both Jews and Christians of Jewish origin who succeeded in surviving the BarKokhba Revolt.404 Unlike northern Judea, the Hebron Hills region was not totally abandoned in the Roman period. It was populated by Idumeans, and possibly also by pagans of non-Idumean origin who converted to Christianity. At any rate, the Hebron Hills region was sparsely populated in the second to fourth centuries CE. Archaeological excavations and surveys, especially the survey of the Map of Amaẓya, indicate that the region was not completely desolate in the third and fourth centuries CE. Based on the Amaẓya Map survey, in the Late Roman period (132–324 CE) the Judean Shephelah contained many settlements, and the area even flourished following the establishment of the Roman city of Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin).405 We are skeptical of the survey’s assertion that the region flourished, since this is not confirmed by archaeological excavations conducted there. Despite the historical affinity of the Idumeans in the Hebron Hills to Judaism, Eusebius regarded neither them nor the Samaritans as Jews, and did not mention
[51]
Y. M A G E N
The synagogue in Susya, located at the desert’s edge in the Hebron hills; the Hebrew inscription found in the southern stoa of the synagogue. In this area, Christians and Jews lived in close proximity during the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods.
[52]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Paula writes in her letter to Marcella that an entire day was required to visit all the places of prayer in Bethlehem, due to their great number.415 Two additional sacred sites connected with the birth of Jesus and located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem are the Shepherds’ Field church (Luke 2:8–12)416 and the Kathisma Church. According to Christian tradition, Mary rested on a stone at the site of the latter, on her way to Bethlehem.417 Another sacred site in southern Judea is the spring at ʿEin edh-Dhirwe, close to Beit Zur, which Christian tradition identifies as the place where Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch who was later baptized (Acts 8:26– 40).418 The importance of the narrative lies in its being the first time that a Gentile is baptized and becomes a Christian. Acts relates only that the eunuch was on his way from Jerusalem to Gaza. Beit Zur, however, is not on the road to Gaza, but on the route to Beth Guvrin (Eleutheropolis), so that the identification of Beit Zur as this meeting place is doubtful. Beit Zur does not appear in the New Testament, and is first mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim.419 The Tekoa area, as well, was an important Christian center. After Chariton’s settlement in the area, Naḥal Tekoaʿ became a monastic center.420 Several monasteries were established, one of the earliest of which is that of Chariton (the Old Laura; Souka).421 Two additional desert areas became monastic centers: the Netophah desert, east of Tekoaʿ and Naḥal Tekoaʿ; and the Coutila desert, which included the basin of Naḥal ʾOg (Wadi el-Mukallik).422 An additional desert mentioned in the context of monastic life is Rouba, which most likely was situated between Naḥal Qidron and Naḥal Qumran.423 The wilderness of Ziph, mentioned in the sources, is located around Tell Ziph.424 Due to their proximity to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the wildernesses and wadis in the southeast of the Judean Desert became important monastic centers. Four churches were established in the Land of Israel by Constantine and his mother, Helena: two in Jerusalem, one in Bethlehem, and one in Elonei Mamre. Three churches are connected with the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus: the Eleona Church,425 the Church of the Holy Sepulcher,426 and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.427 The church in Elonei Mamre was established
Jesus did not visit the Hebron Hills and southern Judea. He encountered the Samaritan population only in Samaria, where he passed through on his way to Jerusalem. He went through Jericho and Bethany, but did not bother to go to the Hebron Hills, nor even to Bethlehem, his birthplace. The simple reason is that he did not view the Idumeans as Jews, and therefore did not try to influence them to accept his teachings. His persuasive efforts were directed mainly toward the Jews, and possibly also toward the Samaritans. Only with Paul the Apostle, after Jesus’ death, were gentiles included in Christian proselytizing efforts. The only sites sacred to Christianity in southern Judea are: Bethlehem, which almost certainly assumed its sacred status in a later period, after the crucifixion of Jesus; and Beit Zur, which is connected with the late narrative of St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, a story not connected with the life of Jesus himself (see below). Bethlehem, the site most sacred to Christianity after Jerusalem, was a Jewish settlement in the Return to Zion period (Ezra 2:21; Neh. 7:26). It was the southernmost settlement to which those in the Babylonian Exile returned during that period, except for the mention of the Tekoites (Neh. 3:5). The city’s great importance for Christianity is its being Jesus’ birthplace, and the place where David was anointed King (I Sam. 16:12–13); it is called “the city of David” in the New Testament (Luke 2:4).410 Jesus, as Messiah, is the scion of the Davidic line (Matt. 1:6–16; 2:4–5; Luke 2:4–8). According to Christian tradition, Mary, mother of Jesus, put the newborn in a cave, above which was a grove dedicated to the pagan god Adonis. The latter, believed to have died and been resurrected, was worshiped in open spaces.411 One of the first four churches, which commemorated the birth of Jesus, was constructed in Bethlehem.412 The Bordeaux Pilgrim tells of the basilica church erected there by Constantine.413 Despite Bethlehem’s importance for Christianity, it was a small and insignificant village until the third century CE. Even by the late Byzantine period, it had not become a city with a large population, despite being replete with churches and monasteries. Hieronymus and Paula settled in Bethlehem in the late fourth century CE; he established a monastery, and she built a number of monasteries and a hospice.414
[53]
Y. M A G E N
The monastery of Mar Saba, also known as the Great Laura. This is one of the main monasteries in the Judean Desert due to its founder, Sabas, one of the most important monks in monastic history, and exists to this day.
To this day, every year in the summer season, the natives, the more distant inhabitants of Palestina, the people of Tyre, and the Arabs celebrate a marvelous festival. Many of them come also for commerce and trade. For the celebration pertains greatly to them all: to the Jews, because they take pride in Abraham as their father; to the idolaters, because of the coming of the angels; and to the Christians, because the one who would be revealed by the virgin, for the salvation of men also appeared there to the righteous one [i.e., Abraham] (Sozomenus, HE II, 4, 1–8).
in the sacred precinct built by Herod, and is not directly connected with the life of Jesus.428 In a tradition mentioned by Sozomenus, one of the angels who visited Abraham and Sarah in Elonei Mamre (Gen. 18:1–2) was Jesus, the son of God.429 This is probably a relatively late tradition created to explain the establishment of the church. It was not, however, this tradition that led Constantine to erect it. The main reason for constructing a church there was that it was a major pagan cultic site to which masses of pagans, Jews, and Christians made pilgrimage, as well as being a renowned marketplace. The three other churches, at least the one in Bethlehem, were possibly built at prominent pagan cultic sites to which pilgrimages were made even before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.430 The precinct at Elonei Mamre had no sanctity in Christianity in the fifth century CE. Sozomenus, depicting the situation at that time, writes:
The pagans prayed, offered sacrifices and wine libations, and burned incense at the site. In addition to Elonei Mamre being a cultic site, it was also the venue of a fair. According to the rabbis, the three fairs in the Land of Israel were held in Gaza, Acco, and Butna (Elonei Mamre), the latter having the most
[54]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
pronounced pagan nature (JT ʿAbodah Zarah 1:4, 39d; Gen. Rabbah 47:10). The Chronicon Paschale, too, mentions the Butna fair, in which, after the BarKokhba Revolt, Hadrian sold many Jews for the price of a horse.431 The fact that members of different faiths continued to visit Elonei Mamre until 425 CE (the latest date for Sozomenus’ writings), and a century after the official recognition of Christianity and Constantine’s establishment of a church at the site, teaches of Christianity’s great weakness, small numbers, and powerlessness in Judea in this early stage, and possibly later. In the second half of the fifth and mainly in the sixth century CE, the nonChristian wave of pilgrimage to the site probably ceased, thereby lessening the site’s importance. No outstanding Christian rite developed at the site in the Byzantine period. It seems that the cultic site at
Elonei Mamre played an important role for the pagan populace rather than for the Christians. The Cave of Machpelah, like Elonei Mamre, did not become a preferred and important Christian site in the Byzantine period. The Patriarchs were probably of less interest to early Christians than to Jews, Idumeans, and particularly to Muslims, who held the Cave since the Arab conquest.432 However, Christian disregard for the two sites might have stemmed from the sites’ possessing an Idumean-pagan tradition; just as, due to their rejection of the Samaritan tradition, Mt. Gerizim was not sanctified by the Christians, despite their construction of a church on the mount. Indeed, the erection of the church there might have served to destroy the last vestiges of the Samaritan temple. The historical and archaeological testimony teaches that the Cave of Machpelah was not an outstanding
The church at the southeastern edge of Beit ʿAnun, the settlement associated with biblical Beth Anoth. Built in the second half of the fifth century CE, it is one of the earliest churches discovered in the Hebron Hills. Two other churches were discovered in the settlement.
[55]
Y. M A G E N
The church at ʿAnab el-Kabir, located in the southern Hebron hills, with no Byzantine or other settlement in the immediate vicinity. The church was built at the beginning of the sixth century CE. It might have been used by the nomadic population (Saracens) who lived in the desert’s edge without a permanent settlement. A nomadic Beduin type of settlement still exists in the area.
for visitors. There undoubtedly were many churches that followed this model. As was mentioned, three magnificent churches were discovered at the edge of the Herodion site, but there was no extensive settlement at the site in the Byzantine period.435 A magnificent church was built at Kh. ʿAnab elKabir, but no remains were found of surrounding construction.436 The village of ʿAnab is close by, but quite distant from the church. If the church had been meant to serve village inhabitants in the Byzantine period, why was it not built in or near the village? A large church adjoined by no settlement also came to light at Kh. Bureikut.437 These churches might have been built by religious and imperial authorities to serve the nomadic (Saracen) and rural populations engaging
religious center in the Byzantine period; joint prayer by Jews and Christians was conducted outside the precinct.433 An important Christian center was established at Beit ʿAnun, an Idumean settlement in which three churches were discovered, one established by the midfifth century CE.434 Christianity’s entrenchment in the Hebron Hills was based mainly on monasteries, and the pagan Idumean population and the Saracens who converted to the new religion. Large and magnificent basilica churches discovered far from a settlement or monastery are evident in southern Judea, as in northern Judea and the environs of Jerusalem. The living quarters found around these churches were for priests and monks who maintained the sites and cared
[56]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
dated with certainty to the Byzantine period, is not a consequence of population proliferation and size in the Byzantine period. Rather, the increase in the amount of settlements and their dispersion results from agricultural growth that is to be attributed to the Umayyad period. In the rural sector in Judea and Samaria, too few heavily populated villages and towns were discovered to enable us to conduct a comprehensive and thorough study of living quarters in Byzantine settlements, or of how the streets and marketplaces of the towns and villages looked, despite the attempts to depict the settlement of Susya.440 In the fourth and early fifth century CE, Christian communities were mainly concentrated in Roman cities, rather than in villages, with the exception of the numerous monasteries.441 Most of the Byzantine building plans we possess are of monasteries, and possibly also of a very few Christian agricultural farms and cities of the Negev.442 Byzantine towns and villages almost certainly existed in the period, but not as many as the surveys attempt to portray; but most were buried beneath later construction in various Islamic periods or beneath present-day Palestinian villages. Consequently, in our opinion, the surveys and excavations cannot be used as a basis for calculating, or even approximating, the size of the rural, and even of the urban, population in the Byzantine period. An examination of the data used by various scholars to calculate the Land of Israel population in the Roman-Byzantine period raises numerous questions,443 a thorough discussion of which would exceed the scope of the present work. The surprising absence of residential structures in the Roman cities, in both the Roman and Byzantine periods (a topic upon which we touched briefly in our study of the city of Neapolis444) makes it difficult to calculate the population of the Land of Israel in the RomanByzantine period. We do not know the plans of the residential quarters in Roman cities like Neapolis, Ascalon, Aelia Capitolina, Scythopolis, Caesarea, Sebastiya, and Gerasa, where tens of thousands of inhabitants dwelled; and we certainly do not know how the home of the average Roman citizen in those cities looked. Some scholars might claim that most excavations in Roman cities focused more on large civic and
in seasonal agriculture, a phenomenon quite common among shepherds, who began adopting Christianity in the sixth century CE.438 This population had no permanent settlements, and was served by churches erected at the desert’s edge. More than 75 percent of the churches and chapels discovered in Judea are: churches of monasteries, and of hospitality and encampment sites; dedicatory churches memorializing historical events from the life of Jesus; and churches probably built to serve the nomadic population. Only the remainder are churches of settlements. Of the multitude of monasteries in the Hebron Hills, some were built around Bethlehem, and others in Naḥal Tekoaʿ-Wadi Khureitun, the wilderness of Ziph, and the wilderness of Netophah. Many monasteries were built in the central Hebron Hills, on the region’s western edge, and mainly, in the southern Hebron Hills and western Negev. Most of the monasteries were apparently established in fortresses, towers, Roman precincts, and other public structures from the late fourth and early fifth century CE, to protect the southern border from the Saracens.
Population of the Land of Israel in the Byzantine Period According to the surveys of the Land of Israel, in the Byzantine period, in addition to towns and Roman cities, there was a broad distribution of sites, most of which were small: farms, monasteries, and isolated structures. Y. Portugali explored this phenomenon in his discussion of the survey he conducted in the Jezreel Valley.439 In his opinion, although the number of sites rose in the Byzantine period, the sites were significantly smaller in settled area and in population, so that the total settled area and population declined. Portugali asks at the end of his discussion whether a similar phenomenon can be found in other places. This phenomenon, which created the illusion of settlement expansion in the Byzantine period, existed in Judea and Samaria, as well. Instead of settlements— cities, towns, villages, and large agricultural farms— small and isolated structures were found, which we cannot ascertain were established in the Byzantine rather than Umayyad period. The multiplicity of small sites containing pottery vessels that cannot be
[57]
Y. M A G E N
of Israel can offer no criterion for measuring the population in this period.447 Grape cultivation and wine production reached a high point in this period. Olive oil production, which had peaked in the Second Temple period, recovered in the fourth century CE in Samaria, Galilee, and the Golan. Oil presses dated to the fourth century CE were found in Judea, as well, but they are relatively small, as was their output.448 The large industrial oil presses ascribed to the Byzantine period actually belong to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. The decrease in the production of olive oil, a basic foodstuff and used for light in antiquity, is a clear indicator of the reduced population size and the regression in agriculture in the Byzantine period. In Jericho, one of the cities with flourishing agricultural activity in the Second Temple period, this activity suffered a drastic decline in the Byzantine period, beginning its recovery only in the Early Islamic period. Research based on Rabbinic sources, on the broad scope of the cultivation of grains and other agricultural products, also lacks a factual basis.449 Agriculture did not peak in the Byzantine period, and certainly not in Judea and Samaria, including the area around Jerusalem, the main Christian sacred city. An examination of basalt millstones, installations for grinding and pounding grains, shows that the number of such installations discovered in the Byzantine period was small, compared to those discovered from the Iron Age and the Hellenistic and late Second Temple periods. This attests that the cultivation of grain did not peak in this period, and that the civilian population was smaller than that portrayed by scholarly research. Generally speaking, terraces and agricultural areas for grains and other crops, may not be dated to a specific period without unequivocal archaeological proof. However, in our study of Early Islamic oil production in the Land of Israel, we attributed the many agricultural terraces found near the oil presses to that same period. Our initial thesis was that the presence of industrial oil presses that produced tremendous quantities of oil is indicative of nearby agricultural areas and terraces where olive trees were cultivated. Another issue worthy of our attention is the relative paucity of Byzantine tombs from the fifth, sixth, and
entertainment structures, and less on residential quarters. This explanation, however, is unsatisfactory; many excavations in Roman cities were random, and it is inconceivable that to this day, no residential quarter of a Roman or Byzantine city has come to light. Examination of the excavation reports of the cities teaches of the paucity of Byzantine residential structures. In his research on the population of cities in the Roman and Byzantine periods, M. Broshi concluded that this population numbered 372,000.445 Assuming that some 15 people lived in every residential unit, the cities would have had to contain at least 24,800 Roman residential structures, some continuing in use in the Byzantine, and possibly even the Islamic, period. Surprisingly, except for the cities in the Negev, no residential quarters of Roman and Byzantine cities were discovered. This is not to say that the cities, towns, and villages were not settled in these periods; rather, the archaeological data are so poor that we cannot examine the scope of private construction in them. Accordingly, population estimates that rely on the built area of the cities, and certainly on that in the villages and towns, lack any factual basis. The table in Broshi’s article presents the size of the built and settled area of the various cities.446 An examination of the excavation reports of these cities shows that few Byzantine construction remains were uncovered. Sebastiya, where scant finds from this period were unearthed, was really a village, rather than a city. Its settled area is calculated to be 770 dunams, with a consequent population of more than 25,000, which is unreasonable for the Roman, and certainly for the Byzantine, period. Very few Byzantine tombs were found in Sebastiya, and there were probably very few churches in the city, in contrast with the wealth of Roman tombs and public structures. The same picture emerges from our examination of the excavation reports for all the cities in Broshi’s list, e.g., Ptolemais (Acre), Neapolis, Apollonia, Azotos Paralios. None of his estimates withstand fundamental scientific examination, including his calculated estimate of a population of 372,000 in the cities. Similarly, his estimate that the rural population was double the urban one—has no basis. Studies based on the presumed developed agriculture of the Byzantine period in the Land
[58]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
graves. This claim is unsubstantiated in Judea and Samaria, in most of the regions of the Land of Israel, and certainly in rocky areas where burial in hewn graves was customary. While Second Temple earthen burials in fields were discovered in the Land of Israel only scanty few Byzantine graves were uncovered. For example, the entire area around the monastery of Martyrius was excavated, but no burials were discovered. Cist graves were used in the Land of Israel, but they, too, are relatively few in number. We must regard seriously and examine thoroughly the fact that very few Byzantine tombs were found, relative to the millions of people said to have lived in the region during that period. Thousands of random excavations and surveys were conducted, and a similar number of tombs that had been looted and exposed; but to the present, a quantity of tombs that would reflect millions of inhabitants in the region has not appeared. There are many examples where a large Byzantine population was posited, but few tombs were found. In Sebastiya, of the many dozens of tombs uncovered and looted, most are Roman, and very few, Byzantine; a similar phenomenon exhibits itself at the Samaritan site at Qedumim.454 Scores of Roman tombs were found in Neapolis, but no significant burial continuity from the Byzantine period was found to substantiate the scholarly population estimate for the latter period. Some of the tombs discovered in Neapolis yielded Umayyad finds.455 Despite its dozens of churches, no Byzantine cemetery was found in Jericho; in contrast with the large Second Temple cemetery found there.456 Four churches were discovered at the settlement of Shiloh, dated from the early fifth to mid-eighth century CE. The large number of churches should have been indicative of a large population and many graves. The Byzantine settlement and its structures, as revealed in the excavations, were meager, and the number of tombs, very limited.457 In the monasteries, compared with the large number of monks claimed by scholars to have inhabited them, few graves were found. As was noted, at some stage of their lives, many monks might have left the monasteries and returned to their homelands. It could be argued that Byzantine burials were modest, especially in monasteries, and that monks had earthen burials; but, as mentioned above, few Byzantine earthen graves or cist tombs were discovered.
early seventh century CE. If Broshi’s estimation that the population of the Land of Israel reached one million, even if only at the peak of the Byzantine period (sixth to seventh century CE) were correct, this would have left a deep impression on the period’s burial system. Thousands of tombs from the Second Temple period, when settlement peaked in Judea and Jerusalem, were found in southern Samaria, Judea, and the environs of Jerusalem.450 In contrast, relatively few tombs were found there from the Byzantine period, when the population, according to the estimates and surveys mentioned above, exceeded even that of the Second Temple period.451 If we join the fourth century with the fifth, sixth, seventh, and even the first half of the eighth century CE, when some of the monasteries and the Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan settlements still existed, we are speaking of some 400 years of burials of a considerable population. Where was this population interred? We find very few graves in churches and monasteries, and around Roman cities; but at times they are completely absent around towns and villages, as is also the case for graves of Jews, and of Samaritans, after their revolts against the Christians. G. Avni listed all the Late Roman and Byzantine tombs found in Jerusalem and Beth Guvrin, and also mentioned additional cities in which Byzantine tombs from the fourth to seventh centuries CE were found.452 To draw the troubling supposition, made by some scholars, of the tremendous numbers of inhabitants of the Land of Israel into sharper focus, we will attempt to calculate the theoretical number of deaths during the 400 years of the Byzantine period. If 1,000,000 people lived in the Land of Israel in that period, and we assume that the average lifespan was 40 to 50 years, there should have been 8,000,000 graves! The number of Byzantine graves found in the entire Land of Israel, including in the extensive looting of graves in recent decades, is much smaller than that. The discovered in towns and villages in Judea and Samaria comes to only several score, and perhaps hundreds.453 It could be argued that the Byzantine cemeteries have not yet been discovered, or that the subject has been insufficiently researched. Some scholars have argued that in the Byzantine period, many of the deceased, especially around monasteries, were simply buried in unmarked earthen
[59]
Y. M A G E N
picture described above.464 More than 40 Byzantine burial sites, some in secondary use from the Second Temple period, were counted around the Old City of Jerusalem, not including those found on the Mount of Olives and Mt. Scopus. The burial sites in secondary use were included in the Byzantine list because of the discovery of pottery vessels. How these vessels came there is unclear; it was possibly as a result of erosion after the tomb had fallen into disuse. Thus, we cannot be certain that the tombs marked in distribution map 19 as Byzantine were actually in use at that period, e.g., the tomb at Givʿat Ḥananya.465 The peripheral areas of Jerusalem to the south and west contain few tombs. The northeastern map— the Jerusalem map (102)—contains nine Byzantine tombs and six Second Temple burial caves, all of which contain Byzantine material; it is unclear if the pottery vessels came from burials, or were caused by erosion.466 The northwestern map—the ʿEin Kerem map (101)—contains a single tomb with an arcosolium, dated to the third to fifth centuries CE (site 163), and a Second Temple burial cave with loculi, which also contains Byzantine pottery vessels (site 176).467 Only one clearly Byzantine tomb was found in the periphery of this central, large Christian city, with the obvious exception of tombs installed in the churches and monasteries around the city (the Mount of Olives and Mt. Scopus). The southwestern map—the Bet Leḥem map (105)—includes seven Byzantine sites with tombs: a Second Temple burial cave that also contains Byzantine sherds (site 13); a burial cave dated to the third to fourth centuries CE (site 18); burial caves with loculi (site 22); a burial cave dated to the Early Roman and Byzantine-Early Islamic periods (site 33); Roman and Byzantine burial caves (site 49)—it is unclear on what the dating is based; a shaft tomb with adjoining Byzantine pottery (site 124); a burial cave that is presently in the Armenian monastery, and was last used in the Byzantine period (site 152).468 The southeastern map—the Talpiyot map (106)—contains: two sites with tombs; Second Temple caves with arcosolia (site 30); burial caves, some from the Second Temple period; and Byzantine sherds (site 49).469 The picture that emerges from the burial system around Jerusalem does not differ from the one north
Thus, we remain with the question of the discrepancy between population estimates and the number of those interred. Tombs were hewn or built in open areas, and even if looted and their contents lost, the characteristic structure of Byzantine arcosolia and cist tombs would have remained. More tombs were discovered from the Late Roman and early Byzantine period (third, fourth, and early fifth century CE) than from the height of the Byzantine period (sixth and seventh centuries CE). The picture of a paucity of tombs that emerges from the excavations appears with great clarity in the surveys, as well. In the survey of the Map of Amaẓya, a total of 573 Byzantine sites were discovered, 103 of which are settlements; and only 34 Byzantine tombs were discovered.458 The data do not indicate whether these tombs were all hewn in the Byzantine period and are characteristic of it or include Roman tombs that continued in use in the Byzantine period, as well. In the Benjamin region, which was the base of Jerusalem’s economic and agricultural area, and which included most of the population and churches connected to the city at its height, this paucity of tombs is especially striking.459 In the south of the Beit Sira map (sheet 14–15) only three Byzantine tombs were found.460 In the south of the Ramallah map (sheet 14– 16), the north of the el-Bireh map (sheet 14–17), and the north of the ʿEin Kerem map (sheet 13–16) seven tombs were found, some doubtfully Byzantine.461 The Wadi el-Makkuk map (sheet 14–18) includes caves that were possibly used for burials.462 The northeast of the Jerusalem map (sheet 13–14) includes no Byzantine tombs. Even if Byzantine tombs from the period were to be found here and there in this region, the picture would not change dramatically. A similar picture emerges from the Mt. Ephraim survey. The number of Second Temple tombs around Jerusalem is tens of times greater than that of the Byzantine tombs. A surprising picture is provided by the survey of Jerusalem, which surveyed the city’s municipal area from south to north. The 950 Second Temple tombs that were documented463 do not include hundreds of tombs discovered in the more distant northern area of Benjamin, and in Judea, to the south. A comparison of the two relevant survey maps—the distribution map of the Second Temple tombs (17) and that of the Byzantine tombs (19)—illustrates the
[60]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
burning churches in Shiloh and in other places, and causing such severe harm to the Christians, some 150 years after Christianity had become the official religion of the Empire?473 Where were the hundreds of thousands of Christians at that time? Why did they need the protection of the Byzantine army rather than waging war against the Samaritans themselves? These questions do not end with the Samaritans’ revolts and the Christians’ powerlessness to repel them or even defend the churches. In the period following the Samaritans’ defeat and the severe devastation they suffered at the hands of the Byzantine army in the time of Emperors Zeno and Justinian, in which part of the Samaritan population was killed or expelled from its land, those remaining did not convert to Christianity. Samaria was one of the most fertile regions in the Land of Israel, and we would expect that Samaria would immediately have been settled by Christians after the Samaritan revolts. Surprisingly, the Samaritan settlements, most of which had been abandoned, were not resettled by Christians, nor were churches built in them. Justinian defeated the Samaritans, but the Christians in the Land of Israel were unsuccessful in replacing them. This phenomenon might be explained if the Byzantine army had forbidden Christians to take control of Samaritan village lands. This explanation is quite puzzling. Justinian had constructed monasteries in most of the fortresses erected in the fourth century CE, which were imperial property and stood near the Samaritan settlement: Mt. Gerizim, Deir Samʿan, Deir Qalʿa, Deir Daqla, etc.474 Why, then, would the Christians not be permitted to take over the villages and fertile agricultural lands of Samaria, which was devoid of its Samaritan population, especially if, indeed, agriculture reached a zenith in this period, and there were thousands of Christian Byzantine villages and towns and hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers in the Land of Israel? Christians should have rebuilt Samaritan villages, worked their lands, and built hundreds of churches in Samaria, but this did not happen. In the late sixth century CE, the Byzantine rulers were forced to permit the Samaritans to return and work the land, due to the steep drop in agricultural production and the heavy losses in tax collection.475 In our opinion, the main reason for this phenomenon
or south of the city. Distribution map 19, which lists the Byzantine tombs in the Jerusalem area, is somewhat misleading; it should have listed tombs hewn in the Byzantine period, or definitely proven to have Byzantine burials. The number of Byzantine tombs found is much smaller than the number listed in this map, and much smaller than that listed in the map of the Second Temple period (distribution map 17). The periphery of Jerusalem, the most important city for Christianity in the Byzantine period, contains few tombs from this period. Second Temple period Jerusalem was encompassed by hundreds of villages, farms, and towns, as is reflected in the thousands of tombs of inhabitants of Jerusalem and its surroundings. Byzantine Jerusalem was surrounded by monasteries, not settlements, and there were relatively few tombs. If we exclude tombs found in the Roman-Byzantine cities of Jerusalem and Beth Guvrin (Eleutheropolis), and in the churches and monasteries, the number of Byzantine tombs discovered in the villages and towns, including the environs of Jerusalem, was very small compared to the estimated population of the Land of Israel, and negligible compared to the number of Second Temple tombs. The current article does not relate to additional regions in which Christian tombs were discovered, and limits itself to the region of southern Samaria, northern Judea, and southern Judea, in which hundreds of churches, but very few tombs, were found. The small number of Byzantine tombs is also characteristic of the Jewish settlements. In our opinion, the paucity of Byzantine tombs is the best indicator that scholarly estimates of the population in the Byzantine period are inflated. Scholarly research has surprisingly all but ignored additional noteworthy topics that might indicate the small size of the Christian population of the Land of Israel. They include: the Samaritan uprisings in the late fifth and sixth century CE470; security conditions in southern Judea following the attacks by the Saracens471; and the great ease with which the Land was conquered by the Persians and Arabs.472 Why was the “large” Christian population unable to enlist an army large enough to meet the Persian and Arab invasion? Even if the Samaritans were many, how could they have attacked Neapolis, a distinctly Christian and highly populated city? How did they succeed in
[61]
Y. M A G E N
Christianity after the Arab Conquest of the Land of Israel
is that the Christians did not have a large rural population capable of settling Samaritan lands. This might also explain why Justinian’s efforts to convert the Samaritans to Christianity proved fruitless. The emperor invested in the establishment of monasteries; it was easier to recruit monks from the thousands of pilgrims that visited the country than tens of thousands of farmers, who were not to be found, to replace Samaritans who had been killed or expelled. To convert an entire people to Christianity, he would have needed a large, already existing, surrounding Christian population, and many resolute clerics to supervise the conversions. At the beginning of Christian penetration of the Land of Israel and during the Samaritan revolts there were no clerics to supervise conversion in Samaria. Thus, Procopius’ statement about Justinian’s Christianizing the Samaritans remained an unfulfilled wish. Noteworthy too is the issue of the security of the southern boundary of the Land of Israel. Why was Judea, which housed hundreds of churches, and supposedly had a large Christian population, incapable of contending with the Saracens, who so severely harmed Christians residing at the desert’s edge, that every monastery became a fortified stronghold, needed the protection of the army, and took additional physical measures to defend itself, like the use of rolling stones at entrances.476 These and many additional questions will compel future scholars of the Land of Israel in the Byzantine period to reexamine the data underlying the surveys and researches that speak of the huge site distribution, the tremendous number of churches, and the population that peaked in this period; and to determine whether the small sites, agricultural structures, farms, and isolated structures, defined as Byzantine, do not, in fact, belong to the beginning of the Early Islamic period. More than two-thirds of the churches discovered are of dedicatory sites or sacred sites, monasteries, way stations, and hospices. Despite Christianity being the official religion of the Empire, Christians were not the majority in the Land of Israel in the Byzantine period. They built churches and monasteries everywhere, but despite what we are told by the surveys, we cannot be certain that these were surrounded by a large Christian population of villagers, farmers, and laborers that filled all the sites of the Land of Israel.
The Arab conquest of the Land of Israel did not result in the total elimination of the local population and the abandonment of all its settlements. Jews, Samaritans, and Christians continued residing on their land and restoring and building synagogues and churches, until the late Umayyad period, some 100 years after the conquest. The settlement began to wane in the Abbasid period, in the wake of the political changes that took place in the Islamic empire: the rise of the Abbasid dynasty and the transfer of the capital from Damascus to Baghdad. In the Crusader period, most of the local non-Muslim population in the Land of Israel—mainly Jews and Samaritans— had almost completely vanished, due to expulsion, flight, physical annihilation, or conversion to Islam. Although the Christians, too, were persecuted and suffered gravely in the Abbasid period and even later, and many of their settlements, especially monasteries, were abandoned, Christianity survived to a greater extent, due to extensive support received from the Christian empire.477 The Arabs conquered extensive areas, but lacked the population needed to settle them. At first, the Umayyad rulers’ policy was to leave the local population and not forcibly impose Islam. The new rulers also retained the administrative division of the Land of Israel that had been in force in the Byzantine period, changing only the names of the provinces.478 The Samaritans and Jews who had lived in the area for thousands of years had nowhere to flee following the conquest, even if they had so desired. They would not have been accepted by Christians in the west, and it is doubtful whether they would have found ships to take them there.479 The Christians, in contrast, were part of a large Christian world, most of which had not been conquered by the Arabs; and when the Arab forces approached, many succeeded in fleeing by sea to their homelands or other western lands. It should be recalled that many of the Christians, especially clerics, monks, and pilgrims recently arrived from western lands, had homes to return to, and were received by the religious establishment and by their families. It is unclear why one Christian settlement was abandoned, while another continued to exist. Many of
[62]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
was conducted with precision, and at other times, carelessly.489 Images on architectural items were usually smashed and destroyed.490 There is no unequivocal proof that architectural items in Jewish synagogues were destroyed following the edict by Yazid II. They might have been destroyed earlier by Jews, possibly following secondary use of building stones from pagan temples, a practice widespread in Galilee and the Golan, or out of adherence to the biblical prohibition. It should also be noted that carved or sculpted images were more conspicuous, and more distinctly pagan in nature than the embellishment of mosaics with various patterns that at times were connected with Jewish tradition. In Transjordan (Provincia Arabia), effaced images were found in almost every site. In some churches the destruction of images in the mosaics was carried out carefully, and the repair was precise.491 In almost all cases, the artistic ability of the renovators was greatly inferior to that of the original craftsmen, and the renovation appears to have been conducted in haste. The effacement of images and their repair in some manner or other clearly shows that the churches continued to function as religious sites in the Umayyad period. In the Land of Israel, there is no evidence of iconoclasm in the Roman cities or at sites on the coastal plain,492 and it is hardly present in Galilee. Iconoclasm was not found in monasteries in the area north of Jerusalem and in southern Samaria, while it was evidenced in Shiloh. Almost every monastery excavated in the southern Hebron Hills exhibits iconoclasm,493 while the phenomenon is rare in the Judean Desert. In addition to the Christian sites, this phenomenon was discovered in three Jewish synagogues, as well: in Naʿaran, in Kh. Susya, and in Eshtemoa.494 How are we to understand the Christian settlement picture that emerges from the iconoclasm phenomenon? Additionally, based on this phenomenon, is it possible to distinguish between a settlement with a local Christian population and one with a population that originated from the intensive waves of pilgrimage to the Holy Land? The coastal plain settlements and the coastal cities were abandoned. Clearly, following the Arab conquest, whoever could flee by boarding a ship and returning to his land of origin did so. The Byzantine authorities provided ships that
the Christian settlements and monasteries excavated had continued to exist in the Umayyad period, as well, but as Muslim agricultural farms and industrial installations rather than as Christian sites. The monasteries’ lands, which had been crown lands, were transferred to the Muslim authorities after the Arab conquest.480 One of the main criteria for determining the continued existence of a Christian or Jewish settlement in the Early Islamic period is the iconoclastic destruction of mosaics and sculptures in churches and synagogues. The problem is more complex regarding the Samaritan settlements, because they did not ornament their synagogues with human or faunal representations, since they observed literally the biblical prohibition against making a sculptured or molten image (Ex. 20:4–6; Deut. 4:15–19; 5:8–9). Consequently, it cannot be determined whether a Samaritan synagogue continued to exist in the Early Islamic period.481 The phenomenon of iconoclasm was very prevalent in the Land of Israel and in Transjordan, but is absent from other regions like Syria, Phoenicia, and northern Africa—Christian areas that, too, fell under Muslim rule.482 The effacement of human and faunal figures was not the result of a religious war between Islam and Christianity and Judaism, since in numerous churches only the figures were destroyed, but not the crucifixes that decorated the church.483 This is not the place to delve into the issue of the adoration of icons, which was the subject of controversies within the Church itself 484; we shall merely note that iconoclasm in the Land of Israel apparently began in 721 CE, following the edict issued by Caliph Yazid II.485 Synagogues, churches, and church additions built after the issuance of the edict lack such representations. The aversion to figurative images appears in the Torah as a prohibition against making any sculptured or molten image. The Nabateans similarly rejected such art,486 and this ban finds expression in Islam in a hadith ascribed to Muhammad.487 Following the edict by Yazid II, the Jewish population, which was not meticulous in its observance of the biblical prohibition in the fifth and sixth centuries CE,488 and the Christians, were compelled to remove the figures that embellished their mosaics; these were replaced by geometrical patterns, or the place of the figure was simply filled with various tesserae. At times the repair
[63]
Y. M A G E N
Summary
took refugees to other lands. This also happened in Roman-Byzantine cities with harbors, like Ptolemais, Caesarea, Ascalon, and Gaza, where we do not find iconoclasm. Many monasteries in Galilee, southern Samaria, Benjamin, and the Judean Desert were abandoned, as well. The monasteries deserted during the Arab conquest might have been inhabited by monks who had come to the Land of Israel as pilgrims, and who fled when the Arab conquest began, returning to their lands and families. Most of the monasteries were populated by only a few monks, who could not have withstood the Arab forces, even had they desired to put up a defense; furthermore, the monks had no families or property, so they could reach one of the port cities in only a few hours. Iconoclasm is conspicuous in settlements and monasteries in the southern Hebron Hills and Beth Guvrin area. Most of the monasteries were probably populated by local monks, and a majority of the population consisted of Christians of local origin— Idumean or Saracen—who had nowhere to flee, and therefore remained. We do not possess a complete picture regarding villages and towns like Shiloh, with an indigenous Christian population that included children and the elderly. Flight was unfeasible for such a population, which therefore remained in place and continued to exist, with its churches. In Shiloh, two churches continued to function until the late Umayyad period. In Provincia Arabia in Transjordan, iconoclasm was conspicuous, and it seems that a majority of the Christian population was indigenous—NabateanArab; additionally, it was far from the sea, and its population could not flee. Even in the Early Islamic period, churches were built in this region. In Phoenicia iconoclasm was not found, apparently because of the possibility of flight to the west. Another issue is the degree to which figures were defaced. The Christian inhabitants of Transjordan and the southern Hebron Hills were of Idumean, Saracen and Nabatean descent. In the Byzantine period, after their conversion to Christianity, they began depicting figures on their church mosaics, as the Jews customarily did in the mosaics in their synagogues; but when Yazid II issued his decree, they, like the Nabatean-Arab inhabitants of Provincia Arabia, took care to fulfill it.
The environs of Jerusalem, the Judean Desert, the Hebron Hills, northern Judea (the Ramallah area), and southern Samaria are replete with churches and monasteries. Most of these areas, which were inhabited by Jews in the Second Temple period, were destroyed and abandoned in the Great and the BarKokhba Revolts, and were almost emptied of their Jewish populations following these two revolts. If we wished to prepare a map of the settlement distribution of these areas in ca. 180 CE, some 50 years after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, we would have difficulty finding inhabited sites, or any finds at all in those areas, including in the vicinity of Jerusalem-Aelia Capitolina, which was a Roman city. Not only were finds and coins from this period lacking in these areas, there is also an absence of public Roman structures, e.g., temples and theaters. The entire region was emptied of its population until the late third and fourth century CE. Obviously, exceptions are to be found here and there, and some finds could be indicated, but the picture as a whole that emerges from the surveys, and mainly from the excavations, is one of almost total desolation. Two Roman cities were established in northern Samaria, and around them an active Samaritan and pagan settlement sprung up, reaching its peak in the second to fifth centuries CE. The Roman city of Aelia Capitolina was built, but a large settlement did not develop around the city, as it had during the Second Temple period. Roman cities were built in Emmaus and Beth Guvrin. The central hill area of Samaria, Benjamin, and southern Judea remained almost empty, and devoid of Roman construction. The situation began to change in the late third and mainly in the fourth century CE. Entire regions seem to have awakened, and it appears that a non-Jewish population worked Jewish lands abandoned following the revolts. Perhaps, following this awakening in the time of Theodosius I and his son Arcadius, the Romans began building towers, fortresses, and possibly also military bases for their forces in these areas, to defend abandoned lands that belonged to the central government (crown lands). In northern Samaria, this growth began earlier, because the Samaritans residing there had not participated in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt
[64]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
on the Christian holy places and settlements in the Holy Land that were mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, and strengthen the Jewish-Christian roots in the Land of Israel. While we cannot know with certainty that Eusebius directed the Onomasticon to the extensive pilgrimage movement that had begun in his time, we definitely know that this was true of Hieronymus. Pilgrims almost unquestionably used these writings and the descriptions of other journeys composed at the time. Eusebius’ disregard of pagan and Samaritan settlements is tendentious. He refers to southern Judea by the accepted name in the Jewish sources, “Daroma,” and not by its official name, Idumea, so as not to mention the Idumeans who remained in the Hebron Hills. He lists two Christian settlements in the Hebron Hills: Iethira (Yattir), a large village, and Ineae (ʿAnim). These were most likely settlements of Christians whose roots could be traced to JewishChristians who fled from Jerusalem in the wake of the Great Revolt, like the other Jews, and settled in the southern Hebron Hills, surviving the Bar-Kokhba Revolt; not settlements of those who had adopted Christianity during the course of the Roman period. Eusebius lists the names of eight Jewish settlements in Daroma (Idumea)-southern Hebron Hills and the south of the Judean Shephelah; and the village of Noorath (Naʿaran), north of Jericho. In the rest of Judea, in the environs of Jerusalem, Benjamin, and the Hebron Hills, he mentions additional inhabited villages, without specifying the religion of their residents, and it is not always clear from his wording whether the settlement was inhabited in his time. As regards Gibeon and Beeroth, he mentions the current existence of a village there, 7 Roman miles from Jerusalem. This village was almost certainly neither Jewish nor Christian. As regards the settlements of Beth-horon and Bethel, as well, he mentions the villages that existed in his time: Bethany, which— was connected with the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1–44); Kiriath Jearim, between Jerusalem and Lod; and Beit Zur, Tekoa, and Halhul. He states that Michmas is a large village. If these had been Jewish or Christian villages, Eusebius would almost certainly have noted this. It has not been determined whether all the settlements listed by Eusebius were inhabited in his time. Regardless, the early historical name of those
and did not suffer from its repression. In the second and third centuries CE many settlements and agricultural estates were built, the zenith of this activity coming in the fourth century CE, with the initial construction of the Samaritan synagogues. This heightened activity was cut short as a result of the Samaritan revolts, and was renewed only towards the end of the Byzantine and in the Umayyad period. It should be emphasized that in southern Samaria we find a clear geographical line, south of which are a plethora of churches and monasteries, with only extremely meager Christian settlement north of it. This geographical line extends from Tapuah, some 10 km south of Neapolis, to Qalqiliya. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, no Samaritan settlement, synagogue, or ritual bath south of this demarcation line has been discovered. If these data are correct, then the aim of preventing the Samaritans from expanding southward into areas that had contained Jewish settlement during the Second Temple period began before the Samaritan revolt; and the line of fortresses built in southern Samaria and at Mt. Gerizim in the fourth century CE gave expression to this aim. Eusebius’ Onomasticon comprises an important source for examining Christian settlement distribution in the early fourth century CE. The Onomasticon, and Hieronymus’ additions in his Latin version of it, some 80 years later, indicate a slow and minor change in Christianity’s penetration into the region, and slight changes in the distribution of Christian sites that occurred in the fourth century CE. Does the Onomasticon reflect the general settlement distribution at the beginning of the fourth century CE, including Samaritan and pagan settlements, in addition to the Jewish and Christian ones? Eusebius lists the names of locations mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, incidentally and infrequently mentioning the existence of a settlement in his time. He mentions the existence of Christian and Jewish populations, but refrains from indicating the presence of pagan or Samaritan ones. Consequently, we do not know the religion of the residents of many settlements that were almost certainly inhabited by pagans or Samaritans, and that even have an entry in the Onomasticon. Eusebius did not intend to chart a map of the Land of Israel in the early fourth century CE. Rather, he sought to gather the geographical and historical information
[65]
Y. M A G E N
CE, 80 years after Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, and that very few churches had been constructed in the rural settlements. Most of the churches in the Land of Israel were built in the second half of the fifth and early sixth century CE. Churches were first built in the rural sector only a century or more after Christianity had become the state religion. The first church to be built in the Hebron Hills was erected by Constantine in Elonei Mamre, a site visited by thousands of Christian, Jewish, and pagan pilgrims. As is attested by Sozomenus, despite the establishment of the church, Jews and pagans continued to come to the site until the mid-fifth century CE. This substantiates the meager presence of Christians in the Hebron Hills and in Judea as a whole. Numerous churches and monasteries were first built in Judea and southern Samaria from the mid-fifth and mainly in the sixth century CE. It has not been determined if this was a pagan and Idumean population that accepted Christianity, or a population that arrived in the Land of Israel as part of the Christian pilgrimage movement. The archaeological finds indicate that in the fifth and sixth centuries CE, the Judean Desert and Hebron Hills, the environs of Jerusalem, northern Judea, southern Samaria, and additional areas were suddenly filled with numerous churches and monasteries. These churches should have served a large population. Even if we assume that these were pagans who converted to Christianity, we do not know when they arrived in this previously almost desolate area. A possible explanation for this multitude of churches is to be found in the establishment of monasteries, dedicatory churches, and churches for travelers. Most of the churches discovered in the Hebron Hills, northern Judea, and southern Samaria belonged to monasteries. The monks and pilgrims, a large number of whom came from beyond the Land of Israel (Greece, Rome, Asia Minor, Arabia, Egypt, and additional places) founded hundreds of monasteries. There was a direct connection between the pilgrimage movement and the plethora of monasteries, churches at way stations for sojourners, and sacred sites. Despite the relatively small numbers of monks and priests among the population in the Land of Israel, they occupied an important place in settling the Land and disseminating Christianity. We believe that most
settlements was preserved in the memory of Eusebius’ contemporaries, as were the names of the holy places that had been the venues of historical religious events, and the burial places of various individuals, whether these locations, events, and burial places were from the Old or New Testaments. Eusebius listed the few Christian or Jewish settlements, but refrained from listing most of the other settlements that were either abandoned, or inhabited by pagans, Idumeans, or Samaritans. If this was a pagan population, when did it penetrate this area, which had become desolate as a result of the two Jewish revolts? The conclusion to be drawn from Eusebius’ description is that in the first third of the fourth century CE, when the Onomasticon was composed, the rural expanse in Judea and Samaritan was almost completely devoid of a Christian or Jewish population, and remained mostly empty. Hieronymus’ additions to the Onomasticon, which are to be dated to the late fourth century CE, possibly to 386 CE, after his journey with Paula, do not significantly alter the distribution of Christian sites in the region in the late fourth century CE. The additions are minor, and relate mainly to Christian sacred sites in which churches are infrequently mentioned, and certainly not a large Christian population that suddenly filled Judea and Samaria. As regards Bethlehem, Hieronymus adds that the Lord Jesus was born there, a fact not mentioned by Eusebius. Beginning in the late fourth century CE, in addition to the four churches erected by Constantine and his mother Helena, contemporary sources mention churches built at Old Testament sacred sites. It has not been determined whether a Christian population was present at the sites where the churches were built, and it is unclear whether the mention of a church refers to an actual church, or to some other significant structure, such as Joseph’s or Rachel’s Tomb. At the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century CE, churches began being built at Old Testament sacred sites, or at those connected with the New Testament, as well as a small number of monasteries. Beginning in the mid-fifth century CE, monasteries and churches were erected in, or adjoining, many settlements. The historical sources and archaeological data teach that there were very few Christian settlements in the late fourth century
[66]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
monasteries themselves, might indicate that at some point in their lives the monks left the Land of Israel, either returning to their homeland or going to other lands, some assuming religious positions elsewhere in the Byzantine Empire. Even if these monks numbered 10,000 or more, they could not have significantly changed the demographic balance of the Land of Israel population which, according to some scholars, reached 1,000,000 during the Byzantine period. This monastic population had no natural increase, and even if it remained in the Land, it could not meaningfully augment the region’s population, despite its major contribution in disseminating Christianity. If our premise is correct, and most of the churches belonged to monasteries that had few occupants, then the large number of churches cannot provide a basis for determining the size of the Christian population in the Byzantine period. Nor can the multitude of sites in this period serve as an indicator of the number of inhabitants in the Land of Israel. Likewise, in light of the difficulty of differentiating between Byzantine and Umayyad pottery vessels, we should be quite skeptical regarding the surveys, which speak of the population peaking in the Byzantine period, with a subsequent decline in the Early Islamic period.
of the monks and priests filling religious roles in the Land of Israel in the fourth and fifth centuries CE had come from abroad. Likewise, most of the Christian theologians, at least in the first centuries of Christianity, were not native to the Land of Israel, and had not been educated there. When we examine various regions, e.g., the southern Hebron Hills and the Judean Desert, the city of Jericho, Bethlehem and the environs of Jerusalem, northern Judea, and southern Samaria, we can identify many monasteries. Founding monasteries enabled the rapid population of the Land of Israel, while not requiring a large Christian population. In our assessment, most of the churches listed in the corpus of Christian sites in Judea and Samaria belonged to monasteries, way stations, and pilgrim hospices. This, of course, does not include additional New Testament sacred sites at which dedicatory churches were established. This leads us to conclude that the large number of churches discovered in the region does not indicate that a large Christian population resided in the region. The nucleus of the monastic population and of the central churchmen, in the Byzantine period, had not been born and raised in the Land of Israel, at least not in the first phases of the penetration of Christianity. The paucity of graves in open areas, as well as in the
Notes Tsafrir 1984a: 25–27, 221–223. See also: Hunt 1982: 6–49; Tsafrir 1995, especially note 2; 1996: 271–279. 2 Gil 1992: 31–60. See also Sharon 1976. 3 Tsafrir 1984a: 25–27, 221–223; Shatzman 2002: 100–101; about art and architecture, see pp. 275, 300–303. See also Magen 2008a:178. 4 Tsafrir 1982: 359–380; 1983: 48–49. According to Y. Dan, in the fourth century CE Ḥaluẓa was the capital of Palestina Tritia; Dan 2006: 121–126. The Muslim conquerors maintained, in general, the Byzantine division into three provinces (Prima, Secunda, and Tritia), but renamed them; Hasson 1984: 58. After the Arab conquest, Christians and other non-Muslims participated in the government and continued working in their trades. The Muslims continued employing Christian officials from the Byzantine regime that preceded the conquest (Gil 1987a: 89–90), which proves that nascent Islam was unsuccessful in converting the entire population of
Christians and others, and allowed them to retain their religion and even build new places of worship. 5 Concerning pilgrimage to the Land of Israel in the early Byzantine period and the ethnic composition of the Christians there, see: Limor 1998: 8–13; 1999; Tsafrir and Di Segni 1999. See also: Hunt 1982; Wilkinson 1976; 2002; BittonAshkelony 1995. On Christians and their ethnic origins in the Byzantine period, see Stroumsa 1999. 6 The proliferation of Christian sources, the identification of sacred sites, the establishment of monasteries, and the intensified pilgrimage movement together create the impression in the written sources that the fourth century CE marked the high point of settlement, and that the Land of Israel was almost entirely Christian by the end of that century. The archaeological finds clearly show that the Christian settlement (at least, the establishment of churches and
1
[67]
Y. M A G E N
monasteries) reached its peak in the late fifth and first half of the sixth century CE, and not beforehand. For the Land of Israel population’s conversion to Christianity, see Rubin 1982a: 236–248. For the state of Christianity in the early fifth century CE, see the descriptions of the journeys of the monk Bar Tzoma of Netzibin, in Syria, who visited the Land of Israel, accompanied by an entourage of monks and beggars. According to him, the Christians were a minority at the beginning of the fifth century CE; see: Nau 1913: 382–383; 1914: 113–114. Dan maintains that Christianity was slow to penetrate the Land of Israel because in some places, such as Gaza and its vicinity, the pagan populace, the source from which Christianity drew most of its believers, opposed it, and Christians became the majority only in the fifth and sixth centuries CE; Dan 1984: 14–15, note 7. See also Ashkenazi 1991. A struggle was waged between Christians and pagans in Gaza in the fifth century CE; see Vita Porphyriis; see also: Downey 1963: 14–32; Dan 1984: 53–54. See Alon 1980: 5–6, 35–36. The Samaritans, as well, opposed the Christians; see: Avi-Yonah 1970: 209–220; Dan 1982a: 282–289. J. Wilkinson argues that adult baptism ceased in the midfifth century CE. From this period only small baptismal fonts for children, no large ones, have come to light, thus leading him to conclude that in the mid-fifth century CE there were no longer any pagans requiring baptism; Wilkinson 1993: 17. This assertion is questionable. From the archaeological testimonies, the size of the baptismal font is of no consequence as regards the question of baptism in different periods. The church established in Shiloh in the early fifth century CE contains an extremely small baptismal font that barely suffices for a single adult; Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 194–200, Fig. 50. Very large fonts dated to the sixth century CE were discovered at Kh. Tekoaʿ and Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir. Needless to say, large fonts existed in the Crusader period, as well. See: Magen 2000: 50; 2001: 263; 2012a: 307, Fig. 18; Magen, Peleg and Sharukh 2012: 350, Figs. 25–26. See also the article on fonts in early Christianity, Ben-Pechat 1989. Tsafrir maintains that the Christians became the majority in the Land of Israel in the fourth century CE; Tsafrir 1998: 197–199. In his opinion, the Byzantine period marked the apex of settlement in the Land of Israel until the twentieth century; Tsafrir 1984b. In the fourth century CE, Christians were a minority in the rural sector of Judea and Samaria. Christianity had spread to a greater degree in the urban centers of the Roman Empire than it had in the villages; Rubin 1999: 200. 7 Avi-Yonah 1956; Di Segni 2002. 8 Laws against pagans still appeared in the sixth century CE, in the time of Emperor Justinian. See: Ashkenazi 1995; Linder 1997: 223–224; Dan 2006: 26, no. 22. See above, note 6.
Rubin 1982a: 236–251. See also Bar 2008: 121–163. J. Geiger is of the opinion that the third century CE marked the greatest expansion of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. This process was slower in the Land of Israel than in other parts of the Empire. When Judaism and Christianity decisively split, they took different directions. Christians despaired of convincing the Jews of the veracity of their doctrine, and were content with its dissemination among the gentiles. In the Land of Israel, with its large Jewish and Samaritan populations, mainly in Galilee and Samaria, respectively, the proportion of those converting to the new religion was lower than in other lands. The areas of Jewish concentration in the north of the Land of Israel held no centers of Christian population; Geiger 1982: 223–224. In the places where Jews lived in Galilee in the fourth century CE, such as Tiberias, Nazareth, Sepphoris, and Capernaum, the penetration of Christianity and the establishment of churches were met with fierce opposition. A famous narrative related by Epiphanius tells of Joseph Comes, an apostate Jew who was authorized by Constantine the Great to establish churches in Jewish settlements but was unsuccessful in introducing Christianity there. Epiphanius notes the absence of Christians, Hellenes, and Samaritans in the cities that he listed. Comes’ attempt to build a church in Tiberias failed, accompanied by a struggle against the Jews. See Epiphanius, Haer. XXX, 4–12. See also: Klein 1939: 70–72; Tsafrir 1967. Rubin 1982b: 112– 116 questions the account by Epiphanius. The attempt to turn the temple dedicated to Hadrian in Tiberias into a church was a part of the common phenomenon of converting Roman structures, especially temples, into synagogues or churches; see, e.g., the churches erected in the Roman temples in Gerasa; likewise, Roman structures were converted into Samaritan synagogues. See the narrative of ʿAqbon and the establishment of the Roman temple on Mt. Gerizim (Magen 2009 I: 255–256). Roman structures and temples might have been used for the establishment of synagogues in Galilee, as well. This could explain the multitude of pagan architectural elements in the latter. Joseph Comes’ failure and the fact that Constantine the Great did not compel the Jews to build the church in Tiberias shows that emperors in the early phases of Land of Israel Christianity refrained from struggles with the various religions. It should be emphasized that in the numerous settlements and Jewish sacred sites not inhabited by Jews, e.g., Jerusalem, Jericho, the Cave of Machpelah, Elonei Mamre, Shiloh, the Jews did not struggle against the Christians when the latter took control of these locations and built churches. The Jews resisted such efforts only in places where they resided, and when they capitulated after such struggles, all of those cities with a Jewish presence (mainly in Galilee) were penetrated by Christianity. Churches were built, in addition to the existing synagogues, and these locations became Christian sacred
9
10
[68]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Late Roman period, and that this growth began before the Byzantine period; and in our opinion, the claim has no basis in numerous other regions as well. It suffices to look at the Jerusalem map to see that in this period there were hardly any towns or villages around the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina (Kloner 2003: 35–37). From the Late Roman period, a total of two sites and a number of tombs were discovered in its vicinity. Bar’s theory that the growth in the area began before Christianity became the official religion, in the second and third centuries CE, is incorrect. If we compare the number of Second Temple tombs in the vicinity of Jerusalem with that of the tombs in the Roman-Byzantine period, we see the serious error in the summation, and indeed, throughout Bar’s book. The archaeological evidence clearly shows that the Land of Israel was not highly populated in the Byzantine period. See also Avi-Yonah 1958. 18 Gil 1992: 430–489; Schick 1995: 112–134. 19 Schick 1995: 180–218; Fine 2000; Habas 2005: 471–497. On the edict by Yazid II, see: Brooks 1897: 584; Vasiliev 1956; Grabar 1973: 89. 20 Mosques were almost certainly built in the Umayyad period in cities like Jerusalem and Ramleh, in Hisham’s Palace in Jericho, in cities in Transjordan, etc. However, in rural regions where we find Byzantine churches or synagogues, no Umayyad mosques were discovered. On mosques in general, see: Creswell 1969; Anver 1984; Avni 1992a. In the excavations at Kh. Abu Suwwana, room 18 was defined as a mosque, ascribed by the excavator to the first phase of construction (the Umayyad period). In our opinion, this is obviously a later addition to the central structure, to which it was appended from the outside. The mosque should possibly be dated to a later phase; Zion 1997: 184–185. According to G. Avni (orally), most of the mosques in the Negev, too, were built in the ninth century CE, at the end of the Abbasid period. I am grateful to him for this observation. 21 Mosques were not found in any of the Early Islamic sites that contained oil presses, sheep farms, pottery vessel production sites, etc.; Magen 2008e. We therefore do not know the religion of the populace that operated those sites; nor has it been determined whether they came from the surrounding villages, or were forced laborers brought by the Umayyads. In the monasteries that continued to exist as Christian sites in the Umayyad period, in contrast, oil presses or other agricultural enterprises were established only after the sites were abandoned. In our opinion, the rural population— whether Jewish, Christian, or Samaritan—operated the oil presses and engaged in other agricultural activities in both the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. According to I. Hasson (1984: 63–64), the invasion of the Land of Israel by Muslim forces brought warriors who did not settle in the Land of Israel, and the decisive majority continued to accompany the conquering forces northward to Syria, or westward to Egypt and North Africa. These tribes did not massively enter
sites connected with the life of Jesus, such as Capernaum, Nazareth, Tiberias, etc. A bishop is mentioned in Tiberias. Antoninus of Placentia notes a Jewish synagogue that was also used by Christians; see Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 5; Limor 1998: 221. The Christian penetration of Jewish cities and settlements connected to the life of Jesus was inevitable. A different situation reigned in Samaria. The Christian penetration of Samaria occurred in the wake of the Samaritan rebellions, the construction of the church over the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim, and the attempt to forcibly convert the Samaritans. The latter was not a total success, as is attested by the lack of churches in areas inhabited by the Samaritans. As regards the Jews, there are no testimonies of mass forced conversions. 11 See above, notes 6 and 8. 12 Magen 2008b: 37–44; 2008c. 13 Levin 1982; Safrai 1982; Schwartz 1982; 1986: 26–27, 31–32. 14 On the struggles between the Jews and the Christians, see above, note 10; see also Tsafrir 1967. As regards the harsh struggles between the Samaritans and the Christians in Neapolis, Scythopolis, and other places, see above, note 7. See also: Pummer 1979; 1999: 125–126. 15 The only church erected over a synagogue was that in Gerasa: Crowfoot 1931: 16–20; 1938: 234–241. E. Ayalon’s assertion that a church was built in the Samaritan village of Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan), close to the synagogue, is groundless. The marble chancel columns with holes, perhaps for affixing a crucifix, were most likely brought here when a sheikh’s tomb was erected over the synagogue. This does not mean that a church was not established elsewhere at the site. Incidentally, there is no testimony, with the exception of Roman cities, to the presence of Samaritan synagogues or communities in proximity to Christian communities. A Samaritan church and a Byzantine monastery were not established one over the other, as Ayalon argues, and the oil presses, which belong to the Umayyad period (seventh to eighth centuries CE), were operated by Samaritans; Ayalon 2002, especially pp. 282– 284. See the critique of Ayalon’s claim, Magen 2008d: 168. For the dating of the oil presses and the establishment of the monastery, see Magen 2008e: 265–266. It has been argued that the church discovered in Ramat Aviv-Tell Qasile was of Samaritans who converted to Christianity; Magen 2008d: 175, notes 58, 60; Pummer 1999: 128–130. 16 At times both synagogues and churches were discovered in cities in Galilee, as in other Roman cities. There were a synagogue and a church in Sepphoris, as in Tiberias, Capernaum, and Nazareth; see Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 5–7; Limor 1998: 221–222. See also above, notes 14–15. 17 There is no basis, at least not in Judea and Samaria, to the claim by D. Bar, in the summation of his book (Bar 2008: 164–174), that the Land of Israel flourished at the end of the
[69]
Y. M A G E N
inhabited places for several reasons, including the fear of plagues, which had taken many victims from among their ranks. The plague that struck Emmaus in 639 CE took 25,000 lives (p. 63, note 39). The conquest was not followed by the intentional deportation of the local population. Those who fled were mainly Christians from abroad who had come to the Land of Israel as pilgrims. Protection of the local population was part of Muslim policy. For testimonies of forced laborers brought to Zoar in the Early Islamic period, see Anastasius Sinaita, Quaestio XCVI.745. See also: Maʿoz 1967: 219–220; Dan 1976: 178; Grossman 1978: 138. 22 The discovery of a single church is not always indicative of the existence of a Christian settlement. Churches were established to commemorate Christian sacred sites, from the life of Jesus and his disciples, or from biblical narratives. Churches were built for travelers alongside roads and monasteries. It is unclear whether the churches mentioned in early Christian sources had a surrounding Christian population. Commemorative sites, rather than churches, might have been built at certain locations, e.g., Joseph’s Tomb, Rachel’s Tomb, the tomb of Joshua son of Nun, and others. 23 After the Arab conquest, Arab tribes penetrated settled areas, but the ruler Muʿāwiya Ibn Abī Sufyān, who was first a governor in Syria and later established the Umayyad dynasty (ruling from 640–680 CE), prevented harm to the local population. He advocated the continuation of orderly life in the conquered areas in order to increase taxes, as did his successors. He developed agriculture in many areas, including those conquered mainly in Iraq and the Land of Israel. On the development of agriculture upon his initiative, see Hasson 1982: 329–368. The papyri discovered at Nessana include documents from the Byzantine period and from the late seventh century CE, the time of the Umayyad caliphate (Kraemer 1958). These documents teach of the continued existence of a Christian population in the city after the Arab conquest. The city was destroyed only after the capital had been moved from Syria to Iraq in the time of the Abbasids. 24 The monastery of Martyrius became an agricultural farm; Kh. el-Kiliya became a center for sheep farming, and Nebi Samwil became a site for the production of pottery vessels. In most of the settlements and monasteries, however, oil presses were built, olive trees cultivated, and oil produced, even in places where olives had previously not been cultivated. See Magen 2008e. 25 Magen 2008e: 329–335. 26 Jones defined the period from the reign of Diocletian (284–305 CE) to that of Phocas (610–612 CE) as the Late Roman period; Jones 1964. Krautheimer divides the architecture into that of early Christianity—the time of Justinian (527–565 CE), and from his time on as the Byzantine period; Krautheimer 1965: 149–152. These divisions are unsuitable for the archaeology of the Land of Israel.
An ethnic and religious distinction between populations may be defined only by means of religious elements like mosques, synagogues, churches, etc. Many types of Early Islamic pottery vessels are a direct continuation of those from the Byzantine period; Schick 1995: 139–156. In our opinion, many of the pottery vessels that surveys attributed to the Byzantine period are Early Islamic. Avni maintains that this continuity from the Byzantine to Early Islamic periods can be seen in cities in the Land of Israel and Transjordan. In his opinion, changes in the size of the cities or of the architecture are not necessarily a consequence of the conquest; these changes in the economic structure of the cities had begun before the Arab conquest. See Avni 2011. 28 Levy-Rubin 2002; 2006. On the Abbasid persecution of the Samaritans, see Schur 2002. On the situation of the Christians following the conquest, see: Gil 1987a; Linder 1987: 112–120. See also Montgomery 1968: 125–130. 29 The following are two instances in which a ruler’s pressure failed to coerce a people to convert. The first is the conversion of the Idumeans by John Hyrcanus I. Contrary to the prevalent scholarly view, this conversion attempt was unsuccessful, and the Idumeans, with a religion and culture different from normative Second Temple period Judaism, continued to exist as a people until and after the destruction of the Temple; Magen 2008b: 14–24. An additional example is the unsuccessful attempt by Byzantine emperors in the late fifth century CE, and mainly during the reign of Justinian I, to convert the Samaritans to Christianity. Despite the report by Procopius that the Samaritans accepted the new faith, this was not the case; see Procopius, Buildings V, 7, 16. Individual Idumeans and Samaritans might have converted, for whatever reasons, but as peoples they remained loyal to their original faith. 30 It should be emphasized that when the Samaritans rioted and attacked Christians in Neapolis and the city’s bishop, in the middle of the fifth century CE, the army and police did not intervene immediately to defend the Christians. The Samaritans were punished only after the bishop’s journey to Constantinople. This episode teaches that the police and the army did not view themselves as responsible for the Christians and their well-being, not even in the later phases of the Byzantine period. Eventually, the Samaritans were harshly punished, mainly by Justinian I, when Christianity had become a central element of the Byzantine Empire; Di Segni 2002: 462. See above, note 6. 31 Baras 1982; Rubin 1999: 209–214. See also: Brock 1976: 105; Athanassiadi-Fowden 1981: 164–169. 32 The former civil administrative structure of the states that had been under Persian and Byzantine control was retained, including its personnel and methods, by the Arab empire. Muʿāwiya Ibn Abī Sufyān employed officials who were Christians or members of other religions, because the Arabs did not yet possess the expertise needed to administer such 27
[70]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Itinerarium 5; Limor 1998: 221. Documents written in Greek and in Arabic discovered at Nessana were issued by the Arab rulers, with directives for payments in money, wheat, and oil, but not in wine, thereby attesting to the change that came about in the Early Islamic period, with the cessation of wine production and the expansion of oil production; Kraemer 1958: 180–197. 44 Felix 1982. See Tsafrir’s comment on Felix’s article: Tsafrir 1995: 8–9. See also Dar 1986a: 191–198, who bases his discussion on the large number of threshing floors and grain storage facilities he discovered. These installations cannot be dated precisely, but probably date to later periods. Grains were raised in Samaria, but it is unclear in what period. The same reservation holds true for the attempt to locate cultivated areas (see the following note). Dar’s survey does not distinguish the area inhabited by Samaritans from southern Samaria, which was inhabited by Jews in the Second Temple period, abandoned after the Temple’s destruction, and in which fortresses and monasteries were later established. See also Safrai 1986a. 45 Safrai 1986b: 92–107; 1995a: 189–204. Safrai’s attempts to discern the boundaries of plots based on aerial photographs are groundless. See also Dar 1986a: 230–248; 1986b: 142–152; Sion 2008: 312–319. 46 Magen 2008e: 335. 47 This assertion appears in all discussions of the published surveys in the Land of Israel to the present. See also Tsafrir’s determination of the Byzantine period as the peak of settlement distribution: Tsafrir 1995; 1996. 48 Hirschfeld defines Deir Qalʿa as a sixth century CE Byzantine monastery built in the Roman style: Hirschfeld 2002; see also 1989–90: 47–51. The site is a fourth century CE Roman fortress within which Justinian I built a monastery in the sixth century CE. In the Early Islamic period an oil press of the lever-screw-and-cylindrical-weight type was installed in it; Magen and Aizik 2012. See also: Magen 2008a: 189–195; 2008e: 271. For a similar fortress, Kh. Deir Samʿan, built close to Deir Qalʿa at the same time and in the same manner of construction, defined by S. Dar as a Roman villa, a farmstead, and a military fortress, see Dar 1986a: 26–35; see also Appelbaum 1987. Following the excavations, Kh. Deir Samʿan was viewed as a military fortress transformed into a monastery, where winepresses were installed to produce wine for the monks. In the Early Islamic period the structure became an Umayyad farm for oil production, and two industrial oil presses were discovered there. The site was agricultural only in this period; Magen 2012b; see also: 2008a: 185–188; 2008e: 269–271. Kh. el-Kiliya was defined as a Roman fortress and a Byzantine monastery; see: Magen 1990; 2008a: 178–183. For the Islamic phase, see Magen 2012c, especially pp. 281–287. The possibility of erring in the definition of a site and its history is not limited to surveys. Excavations may make
a large kingdom. He even took a Syrian Christian from a distinguished family as his personal secretary and minister of the treasury. Following the conquest, the Arabs applied the same division into provinces (in Arabic: jund) that had been in effect in the Byzantine period. The northern region (the area of Tiberias and Scythopolis) became the province of Urdunn, while the rest of the Land of Israel was included in the province of Filasṭīn. There were also other northern provinces, for example, Dimashq and Ḥimṣ; see: Hasson 1984: 58; Gil 1992: 110–112. 33 See above, note 28. 34 Haiman 1986: 20*–21*; 1997: 331–334, 338–340; 1999: 11*–12*; Avni 1992b: 9*, 18*–20*. According to R. Cohen (1985: XIII), agriculture in the Negev reached its height during the Byzantine period and continued into the Early Islamic period. See also Avni, Avni and Porat 2009. 35 Magen 2008e: 342. 36 On the Samaritan synagogues, see: Magen 1992; 2002a; 2008d. There is extensive literature on the Jewish synagogues; see especially Levine 2000. On the churches, see: the corpus of Christian sites in this and the following volume (JSP 13– 14); Ovadiah and de Silva 1981; 1982; 1984; Bagatti 2001; 2002a; 2002b. The ratio of churches to synagogues varied from place to place. A total of more than 400 churches, 108 Jewish synagogues, and about 8 Samaritan synagogues were discovered in the Land of Israel. See: Tabula: 19, and maps; Tsafrir 1996: 278–279. The publication of the churches in JSP 13–14 indicates that the number of churches discovered in the Land of Israel is higher than that given by Tsafrir. 37 Stroumsa 1999. 38 Expositio totius mundi, dated to the middle of the fourth century CE, mentions Ascalon and Gaza as exporters of fine wine; Expositio totius mundi XXIX.162. See also Vita Porphyriis 58.47. 39 Dan 1982b: 17–22; 1984: 184–186; 2006: 60–61; Mayerson 1985. 40 Most of the monasteries excavated in Judea and Samaria where grapes could be cultivated yielded winepresses. Winepresses also came to light at Ḥaluẓa, Shivta, and ʿAvdat; see: Mazor 1981; 2009. 41 Magen 2004. The agricultural farm at Qalandiya yielded coins from the fourth and fifth centuries CE (Ariel 2004: 177), and a few pottery vessels from that period. Numerous winepresses apparently were in use at the site. A fourth century CE winepress was unearthed at Kh. Badd ʿIsaModiʿin ʿIlit; Magen, Tzionit and Sirkis 2004: 181–182. Many of the winepresses in use in the Land of Benjaminnorthern Judea in the Second Temple period continued to function in the Byzantine period. 42 Magen 2008e. 43 Antoninus of Placentia, whose composition is dated to 570 CE, incidentally mentions that the Land of Israel exceeds Egypt in wine, oil, and fruit; see: Antonini Placentini
[71]
Y. M A G E N
similar mistakes when the excavators are not attentive to certain indications and do not possess sufficient information regarding the history and archaeology characteristic of the region. We found an example of this in the excavation of Kh. el-Bira conducted by Z. Safrai and Dar. The excavators called the site a fourth century CE estate in the Judean Shephelah, despite the absence of fourth century CE finds belonging to the estate owners who supposedly lived there at that time; see: Dar and Safrai 1982; Safrai and Dar 1997. In the fourth century CE, the site was a Roman fortress, similar to those discovered in Samaria; Magen 2008a: 201. The monastery was built in the fortress, and the estate that presumably had been built in the Late Roman period was actually built only in the Early Islamic period, as a farmhouse for olive cultivation and oil production. The oil press was installed inside the church; Magen 2008e: 293. Most of the pottery discovered at the site belongs to the Umayyad period, when the agricultural farm was established, as we found at most of the sites in Samaria. See Avissar 1997, who noted the difficulty of distinguishing between the Byzantine and Umayyad periods in the pottery assemblage from the site. 49 At Shiloh, the baptistery was built in a Roman structure, and at Susya, a synagogue was built in a Roman military structure; see: Magen 2008f; Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 164–165, 194–200. The characteristic phenomenon of the intensification of agriculture and the establishment of agricultural farms in the Umayyad period is not limited to monasteries, and appears also in Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan settlements. See, e.g., Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan), Shiloh, Beit ʿAnun, Qedumim, and Susya. Most of the pottery at Susya is Early Islamic, and the oil presses in the caves are to be dated to the Abbasid period; Magen 2008e: 320–323. See also: Negev 1985: 251; Yeivin 1993: 1420–1421. 50 The surveyor of the Map of Amaẓya defines two Roman periods: the Early Roman period (37 BCE–132 CE) and the Late Roman period (132–324 CE); Dagan 2006 I: 33. Why not start the Early Roman period with Pompey’s conquest of the Land of Israel in 63 BCE, instead of having it begin in the time of Herod? How is it possible to join together all the pottery vessels from 37 BCE—the time of Herod, with those from 132 CE—the time of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, a period that extended for some 170 years? Are pottery vessels from 132 CE in no way different from those from the fourth century CE, spanning some 200 years? These sweeping definitions of the periods in the surveys are more problematic than defining the periods in an excavation, where a pottery vessel and the stratigraphic stratum it belongs to may be defined not only by means of the pottery vessels, but also on the basis of additional finds, such as coins. Accordingly, site distribution based on pottery analysis from surveys is unreliable. The different historical and settlement phenomena and events of these two periods cannot be taken together and defined as a single period.
Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997. Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 40–49. 53 Umayyad and Abbasid industrial oil presses were discovered in many areas in the southern Hebron Hills. To supply the large quantity of olives needed for such advanced oil presses, many olive groves needed planting in areas where they had not previously been grown, and a major investment was required for planting the groves and for oil production. Earlier oil presses from the Hellenistic or Roman periods were not discovered in those areas; Magen 2008e: 295–301. 54 Magen 2008g: 51–55; see also Cohen 1981. 55 Magen 2008h: 246–249. 56 Avi-Yonah 1956; Di Segni 2002. Many Samaritan settlements and synagogues suffered severe damage as a consequence of this uprising, as did many churches; Magen 2008g: 51–55. 57 Magen 2008g: 51–56. See also: Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 8, where Antoninus of Placentia tells of Samaritan villages in the Samaria region; Ish-Shalom 1979: 219; Limor 1998: 223; Wilkinson 2002: 135. Justin II (565– 578 CE) returned Samaritan farmers to their land to prevent a decrease in land taxes; Dan 1982c: 407, note 50. For the laws pertaining to the Samaritans issued by Justin II in 572 CE, see Nov. CXLIV.709–710. See also: Di Segni 2002: 479; Rabello 2002: 493–494. 58 The Umayyad oil presses were of the lever-screw-andcylindrical-weight type. They were built in Qedumim, Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan), Kh. Deir Samʿan, Deir Qalʿa, Kh. Deir Daqle, and in many additional Christian and Samaritan sites; Magen 2008e: 259–266, 269–272. 59 Kochavi 1972. 60 Kochavi 1972: 19–89. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see p. 24. 61 Kochavi 1972: 24. 62 Kochavi 1972: 92–149. For comments on the Byzantine period, see pp. 94–95. 63 Kochavi 1972: 153–193. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see p. 155. 64 Kochavi 1972: 196–241. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see pp. 200–201. 65 Magen and Finkelstein 1993. 66 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 17–95. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see pp. 28–29. 67 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 99–131. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see p. 101. 68 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 133–264. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see p. 139. 69 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 267–338. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see pp. 281–282. 70 At the beginning of the excavation, we identified three periods at the site: the fourth century CE, the Byzantine period, and the Umayyad period. In the final report it became clear to us that the additional structure south of the fortress 51 52
[72]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
was Umayyad and not Byzantine, as we had first thought; and that settlement at the site reached its peak in the Umayyad period. See: Magen 1990; 2008a: 178–183; 2012c. 71 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 339–418. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see p. 347. 72 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 36–49. 73 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 40–49. 74 In the late third and fourth century CE, an attempt was made to renew the settlement of abandoned Second Temple period sites and produce wine, as in Qalandiya, Kh. Badd ʿIsa-Modiʿin ʿIlit, Kh. Beit Sila, etc. For Qalandiya, see: Magen 2004: 42; Ariel 2004: 168 (nos. 453–458). For Kh. Badd ʿIsa, see Magen, Tzionit and Sirkis 2004: 186–206. For Kh. Beit Sila, see Batz 2012: 373. 75 Magen 2008a; 2008i. 76 Magen and Dadon 1999: 68; 2003: 128–130; Magen and Talgam 1990: 104–105, 106; Magen 2012c; and additional sites. 77 See, e.g., Kh. el-Kiliya. Most of the finds are from the Early Islamic period; Magen 2012c: 290–294, Pls. 1–2. 78 Zertal and Mirkam 2000, discussion on pp. 51–53. 79 Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 53–54. 80 Zertal 1996: 90–95. 81 Zertal 2005: 76–79. 82 Zertal 1992: 61–64. 83 Dar 1986a. 84 Kloner 2000; 2001; 2003. For the discussion on the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, see Kloner 2003: 40–45. 85 Kloner 2003: 41. 86 Dagan 2006. For the discussion on the Byzantine period, see Dagan 2006 I: 35–36. 87 Dagan 2006 I: 35–36. 88 Dagan 2006 I: 101–104, no. 103 (Ḥ. Bet Loya), 234–236, no. 326 (Ḥ. Qaṣra); 2006 II: 152, no. 651 (Beit ʾAûwa), 159, no. 658 (El Kenîseh). See also: Ḥ. Qaṣra (site no. 284) and Kh. Beit ʿAwwa (site no. 300), in volume II (JSP 14). For Kh. Ṭawas, see: Peleg 2012; and site no. 304 in volume II (JSP 14). 89 Tsafrir 1995: 1–9. 90 Most of the churches mentioned in the surveys conducted in Judea and Samaria in the nineteenth and early twentieth century no longer exist. The same fate befell churches uncovered in archaeological excavations. Unfortunately, many churches, and especially monasteries, were harmed by renewed Christian construction and the restoration of monasteries and historical sites in the Crusader period and in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A prime example of this is the Byzantine monastery at enNebi Samwil, which was completely razed and vanished in the Crusader period. Later examples are the numerous monasteries and churches renewed in the modern period, the ancient remains being preserved in only a few instances. Usually, the ancient remains were destroyed, new churches or monasteries being built over them.
The numerous surveyors and excavators include the following: A. Alt, A.E. Mader, C. Schick, Ch. ClermontGanneau, C.K. Spyridonidis, C.L. Woolley and T.E. Lawrence, C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener, D.G. Lyon, E. Robinson and E. Smith, E.H. Palmer, F.J. Bliss, F.M. Abel, G. Schumacher, G. Sternberg, H.M. Tristram, J. GermerDurand, J.P. Peters, K. Marti, L.H. Vincent, M. Marcoff and D.J. Chitty, M.J. Lagrange, R.A.S. Macalister, S. Dalman, T. Drake, T. Tobler, V.C Corbo, V. Guérin, and W.M.F. Petrie. For extensive discussion, see the corpus of Christian sites (JSP 13–14). 92 Most of the scholars who engaged in archaeological excavations in the Land of Israel were biblical scholars, and therefore most of the excavations focused on the main biblical sites, e.g., Samaria, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Shechem, Jericho, and Shiloh. The outstanding example is the church and monastery discovered by A. Callaway at Kh. Ḥaiyan; see: Callaway 1969a; 1970a: 393–394. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 235, no. 46; Bagatti 2002a: 34–35; site no. 115 in this volume. He did not publish the monastery fully; this is also true for other sites that were excavated, but whose churches were regarded as unimportant. See Kh. Khudria: Schoonover 1968: 247; 1969: 426; Callaway 1969b: 4–5; 1970b: 10–11. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 235–236, no. 47; Bagatti 2002a: 36; site no. 116 in this volume. See Tel Beth Shemesh: Mackenzie 1911: 72–84, Pl. XIII. See also: Bagatti 2002b: 118–122; site no. 198 in volume II (JSP 14). See Sebastiya: Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924; Crowfoot 1937: 24–39; Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942; Hennessy 1970. See also: Bagatti 2002a: 77–79; site no. 14 in this volume. 93 Kochavi 1972. 94 Ovadiah 1970; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981; 1982; 1984; Bagatti 1979; 1983; for the English translation, see: Bagatti 2002a; 2002b. 95 Zertal 1992; 1996; 2005; Zertal and Mirkam 2000; Magen and Finkelstein 1993; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997. 96 Kloner 2000; 2001; 2003. 97 Dagan 2006. 98 Hirschfeld 1988–89; 1989–90; 1990; 1992; Patrich 1994; 1995. 99 Concerning the some 30 churches excavated in Judea and Samaria, see: Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15) and Christians and Christianity IV. Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16). 100 Hirschfeld 1984. For the Byzantine dwellings, see Tsafrir 1984a: 305–316. 101 The damage to churches and Jewish and Samaritan synagogues caused by the construction of mosques over them by Muslims from the Early Islamic period to the present is known; Linder 1987: 112–115. Of the many examples of 91
[73]
Y. M A G E N
these phenomena, we will mention only a few: Shiloh, the Cave of Machpelah, Mt. Gerizim, en-Nebi Samwil, Susya, Eshtemoaʿ, the Temple Mount, Shechem, and Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan). 102 Magen 2008g: 41–51; 2008j. 103 The district of Samaria was established by the Assyrians after Samaria’s destruction; Tadmor 1983. See also: Safrai 1980: 137–148; 1986c; Avi-Yonah 1984: 121–130. 104 On the ʿAqraba district, see: Avi-Yonah 1984: 121– 125; Safrai 1980: 51–55; 1986c: 134–135. In Eusebius’ Onomasticon, the district is called “Acrabbatine”; On.14:7. See also site no. 28, in this volume. 105 Kelin 1939: 220–226; Grintz 1957: 29–34; Avi-Yonah 1966: 24; Safrai 1980: 18, 45, 49; Zertal 1995: 92–94. 106 Avi-Yonah 1984: 127–129. 107 For the eastern and southern boundary of the ʿAqraba desert, see Safrai 1986c: 135–145. For the southern boundary after the destruction of the Second Temple, see: Magen 2002b: 270–271; 2008j: 98–99. 108 Ant. 11:302–303. Magen 2008j: 79. 109 Ant. 13:254; War 1:62–257. Magen 2008h: 178–179; 2008k: 25–28. 110 For Qarawat Bani Ḥasan, see Dar 1986a: 230–247, who argues that the region was a center for governmental estates during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. He maintains that Jews inhabited it until the Great Revolt. Gentiles and Samaritans did not reside in the area before the second and third centuries CE. For Beth Yannai, see: Avi-Yonah 1984: 124; Safrai 1980: 157, 160, 236 note 15. In our opinion, the Hasmoneans did not settle Samaria due to a lack of manpower. Many inhabitants of Benjamin and southern Ephraim moved to Jerusalem after the Hasmoneans became kings and High Priests, and began the massive construction of the city. The Hasmoneans needed residents, a military force, and administrative officials who were close to them in terms of origin. The fact that the Hasmonean kings needed an army of foreign mercenaries teaches that the Jewish population was not sufficiently large to settle all the areas conquered by the Hasmoneans. 111 R. Abbahu’s statement that 13 Jewish towns became Samaritan during the anti-Jewish persecutions, i.e., the BarKokhba Revolt (JT Ḳiddushin 4:65d), was most probably not stated in reference the towns south of this line, but specifically, to those west of it. The Samaritans expanded to the west, not to the south; Magen 2008j: 82–84. 112 Magen 2009 I: 355–365. Samaria was established as a Greek city by Alexander the Great, and retained its pagan character in the Roman period. Schalit 1964: 184–189; Kasher 1988: 189–197; Magen 1993a; 2008k: 16–20; Mor 2003: 54–63. See also Tabula: 220–221. 113 On. 162:13. 114 Magen 2008j: 91–94. 115 Magen 2008g: 49–53.
Magen 2008g: 53–55, with a bibliography on the Samaritan revolt; 2008h: 245–270. 117 Magen 2008d: 118–122; 2008h: 246–249. See also Di Segni 1990a. 118 Magen 2008l. See also: Avi-Yonah 1956; Di Segni 2002. See also the Byzantine precinct on Mt. Gerizim, Magen 2008h: 249–270. 119 Nau 1913: 274; 1914: 118; Di Segni 2002: 455–456; Magen 2008g: 53. 120 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 8; Ish-Shalom 1979: 219; Limor 1998: 223; Wilkinson 2002: 135. 121 Procopius, Buildings V, 7, 5–17. 122 Arsenius of Scythopolis was a Samaritan who, together with his family, was baptized by Sabas. See Life of Sabas 71, 174; Di Segni 2005: 204. His father, Silvanus, was murdered by a Christian mob. See Life of Sabas 70, 172; Di Segni 2005: 203. See also: Dan 1984: 142–147; Di Segni 2002: 470–471. 123 On the struggle against the pagans, their conversion to Christianity, and the temple in Gaza, see above, note 6. The Roman temple at Mt. Gerizim, too, continued to function until the time of Julian the Apostate (second half of the fourth century CE). 124 In the mausoleum at ʿAskar, thought to be a Samaritan tomb, in addition to the Samaritan names Simeon and Shabbetai, we also find Greek and Roman names; Magen 2009 I: 293–305, especially pp. 301, 305. The phenomenon of the use of Greek and Roman names by the Samaritans continued in the fourth to fifth centuries CE, as can be seen at Mt. Gerizim and in Samaritan synagogues; Di Segni 1990a; Magen 2008h: 247–249; 2008d: 137–141. 125 Crowfoot 1931; 1938. 126 Site no. 14, in this volume. 127 De Locis Sanctis V6. See also Limor 1998: 119, 125. In addition to the Crusader church, the excavations also uncovered a small chapel, measuring 7×4 m, which apparently belonged to the remains of a monastery from the sixth or beginning of the seventh century CE. The excavators argue that the chapel was in use in the Crusader period, as well; Ovadiah 1970: 158–159, no. 159. 128 South of the hill on which Sebastiya was built, the later expedition uncovered a Crusader monastery in which, according to tradition, John the Baptist’s head is buried. Crowfoot 1937: 26–39; Ovadiah 1970: 157–158, no. 158; Bagatti 2002a: 75–84. 129 Rufinus of Aquileia tells of the destruction of the tomb of John the Baptist. He adds that priests from Jerusalem who came on pilgrimage to Sebastiya were present during the destruction, and afterwards collected the ashes and buried them. See Rufinus, HE II, XXVIII.536. See also: Di Segni 2002: 458, note 25; Bagatti 2002a: 77. 130 Di Segni 2002: 458, notes 25–26. 131 On the question of the name of the bishop, see Di Segni 2012b: 211, note 21. 116
[74]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Life of Sabas 37, 127; Di Segni 2005: 173. Bagatti 2002a: 76; site no. 14, in this volume. 134 Site no. 15, in this volume. 135 Site no. 16, in this volume. 136 Magen 2009 I, especially pp. 355–365. 137 Magen 2009 I: 364, note 57. See also: Ferguson 1993. 138 Pummer 2002: 14–30. According to Pummer, Justin Martyr came from a pagan family. 139 Procopius, Buildings V, 7, 5. See also Di Segni 2002: 462. 140 Avi-Yonah 1954: 45, Pl. 6. 141 Adler and Séligsohn 1902: 223–224. See also: Stenhouse 1993; Tal 1993; Pummer 2002: 46; Bagatti 2002a: 58, 61. The Samaritan sources were written down at a later period; Magen 2008k: 3. 142 Guérin 1874–75 I: 392–393. See also site no. 18, in this volume. 143 Guérin 1874–75 I: 391–392; Bagatti 2002a: 66. See also site no. 18, in this volume. 144 Magen 2008d: 124–127. 145 Magen 2008d: 126–127, Fig. 17. 146 FitzGerald 1929; Magen 2009 I: 78–80. On the Samaritan sects, see Pummer 2002: 127–130. 147 Epiphanius, Haer. LXXVIII, 24.736. See also Bagatti 2002a: 63–64. 148 Magen 2009 I: 78–80, note 52. 149 On the struggles between the Samaritans and the Jews prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, see Magen 2008l: 63–71. 150 Cyril relates that the Samaritan’s fierce hatred of the Christians was the reason for the uprising; Life of Sabas 70, 172; Di Segni 2005: 202–203. 151 Nau 1913: 382–385; 1914: 113–114; Di Segni 2002: 455–456. 152 Samaritan synagogues were not erected in the Roman period prior to the recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire; and we have no knowledge of Samaritans who revolted when Neapolis was established as a pagan city and the temple of Zeus was built in the north of Mt. Gerizim; Magen 2009 I, especially pp. 236–257, 358–365. 153 Limor 1998: 28. 154 Procopius, Buildings V, 7, 1–4. 155 See the Madaba Map: Avi-Yonah 1954: 36–37, 44, 47, nos. 5, 27–28, 36–37. See also Magen 2008l: 63–66. 156 Itinerarium Burdigalense 587, 5–588, 1; On. 150:2–3; 158:2; Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 2. See also: Limor 1998: 30, 175; Magen 2009 I: 36–38. 157 Site no. 19, in this volume. 158 Herzog 1993. 159 Dar 1993a. 160 Magen 2008l: 67, 70–75. 161 Stenhouse 1985: 236–239. 162 Magen 2008h: 249–264. 163 Magen 2009 I: 30–31; Site no. 19, in this volume.
Old Testament sanctity was added to some sites connected with the life of Jesus, such as Bethlehem, Jesus’ and David’s birthplace (I Sam. 17:12). Eusebius calls Bethlehem Ephratha, David’s city, and adds that the tombstone of Jesse and David can be seen in Bethlehem (On. 42:10; 82:10). See also the baptismal site of Qaṣr el-Yahud on the Jordan, where Theodosius mentions the tombstone of Elisha the prophet (Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 20; Limor 1998: 188); and Sebastiya, the traditional burial place of the prophets Obadiah and Elisha, and of John the Baptist (Ep. 108, 13; Limor 1998: 151), etc. 165 On. 164:1–2. 166 Hieronymus, On. 165:1–3; site no. 19, in this volume. 167 Limor 1998: 150–151. 168 Magen 2009 I: 59–61. 169 De Locis Sanctis R; Limor 1998: 123. 170 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 2; Limor 1998: 175. 171 Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 55–56, note 25; Dar 1993a. 172 Ep. 108, 13; Limor 1998: 150. 173 Magen 2008h: 167–179; 2008k. 174 Some 80 inscriptions were discovered, of which only some were published; Magen 2008h: 246–249; Di Segni 1990a. All the inscriptions will be published in the final report. 175 An additional intriguing fact is the Madaba Map’s disregard of the church at Mt. Gerizim. The map presents two options for the location of Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal, one in the Jordan Valley (according to R. Eliezer), and the other, close to Shechem, but disregards the church, one of the largest in Samaria. These acts of either disregard or lack of mention hint that the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim originates in Jewish traditions (the Bible), not in Samaritan ones. Avi-Yonah 1954: 44, no. 28; Magen 2008l: 64, note 10. 176 Christian sources do not mention the Temple Mount as a pilgrimage site, but only sites connected with Jesus; see Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 85–111, 208–218. 177 Avigad 1980: 229–246, photo. no. 277—the corner of the Nea is built of stones from the Temple Mount. See also Ben-Dov 1982: 233–241, photo. on p. 235. 178 On. 6:8; 76:1; Magen 2008m; 2008n. 179 Site no. 8, in this volume. 180 There are numerous examples of this phenomenon: the sheikh’s tomb over the Samaritan synagogue in Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan), above, note 15; and the sheikh’s tomb in Kh. esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh, above, note 135. 181 Kh. Samrah: Magen 2008d: 145, Fig. 48; Ḥ. Migdal (Ẓur Natan): Magen 2008d: 167–168, Fig. 82. 182 In the first stages of the excavation, the excavators presumed that this was a church, as was surmised in the earlier surveys. V. Tzaferis, the first to read the inscription, identified the structure as belonging to a Samaritan synagogue rather than to a Byzantine church, despite its apse facing eastward; see Ayalon 2002: 280, note 20.
132
164
133
[75]
Y. M A G E N
Bagatti 2001: 264; 2002a: 39–45, 135–140, 142–148. Magen 2008l. 185 For the tradition in Burqin, see: site no. 1, in this volume; Bagatti 2001: 264. For the tradition in Jenin, see Guérin 1874–75 I: 331. 186 Site no. 2, in this volume. 187 Guérin 1874–75 II: 223–224; Bagatti 2001: 264; see also site no. 1, in this volume. 188 Site no. 4, in this volume. 189 Guérin 1874–75 II: 218–219; see also site no. 6, in this volume. 190 Magen 2002a: 246; see also Ben-Zvi 1976: 63, Map 1. 191 Site no. 5, in this volume. 192 Site no. 27, in this volume. 193 Site no. 9, in this volume. 194 Site no. 10, in this volume. 195 Site no. 13, in this volume. 196 Site no. 7, in this volume. 197 Site no. 11, in this volume. 198 Site no. 8, in this volume. 199 Christians and Jews living side by side in nearby villages was a common phenomenon in the Hebron Hills. In the region of Jericho, which was Christian, there were two Jewish settlements: Naʿaran, and the settlement that developed around the “Peace upon Israel” synagogue. As regards life in Galilee, Jews and Christians lived together in the cities of Tiberias, Nazareth, and other locations. See above, notes 10, 16. 200 Di Segni 2002: 477. 201 Chronicon Paschale: 619; see also: Pummer 1979; Di Segni 2002: 477, note 108. 202 Site no. 31, in this volume; Dar 1986a: 53–55; 1988: 232–237. 203 Magen 2008c. 204 Avi-Yonah 1966: 24; Safrai 1980: 51–54. 205 On. 14:7. 206 Bagatti 2002a: 55; SWP II: 389–390; see also site no. 28, in this volume. 207 Site no. 26, in this volume. 208 Guérin 1874–75 II: 160. 209 Guérin 1874–75 II: 174. 210 Dar 1986a: 235–236; see also site no. 25, in this volume. 211 Site no. 31, in this volume. 212 Dar 1986a: 53–55; 2002: 449. 213 Site no. 23, in this volume. 214 Gudovitch 1999: 38*; see also site no. 22, in this volume. 215 Magen 2008n: 86–87. 216 On. 100:1. 217 Site no. 64, in this volume. 218 On. 96:24. 219 Ep. 108, 13; Limor 1998: 150. 220 De Locis Sanctis L2; Limor 1998: 121. 221 Guérin 1874–75 II: 89–104.
On. 156:28. See also site no. 44, in this volume. Hieronymus, On. 157:28. 224 De Locis Sanctis V7; Limor 1988: 125. 225 Ep. 108, 13; Limor 1998: 50. 226 Ep. 46, 13. 227 Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 85–88. On the dating of the letter by various scholars, see p. 121, note 27. 228 Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 165–179. 229 Di Segni 2012b: 214–215; Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 163–164. 230 Site no. 44, in this volume; Magen and Aharonovich 2012. 231 Dadon 2012. 232 De Locis Sanctis L2; Limor 1998: 121. Eusebius mentions the Ark at Kiriath Jearim in the entry of Mizpah (On. 128:1), but not in the entry of Kiriath Jearim (On. 114:23); see also On. 28:9; 48:22; 106:8. 233 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 4; Limor 1998: 178. 234 De Locis Sanctis L2; Limor 1998: 121. 235 Ep. 108, 13; Limor 1998: 150. 236 On. 40:20. See also site no. 111, in this volume. 237 Itinerarium Burdigalense 588, 7–8; see also Limor 1998: 30, note 26. 238 De Locis Sanctis V7; Limor 1998: 126. 239 Ep. 46, 13. 240 Hieronymus, On. 41:5; Ep. 108, 13; Limor 1998: 149. See also the mention of Bethel in the entry for Ai: Hieronymus, On. 5:26. 241 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 2; see also Limor 1998: 175, note 8. 242 Limor 1998: 119. 243 Site no. 150, in this volume. 244 Magen and Dadon 2003: 128–130; Sharon 2004: 122–127; Magen 2008e: 331, Pl. 1:1–3. 245 I Macc. 3:46–47. 246 On. 144:14. 247 Albright 1923; 1924; Magen and Dadon 1999: 62; 2003: 124 . 248 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 6; Limor 1998: 181. 249 Procopius, Buildings V, 9, 15. 250 Limor 1998: 181, note 43. 251 Contra Vigilantium 5.357–358; see also Theodorus Lector, HE II, 63.213. 252 Magen 2008a: 211; 2008i: 240. 253 Netzer 2001; 2004; Bar-Nathan 2002; Rozenberg 2008. 254 Tsafrir 1974; Porat 1986. Jericho experienced major agricultural growth in the Second Temple period and a steep decline in the Byzantine period. The destruction of the Second Temple was followed by the abandonment of most of the worked areas in Jericho, and most of the irrigation systems were not restored in the Byzantine period. The agricultural area was limited to the area of ʿEin es-Sulṭan (Spring of Elisha); see Porat 1986: 132–133. In the Second Temple period balsam, which grew in Jericho and in ʿEn
183
222
184
223
[76]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
For additional tax collectors with whom Jesus came into contact, see Matt. 9:9–12; Mark 2:13–17; Luke 5:27–32. 269 Avi-Yonah 1954: 44, no. 26. 270 Itinerarium Burdigalense 596, 5–598, 1; Limor 1998: 34–36. 271 Ep. 108, 12; Limor 1998: 149. 272 De Locis Sanctis P2; Limor 1998: 123. 273 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 1; Limor 1998: 175. 274 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 13; Limor 1998: 226– 227. 275 Bagatti 2002a: 95. 276 On burial in the Second Temple period in Jericho, see Hachlili and Killebrew 1999. 277 In the Umayyad period Hisham’s Palace was built; the irrigation channels not in use in the Byzantine period were restored, and there was a reawakening of agriculture in Jericho. The Muslim and Jewish agricultural settlement grew beyond the area of Jericho, also expanding northward. Agriculture in Jericho, Naʿaran, el-ʿAuja, and Phasaelis blossomed, compared to the Byzantine period. Apparently, Muslim and Jewish Jericho flourished in the Umayyad period: the “Peace upon Israel” synagogue was built, and based on the iconoclastic activity, Naʿaran continued to exist as a Jewish settlement, a phenomenon not found in the churches in Jericho. 278 Site no. 95, in this volume. 279 Di Segni 1990b. 280 For the journeys of Egeria and other pilgrims, see Limor 1998: 55, note 2. 281 Limor 1999: 395–396; Rubin 1999: 200ff. Pilgrimages were conducted to many locations outside the Land of Israel, as well. Pilgrimages came in the wake of the rite of martyrs and that of saints, both those still alive and those who had died and been beatified in Christianity throughout the Christian world. See: Hunt 1982: 3–4; Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 230–231; Limor 1998: 6–8. 282 Grabois 1986, especially note 4; Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 56–60, 183–232. 283 Vailhé 1897–98a; 1897–98b; 1898–99a; 1898–99b; 1900; 1907; Leclercq 1929; Chitty 1966; Patrich 1995; Hirschfeld 1992; Di Segni 2005: 42–64. 284 Vita Hilarionis. See also Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky 2006: 8–15. 285 On the laura of Pharan, see: Hirschfeld 1990: 6–7, no. 1; 1992: 21–23; site no. 152, in this volume. On the laura of Douka, see: Hirschfeld 1990: 7–8, no. 2; site no. 132, in this volume. On the laura of Souka, see: Hirschfeld 1990: 8–12, no. 3; 1992: 23–24, 228–232; site no. 249, in volume II (JSP 14). 286 Price 1991; Di Segni 2005. 287 Vita Charitonis; Di Segni 1990c. 288 Vita Hilarionis. 289 Vita di Gerasimo. See also Chadwick 1974. 290 Drake 1874; Furrer 1880; Marti 1880; Vailhé 1897–98a;
Gedi, was renowned throughout the Roman world, but its standing declined in the Byzantine period. Christian authors hardly praise Jericho as a blossoming agricultural area, with the exception of Antoninus of Placentia, who mentions that the Spring of Elisha is Jericho’s source of water, and its waters are used to irrigate its fields, gardens, and vineyards, which produce bountiful harvests of fruit; see Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 14; Limor 1998: 227. 255 War 1:138, 361; Ant. 8:174; 14:54. For the Spring of Elisha, see: War 4:459; II Kings 2:19–22. 256 Strabo, Geography 16, 2, 41. 257 Pliny, NH XII, 111. 258 Site no. 95, in this volume. 259 On. 136:24. 260 On. 66:4–6; see also site no. 146, in this volume. 261 On. 76:1–3; see also site no. 278, in volume II (JSP 14). 262 Elijah and Moses are among the central figures in nascent Christianity (Matt. 17:3–11). Elijah is mentioned in all the Byzantine sources, and the places where he stayed, like Wadi Cherith (Wadi Qelt), became sacred sites. Itinerarium Burdigalense 595, 7; 598, 3; Itinerarium Egeriae XVI, 3; Limor 1998: 34, 36, 75. For Mt. Nebo, see: Itinerarium Egeriae XI, 4–XII, 3; Limor 1998: 69. See also: Limor 1983; Piccirillo 1993; Habas 2005: 3, 6–8. 263 Rahab was hallowed in Judaism, and as a result, also in Christianity. According to Matt. 1:5–6, Salmon fathered Boaz from Rahab, Boaz fathered Obed from Ruth, Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David. The genealogy then continues to Jesus, the Messiah from the House of David. Because of Rahab’s aid in the conquest of Jericho, she was also praised by the later Jewish sources (BT Megillah 14b). According to this Talmudic tradition, she converted to Judaism and was married to Joshua, with eight prophets and priests and a single prophetess issuing from this union (BT Zebaḥim 116b; Megillah 14b–15a). The New Testament ascribes her importance, praising her as a faithful woman who saved herself by her actions (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25) and in consequence of which Boaz, one of Jesus’ forebears, was descended from her. 264 For mention of Rahab’s house, see: Itinerarium Burdigalense 597, 1; De Locis Sanctis P2; Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 1; Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 13; Limor 1998: 35, 123, 175, 227. 265 Itinerarium Burdigalense 598, 3; Ep. 108, 12; Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 20; Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 9; Limor 1998: 36, 149, 188, 224. 266 Nicephorus Callistus VIII, 30.113; Wilkinson 1977: 203. Christian sources attribute the building of many churches at holy places in the Land of Israel to Helena. For Helena’s visit to the Holy Land and the Christian tradition of her finding the True Cross, see Hunt 1982: 28–29. 267 Site no. 132, in this volume.
268
[77]
Y. M A G E N
1897–98b; 1898–99a; 1900; Dalman 1904; 1905; Chitty 1928; 1930; 1932; 1966; Leclercq 1929; Marcoff and Chitty 1929; Augustinović 1951; Corbo 1958; Meinardus 1964–65; Bagatti 1969; Hirschfeld 1990; 1992; Patrich 1995; etc. 291 Hirschfeld 1990; Kloner 2003: 40–41. 292 Tsafrir and Di Segni 1999: 274. 293 Ep. 108, 14; Limor 1998: 133, 154. 294 Kloner 2000: 41, no. [105]69; 2001: 46, no. [102]112; 2003: 35. 295 Magen 2008c: 166–168. The archaeological testimonies in Judea and southern Samaria completely contradict the opinion of Bar, and especially his summary; Bar 2008: 166–167. 296 Casson 1974: 300–329; Wilkinson 1976: 81ff.; 1981; Tsafrir 1979; Hunt 1982: 83–127; Limor 1983; 1988; 1999; Bitton-Ashkelony 1995. 297 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 20; Life of Cyriacus 7, 226; Limor 1998: 188; Di Segni 2005: 241. On the role played by Empress Eudocia in the building of monasteries, see Hunt 1982: 221–248. 298 Christianity first began to penetrate and spread among the Hellenic population in central Roman cities and Mediterranean lands, e.g., Asia Minor and Rome. It was only in the fourth century CE that Jerusalem and Bethlehem became sacred cities to which pilgrims came; the Mount of Olives, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and the Church of the Nativity became pilgrimage centers. The growth of the monasteries is connected with the rise in the numbers of pilgrims; Geiger 1982: 229–233; Rubin 1982a: 239; Hirschfeld 1992: 196–200. According to Alon 1984: 752– 757, the monasteries attracted pilgrims from abroad, and many remained to settle in the Land of Israel. Concerning pilgrimage from Armenia in the wake of Peter the Iberian, see Stone 1986. See Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 183–231; Irshai 1999. Limor maintains that monasteries and churches developed in Jerusalem as a result of the numerous donations by pilgrims; Limor 1999: 398–399. Biblical inspiration was an important characteristic of the pilgrimage movement. Early Christians were attached to the Old Testament stories, with their kings and prophets, for example the Onomasticon of Eusebius. In the wake of his translation of the Bible into Latin, the Vulgate, and other writings, Hieronymus, became a central figure in nascent Christianity. He identified sites from the Old and New Testaments, and also championed the pilgrimage phenomenon; see Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 85–111; Grabois 1986: 244, note 4. 299 Itinerarium Egeriae III–V; Limor 1998: 55–62. The monks also provided information from the Old Testament and identifications from the New Testament regarding different locations. The pilgrim prepared himself for his journey by reading sources from the Old and New Testaments, as well as Greek and Roman sources. 300 The monastery of Martyrius was most likely the central
one for providing hospitality to pilgrims visiting the Holy Land. Its location on a main route, its size, and its proximity to Jerusalem, on the one hand, and its proximity to the Judean Desert, the Jordan Valley, and the Dead Sea, on the other, made it a meeting place between the desert monks and the Jerusalem ecclesiastical establishment. The multitude of stables in the monastery, its large refectory and adjoining kitchen, the church, the many chapels, and the large hospice beyond the monastery attest to the monastery’s attraction for the many visitors it hosted. Christian historical sources, especially Cyril, tell of a multitude of hospices in the Judean Desert monasteries; Life of Sabas 31, 116; Life of Cyriacus 7, 226; Life of Abraamius 3, 245; Di Segni 2005: 166, 241, 261. Monastery hospices were not built exclusively next to monasteries; they were also erected in the major cities that attracted pilgrims, like Jerusalem and Jericho. Each monastery or hospice had a guest-master, who at times also served as the cook. John, the bishop of the city of Colonia in Armenia, left his high position and came to the Mar Saba monastery in the Judean Desert, where he assumed the duties of guest-master and cook (Life of John 6, 206; Di Segni 2005: 226). In another instance, Cyril relates that the monk James was the guest-master of the hospice of the Great Laura (the Mar Saba monastery; Life of Sabas 40, 130–131; Di Segni 2005: 176). Based on the narrative of the monk James, the hospice of the Great Laura was established outside the monastery to prevent disturbance to the monks who resided within. A hospice was discovered close to the entrance gate of the Alahan monastery in southern Anatolia, and next to it, a basilica church that served pilgrims coming to the monastery; Gough 1967. The location of the hospice outside the monastery and next to the entrance gate is somewhat reminiscent of that of the hospice of the monastery of Martyrius, which also contained a chapel. 301 Not all the priests and monks spoke Greek. Egeria tells that on Easter, the bishop in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher would speak in Greek, with someone translating his words into Syriac and Latin; Itinerarium Egeriae XLVII; Limor 1998: 112–113. 302 The site yielded five chapels, in addition to the church. One chapel was found adjacent to the church, in the east of the monastery; two additional chapels were found in its south, yet another in its north, and a fifth chapel was built in the hospice that adjoins the monastery; Magen and Talgam 1990: 97–107. See also the forthcoming volume of Christians and Christianity V. Monastery of Martyrius (JSP 17). 303 Magen 2008a; 2008i. 304 An inscription dated to the time of Justinian was discovered in Deir Qalʿa; Magen and Aizik 2012: 140–142, Fig. 44; Di Segni 2012a. Procopius of Caesarea tells of Justinian’s assistance to monasteries and churches; Procopius, Buildings V, 8–9.
[78]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
began, in our opinion, as a fourth century CE tower or fortress and became a monastery for a short period of time; afterwards, in the Umayyad period, an oil press of the leverscrew-and-cylindrical-weight type was installed in it. The small size of the church and its location beyond the bounds of the site show that it postdates the central structure, which was built in the late fourth century CE. For the economy of the lauras in the Judean Desert, see Rubin 1982: 34–39. 308 Hunt 1982: 198, 200. 309 Monks, priests, and holders of senior positions in the Christian establishment moved from place to place, both within the Land of Israel and between the Byzantine provinces outside it. 310 The martyrium in the monastery of Martyrius yielded a crypt, over which is a tombstone with an inscription that mentions Paul, the head of the monastery; Di Segni 1990d: 153, no. 1. 311 Limor 1998: 12–14. 312 Life of Cyriacus 7, 226; Di Segni 2005: 241. 313 Life of Sabas 31, 116; Di Segni 2005: 166. 314 Life of Abraamius 3, 245; Di Segni 2005: 261. 315 Life of Theodosius 1–2, 236–237; Di Segni 2005: 251– 254. 316 Itinerarium Egeriae VII, 2–3; IX, 3; Limor 1999: 401, note 51. At times they had Jewish travel guides. Hieronymus had Jews who aided him in translating the Vulgate; Schwartz 1986: 195–198. See also Hunt 1982: 50–82; Grabois 1986: 244–246, notes 4 and 7; Limor 1999: 413–414. 317 Hunt 1982: 83–127; Limor 1998: 11–12. 318 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 6; Limor 1998: 181. 319 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 16; Limor 1998: 228. 320 The churches at Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan), en-Nebi Samwil, Kh. Faʿush, Kh. Huriya, Kh. el-Beiyudat, and many more were built within or close to Roman structures, with no nearby residential quarters. 321 Site no. 95, in this volume. 322 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 12–13; Limor 1998: 226–227. 323 Site no. 164, in this volume. 324 On. 24:9; Hieronymus, On. 25:9. 325 Ep. 108, 12; Limor 1998: 148–149. 326 Site no. 178, in volume II (JSP 14). 327 Site no. 193, in volume II (JSP 14). 328 Site no. 150, in this volume. 329 Site no. 167, in volume II (JSP 14). 330 Site no. 124, in this volume. 331 On. 46:24–25. 332 Site no. 122, in this volume. 333 Site no. 121, in this volume. 334 Site no. 105, in this volume. 335 Site no. 104, in this volume. 336 Site no. 97, in this volume.
Tal 1997. See also rolling stones in churches at Mt. Nebo: Hamarneh and Manacorda 1996: 408, Tav. 39, Fig. 14; Al-Zaben 2001: 367, Tav. 28:2–3. See also: Piccirillo 1987: 405, Tav. 70:1. 306 Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 20; Limor 1998: 188. 307 Scholars examined the question of the nature and role of the Land of Israel monasteries. Were the monasteries also agricultural units, a combination of a monastery, with a religious goal, and an agricultural farm, with an agriculturaleconomic function? Could the monastery maintain itself and be economically independent? In theory, an estate owner could establish a private church or chapel for himself within the agricultural estate, but even in the towns and villages, there are few churches. The historical sources mention some cultivation of vegetables (Life of Euthymius 15, 14; Life of Cyriacus 16, 232; Leimonarion CLVIII.3025), and the architectural testimony shows that treading floors were found wherever grapes could be raised, even under harsh conditions. In contrast, the excavations unequivocally prove that all the large sophisticated oil presses, without exception, were installed in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. The cultivation of grapes and winemaking was a relatively easy labor, and could be done by a few monks, unlike the harvesting and pressing of olives for oil. Consequently, the agricultural farm-monastery connection seems unlikely, especially since, as we have seen, the majority of the monks were pilgrims who remained in the Land of Israel for religious reasons, not people who came to work agricultural plots. Obviously, there were exceptions, such as the monasteries built by indigenous Christians. In two instances, scholars sought to combine a monastery with an agricultural farm, without any firm basis. An inscription discovered at Shelomi explicitly mentions a monastery and the monastery head, Thomas. The excavator argues that because it lacked a church, this site could not have been a monastery; but the site is the agricultural farm of a monastery (Dauphin 1979: 29). In our opinion, room 1, with the inscription and the mosaic with crosses, is a makeshift chapel, like those found in many monasteries in the southern Hebron Hills. See, for example, in volume II (JSP 14): Qaṣr Khalife (site no. 283); Rujm Jureida (site no. 346); Kh. Umm Deimine (site no. 347). The excavator uncovered agricultural implements that could have been used for the cultivation of grapes, and might have belonged to the Umayyad period. See also Taxel 2006; 2008. Taxel brings together different sites to prove the claimed existence of agricultural monasteries. It lists roadside monasteries and agricultural estates that engaged in oil production; but the oil presses discovered in the monasteries are from a later period, e.g., the oil press at Mevo Modiʿim, which is Umayyad; and the church is a roadside church, not a monastery. Most of the ceramic material is Umayyad. The site of Kh. es-Suyyagh, which Taxel excavated, and on which his study is based, 305
[79]
Y. M A G E N
XXV, 11; Vita Constantini III, 41–43; see also Limor 1998: 34, 94. 370 Site no. 172, in volume II (JSP 14). 371 Site no. 150, in this volume. 372 Site no. 180, in volume II (JSP 14). 373 Site no. 181, in volume II (JSP 14). 374 Site no. 175, in volume II (JSP 14). 375 On. 132:4. 376 Site no. 130, in this volume. 377 Site no. 139, in this volume. 378 Site no. 111, in this volume. On the mention of the church in the late fourth century CE, see Ep. 46, 13. See also: De Locis Sanctis V7; Limor 1998: 126. 379 Site no. 117, in this volume. 380 Site no. 114, in this volume. 381 Site no. 115, in this volume. 382 Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta, site no. 124 in this volume; Kh. elLaṭaṭin, site no. 167 in volume II (JSP 14). 383 Site no. 122, in this volume. 384 Site no. 121, in this volume. 385 Site no. 137, in this volume. 386 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 236–237, no. 319; Tabula: 91. 387 Site no. 150, in this volume. 388 Site no. 173, in volume II (JSP 14). 389 Kloner 2000. 390 Ant. 13:257–258; 15:254; Strabo, Geography 16, 2, 34. 391 Magen 2008b: 14–28. 392 Ant. 15:253–255. 393 Magen 2008m: 112–113; 2008n. 394 For Simeon Bar-Giora’s conquest in Idumea, see War 2: 652–654; 4:515–537. 395 On the Idumeans’ assistance to those besieged in Jerusalem, Bar-Giora’s war against the Idumeans, and Josephus’ opinion concerning them, see War 2:652–654; 4:224–363, 518. 396 Magen 2008b: 39–44; Magen and Peleg 2008: 416–418. 397 For synagogues unearthed in the Hebron Hills, see Magen 2008b: 28–29, Fig. 3. 398 On. 108:8 (Yaṭṭa); 92:20–21; 118:5 (Chermela); 88:17 (ʿEn Rimmon/Ḥ. Rimmon); 26:9–10 (Aneae/ʿAnim); 86:16 (ʿEn Gedi); 86:20 (Eshtemoa); 98:26 (Thala). 399 Magen 2008f: 247–248. 400 On. 118:5; 172:20. See also: Magen 2008f: 256, note 19; site no. 339, in volume II (JSP 14). 401 On. 130:12. 402 On. 26:13; 108:2–4. See also, in volume II (JSP 14): Kh. Yattir (site no. 354); Beit ʿAnun (site no. 280); and Kh. Abu Rish (site no. 281). 403 On. 136:24; Avi Yonah 1993. 404 Magen 2008b: 41. See also Bagatti 2002b: 102. 405 Dagan 2006: 33. 406 On. 6:8; 76:1. Eusebius (Vita Constantini III, 53) mentions an idolatrous altar at the site; Magen 2008m.
See sites nos. 34, 37 and 38, in this volume. Site no. 169, in volume II (JSP 14). See also site no. 150, in this volume. 339 Site no. 212, in volume II (JSP 14). 340 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 146–147: 35; Limor 1998: 240. 341 Site no. 245, in volume II (JSP 14). 342 Magen, Peleg and Sharukh 2012; site no. 345, in volume II (JSP 14). 343 Site no. 247, in volume II (JSP 14). 344 Kochavi 1972; Magen and Finkelstein 1993; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997; Kloner 2000; 2001; 2003. 345 See above, note 91. 346 Hirschfeld 1988–89; 1989–90; Patrich 1994. 347 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 280–281. Map 13–18 was surveyed by O. Sion, and appears in the Department of Antiquities’ website, the Archaeological Survey of Israel, in the map of Wadi Qelt; see Sion 2013. 348 Site no. 140, in this volume. 349 Site no. 118, in this volume. 350 Site no. 131, in this volume. 351 Site no. 154, in this volume. 352 Site no. 142, in this volume. 353 Site no. 194, in volume II (JSP 14). 354 Site no. 195, in volume II (JSP 14). 355 Site no. 196, in volume II (JSP 14). 356 Site no. 164, in this volume. 357 In the Early Islamic period the Land of Israel experienced great agricultural growth, the likes of which it had known only in the Second Temple period. The major and widespread olive cultivation and oil production in this period also entered areas in which olives had not previously been cultivated. The Jordan Valley blossomed in this period. The tremendous quantities of water that issued from the springs of Phasaelis, ʿEin el-ʿAuja, ʿEin Duyuk (Naʿaran), Wadi Qelt, and ʿEin esSulṭan, helped in the development of Muslim agriculture, and also supplied Hisham’s Palace in Jericho; see: Amar 2000: 45–46; see also Gil 1992: 224–229. On agriculture in the Negev in the Early Islamic period, see above, note 34. 358 Itinerarium Burdigalense 596, 2; Itinerarium Egeriae XXIX, 3–6; On. 58:15; Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 6; Limor 1998: 34, 98–99, 181. 359 Site no. 190, in volume II (JSP 14). 360 Site no. 191, in volume II (JSP 14). 361 Site no. 179, in volume II (JSP 14). 362 Site no. 160, in this volume. 363 Site no. 152, in this volume. 364 Site no. 153, in this volume. 365 Site no. 154, in this volume. 366 Site no. 151, in this volume. 367 Site no. 173, in volume II (JSP 14). 368 Site no. 159, in this volume. 369 Itinerarium Burdigalense 595, 6; Itinerarium Egeriae 337 338
[80]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Sozomenus, HE II, 4, 1– 8. Magen 2002c: 154–155; Kloner 1987: 361–362. 409 Meshorer 1989: 73–76, 101–119; Magen 2008b: 26–33, Figs. 3–5; Magen and Peleg 2008: 373–374. 410 On. 42:10; 82:10. See also Hieronymus’ additions to the Onomasticon: Hieronymus, On. 43:19; 83:12. 411 Adonis was identified with the god Tammuz. Ezek. 8:14 tells of “women bewailing Tammuz.” Some scholars found a connection between Jesus’ death and resurrection, and Adoni; see Kutscher et al. 1982. 412 Tobler 1849; Vincent and Abel 1914; site no. 222, in volume II (JSP 14). 413 Itinerarium Burdigalense 598, 6–7; Limor 1998: 37. 414 Ep. 108, 14; Limor 1998: 133, 154. 415 For Paula’s description of Bethlehem’s religious blossoming, see Ep. 46. 416 Site no. 223, in volume II (JSP 14). 417 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 28; Limor 1998: 236. See also site no. 212, in volume II (JSP 14). 418 Site no. 273, in volume II (JSP 14). 419 Itinerarium Burdigalense 599, 1–2; Limor 1998: 37. 420 Hirschfeld 1993; 2000. See also, in volume II (JSP 14): Kh. Khureitun—monastery of Chariton (site no. 249); ʿEin es-Sakhari (site no. 250); Qaṣr Abu Leimun (site no. 259). 421 Site no. 249, in volume II (JSP 14). 422 See in volume II (JSP 14): Deir Mukallik—monastery of Theoctistus (site no.196); Qaṣr ʿAntar (site no. 260); Kh. er-Rubeiʿa (site no. 263); Kh. et-Tina (site no. 265); Kh. elQuṣeir—Sousakim (site no. 266). 423 See in volume II (JSP 14): Kh. Jinjas—Heptastomos (site no. 225); Deir Mar Saba (site no. 231); Ras el-Baquq—“the Small Coenobium” (site no. 232); Kh. el-Mird—monastery of Castellion (site no. 234). See also Patrich 1995. 424 Life of Euthymius 11–12, 22; Di Segni 2005: 87–88. 425 Vita Constantini III, 41–43; Vincent 1911. 426 Vita Constantini III, 25–40; IV, 43; Patrich 1999. 427 Vita Constantini III, 41, 43. 428 Site no. 278, in volume II (JSP 14). 429 Sozomenus, HE II, 4, 2–5. 430 The Mount of Olives was a pilgrimage site before Christianity became the official religion of the Empire; see Wilkinson 1976: 81–84. 431 Chronicon Paschale: 613. 432 Frenkel 2011. See also Magen 2008n: 85–90. 433 Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 30; Limor 1998: 237, note 147. See also: Magen 2008n: 73, 84–85; site no. 295, in volume II (JSP 14). 434 Sites nos. 280 and 281, in volume II (JSP 14). 435 Site no. 245, in volume II (JSP 14). 436 Site no. 345, in volume II (JSP 14). 437 Site no. 247, in volume II (JSP 14). 438 Life of Euthymius 30; Di Segni 2005: 84–87. 439 Portugali 1986.
In our opinion, Susya is neither an example of a Byzantine settlement, nor a characteristic example of a Jewish one, and most of the pottery discovered, including at its oil presses, is to be dated to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. The size of the building stones is characteristic of public construction, possibly indicating that most of the construction was conducted in the fourth century CE by Emperor Theodosius I and his son Arcadius, to thwart the Saracens’ settling in the many caves in the area; and that the location became a Jewish settlement only later, making secondary use of the Roman building stones. It is doubtful whether the structure published by Hirschfeld should be dated to the Byzantine period; Hirschfeld 1984. Tsafrir (1984a: 133–142, 305– 317) provides six examples of houses from the Roman and Byzantine periods from Galilee, Transjordan, and Syria, but none from Judea and Samaria. 441 All of the bishops listed as attending the Council of Nicaea in Bithynia came from the cities, and none from the rural sector. This might prove that nascent Christianity was limited to the Roman cities; and even those Christian communities were small, as is reflected in the Onomasticon. See also Geiger 1982: 225–226. 442 Segal 1985; Shereshevski 1991: 61–82; Hirschfeld 2003. 443 Avi-Yonah 1964: 114–124; Tsafrir 1995: 7–16. 444 Magen 2009 I: 44. 445 Broshi 1979; 1986. See also Safrai 1995b: 29–48. 446 Broshi 1979: 5, Table 2. 447 Felix 1982: 420–435. 448 Magen 2008e: 312–313. 449 Felix 1982: 420–435. See also Tsafrir 1996: 270. 450 Thousands of Second Temple tombs were discovered south and north of Jerusalem, in Benjamin, and in southern Samaria. The large number of Second Temple tombs is undoubtedly indicative of the large population that inhabited the region in the Hasmonean period. Tombs, most apparently from after the destruction of the Second Temple to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, were also discovered in the southern Judean Shephelah and the southern Hebron Hills. More tombs were discovered from the Late Roman period (third to fourth centuries CE) than from the sixth century CE. In Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Tsafrir discusses the issue of tombs in the Roman and Byzantine periods. He presents numerous Roman tombs from and beyond the Land of Israel (Tsafrir 1984a: 143–164), while from the Byzantine period, the finds were mainly from tombs whose structure is uncharacteristic of Byzantine tombs (pp. 384–385). This is not by chance, and points to a phenomenon; Kloner 2003: 28–31; Kloner and Zissu 2007. 451 Tsafrir maintains that the number of Jerusalem’s inhabitants in the Byzantine period was in excess of 50,000: Tsafrir 1999: 284; see also Geva 2007: 59–60. A. Faust and Z. Safrai noted a dramatic decline in the number of
407
440
408
[81]
Y. M A G E N
oil lamps that are dated to the Byzantine period. Reʾem, Zubair and Ilan 2006: burial caves with crosses, apparently in secondary use in the Byzantine period. Kloner and Zissu 2007: 143–148: Akeldama, Second Temple burial caves that continued in use in the Byzantine period. 454 Tomb A at Qedumim from the third century CE, and continuing in use in the fifth and early sixth century CE. It apparently was reopened in the wake of the Samaritan revolt, for the burial of the Samaritan dead. It was opened for burials yet again in the seventh century CE, when the settlement was renewed in the late Byzantine and Early Islamic period. See Magen 1993b: 172; 2008o: 199–201, Figs. 4–6. 455 The most striking example is the mausoleum of ʿAskar, undoubtedly built in the second to third centuries CE. Umayyad material was found in the tomb; Magen 2009 I: 293–305; 2009 II: 159–166, Pls. 67–71. Surprisingly, despite Neapolis’ continuing to be an important city in the Byzantine period, with most likely a large population, very few tombs from this period were uncovered. Where were the inhabitants of Neapolis interred in the fifth to eighth centuries CE? 456 See above, note 276. 457 A Second Temple loculi tomb was discovered at Shiloh; it apparently continued in use in the Byzantine period, later falling into disuse and becoming a cistern. South of the tomb is the “Lions’ Cave,” which contained human bones from a number of burials and Byzantine finds that were disturbed by finds from the medieval period. The cave was hewn as a cistern in the Roman period; see Andersen 1985: 55–61. 458 Dagan 2006: 35. 459 Lists of tombs appear at the end of each survey map in the Hill Country of Benjamin survey. These lists also provide data regarding agricultural installations, caves, etc., that were not included in the general description. The documentation of the data by the surveyors of the north of Benjamin was incomplete, unlike that in the south of the region. To prevent delay in the publication of the survey, we chose to present the information collected, even if only partial, in a separate list. 460 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 123. 461 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 238, 241, 255–256. 462 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 331–335. 463 Kloner 2003: 28. 464 Kloner 2003: 41–42. See distribution maps 17 and 19 that are included in the volume. 465 Kloner 2001: 192, no. [102]473. 466 For Byzantine burial caves, see: Kloner 2001: 35, no. [102]79; 36, no. [102]81; 44, no. [102]102; 57, no. [102]137; 77–78, no. [102]183. For Second Temple burial caves containing Byzantine material, see Kloner 2001: 20, no. [102]33; 62, nos. [102]148, [102]153; 74, no. [102]177. 467 Kloner 2003: 130, no. [101]163; 133, no. [101]176. 468 Kloner 2000: 17, no. [105]13; 18–19, no. [105]18; 20, no. [105]22; 27, no. [105]33; 34, no. [105]49; 66, no. [105]124; 78–79, no. [105]152.
Byzantine burials, but their explanation for the phenomenon is unsatisfactory; Faust and Safrai 2008: 115. 452 Avni 1997. 453 We sought to include the excavated Byzantine tombs in the list below. The latter, while incomplete, does allude to the incongruence between the number of Byzantine tombs and the region’s presumed millions of inhabitans. Husseini 1938: arcosolia tombs; fourth century CE finds. Sussman 1969: a burial cave containing arcosolia tombs from the late third and early fourth century CE that continued in use in the Byzantine period (late fifth and early sixth century CE). Barag 1974: a burial cave containing arcosolia tombs that are dated from the second half of the fifth century CE to the end of the Byzantine period. Sussman 1976: a Samaritan tomb, in use from the third to sixth centuries CE. Arav 1990: a tomb first used in the third century CE, and continuing in use to the end of the Byzantine period. Yankelevitch 1994: a burial complex containing Byzantine arcosolia tombs and finds. One of the burial chambers yielded remains of Greek letters painted on the wall. Stark 1994: burial caves with Byzantine finds (fourth to fifth centuries CE), and an additional cave with Hellenistic finds. Avni and Greenhut 1996 especially, pp. 33–36: Second Temple burial caves, some of which continued in use until the Byzantine period. Badhi 1998: a burial cave dated to the fifth to sixth centuries CE. Taha 1998: a cave ornamented with crosses, with Byzantine finds. Avni 1999: poor Byzantine finds. Lalkin 1999: Byzantine cist tombs discovered near Ḥ. Beth ha-Gadi. Gudovitch 1999: 37*– 39*: Byzantine burial caves. Varga 1999: Late RomanByzantine cist tombs; meager finds from the Byzantine period. Vollach 1999: 90*: seven cist tombs in Ḥ. Ḥur. One tomb contained a small tombstone with an engraved cross flanked by two figures. The tombs are dated to the late Byzantine period or a bit later. Solimany and Adawi 1999: in their opinion, the tomb was in use in the fifth to sixth centuries CE. Peretz and Reʾem 1999: burial caves with finds dated to the fifth to sixth centuries CE. Zissu 1999: Byzantine tomb, embellished with crosses. AvshalomGorni 2000: burial cave with arcosolia tombs from the fifth century CE to the end of the Byzantine period. Peilstöcker 2003: two burial caves containing Byzantine finds. Mokary 2003: burial cave with finds from the first to sixth centuries CE. Govrin 2003: cist tombs dated to the Byzantine period. Taha 2003: burial cave containing arcosolia tombs from the early fourth to mid-fifth century CE. Fabian and Goldfus 2004: Byzantine burial caves, some from the Second Temple period in secondary use; see also Sussman 2004. Greenhut and Zissu 2004: arcosolia tomb from the late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. Kogan-Zehavi 2006: tomb from the third to seventh century CE. The main finds are dated to the third to fourth centuries CE. Solimany, Winter and de-Vincenz 2006: burial cave with
[82]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Kloner 2000: 103–105, no. [106]30; 120, no. [106]49. Avi-Yonah 1956: 127–132; Di Segni 2002: 454–480; Magen 2008g: 51–56. 471 Magen 2008i: 237–240 and bibliography; Di Segni 2005: 128, note 255. 472 Baras 1982; Gil 1992: 31–60; Avni 2010. 473 Dar 1988; 1993b. See also Magen 2008g. 474 Magen 2008a. 475 Magen 2008g: 55, note 90. 476 Tal 1997. 477 Gil 1987b: 9–25; 1992: 31–60, 430–489; Schick 1995: 112–134; Linder 1987. 478 Gil 1987b: 8–9. 479 We should question the Samaritan chronicle brought by Levy-Rubin (2006: 63–64) that Samaritans from the coastal plan entrusted their possessions with the High Priest and left with the Christians for Byzantium. Unlike the Christians, who were afforded a warm welcome, the Samaritans had no diaspora to receive them. 480 Gil 1984: 68. 481 Magen 2002: 437; 2008d: 173. 482 Habas 2005: 471–497. 483 The prime example is the monastery at Kh. Umm Deimine: the images in the mosaic were defaced, while the
crosses remained unscathed; see Magen, Batz and Sharukh 2012: 450–456. 484 Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 39–49, 225–230. 485 Signs of iconoclasm from the eighth century CE were found in most of the churches in the southern Hebron Hills, thus attesting to their continuity in the Early Islamic period. On the decree, see above, note 19. 486 Patrich 1982; 1985; 1990a; 1990b. 487 Habas 2005: 484–489. 488 Fine 2000. 489 See the extensive discussion in Habas 2005: 475–479. 490 Habas 2005: 479–480. An example of this can be seen in the synagogue at Susya; Amit 2003: 80–83, Figs. 3.12, 3.15. 491 Habas 2005: 471–478. 492 On the coastal cities in the Early Islamic period, see: Elʿad 1982; Levy-Rubin 2006: 62–78. 493 See, in volume II (JSP 14): Kh. ʿEin Dab (site no. 251); Beit ʿAnun (site no. 280); Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir (site no. 345); Kh. Umm Deimine (site no. 347); Kh. el-Qaryatein (site no. 359). 494 See the synagogue at Naʿaran: Avi-Yonah 1993: 1076; the synagogue at Susya: Gutmann, Yeivin and Netzer 1972; Yeivin 1993: 1419–1421; 2005; Amit 2003: 68–83; the synagogue at Eshtemoa: Yeivin 1993: 1419–1421; 2005.
469 470
References Eretz-Israel,” EI 19: 1–5 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 73*). Arav R. 1990. “A Mausoleum near Kibbutz Mesillot,” ʿAtiqot 10: 81–89 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 18*). Ariel T.D. 2004. “The Coins from Qalandiya,” in Y. Magen, D.T. Ariel, G. Bijovsky, Y. Tzionit and O. Sirkis, The Land of Benjamin (JSP 3), Jerusalem, pp. 145–177. Ashkenazi Y. 1991. “Paganism in Gaza in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” Cathedra 60: 106–115 (Hebrew). Ashkenazi Y. 1995. “Pagan Worship in Palestine during the Byzantine Period,” Michmanim 8: 53–62 (Hebrew; English summary, 10*–11*). Athanassiadi-Fowden P. 1981. Julian and Hellenism. An Intellectual Biography, Oxford. Augustinović A. 1951. Gerico e dintorni. Guida, Jerusalem. Avigad N. 1980. The Upper City of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery from Khirbet el-Bira,” in Z. Safrai, Y. Friedman and J. Schwartz (eds.), Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map: with Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem.
Adler E.N. and Séligsohn M. 1902. “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45: 70–98, 223–254. Albright W.F. 1923. “New Identification of Ancient Towns. The Site of Jeshanah, Bethany in the Old Testament,” BASOR 9: 3–14. Albright W.F. 1924. Excavations and Results at Tell El-Fûl (Gibeah of Saul) (AASOR 4), New Haven, Conn. Alon G. 1980. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.), Jerusalem. Alon G. 1984. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.) II, Jerusalem. Al-Zaben S. 2001. “Umm el-Rasas. 2001 Excavations at the Rolling Stone Building,” LA 51: 366–368. Amar Z. 2000. Agricultural Produce in the Land of Israel in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Amit D. 2003. The Synagogues of Hurbat Maʿon and Hurbat ʿAnin and the Jewish Settlement in the Southern Hebron Hills, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Andersen F.G. 1985. Shiloh II. The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Mamlūk Periods, Copenhagen. Applebaum S. 1987. “The Problem of the Roman Villa in
[83]
Y. M A G E N
Bagatti B. 2001. Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 37), Jerusalem (Eng. transl. of: B. Bagatti, Antichi villaggi cristiani di Galilea, Jerusalem, 1971. Pubblicazioni dello Studio Biblica Franciscano, Collectio Minor 13). Bagatti B. 2002a. Ancient Christian Villages of Samaria (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 39), Jerusalem (Eng. transl. of: B. Bagatti, Antichi villaggi cristiani di Samaria, Jerusalem, 1979. Pubblicazioni dello Studio Biblica Franciscano, Collectio Minor 19). Bagatti B. 2002b. Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 42), Jerusalem (Eng. transl. of: B. Bagatti, Antichi Villaggi Cristiani di Giudea e Neghev, Jerusalem, 1983. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 24). Bar D. 2008. Fill the Earth. Settlement in Palestine during the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods 135–640 C.E., Jerusalem (Hebrew). Barag D. 1972. “A Tomb of the Byzantine Period near Netiv Ha-Lamed He,” ʿAtiqot 7: 81–87 (Hebrew; English summary, p.13*). Baras Z. 1982. “The Persian Conquest and the End of Byzantine Rule,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 300–349 (Hebrew). Bar-Nathan R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations III. The Pottery, Jerusalem. Batz S. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 373–408. Ben-Dov M. 1982. The Dig at the Temple Mount, Jerusalem. Ben-Pechat M. 1989. “The Paleochristian Baptismal Fonts in the Holy Land: Formal and Functional Study,” LA 39: 165–168. Ben-Zvi I. 1976. The Book of the Samaritans, Jerusalem. Bitton-Ashkelony B. 1995. Pilgrimage: Perceptions and Reactions in the Patristic and Monastic Literature of the Fourth–Sixth Centuries, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Bitton-Ashkelony B. 1999. “The Attitudes of Church Fathers toward Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” in I.L. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem. Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, pp. 189–203. Bitton-Ashkelony B. and Kofsky A. 2006. The Monastic School of Gaza, Leiden. Brock S.P. 1976. “The Rebuilding of the Temple under Julian: A New Source,” PEFQSt 108: 103–107. Brooks E.W. 1897. “A Syriac Chronicle of the Year 846,” ZDMG 51: 569–588.
Avi-Yonah M. 1956. “The Samaritan Revolts against the Byzantine Empire,” EI 4: 127–132 (Hebrew; English summary, p. ix). Avi-Yonah M. 1958. “The Economics of Byzantine Palestine,” IEJ 8: 39–51. Avi-Yonah M. 1964. Essays and Studies in the Lore of the Holy Land, Tel Aviv–Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1966. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640). A Historical Geography, Grand Rapids, Mich. Avi-Yonah M. 1970. In the Days of Rome and Byzantium, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1984. Historical Geography of Palestine from the End of the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1993. “Naʿaran,” NEAEHL 3: 1075–1076. Avner U. 1984. “Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Desert,” TA 11: 115–131. Avni G. 1992a. “Ancient Mosques in the Negev Highlands,” ʿAtiqot 21: 69*–81* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 179–180). Avni G. 1992b. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Har Saggi Northeast (225), Jerusalem. Avni G. 1997. The Necropolis of Jerusalem and Beth Govrin during the 4th–7th Centuries A.D. as a Model for Urban Cemeteries in Palestine in the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avni G. 1999. “Bet Guvrin,” ḤA 109: 133–134 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 88*). Avni G. 2010. “The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.)—An Archaeological Assessment,” BASOR 357: 35–48. Avni G. 2011. “‘From the Police to Madina’ Revisited— Urban Change in Byzantine and Early Islamic Palestine,” JRAS 21 (3): 301–329. Avni G., Avni Y. and Porat N. 2009. “A New Look at Ancient Agriculture in the Negev,” Cathedra 133: 13–44 (Hebrew). Avni G. and Greenhut Z. 1996. “Architecture, Burial Customs and Chronology,” in The Akeldama Tombs. Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (IAA Reports 1), Jerusalem, pp. 1–36. Avshalom-Gorni D. 2000. “A Burial Cave of the Byzantine Period at Bet Sheʾan,” ʿAtiqot 39: 49*–60* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 198–200). Ayalon E. 2002. “Horbat Migdal (Tsur Natan)—an Ancient Samaritan Village,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 272–288 (Hebrew). Badhi R. 1998. “Modiʿin, Hill D,” ESI 18: 111–112. Bagatti B. 1952. Gli antichi edifici sacri di Betlemme, Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1969. “Alla Laura di Fara,” La Terra Santa 45: 18–24.
[84]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Dalman G.H. 1905. “Das Wādi eṣ-ṣwēnīṭ,” ZDPV 28: 161–175. Dan Y. 1976. Social Life in Eretz Israel in the Byzantine Period in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Dan Y. 1982a. “Eretz Israel in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 265–299 (Hebrew). Dan Y. 1982b. “The Foreign Trade of Palestine in the Byzantine Period,” Cathedra 23: 17–24 (Hebrew). Dan Y. 1982c. “The Byzantine Administration,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 387–418 (Hebrew). Dan Y. 1984. The City in Eretz-Israel during the Late Roman–Byzantine Periods, Jerusalem. Dan Y. 2006. Studies in the History of Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Dar S. 1986a. Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E.–636 C.E. (BAR International Series 308), Oxford. Dar S. 1986b. “Agriculture and Agricultural Produce in Eretz-Israel in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 142–169 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XVI–XVIII). Dar S. 1988. “Archaeological Evidence on the Samaritan Revolts of the Byzantine Period,” in D. Jacoby and Y. Tsafrir (eds.), Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine, Jerusalem, pp. 228–237 (Hebrew). Dar S. 1993a. “ʿAwerta,” in A.D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen, pp. 36–37. Dar S. 1993b. “Archaeological Evidence of Byzantine Samaritan Rebellions,” in A.D. Crown and L. Davey (eds.), New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines III–IV, Sydney, pp. 157–168. Dar S. 2002. “Samaritan Rebellions in the Byzantine Period—The Archaeological Evidence,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 444–453 (Hebrew). Dar S. and Safrai Z. 1982. “Khirbet el-Bireh,” ESI 1: 11–13. Dauphin C. 1979. “A Monastery Farm of the Early Byzantine Period at Shelomi,” Qadmoniot 12 (1) (45): 25–29. Di Segni L. 1990a. “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim: The Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 343–350. Di Segni L. 1990b. “Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: the Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium
Broshi M. 1979. “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” BASOR 236: 1–10. Broshi M. 1986. “Demographic Changes in Ancient EretzIsrael: Methodology and Estimates,” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 49–56 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. VI–VII). Callaway J.A. 1969a. “Khirbet Ḥaiyan,” IEJ 19 (4): 239. Callaway J.A. 1969b. “The 1966 ʿAi (Et-Tell) Excavations,” BASOR 196: 2–16. Callaway J.A. 1970a. “Et-Tell (Aï),” RB 77: 390–394. Callaway J.A. 1970b. “The 1968–1969 ʿAi (Et-Tell) Excavations,” BASOR 198: 7–31. Casson L. 1974. Travel in the Ancient World, Toronto. Chadwick H. 1974. “John Moschus and His Friend Sophronius the Sophist,” JTS 25: 41–74. Chitty D.J. 1928. “Two Monasteries in the Wilderness of Judaea,” PEFQSt 61: 134–152. Chitty D.J. 1930. “Excavations at the Monastery of St. Euthymius, 1929,” PEFQSt 63: 43–47, 150–153. Chitty D.J. 1932. “The Monastery of St. Euthymius,” PEFQSt 65: 188–203. Chitty D.J. 1966. The Desert a City. An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire, Oxford. Cohen J.M. 1981. A Samaritan Chronicle: A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of the Great Samaritan Reformer, Baba Rabbah, Leiden. Cohen R. 1985. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Sede-Boqer—West (167)12–03, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Corbo V.C. 1958. “Finalmente identificata la Laura ‘Eptastomos’?,” La Terra Santa 34: 85–88. Creswell K.A.C. 1969. Early Moslem Architecture I, Oxford. Crowfoot J.W. 1931. Churches at Jerash. A Preliminary Report of the Joint Yale-British School Expeditions to Jerash, 1928–1930 (British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, Supplementary Papers 3), London. Crowfoot J.W. 1937. Churches at Bosra and SamariaSebaste, London. Crowfoot J.W. 1938. “The Christian Churches,” in C.H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa. City of Decapolis, New Haven, Conn., pp. 171–260. Crowfoot J.W., Kenyon K.M. and Sukenik E.L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria, London. Dadon. M. 2012. “The ‘Basilica Church’ at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 223–234. Dagan Y. 2006. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Amaẓya (109) I–II, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Dalman G.H. 1904. “Der Pass von Michmas,” ZDPV 27: 161–173.
[85]
Y. M A G E N
Finkelstein I., Lederman Z. and Bunimovitz S. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures. The Southern Samaria Survey I–II. The Sites (Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 14), Tel Aviv. FitzGerald G.M. 1929. “A Find of Stone Seats at Nablus,” PEFQSt 62: 104–110. Frenkel Y. 2011. “Hebron—An Islamic Sacred City (634– 1099),” Cathedra 141: 28–52. Furrer K. 1880. “Nachtrag zu Baurath Schick’s ‘Die alten Lauren und Klöster in der Wüste Juda,’” ZDPV 3: 234–236. Geiger J. 1982. “The Spread of Christianity in the Land of Israel, from its Beginning to the Time of Julian,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 218–233 (Hebrew). Geva H. 2007. “Estimating Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View,” EI 28: 50–65 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 11*). Gil M. 1984. “The Settlement Patterns of the Arab Tribes,” Cathedra 32: 66–68 (Hebrew). Gil M. 1987a. “The Muslim Rulers and the Indigenous Population,” in J. Prawer (ed.), The History of Jerusalem. The Early Islamic Period (638–1099), Jerusalem, pp. 80–96 (Hebrew). Gil M. 1987b. “Political History of Jerusalem in the Early Islamic Period,” in J. Prawer (ed.), The History of Jerusalem. The Early Islamic Period (638–1099), Jerusalem, pp. 1–31 (Hebrew). Gil M. 1992. A History of Palestine, 634–1099, Cambridge. Gough M. 1967. “Alahan Monastery. Fourth Preliminary Report,” Anatolian Studies 17: 37–47. Govrin Y. 2003. “Beʾer Shevaʿ (B),” ḤA 115: 88–89 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 65*–66*). Grabar O. 1973. The Formation of Islamic Art, New Haven– London. Grabois A. 1986. “Landscape and Agriculture of the Holy Land: the Reports of Medieval Pilgrims,” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 244–254 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XXIII–XXIV). Greenhut Z. and Zissu B. 2004. “Ramat Raziʾel,” ḤA 116: 99–100 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 74*). Grintz Y.M. 1957. Sefer Yehudith, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Grossman A. 1978. “Immigration to Eretz Israel during the First Muslim Conquest,” Cathedra 8: 136–144 (Hebrew). Gudovitch S. 1999. “Yarḥiv,” ESI 19: 36*–39*. Guérin V. 1874–75. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine I–II, Samarie, Paris. Gutman S., Yeivin Z. and Netzer E. 1972. “Excavations in the Synagogue at Khirbet Susiya,” Qadmoniot 5 (2) (18): 47–52 (Hebrew). Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structure and Their Relationship with the
Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 265–273. Di Segni L. 1990c. “The Life of Chariton,” in V.L. Wimbush (ed.), Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook, Minneapolis, pp. 393–421. Di Segni L. 1990d. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ): The Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 153–164. Di Segni L. 2002. “Samaritan Revolts in Byzantine Palestine,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 454–480 (Hebrew). Di Segni L. (transl.), 2005. Cyril of Scythopolis. Lives of the Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Di Segni L. 2012a. “Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 157–160. Di Segni L. 2012b. “Greek Inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 209–218. Downey G. 1963. Gaza in the Early Sixth Century (The Centers of Civilization Series 8), Norman, Ok. Drake C.F.T. 1874. “Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake’s Reports,” PEFQSt 7: 24–29, 64–79, 187–190. Elʿad A. 1982. “The Coastal Cities of Palestine during the Early Middle Ages,” The Jerusalem Cathedra 2: 146–167. Fabian P. and Goldfus H. 2004. “The Cemetery of Ḥorbat Rimmon in the Southern Judean Shephelah,” ʿAtiqot 46: 87*–98*. Faust A. and Safrai Z. 2008. “Changes in Burial Practices in the Land of Israel in Light of the Analysis of Salvage Excavations,” in S. Bar (ed.), In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8), Jerusalem, pp. 105–121 (Hebrew). Felix Y. 1982. “Jewish Agriculture in Eretz-Israel in the Period of the Mishna and the Talmud,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 419–441 (Hebrew). Ferguson E. 1993. “Justin Martyr on Jews, Christians and the Covenant,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 395–405. Fine S. 2000. “Iconoclasm and the Art of Late-Antique Palestinian Synagogues,” in L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity (JRA Supplementary Series 40), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 183–194.
[86]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Pavements, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Hachlili R. and Killebrew A.E. 1999. Jericho—the Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7), Jerusalem. Haiman M. 1986. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Har Ḥamran—Southwest (198)10–00, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Haiman M. 1997. “Agriculture and Nomads on the Edge of the Desert during the Byzantine and Early Arab Periods,” in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), The Village in Ancient Israel, Tel Aviv, pp. 327–349 (Hebrew). Haiman M. 1999. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Har Ramon (203), Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Hamarneh B. and Manacorda S. 1996. “Nitl, Excavation Campaign 1996,” LA 46: 407–408. Hasson I. 1982. Recherches sur Muʿāwiya Ibn Abī Sufyān. Sa politique tribale, militaire et agraire, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Hasson I. 1984. “The Penetration of Arab Tribes in Eretz Israel during the First Century of the Hegira,” Cathedra 32: 54–65 (Hebrew). Hennessy J.B. 1970. “Excavations at Samaria-Sebaste, 1968,” Levant 2: 1–21. Herzog A. 1993. “Ḥazzan,” in A.D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen, p. 114. Hirschfeld Y. 1984. “Excavation of a Jewish Dwelling at Khirbet Susiya,” EI 17: 168–180 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 8*–9*). Hirschfeld Y. 1988–89. “Judean Desert and Samaria, Survey of Monasteries—1987,” ESI 7–8: 95–104. Hirschfeld Y. 1989–90. “Judean Desert, Jericho Basin, Samaria: Survey of Monasteries—1987 (Part II),” ESI 9: 46–51. Hirschfeld Y. 1990. “List of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 1–90. Hirschfeld Y. 1992. The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period, New Haven–London. Hirschfeld Y. 2000. “The Monastery of Chariton, Survey and Excavations,” LA 50: 315–362. Hirschfeld Y. 2002. “Deir Qalʿa and the Monasteries of Western Samaria,” in J. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East 3 (JRA Supplementary Series 49), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 155–189. Hirschfeld Y. 2003. “Man and Society in Byzantine Shivta,” Qadmoniot 36 (125): 2–17 (Hebrew). Hunt E.D. 1982. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire AD 312–460, Oxford.
Husseini S.A.S. 1938. “A Rock-Cut Tomb-Chamber at ʿAin Yabrūd,” QDAP 6: 54–55. Irshai O. 1999. “The Church of Jerusalem—From ‘The Church of the Circumcision’ to ‘The Church from the Gentiles,’” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 61–114 (Hebrew). Ish-Shalom M. 1979. Christian Travels in the Holy Land. Descriptions and Sources on the History of the Jews in Palestine, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Jones A.H.M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire 284–602. A Social Economic and Administrative Survey II, Oxford. Kasher A. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen. Klein S. (ed.), 1939. Sefer ha-Yishuv. Places of Settlement from the Period of the Destruction of the Second Temple until the Conquest of the Land by the Arabs I, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1987. “Dating of the Hiding Complexes,” in A. Kloner and Y. Tepper (eds.), The Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah, Tel Aviv, pp. 361–365 (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1980. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kloner A. 2000. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Survey of Jerusalem: The Southern Sector, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Kloner A. 2001. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Survey of Jerusalem: The Northeastern Sector, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Kloner A. 2003. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Survey of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Sector, Introduction and Indices, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Kloner A. and Zissu B. 2007. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 8), Leuven. Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kogan-Zehavi E. 2006. “A Burial Cave of the Byzantine Period in the Naḥalat Aḥim Quarter,” ʿAtiqot 54: 61*–86* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Kraemer C.J. 1958. Excavations at Nessana 3. Non-Literary Papyri, Princeton, NJ. Krautheimer R. 1965. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Harmondsworth, Middlesex. Kutscher R., Kramer S.N., Greenfield J.C., Flusser D. and Ahituv S. 1982. “Tammuz,” Encyclopedia Biblica VIII, Jerusalem, pp. 582–598 (Hebrew). Lalkin N. 1999. “ Ḥorbat Bet Ha-Gadi,” ḤA 110: 104–105 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 82*). Leclercq H. 1929. “Laures Palestiniennes,” DACL 8.2: 1961–1988. Levine I.L. 1982. “Eretz Israel in the Third Century,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz
[87]
Y. M A G E N
Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 119–143 (Hebrew). Levine I.L. 2000. The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years, New Haven, Conn. Levy-Rubin M. 2002. “The Samaritans during the Early Muslim Period according to the Continuatio to the Chronicle of Abu ’I-Fath,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 562–586 (Hebrew). Levy-Rubin M. 2006. “The Influence of the Muslim Conquest on the Settlement Pattern of Palestine during the Early Muslim Period,” Cathedra 121: 53–78 (Hebrew). Limor O. 1983. “Egeria at Mount Nebo,” Cathedra 27: 49–68 (Hebrew). Limor O. 1998. Holy Land Travels. Christian Pilgrims in Late Antiquity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Limor O. 1999. “Christian Pilgrims in the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 391–415 (Hebrew). Linder A. 1987. “The Christian Communities in Jerusalem,” in J. Prawer (ed.), The History of Jerusalem. The Early Islamic Period (638–1099), Jerusalem, pp. 97–132 (Hebrew). Linder A. 1997. The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, Jerusalem. Mackenzie D. 1911. “The Excavations at Ain Shems, 1911,” PEFQSt 1: 41–94. Magen Y. 1990. “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kîliya,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 321–332. Magen Y. 1992. “Samaritan Synagogues,” Qadmoniot 25 (3–4) (99–100): 66–90 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1993a. “Hellenistic and Roman-Byzantine Period,” NEAEHL 4: 1316–1318. Magen Y. 1993b. “Qedumim—A Samaritan Site of the Roman-Byzantine Period,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 178–179. Magen Y. 2000. “The Crusader Church of Maria at el-Bireh,” Qadmoniot 33 (1) (119): 46–51 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2001. “The Crusader Church of St. Mary in elBira,” LA 51: 257–266. Magen Y. 2002a. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 382–443 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2002b. “The Areas of Samaritan Settlement in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 245–271 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2002c. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period. Excavations at Ḥizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount (JSP 1), Jerusalem.
Magen Y. 2004. “Qalandiya—A Second Temple-period Viticulture and Wine-manufacturing Agricultural Settlement,” in Y. Magen, D.T. Ariel, G. Bijovsky, Y. Tzionit and O. Sirkis, The Land of Benjamin (JSP 3), Jerusalem, pp. 29–144. Magen Y. 2008a. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–216. Magen Y. 2008b. “Idumea and the Jewish Settlement in Daroma (Southern Judea) in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 1–58. Magen Y. 2008c. “Crown Lands and Har ha-Melekh,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 165–176. Magen Y. 2008d. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 117–180. Magen Y. 2008e. “Oil Production in the Land of Israel in the Early Islamic Period,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 257–343. Magen Y. 2008f. “The First Phase of the Synagogue at Susya—a Roman Military Structure?,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 247–256. Magen Y. 2008g. “The Samaritans in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 41–62. Magen Y. 2008h. Mount Gerizim Excavations II. A Temple City (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008i. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246. Magen Y. 2008j. “The Bounds of Samaritan Settlement in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 79–104. Magen Y. 2008k. “The History of the Samaritans from the Destruction of Samaria to the Destruction of Mount Gerizim,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 3–40. Magen Y. 2008l. “The Samaritan-Jewish Religious Struggle,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 63–78. Magen Y. 2008m. “Elonei Mamre—a Cultic Site from the Reign of Herod,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 95–114. Magen Y. 2008n. “The Cave of Machpelah in the Second Temple Period,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 59–94.
[88]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Magen Y. 2008o. “Samaritan Burial,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 197–218. Magen Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period I–II (JSP 11), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2012a. “The Crusader Church of St. Mary in elBira,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 297–308. Magen Y. 2012b. “A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 9–106. Magen Y. 2012c. “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 261–296. Magen Y. and Aharonovich E. 2012. “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 161–208. Magen Y. and Aizik N. 2012. “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 107–156. Magen Y. and Baruch Y. 2012. “Khirbet Abu Rish,” in Christians and Christianity IV. Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 185–202. Magen Y., Batz S. and Sharukh I. 2012. “A Roman Military Compound and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Deimine,” in Christians and Christianity IV. Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 435–482. Magen Y. and Dadon M. 1999. “Nebi Samwil (Shmuel HanaviHar Hasimha),” Qadmoniot 32 (118): 62–77 (Hebrew). Magen Y. and Dadon M. 2003. “Nebi Samwil (Montjoie),” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislav Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem 2003, pp. 123–138. Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y., Misgav H. and Tsfania L. 2004. Mount Gerizim Excavations I. The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (JSP 2), Jerusalem. Magen Y. and Peleg Y. 2008. “The Qumran Excavations 1993–2004. Preliminary Report,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 351–426. Magen Y., Peleg Y. and Sharukh I. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in Christians and Christianity IV. Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 331–384.
Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ) and Its Mosaics,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 91–152. Magen Y., Tzionit Y. and Sirkis O. 2004. “Khirbet Badd ʿIsa—Qiryat Sefer,” in Y. Magen, D.T. Ariel, G. Bijovsky, Y. Tzionit and O. Sirkis, The Land of Benjamin (JSP 3), Jerusalem, pp. 179–241. Maʿoz M. 1967. “The ʿAbbasids,” in H. Lazarus Yafeh (ed.), Studies in the History of the Arabs and Islam, Tel Aviv, pp. 199–232 (Hebrew). Marcoff M. and Chitty D.J. 1929. “Notes on Monastic Research in the Judaean Wilderness, 1928–9,” PEFQSt 62: 167–178. Marti K. 1880. “Die alten Lauren und Klöster in der Wüste Juda,” ZDPV 3: 1–43. Mayerson P. 1985. “The Wine and Vineyards of Gaza in the Byzantine Period,” BASOR 257: 75–80. Mazor G. 1981. “The Wine-Presses of the Negev,” Qadmoniot 14 (1– 2) (53–54): 51–60 (Hebrew). Mazor G. 2009. “Byzantine Wine Presses in the Negev,” in E. Ayalon (ed.), Oil and Wine Presses in Israel from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1972), Oxford, pp. 399–411. Meinardus O. 1964–65. “Notes on the Laurae and Monasteries of the Wilderness of Judaea,” LA 15: 220–250. Mokary A. 2003. “Iksal,” ḤA 115: 32–33 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 27*). Montgomery J.A. 1968. The Samaritans. The Earliest Jewish Sect. Their History, Theology, and Literature, New York. Mor M. 2003. From Samaria to Shechem. The Samaritan Community in Antiquity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Nau F. 1913. “Résumé de monographies syriaques: Barṣauma, Abraham de la Haute Montagne; Siméon de Kefar ʿAbdin, Yaret l’Alexandrin, Jacques le reclus, Romanus, Talia, Asia, Pantaléon, Candida,” ROC 8 (18): 379–389. Nau F. 1914. “Résumé de monographies syriaques: Barṣauma, Abraham de la Haute Montagne; Siméon de Kefar ʿAbdin, Yaret l’Alexandrin, Jacques le reclus, Romanus, Talia, Asia, Pantaléon, Candida,” ROC 9 (19): 113–134. Negev A. 1985. “Excavations at Carmel (Kh. Susiya) in 1984: Preliminary Report,” IEJ 35: 231–252. Netzer E. 2001. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho I. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Jerusalem. Netzer E. 2004. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho II. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Jerusalem. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Theophaneia, Beitraege zur Religions-und
[89]
Y. M A G E N
Price R.M. (transl.), 1991. Lives of the Monks of Palestine by Cyril of Scythopolis, Kalamazoo, Mich. Pummer R. 1979. “New Evidence for Samaritan Christianity?,” CBQ 41: 98–117. Pummer R. 1999. “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” in S. Fine (ed.), Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue. Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period, London, pp. 118–160. Pummer R. 2002. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism. Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 92), Tübingen. Rabello A.M. 2002. “The Samaritans in Roman Law,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 481–495 (Hebrew). Reʾem A., Zubair A. and Ilan T. 2006. “Burial Cave from the Second Temple and Byzantine Periods on the Western Slope of Mount of Olives, Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 54: 47*–59* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 158–160). Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910 I–II, Cambridge, Mass. Rozenberg S. 2008. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations IV, Jerusalem. Rubin Z. 1982a. “The Spread of Christianity in the Land of Israel from the Time of Julian until the Period of Justinian,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 234–251 (Hebrew). Rubin Z. 1982b. “Joseph the Comes and the Attempts to Convert the Galilee to Christianity in the Fourth Century C.E.,” Cathedra 26: 105–116 (Hebrew). Rubin Z. 1999. “Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period—an Historical Survey,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.) The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 199–237 (Hebrew). Safrai S. 1982. “Jewish Settlement in Galilee and the Golan in the Third and Fourth Centuries,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 144–179 (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1980. Boundaries and Government in the Land of Israel in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1986a. “The Influence of Demographic Stratification on the Agricultural and Economic Structure during the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods,” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 20–48 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. IV–V). Safrai Z. 1986b. “Shechem in the Days of the Mishna and
Kirchengeschichte des Altertums 22), Bonn. Ovadiah A. and de Silva C.G. 1981. “Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land. Part I: Newly Discovered Churches,” Levant 13: 200–261. Ovadiah A. and de Silva C.G. 1982. “Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land. Part II: Updated Material on Churches Discussed in the Corpus,” Levant 14: 122–170. Ovadiah A. and de Silva C.G. 1984. “Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land. Part III: Appendices,” Levant 16: 129–165. Patrich J. 1982. “Prohibition of a Graven-Image among the Nabateans—The Testimony of the Maṣṣebot-Cult,” Cathedra 26: 47–104 (Hebrew). Patrich J. 1985. “Prohibition of a Graven-Image among the Nabateans—The Non-Figurative Trend in Their Art,” Cathedra 38: 3–54 (Hebrew). Patrich J. 1990a. The Formation of Nabatean Art. Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabateans, Jerusalem. Patrich J. 1990b. “Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabataeans: The Evidence and Its Significance,” Aram 2: 185–196. Patrich J. 1994. Archaeological Survey in Judea and Samaria. Map of Deir Mar Saba (109/7), Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Patrich J. 1995. Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism. A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Washington, D.C. Patrich J. 1999. “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre: History and Architecture,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 353–381 (Hebrew). Peilstöcker M. 2003. “Ḥaifa, Wadi Ṣalib,” ḤA 115: 23–24 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 21*). Peleg Y. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet awas,” in Christians and Christianity IV. Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 227–240. Peretz I. and Reʾem A. 1999. “Jerusalem, Tell el-Ful,” ḤA 110: 76–77 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 58*). Piccirillo M. 1987. “L’Abu Bedd sul piazzale di SiyaghaMonte Nebo,” LA 37: 405–406. Piccirillo M. 1993. “Nebo, Mount,” NEAEHL 3: 1106–1118. Porat J. 1986. “Aspects of the Development of Ancient Irrigation Agriculture in Jericho and Ein-Gedi, ” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 127–141 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XV–XVI). Portugali Y. 1986. “The Settlement Pattern in the Western Jezreel Valley from the 6th Century B.C.E to the Arab Conquest, ” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 7–19. (Hebrew; English summary, p. IV).
[90]
Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period
Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8), Jerusalem, pp. 308–320 (Hebrew). Sion O. 2013. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Wadi Qelt (109/4) (http://www.antiquities.org.il/modules_heb.aspx?Module_ id=47). Solimany G. and Adawi Z. 1999. “Jerusalem, St. George Street,” ḤA 110: 77–78 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 59*). Solimany G., Winter T. and de-Vincenz A. 2006. “A Burial Cave from the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in Ḥorbat Gores, the Gonen Quarter, Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 54: 87*–94* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 161–163). Stark H. 1994. “Ḥorvat ʿIllin, South,” ESI 12: 80–82. Stenhouse P. 1985. The Kitab al-Taʾrikh of Abu ‘l-Fatḥ, Sydney. Stenhouse P. 1993. “Germanus,” A.D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen, p. 103. Stone M.E. 1986. “Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians Before the Arab Conquest,” RB 93: 93–110. Stroumsa G.G. 1999. “From Cyril to Sophronius: the Christian Literature of Byzantine Jerusalem,” in S. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem, the Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 CE), Jerusalem, pp. 417–440 (Hebrew). Sussman V. 1969. “Ancient Burial Cave at Rehovot,” ʿAtiqot 5: 69–71 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 8*). Sussman V. 1976. “A Burial Cave at Kefar ʿAra,” ʿAtiqot 11: 92–101 (English Series). Sussman V. 2004. “Ḥorbat Rimmon: Pottery and Small Finds,” ʿAtiqot 46: 99*–112*. Tadmor H. 1983. “Some Aspects of the History of Samaria during the Biblical Period,” The Jerusalem Cathedra 3: 1–11. Taha H. 1998. “A Byzantine Tomb at the Village of Rammun,” LA 48: 335–344. Taha H. 2003. “A Byzantine Tomb at Atara,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 87–110. Tal A. 1993. “Marqe,” A.D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen, pp. 152–153. Tal N. 1997. “Rolling Stones—Evidence of Insecurity during the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting—1996, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 271–290 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XXV). Taxel I. 2006. “Horvate Es-Suyyagh—A Byzantine Monastery in the Northeastern Judaean Shephelah,” in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies 15, Ariel, pp. 169–183 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XVIII–XIX).
Talmud—63 B.C.–637 C.E.,” in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), Shomron Studies, Tel Aviv, pp. 83–126 (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1986c. “The History of Settlement in Shomron Highlands in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), Shomron Studies, Tel Aviv, pp. 127–181 (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1995a. “The Shephelah of Samaria in the Byzantine Period,” in Z.H. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting—1994, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 189–208 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XIX). Safrai Z. 1995b. The Jewish Community in the Talmudic Period, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Safrai Z. and Dar S. 1997. “The Estate at Khirbet el-Bireh in the Shephelah of Lod Region,” in Z. Safrai, Y. Friedman and J. Schwartz (eds.), Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, pp. 57–107 (Hebrew). Schalit A. 1964. King Herod. Portrait of a Ruler, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Schick R. 1995. The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule. A History and Archaeological Study, Princeton, NJ. Schoonover K. 1968. “Et-Tell (Ai),” RB 75: 243–247. Schoonover K. 1969. “Et-Tell (Ai),” RB 76: 423–426. Schur N. 2002. “Persecutions of the Samaritans by the Abbasids and the Disappearance of the Samaritan Rural Population,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 587–590 (Hebrew). Schwartz J. 1982. “The Jewish Settlement in Judea and the Southern Coast in the Third and Fourth Centuries,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 180–201 (Hebrew). Schwartz J. 1986. Jewish Settlement in Judaea after the BarKochba War until the Arab Conquest 135 C.E.–640 C.E., Jerusalem (Hebrew). Segal A. 1985. “Shivta—a Byzantine Town in the Negev Desert,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 4: 317–328. Sharon M. 1976. “Processes of Destruction and Nomadisation in Palestine under Islamic Rule (633–1517),” in M. Sharon (ed.), Notes and Studies on the History of the Holy Land under Islamic Rule, Jerusalem, pp. 7–32 (Hebrew). Sharon M. 2004. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP) III, Brill. Shatzman I. 2002. The Roman Empire and Its Legacy, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Shereshevski J. 1991. Byzantine Urban Settlements in the Negev Desert (Beer-Sheva 5), Beer Sheva. Sion O. 1997. “Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 181–194 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 50*). Sion O. 2008. “The Central Samaria Region in the Byzantine Period,” in S. Bar (ed.), In the Hill-Country, and in the
[91]
Y. M A G E N
Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 261–280 (Hebrew). Vailhé S. 1897–98a. “Les premiers monastères de la Palestine,” Bessarione 3: 39–58. Vailhé S. 1897–98b. “Les saints Kozibites,” Échos d’Orient 1: 228–233. Vailhé S. 1898–99a. “Les monastères de la Palestine,” Bessarione 4: 193–210. Vailhé S. 1898–99b. “La monastère de Saint Saba,” Échos d’Orient 2: 332–341. Vailhé S. 1900. “Répertoire alphabétique des monastères de Palestine,” ROC 5: 1–81. Varga D. 1999. “Beʾer Shevaʿ, The Civic Center,” ESI 19: 90*–91*. Vasiliev A.A. 1956. “The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A.D. 721,” DOP 9–10: 25–47. Vincent L.H. 1911. “L’église de l’Éléona,” RB 20: 219–265. Vincent L.H. and Abel F.M. 1914. Bethléem. Le sanctuaire de la Nativité, Paris. Vollach Z. 1999. “Ḥ. Ḥur,” ESI 19: 89*–90*. Wilkinson J. 1976. “Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem during the Byzantine Period,” PEFQSt 108: 75–101. Wilkinson J. 1981. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, Jerusalem. Wilkinson J. 1993. “Christian Worship in the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 17–22. Wilkinson J. 2002. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster. Yankelevitch S. 1994. “Haifa el ʿAtiqa,” ESI 12: 16–17. Yeivin Z. 1993. “Susiya, Khirbet,” NEAEHL 4: 1417–1421. Yeivin Z. 2005. “The Synagogue at Eshtemoa in Light of the 1969 Excavations,” ʿAtiqot 48: 46–48 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 155*). Zertal A. 1992. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey I. The Shechem Syncline, Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal A. 1995. “The Roman Siege-System at Khirbet alHamam (Narbata),” in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA Supplementary Series 14), Ann Arbor, Mich., pp. 70–94. Zertal A. 1996. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey II. The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert, Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal A. 2005. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey IV. From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal A. and Mirkam N. 2000. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey III. From Nahal Iron to Nahal Shechem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zissu B. 1999. “Ḥorbat Tannim,” ḤA 110: 95–96 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 75*).
Taxel I. 2008. “Rural Monasticism at the Foothills of Southern Samaria and Judaea in the Byzantine Period: Asceticism, Agriculture and Pilgrimage,” BAIAS 26: 57–73. Tobler T. 1849. Bethlehem in Palästina, Bern. Tsafrir Y. 1967. “The Conflict between the Christians and Jews in the Tiberias Region in the Byzantine Period,” in H.Z. Hirschberg (ed.), All the Land of Naphtali. The Twenty-Fourth Archaeological Convention, October 1966, Jerusalem, pp. 79–90 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1974. “Jericho in the Period of the Second Temple,” Qadmoniot 7 (1– 2) (25–26): 24–26 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1979. “The Maps Used by Theodosius—on the Pilgrim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E,” Cathedra 11: 63–85 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1982. “Provinces of Eretz Israel,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 350–386 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1983. “Why Were the Negev, Sinai and Edom Transferred from Provincia Arabia to Provincia Palaestina at the End of the Third Century A.D.?,” Cathedra 30: 35– 56 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1984a. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest II, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1984b. “The Arab Conquest and the Gradual Decline of the Populations of Eretz Israel,” Cathedra 32: 69–74 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1995. “The Peak of Settlement in Byzantine Palestine: The Archaeological Evidence and Literally Sources,” Michmanim 8: 7–16 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1996. “Some Notes on the Settlement and Demography of Palestine in the Byzantine Period: The Archeological Evidence,” in J.D. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, Winona Lake, Ind., pp. 269–283. Tsafrir Y. 1998. “The Fate of Pagan Cult Places in Palestine. The Archaeological Evidence with Emphasis on Beth Shean,” in H. Lapin (ed.), Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, Bethesda, Md., pp. 197–218. Tsafrir Y. 1999. “The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 281–351 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. and Di Segni L. 1999. “Ethnic Composition of the Population of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem. The
[92]
CORPUS OF CHRISTIAN SITES Yitzhak Magen and Evgeni D. Kagan
with contributions by Yoav Tzionit, Ayelet Hashahar Malka, Avia Ben-Lulu, Yuval Peleg
Corpus of Christian sites
List of Figures and Their Sources We wish to thank all the institutions and researchers who contributed the photographs and plans from their excavations and research that were presented in this corpus. We wish to note that everyone responded willingly to our request. Thanks to: the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria and its researchers; the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and its researchers; the Institute of Archaeology of The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and its researchers; the Institute of Archaeology of the Tel Aviv University and its researchers; the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology of the Bar-Ilan University and its researchers; the Archaeological Division of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and its researchers; and to the Institute of Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Listed below are the plans, illustrations, and photos according to the order of the sites in the corpus. The plans presented in the corpus are schematic, some adapted from detailed plans. The archive of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria will be referred to as SOAJS, its record files, as JSRF, and the series of publications on Judea and Samaria, as JSP. Excavation and documentation record files of the Mandatory Archive in the IAA will be referred to as SRF. In cases where there are illustration or photo in the same figure from different sources, the upper one will be marked U*, the one at the bottom, B*. 1. Kh. Burqin
11. Kh. Jabaris
1. IAA Archive, SRF 40.
11.1. IAA Archive, SRF 72. 11.2. JSRF 5/6.
2. Jenin
13. Silet edh-Dhahr
2.1, 2.2. IAA Archive, SRF 76.
3. Beit Qad
3.1, 3.2. IAA Archive, SRF 32.
13.1. JSRF 64/5. 13.2. Illustration based on Sellers and Baramki 1953: 52, Fig. 56: 215.
4. Kh. Balʿame
14. Sebastiya
4.1, 4.2. JSRF 61/3.
14.1. IAA Archive, SRF 165. 14.2. IAA Archive, SRF 164. 14.3. Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: 375, Fig. 89: 5–6.
5. Firasin
5.1, 5.2. IAA Archive, SRF 54.
16. Kh. esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh
7. Ez-Zababide
16.1, 16.2U*. IAA Archive, SRF 175. 16.2B*. Based on SRF 175 and Alt 1925: 395, Fig. 1.
7.1, 7.3. JSRF 26/3. 7.2, 7.4B*. SOAJS Archive. 7.4U*. IAA Archive, SRF.
17. Ḥ. Migdal
17. JSP 7: Magen 2008a: 167, Fig. 82.
8. Bardala
18. Nablus
8.1. Yeivin 1973: 151. 8.2, 8.3. SOAJS Archive.
18.1. JSP 11: Magen 2009: 45, Fig. 2.1. 18.2. JSP 11: Magen 2009: 45, Fig. 2.2. 18.3, 18.4. IAA Archive, SRF 145.
9. ʿAttil
9. IAA Archive, SRF 10.
19. Jacob’s Well
10. Baḥan
19.1. JSRF 43/5. 19.2. JSP 11: Magen 2009: 32, Fig. 1.14. 19.3. IAA Archive, SRF 38.
10.1. Courtesy of Prof. Asher Ovadiah; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 125. 10.2, 10.3. IAA Archive.
[95]
Corpus of Christian sites
20. Mt. Gerizim
37. Deir Qalʿa
20.1. JSP 8: Magen 2008c: 252, Fig. 341. 20.2. JSP 8: Magen 2008c: 251, Fig. 339. 23. IAA Archive, SRF 23.
37.1. JSP 15: Magen and Aizik 2012: 134, Fig. 36. 37.2. JSP 15: Magen and Aizik 2012: 109, Fig. 2. 37.3. JSP 15: Magen and Aizik 2012: 133, Fig. 34. 37.4. JSP 15: Magen and Aizik 2012: 138, Fig. 39. 37.5. JSP 15: Magen and Aizik 2012: 137, Fig. 38.
24. Kh. ed-Duweir
38. Kh. Deir Daqle
25. Qarawat Bani Ḥasan
40. Kh. ʿAli
26. Deir ʿIstiya
41. Kh. ed-Duweir
23. ʿIzzun ʿAtme
24. IAA Archive, SRF 48.
38.1, 38.2. Courtesy of Beni Har-Even.
25. IAA Archive, SRF 151, illustration based on photo.
40. SOAJS Archive.
26. IAA Archive, SRF 45.
41.1. Based on JSRF 24/10 and SRF 48. 41.2. JSRF 24/10. 41.3. IAA Archive, SRF 48.
27. ʿEin ʿAbus
27. Courtesy of Prof. Israel Finkelstein; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz II: 681, Fig. 8.269.
42. Deir Ghassane
42. Courtesy of Prof. Israel Finkelstein; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz I: 281, Fig. 8.80.
28. ʿAqraba
28.1U*. IAA Archive, SRF 9. 28.1B*, 28.2. Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 303.
43. Kh. ed-Deir
43. IAA Archive, SRF 44.
29. ʿEin er-Rashash
44. Tel Shiloh
29. Hirschfeld 1990: 75, Fig. 92.
44.1. Andersen 1985, Plan H. 44.2. JSP 15: Dadon 2012: 224, Fig. 1. 44.3. JSP 15: Dadon 2012: 228, Fig. 6. 44.4. JSP 15: Dadon 2012: 230, Fig. 12. 44.5. JSP 15: Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 162, Fig. 1. 44.6. JSP 15: Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 163, Fig. 2. 44.7. JSP 15: Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 183, Fig. 30.
30. Kh. Kesfa
30. Courtesy of Naftali Aizik.
31. Kh. el-Burak
Courtesy of Prof. Shimon Dar. 31.1. Based on Dar 1986: Fig. 38. 31.2. Dar 1986: Pl. 22.
45. Kh. Sara
32. Kh. Umm el-Ḥammam
45. JSRF 108/8.
32.1, 32.2. JSRF 31/7.
46. Duma
33. Kh. Ḥamad
46. IAA Archive, SRF 48.
33.1. JSP 15: Aronshtam 2012: 4, Fig. 4. 33.2. JSP 15: Aronshtam 2012: 6, Fig. 9. 33.3. JSP 15: Aronshtam 2012: 2, Fig. 2.
47. Kh. Ḥani
Courtesy of Dr. Uzi Dahari. 47.1. Dahari 2003: 102. 47.2. Dahari 2003: 103. 47.3
34. Kh. Deir Samʿan
34.1. JSP 15: Magen 2012a: 12, Fig. 4. 34.2. JSP 15: Magen 2012a: 11, Fig. 3. 34.3. JSP 15: Magen 2012a: 28, Fig. 27. 34.4. JSP 15: Magen 2012a: 39, Fig. 40.
49. Rantis
49. IAA Archive, SRF 156.
35. Kh. el-Mehalhela
50. St. Barbara (ʿAbud)
36. Kafr ed-Dik
51. ʿAbud
50. IAA Archive, SRF 4.
35. Courtesy of Naftali Aizik. 36. JSRF 28/7.
51.1. Bagatti 1959–60: 189, Fig. 3:5. 51.2. JSRF 71/10. 51.3. Bagatti 1959–60: 189, Fig. 3:3.
[96]
Corpus of Christian sites
52. Kh. Ras ʾAlam
73. Kh. el-Burj
54. Kh. ʿAlyata
74. Kafr Malik
55. Kh. Masʿud
75. Kh. el-Marjame
52. JSRF 48/10.
73.1, 73.2. IAA Archive, SRF 40.
54. IAA Archive, SRF 8.
74.1, 74.2. JSRF 88/11.
55.1, 55.2, 55.3. JSRF 111/11.
75. Courtesy of Prof. Israel Finkelstein; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz II: 733, Fig. 8.291.
56. Kh. Batin
76. Kh. Samiya
56. JSRF 112/11.
76.1, 76.2. IAA Archive, SRF 168.
57. Kh. et-Tell
77. el-Qaṣr
57.1, 57.2, 57.3. IAA Archive, SRF 183.
77.1. Hirschfeld 1990: 58, Fig. 65. 77.2, 77.3. JSRF 51/11.
58. Kh. Siyaʿ
58. JSRF 61/10.
80. Jammala
59. Kh. Jabaʿit
80. IAA Archive, SRF 73.
59.1. JSRF 59/11. 59.2. Ilan and Dinur 1987: 123.
81. Deir ʿAmmar
81. Courtesy of Prof. Israel Finkelstein; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz I: 225, Fig. 8.42.
61. Kh. el-Bira
61. Courtesy of Prof. Shimon Dar; Safrai and Dar 1997: 62.
82. Kh. Kafr Fidiya
62. Kh. Deir el-ʿArab
82. JSRF 52/10.
62.1, 62.2. IAA Archive, SRF 44. 62.3. SWP II: 311. 62.4. SWP II: 312.
83. Kh. Nilʿan
83. IAA Archive, SRF 148.
64. Kh. Tibne
86. Jifna
65. Deir Nidham
88. Yabrud
64. Matson [G. Eric and Edith] Photograph Collection, digital file from original photo (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/matpc.22918).
86.1. Bagatti 1971: 253. 86.2, 86.3. IAA Archive, SRF 76.
65.1, 65.2. JSRF 46/10.
88.1, 88.2. JSRF 86/11. 88.3. Macalister 1907b: 236, Fig. 1. 88.4. Macalister 1907b: 237, Fig. 2.
67. Jibiya
67.1, 67.2. JSRF 59/10.
89. Kh. Kafr ʿAna
68. Kaubar
89. IAA Archive, SRF 116.
68. JSRF 58/10.
92. Et-Taiyiba
69. Kh. Siya
92. IAA Archive, SRF 181.
69.1. JSRF 104/11. 69.2. De Vaux 1946: 268, Fig. 2.
93. El-Khadr
93.1, 93.3. Based on Schneider 1931: 115, Pl. 1 and SRF 181. 93.2. IAA Archive, SRF 181.
70. Burham
70. JSRF 68/11.
94. El-ʿAuja
71. Esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawani
94. JSP 12: Magen 2010: 219.
71. JSRF 74/11.
95. Kh. el-Beiyudat
72. Kh. Ṭarfein
95. Hizmi 1990: 246.
72. JSRF 100/11.
96. El-Haditha
96.1, 96.2, 96.3. IAA Archive, SRF 59.
[97]
Corpus of Christian sites
97. Kh. Ḥarmush
121. Kh. Huriya
100. Kh. en-Nebi ʿAnnir
122. Kh. Faʿush
97.1. IAA, Greenhut 1998: 123, Fig. 1. 97.2. IAA, Greenhut 1998: 124, Fig. 2. 97.3. IAA, Greenhut 1998: 124, Fig. 4.
121.1. JSP 15: Har-Even and Greenfeld 2012: 311, Fig. 2. 121.2. JSP 15: Har-Even and Greenfeld 2012: 314, Fig. 6. 121.3. JSP 15: Har-Even and Greenfeld 2012: 313, Fig. 5.
100.1, 100.2, 100.3. JSRF 45/10. 101. Kochavi 1972: 110.
122.1. JSP 15: Har-Even and Shapira 2012: 340, Fig. 19. 122.2. JSP 15: Har-Even and Shapira 2012: 335, Fig. 13. 122.3. JSP 15: Har-Even and Shapira 2012: 339, Fig. 18. 122.4. JSP 15: Har-Even and Shapira 2012: 328, Fig. 2.
102. Kh. Umm Zaqum
123. Kh. Mannʿa
104. Kh. Zakhariya
124. Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta
101. Wadi el-ʿAuja
102.1. JSP 15: Peleg 2012: 239, Fig. 5. 102.2. JSP 15: Peleg 2012: 239, Fig. 6. 102.3. JSP 15: Peleg 2012: 236, Fig. 1.
123.1. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 118, Fig. 2. 123.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 118, Fig. 1. 123.3. IAA Archive, SRF 136.
104.1. IAA Archive, SRF 195. 104.2. Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 195.
124.1, 124.2. IAA Archive, SRF 33.
125. Kh. Meiyita
105. Mevo Modi ʿim
125. Courtesy of Uzi Greenfeld, Beni Har-Even and Yuval Peleg; Peleg, Greenfeld and Har-Even 2012: 178, Fig. 4.
105.1. IAA, Eisenberg and Ovadiah 1998: 2*, Plan 1. 105.2. IAA, Eisenberg and Ovadiah 1998: 4*, Fig. 3. 105.3. IAA, Eisenberg and Ovadiah 1998: 4*, Fig. 4.
126. Kh. el-Maḥma
126.1. JSP 15: Har-Even 2012: 368, Fig. 6. 126.2. JSP 15: Har-Even 2012: 363, Fig. 1. 126.3. JSP 15: Har-Even 2012: 365, Fig. 3. 126.4. JSP 15: Har-Even 2012: 370, Fig. 8.
108. El-Janiya
108. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 56.
109. El-Wili Shabbuni
127. Kh. Beit Sila
109.1. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 52. 109.2. JSRF 13/10.
127.1. JSP 15: Batz 2012: 374, Fig. 1. 127.2. JSP 15: Batz 2012: 377, Fig. 4. 127.3. JSP 15: Batz 2012: 378, Fig. 5. 127.4. JSP 15: Batz 2012: 380, Fig. 8.
110. Kh. et-Tira
110.1. Schneider 1934: 220, Fig. 40. 110.2. Bagatti 2002a: 120, Fig. 40. 110.3. IAA Archive, SRF 186.
128. Kh. Suweikeh
128. Bagatti 2002a: 121.
111. Beitin
130. Mukhmas
111. IAA Archive, SRF 29.
112. Kh. Deir Shabab esh-Shamaliyya 112. IAA Archive, SRF 46.
130.1, 130.2U*. IAA Archive, SRF 142. 130.2B*. Hamilton 1932: Pl. 39, Fig. 1, illustration based on photo.
113. Burj Beitin
131. Khallat ed-Danabiya
114. Kh. el-Mukatir
132. Deir el-Quranṭul—monastery of Douka
117. Rammun
134. ‛Nestorian Hermitage’
118. Kh. el-Kiliya
137. El-Jib
113.1, 113.2. IAA Archive, SRF 40. 113.3. SWP II: 307.
131.1. Courtesy of Dr. Haim Goldfus; Goldfus 1990: 234. 131.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 288, Fig. 4.
114.1, 114.2. IAA Archive, SRF 136. 114.3. Schneider 1934: Pl. 4.
132.1. Hirschfeld 1990: 9, Fig. 7. 132.2, 132.3. IAA Archive, SRF 46.
117. IAA Archive, SRF 156.
134. Baramki 1935: 81.
118.1. JSP 15: Magen 2012b: 264, Fig. 4. 118.2. JSP 15: Magen 2012b: 261, Fig. 1. 118.3. JSP 15: Magen 2012b: 275, Fig. 26.
137. Bagatti 1975: Pl. 33.
[98]
Corpus of Christian sites
138. Er-Ram
152. ʿEin Fara—monastery of Pharan
139. El-ʿAleiliyat—monastery of Firminus
153. Qalʿat Musa
138.1. Pringle 1983: 173, Fig. 8. 138.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 168. 138.3. IAA Archive, SRF 156.
152.1. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 404, Fig. 4. 152.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 402, Fig. 3. 152.3. SOAJS Archive.
139.1. Hirschfeld 1992: 118, Fig. 54. 139.2. Hirschfeld 1990: 46, Fig. 53. 139.3. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 417.
153.1. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 412, Fig. 1. 153.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 413, Fig. 2.
154. ʿEin el-Fawwar
140. Ez-Zakhaliq
154.1. Hamilton 1932: 152. 154.2, 154.3. IAA Archive, SRF 50.
140.1. Hirschfeld 1990: 61, Fig. 69. 140.2. Hirschfeld 1990: 62, Fig. 70. 140.3. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 283.
155. Khan Saliba—St. Adam
155.1. Prignaud 1963: Pl. 11. 155.2. Hirschfeld 1990: 54, Fig. 62.
141. Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh
141.1. Di Segni 1990c: 201. 141.2. Netzer and Birger 1990: 196, Fig. 2.
157. Unnamed Site—Laura of the Towers 157.1, 157.2. SOAJS Archive.
142. Deir Mar Jiryis—monastery of Choziba
158. Deir Ḥajla—monastery of Gerasimus
142.1, 142.3. SOAJS Archive. 142.2. Hirschfeld 1992: 115, Fig. 52.
158.1. SOAJS Archive. 158.2. Hirschfeld 1991: 426. 158.3. IAA Archive, SRF 45.
143. Tell ʿAqaba
143.1, 143.3. SOAJS Archive. 143.2. Netzer 1975: 55.
159. Deir Ghazali
159.1. IAA, Avner 2000: 26*. 159.2. IAA Archive.
144. Church of St. Andrew
144. Augostinovic 1951: 80–81, Figs. 25–26.
160. ʿAnata
145. Tell el-Ḥassan
160. SWP III: 82.
145.1, 145.2. IAA Archive, SRF 77. 145.3. Baramki 1936: Fig. 1.
162. Qaṣr er-Rawabi—monastery of Gabriel 162.1. Hirschfeld 1990: 25, Fig. 27. 162.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 388. 162.3, 162.4. JSRF 133/13.
146. Kh. en-Nitle (Juljulieh)
146.1. IAA Archive, SRF 184. 146.2. Kelso and Baramki 1955: Pl. 40.
163. Qaṣr ʿAli
147. Kh. Mugheifir—monasteries of Elias 147. Kochavi 1972: 116.
163.1. Hirschfeld 1990: 21, Fig. 24. 163.2. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 386.
148. Qaṣr el-Yahud
164. Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan)
148.1. SOAJS Archive. 148.2. SWP III: 217.
164.1. JSP 7: Magen 2008h: 296, Fig. 15. 164.2. JSP 7: Magen 2008h: 299, Fig. 20.
150. En-Nebi Samwil
150.1. SOAJS Archive. 150.2. Magen and Dadon 2003: 126, Fig. 5. 150.3. Magen and Dadon 2003: 132, Fig. 14.
We made every effort to find those with copyrights to all material taken from other sources and apologize for any omission or error. Any errors will be corrected in the next edition.
[99]
Corpus of Christian sites
1. Khirbet Burqin (Kh. Burqīn; Burkîn) Ref. IOG: 17600 20800 Ref. ITM: 22600 70800 Ref. UTM: 71366 59432 The site is located in a village at the end of a spur ca. 2 km northwest of Jenin.1 Remains of a Byzantine church were found next to the village’s Greek church.2 A nearby cave is traditionally associated with the healing of the lepers (Luke 17:11–19). According to B. Bagatti, this tradition is late and
cannot be connected with the Byzantine period.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 223–224; SWP II: 46–47; Kochavi 1972: 208, no. 7. See also Tabula: 93. 2 Ovadiah and de Silva 1984: 131, no. 7. 3 Bagatti 2001: 264.
1
1. Bruqin, beginning of the twentieth century.
2. Jenin Ref. IOG: 17830 20730 Ref. ITM: 22830 70730 Ref. UTM: 71597 59367
(Jenîn)
The city of Jenin is built over biblical Tell Jenin and other sites, including some dating to the Hellenistic period. The tell has been identified as biblical
Enganim (Josh. 21:29) and Kfar Ginea (Γινάη), mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 22:118; War 3:48) and in the Talmud (JT Demai 22a). Jenin is located at the
[103]
Corpus of Christian sites
juncture of the roads traversing northern Samaria from north to south and east to west.1 A number of excavations were conducted at the site in the 1970s and 1980s, most focusing on the biblical period.2 The mosque of ʿEzz ed-Din, in the northeast of the city’s ancient core, was apparently built over a sixth century CE church mentioned by pilgrims in later periods.3 Mosaic tesserae were observed northeast of Jenin.4 According to local tradition, a church and a monastery were located elsewhere in the city, at a site known as et-Tell. In 1930, in a channel to its west, a layer of Byzantine sherds was found,5 as well a mosaic floor of white tesserae.6 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 52; Abel 1938: 317; Avi-Yonah 1976: 62; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 73–74; Reeg 1989: 180–181; Tabula: 135–136. 2 For the biblical period finds, see Glock 1979. Several Roman period graves were excavated in different parts of Jenin. The excavations were undertaken under the direction of Ibrahim el-Fani (ref. nos. Judea and Samaria 186, 196, 681), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. The Roman and Byzantine finds are described in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 76). See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 327–332; SWP II: 44–45.
SWP II: 44; Bagatti 2001: 264; Ovadiah and de Silva 1984: 136, no. 16. 4 Avi-Yonah 1933: 161, no. 97. 5 ATQ/200 by D.C. Baramki in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 76). 6 SRF 76; Avi-Yonah 1933: 161, no. 96. 3
1
2.2. Jenin, mosque of ʿEzz ed-Din, view from the southeast.
2.1. Jenin, mosque of ʿEzz ed-Din, view from the south.
[104]
Corpus of Christian sites
3. Beit Qad (Beit Qād; Beit Kad; Bēd Kād) Ref. IOG: 18370 20830 Ref. ITM: 23370 70830 Ref. UTM: 72135 59478 The village is located in northern Samaria, on the southwestern slopes of Mt. Gilboa, 4.5 km east of Jenin. It is identified with biblical Beth-eked (II Kings 10:12), and is mentioned later in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (Βαιθακάθ; On. 56:26).1 Remains of an apse and walls found in the survey in the southwest of the village were attributed to a church. In the south of the village is a square structure that had apparently functioned as an agricultural installation; its walls were plastered both inside and out, and there were stairs in its northern wall. The sherds and debris near this structure most likely came from a pottery workshop from the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Southwest of the village, a plastered stone reservoir (80×80 m) is connected to a small settling vat by a ceramic pipe. Most of the sherds around it are Byzantine.2 Numerous cisterns near the site were described.3 In our opinion, the site is located in a clearly Samaritan area, and the apsidal structure surveyed might be a Samaritan synagogue, as in Kh. Samara and Ḥ . Migdal.4
Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 31; Alt 1931: 44; Abel 1938: 271; Avi-Yonah 1976: 36. See the surveys: Kochavi 1972: 208, no. 8; Zori 1977: 42–43. See also: Safrai 1980: 39–40, 56, 203; Tabula: 79; Notley and Safrai 2005: 58, note 281. 2 Zori 1977: 42–43; see also SRF 32. 3 Guérin 1874–75 I: 333–334. 4 Magen 2008a: 142–168. 1
3.2. Beit Qad, northern wall of the stone reservoir.
3.1. Beit Qad, plastered stone reservoir, view from the southeast.
[105]
Corpus of Christian sites
4. Khirbet Balʿame (Kh. Balʿāme; Belʾameh; Belʿâmeh) Ref. IOG: 17770 20580 Ref. ITM: 22770 70580 Ref. UTM: 71540 59216 The site is located on a tell ca. 2 km south of Jenin. It has been identified with Ibleam (Josh. 17:11) and Belemoth (Βελεμώθ), the traditional burial place of Hoshea (Vitae Prophetarum: 17, 27, 55, 81, 99).1 The site was surveyed on numerous occasions, with special emphasis on Bir Balʿame and the spring of ʿEin Balʿame, also called ʿEin es-Sinjil. There was a hewn tunnel from the eastern base of the tell.2 Franciscan Fathers saw a cross-adorned stone on the facade of one of the tombs near the spring. According to B. Bagatti, this indicates that the cemetery served the Christian populace in the Byzantine period.3 However, there is no clear evidence of Christians at the site. Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 34; Abel 1938: 357; Avi-Yonah 1976: 70; Reeg 1989: 129; Tabula: 78. See also: Jeremias 1958: 29–30; Demsky 1979: 189. 2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 339–341; SWP II: 47–48, 51–52; Macalister 1907a: 129; Schumacher 1910; Kochavi 1972: 210, no. 18. 3 Bagatti 2002: 167–168. 1
4.2. Kh. Balʿame, cross-adorned stone in a tomb near the spring.
4.1. Kh. Balʿame, built tunnel opening and tombs near the spring.
[106]
Corpus of Christian sites
5. Firasin (Ferâsîn; Firāsīn; Ferasin) Ref. IOG: 16020 20350 Ref. ITM: 21020 70350 Ref. UTM: 69795 58950 The site is located on top of a hillock ca. 2.5 km southeast of Qaffin, on the ancient road traversing northern Samaria from east to west. It has been conjecturally identified with Kefar Parshai, mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (ʿAbodah Zarah 31a).1 In the 1930s, architectural elements like columns, capitals, and bases were found in secondary use in later structures. A segment of a stone tile floor was observed in the north of the site.2 Many additional elements were strewn on the ground. These included a chancel screen post,3 indicating that these elements had probably belonged to a church. However, test excavations conducted at
5.1. Firasin, before excavations.
the site in 1998 revealed no church remains.4 Since there were also Samaritan villages in this area, one cannot preclude the possibility that they belonged to a Roman structure or Samaritan synagogue, or were transported here for building purposes in the Mamluk or Ottoman period. Concerning the site identification, see: Avi-Yonah 1976: 73; Reeg 1989: 366–367; Tabula: 164. See the surveys: SWP II: 47; Kochavi 1972: 210, no. 26; Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 298–301, no. 127. 2 SRF 54. 3 Kochavi 1972: 210, no. 26. 4 Maharian 2000. 1
5.2. Firasin, columns and bases strewn about the site.
[107]
Corpus of Christian sites
6. ʿArrabeh (ʿArrâbeh) Ref. IOG: 16950 20110 Ref. ITM: 21950 70110 Ref. UTM: 70730 58729 The site is located in the village of ʿArrabeh, south of the Dothan Valley and ca. 6 km west of Qabatiya.1 The village occupies two hillocks, the western one being the village’s ancient core. Column bases and a cornice fragment were found in secondary use in later construction as well as strewn on the ground.2 According to V. Guérin’s account, the village’s old mosque was built over the ruins of a Byzantine church. A marble lintel adorned with a damaged Greek cross enclosed by a tabula ansata was found over the mosque entrance. Inside the mosque, Guérin observed fluted columns with Corinthian capitals,
as well as an additional object with relief carving, apparently a fragment of the above-mentioned cornice.3 It is doubtful that these belonged to the Byzantine church there. The remains in secondary use that he describes belonged to some Roman structure or to a fourth century CE Samaritan synagogue. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 218–219; SWP II: 154; Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 339–341, no. 152. See also Bagatti 2001: 123–125. 2 JSRF 53/3. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 218–219. 1
7. ez-Zababide (ez-Zabābide; Zabābide; Zebābde; Zababde) Ref. IOG: 18070 19920 Ref. ITM: 23070 69920 Ref. UTM: 71854 58562 The site is located in a large village on a low hillock ca. 3.5 km southeast of Kabatia.1 In the convent of the Sisters of the Rosary on the village grounds, at a site locally known as Deir er-Rahbat, several colorful mosaic floor segments adorned with geometric motifs, as well as architectural features like column bases and capitals, were observed. In B. Bagatti’s view, they derive from a church.2 It should be noted, however, that the site has so far yielded no remains clearly attesting the presence of a church. The items under discussion might have come from another public building, such as a Samaritan synagogue or a Roman structure. See the surveys: SWP II: 229; Bagatti 1970; Kochavi 1972: 213, no. 44; Zertal 1996: 124–125, no. 6. See also: Avi-Yonah 1934: 46, no. 329; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 258–259, no. 77; Bagatti 2001: 265–269; Tabula: 260. 2 Bagatti 1970; 2002: 88. Based on the architectural elements, Bagatti reconstructed a church possessing three aisles;
on the basis of the mosaics, he dated it to the sixth century CE. The site is called “Deir er-Rahbat” in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 195).
1
7.1. Ez-Zababide, broken column and capital in the convent area.
[108]
Corpus of Christian sites
7.2. Ez-Zababide, capital in the convent area.
7.3. Ez-Zababide, mosaic floors in the convent area.
[109]
Corpus of Christian sites
7.4. Ez-Zababide, mosaic floor segments adorned with geometric motifs in the convent area.
[110]
Corpus of Christian sites
8. Bardala Ref. IOG: 19550 19900 Ref. ITM: 24550 69900 Ref. UTM: 73334 58573 The site is located near the village of Bardala in northeastern Samaria, close to Mehola in the Beth Shean valley.1 The laying of a water pipe in 1972 led to the discovery of remains of a basilica church over which a bathhouse had been erected. According to the excavators, the row of columns discovered under the bathhouse belongs to the church’s southern aisle. Two building phases were discerned in the church: an early phase, of which a section remains of a mosaic made of small tesserae (100 tesserae per sq. dm). A cross and stylized flowers are visible in one of the medallions. Although the cross had four arms, it was different from others discovered in church mosaics. Z. Yeivin dates this phase to the fourth century CE, before Theodosius II banned the use of crosses in mosaics. It was subsequently discovered that crosses were incorporated in church
mosaic floors of the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Part of the nave, paved in a white mosaic of large tesserae (25 per sq. dm), was uncovered from the second phase. In this phase, the southern aisle and part of the northern one were paved with stone slabs.2 This probably was a church, but this cannot be stated with total certainty. The excavation was not completed, and what was described as a cross might merely be a four-petal rosette. If this is indeed a church, it is to be dated to the sixth century CE. See the survey, Zori 1977: 37, no. 52. See also: Klein 1939: 40; Reeg 1989: 149–150; Tabula: 74. 2 For the excavations, see: Ḥ A 1972a; Yeivin 1973: 150– 152, Pls. 20:1–2, 21:1. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 206, no. 4a/b; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 15–16, no. 10. 1
First Phase First Phase Second Phase
0
3 m
0
3 m
Second Phase Bathhouse 8.1. Bardala, construction phases of the church and the bathhouse.
Bathhouse
[111]
Corpus of Christian sites
8.2. Bardala, view from the west.
8.3. Bardala, part of the mosaic floor from the early phase of the church.
[112]
Corpus of Christian sites
9. ʿAttil (ʿAttîl; Deir ʾAttil) Ref. IOG: 15700 19730 Ref. ITM: 20700 69730 Ref. UTM: 69488 58323 The site is located in a village on a hill ca. 7 km northeast of Tulkarm.1 According to the inspector of antiquities, Ibrahim Haufani, whose account was published in the Al Quds newspaper in 1977, the remains of a church were discovered here. As a result of this article, Franciscan Fathers visited the site, and near the mosque in the village center, they found columns and a capital, which they believed derived from a church.2 The Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) contains the description of weli
el-Mesiad, north of the village, which was built over ancient foundations, integrating columns in secondary use.3 Here too, however, it is doubtful whether these elements derive from a Byzantine church; they could easily belong to a synagogue or Roman structure. 1 2 3
9. ʿAttil, weli el-Mesiad, view from the south.
[113]
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 345; SWP II: 151. Bagatti 2002: 165. SRF 10.
Corpus of Christian sites
10. BaḤ an Ref. IOG: 15220 19510 Ref. ITM: 20220 69510 Ref. UTM: 69312 58100 The site is located on the grounds of Kibbutz Baḥ an, ca. 4.5 km northeast of Tulkarm. Remains of a Byzantine church were excavated there in 1955. The church was probably part of a monastery complex near the ancient road between Caesarea and Shechem-Neapolis.1 Basilical in plan (20×13 m), it had a narthex (13×3.3 m). The prayer hall was divided into a nave (6.8 m wide), which ended in an apse, and two aisles (3.5 m wide each). A cistern west of the narthex apparently belonged to the church atrium.2 The nave and southern aisle had two layers of mosaic floors. The upper one included geometric motifs, while the lower one in the nave contained floral motifs and bird and animal figures that beer signs of iconoclasm. In the lower mosaics of the nave and southern aisle were five Greek inscriptions
that included the names of the donor and builders, and a dedication to St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr. A mosaic floor with geometric motifs was found in the narthex, and small segments of another mosaic were observed in the northern aisle. The lower mosaics were dated, based on their style, to the sixth century CE.3 The excavation was not fully published. For the preliminary report, see Ory 1955. See also: Bagatti 2002: 222–223; Tabula: 73. 2 Ovadiah 1970: 26–27, no. 14; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 125, no. 4. 3 For the mosaics, see: Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985: 223–226, no. 39; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 14–15, no. 8, Pls. VI–VII. For the inscriptions, see Applebaum, Isaac and Landau 1981–82: 102–104, nos. 9–13. 1
0
10.1. Baḥ an, general plan of the church.
[114]
5 m
Corpus of Christian sites
10.3. Baḥ an, mosaic floor segment adorned with a cross.
10.2. Baḥ an, Greek inscription in the church mosaic floor.
11. Khirbet Jabaris (Kh. Jebris; Kh. Jebrīs; Kh. Jabāris; Kh. Jebrîsh) Ref. IOG: 19240 19620 Ref. ITM: 24240 69620 Ref. UTM: 73030 58286 This large ruin extends over some 12 dunams, on a saddle between Wadi Malih and Wadi Khashne, 4 km northwest of Ḥ amam el-Malih. Remains were found of about 50 well-preserved structures containing architectural items like doorposts and arches. Oil presses, winepresses, burial caves, a burial structure,
plastered pools, columns, capitals, and a lintel with rosette decorations were also discovered. In the center of the settlement is a lengthwise structure, southwest–northeast in orientation, with an entrance in the southwestern wall. Two stone benches adjoin the southern wall. According to the Survey of Western Palestine, this is a monastery from the fifth to sixth centuries CE.1 Part of a mosaic floor depicting a cluster of vine scrolls emerging from an amphora was discovered2; in addition, a four-line inscription was found that possibly mentions a monastery. The inscription is dated to the sixth century CE.3 It is doubtful that a monastery existed in the center of a settlement. The structure labeled a church is not of the east–west orientation usual for churches. See the surveys: SWP II: 238; Ḥ A 1973a; Ilan 1976; Zertal 1996: 229–232, no. 69. See also: SRF 72; Bagatti 2002: 88; Tabula: 156. 2 Avi-Yonah 1934: 29, no. 214; Ilan 1976: 21. 3 Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 96–97, no. 163. 1
11.1. Kh. Jabaris, decorated lintel.
[115]
Corpus of Christian sites
11.2. Kh. Jabaris.
12. Belʿah (Belʾah) Ref. IOG: 16050 19330 Ref. ITM: 21050 69330 Ref. UTM: 69846 57931 The site is located in a large village situated ca. 3 km north of ʿAnabata. At the end of the nineteenth century a four-line Greek inscription was found on the stone door of a burial cave next to it. Its final line apparently included the anagram “ΧΜΓ,” which has several possible interpretations in Christian symbology.1
Here, too, however, it is doubtful that the tomb was Christian. Tombs of this kind did not persist into the Late Byzantine period, except in secondary use. For the inscription, see: SWP II: 172; Conder 1894: 201. See also Bagatti 2002: 166.
1
[116]
Corpus of Christian sites
13. Silet edh-Dhahr (Sîlet edh-Dhahr; Silsilet eẓ-Ẓ ahr; Es-Sileh) Ref. IOG: 16760 19150 Ref. ITM: 21760 69150 Ref. UTM: 70560 57765 The site is located in a village at the end of a spur ca. 4.5 km north of Sebastiya. Although its identification with Shilta, mentioned in the Reḥ ov inscription, has been surmised,1 surveys conducted at the site observed no vestiges from early periods.2 A Byzantine farmstead is located southeast of the village.3 A burial cave excavated in 1949 near the village was in use from the first to seventh centuries CE. Its finds include oil lamps from the fifth to sixth centuries CE exhibiting crosses and dedicatory inscriptions in Greek, as well as other cross-adorned artifacts.4 Concerning the site identification, see: Avi-Yonah 1976: 73; Reeg 1989: 605; Tabula: 231. 2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 214; SWP II: 155; Zertal 1992: 284–285, no. 128. 3 Zertal 1992: 286–287, no. 129. 4 Sellers and Baramki 1953: Figs. 54, 56, 59. See also Bagatti 2002: 84. 1
13.2. Silet edh-Dhahr, Byzantine oil lamp adorned with dedicatory Greek inscription and cross.
13.1. Silet edh-Dhahr.
[117]
Corpus of Christian sites
14. Sebastiya (Sebasţiyeh; Sebasţya; Sebŭstieh) Ref. IOG: 16800 18690 Ref. ITM: 21800 68690 Ref. UTM: 70609 57306 The city of Sebastiya (Σεβαστή) was built during the reign of Herod over the ancient city of Samaria (Σαμάρεια), in the region of the same name. This region was clearly Samaritan.1 There are traditions that the prophets Elisha and Obadiah, and John the Baptist were buried in Sebastiya (Ep. 108, 13), and that a church was built in the latter’s honor in the Crusader period.2 Petrus Diaconus, who lived in the twelfth century, mentioned a church dating to the fourth century (De Locis Sanctis V6), but in later Christian sources , like that of Antoninus of Placentia,
there is no mention of a church (Antonini Placentini Itinerarium 6).3 Marinus, bishop of Sebastiya, was already mentioned in the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, and six other bishops of Sebastiya were mentioned in various other councils. Bishops from Sebastiya were also mentioned in the Middle Ages.4 A stone lintel bearing a dedicatory inscription ascribed to the bishop of Sebastiya, Stephanos, was discovered in the tomb of Sheikh Shaʿaleh, ca. 2 km southeast of Sebastiya.5 The site was surveyed on numerous occasions, and wide-ranging excavations were undertaken here
14.1. Sebastiya, Crusader church on site’s southern slopes.
[118]
Corpus of Christian sites
in the 1910s, 1930s, and 1960s.6 There were at least two Byzantine churches in the city, but excavations failed to reveal any structural remains that can clearly be identified as a church.7 However, finds like crossadorned oil lamps attest to the presence of a Christian populace throughout this period.8 A Crusader church to the east of the site dedicated to John the Baptist, dating to the twelfth century, as well as a Crusader monastery with a basilica church in the south slopes of the site, were discovered on the site. The fact that no Byzantine churches have yet been discovered in Sebastia is unauspicious. Based on the historical sources, there was a large Christian population in the city. Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 102; Abel 1938: 172–173, 200, 203, 443–446; Avi-Yonah 1976: 94; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 164–165; Reeg 1989: 234–235, 448–449, 598–599; Tabula: 220–221.
See also Limor 1998: 125, 151, 223. See also Limor 1998: 125, 223. 4 Bagatti 2002: 76, 80. 5 Alt 1925: T. 51; Bagatti 2002: 76. See also Khirbet eshSheikh Shaʿaleh (site no. 16) in this volume. 6 For the excavations yielding Roman and Byzantine finds, see: Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924; Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942; Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957; Hennessy 1970. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 III: 138–149; Guérin 1874–75 II: 188–209; SWP II: 160–161, 211–215; Zertal 1992: 427–429, nos. 231–232. See also: Avi-Yonah 1934: 38–39, nos. 284–291; Ovadiah 1970: 157–159, nos. 158–159; Wilkinson 1977: 169; Bagatti 2002: 75–84. See additional references in the bibliography. 7 See: Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924 I: 219; Crowfoot 1937: 24–39, Pl. 12–17; Hamilton 1938; Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942: 37–39. See also the discussion in Bagatti 2002: 77. 8 See, for example, Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: 374–377, Fig. 89: 5–6.
14.2. Sebastiya, Crusader church to the east of the site.
14.3. Sebastiya, Byzantine oil lamp and oil lamp handle adorned with crosses.
1
2 3
[119]
Corpus of Christian sites
15. ʿEin Harun (ʿEin Harūn; ʿEin Ḥ arun; ʿAin Harūn) Ref. IOG: 16940 18570 Ref. ITM: 21940 68570 Ref. UTM: 70752 57189 The spring is located east of the village of en-Naqura, 2 km south of Sebastiya.1 An aqueduct conducts the springwater to the latter. A tunnel, partially hewn and partially constructed, leads to the spring; its overall length is 84.5 m. In the middle of the tunnel is a hewn chapel with an apse. The chapel entrance was probably from the west of the tunnel. A large altar stood outside the tunnel entrance.2 Between the apse and the chapel prayer hall was a hewn channel through which the springwater flowed. The plaster-coated chapel walls bore Greek inscriptions accompanied by crosses and the monogram of Emperor Constantine.3
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 186–187; SWP II: 160–161; Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942: 76–78; Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: 41– 42; Zertal 1992: 441– 442, no. 243. See also Tabula: 116. 2 Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942: 76–77, Fig. 38. All in all, three layers of plaster were observed, indicating that the chapel was in service for a considerable period. 3 Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: 41– 42, nos. 48–68. According to Bagatti (2002: 85), the name of the spring suggests that the chapel was dedicated to Aaron the Priest. Based on the inscriptions, he believes that the site served a pagan cult before being transformed into a Christian sanctuary. 1
16. Khirbet esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh (Sheikh Salah; Schēch Schaʿle; Cheikh Šaʿaleh) Ref. IOG: 16990 18590 Ref. ITM: 21990 68590 Ref. UTM: 70801 57210 The site, the tomb of Sheikh Shaʿaleh (also called el-Boberije) is located at the end of a spur ca. 2 km southeast of Sebastiya and east of the village of enNaqura.1 Several building phases can be distinguished in its rectangular structure (ca. 20×17.5 m).2 In the 1920s, a stone lintel (2.3×0.6 m) bearing a threeline Greek inscription accompanied by crosses was observed over the structure entrance. The dedicatory inscription, ascribed to Stephanos, the bishop of Sebastiya, commemorates the erection of the chapel here to John the Baptist.3 Column drums were surveyed
on the grounds of the site, but it is unclear whether they belonged to the church or to the Roman city.4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 186; SWP II: 215; Alt 1925; Zertal 1992: 445–446, no. 245. See also: Bagatti 2002: 85–86; Tabula: 230. According to local tradition, it was here that Aaron called for the fire of heaven (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942: 76). 2 Zertal 1992: 445. 3 Alt 1925: T. 51. Stephanos apparently lived during the fifth to sixth century CE (Bagatti 2002: 76). 4 Guérin 1874–75 II: 186. 1
[120]
Corpus of Christian sites
16.1. Kh. esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh, lintel in secondary use at the entrance to the sheikh’s tomb.
0
10
20
16.2. Kh. esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh, Greek inscription on lintel in the sheikh’s tomb.
[121]
Corpus of Christian sites
17. Ḥ orbat Migdal (el-Majdal; El Mejdel) Ref. IOG: 15080 18320 Ref. ITM: 20080 68320 Ref. UTM: 68897 56901 The site is located in the settlement of Ẓur Natan, ca. 2 km south of et-Taiyiba. Surveys were conducted, as well as a series of excavations from1989 to 1991, both here and in the vicinity.1 In the south of the site, a Samaritan synagogue was discovered that dates to the end of the fourth and the fifth century CE. According to the excavators, structural alterations later introduced are connected with its transformation into a church and an adjoining monastery. A small apse was installed in its eastern wall, and an atrium was paved in a mosaic decorated with floral motifs and anchors. Fragments of three marble chancel screen posts were observed, albeit not in situ. Each featured four holes that possibly served for affixing metal crosses. A complex west of the synagogue was identified as a monastery. It was large (ca. 35×28 m), and was built around a central courtyard. Various installations were observed on its grounds: e.g., ovens, an oil press,
granaries, etc. It remained in existence until the end of the seventh century CE.2 However, despite the excavators’ inferences, we believe the site was Samaritan from the beginning and that there is no basis for claiming it contains Christian vestiges. The chancel screen posts were transported here when the sheikh’s tomb was built. The site was never occupied by a monastery, and the structure described above is an oil press dating to the Early Islamic period.3 For the excavations, see: Ayalon, Neidinger and Matthews 1989–90; 1991; 1993; 1997; Neidinger, Matthews and Ayalon 1990; Ayalon 2002. See the surveys: SWP II: 202; Ayalon, Qidron and Charvit 1987–89; Ayalon and Yannai 1991. See also: Magen 1992: 87; Tabula: 186. 2 Ayalon 2002. 3 Magen 2008b: 89–90. 1
17. Ḥ . Migdal, synagogue structure and above it, sheikh’s tomb, view from the northeast.
[122]
Corpus of Christian sites
18. Nablus (Nablous; Nâblus; Shechem; Shekhem) Ref. IOG: 17440 18050 Ref. ITM: 22440 68050 Ref. UTM: 71262 56679 The city of Neapolis, Colonia Flavia Neapolis (Νεαπόλις), capital of the toparchy of Samaria, was the seat of a bishop beginning in the fourth century CE.1 A church in Neapolis is shown on the Madaba Map and mentioned in Christian sources (Procopius, Building V, 7, 5).2 Numerous surveys and excavations were undertaken in the city and its surroundings, but no vestiges connected with its Christian community in the Byzantine period were observed.3 In V. Guérin’s description of Nablus, he notes that some of the mosques had previously been Byzantine churches, including the en-Nasre and Jami el-Kabir mosques. 4 In addition, it is reasonable to assume that in Neapolis, where the bishop sat, there was a church, even though it has not been found. It can also be assumed, based on historical sources, that there was a Christian community in the city.
1
18.1. Plan of Neapolis on the Madaba Map.
18.2. Plan of Neapolis on the Madaba Map according to Abel’s article.
Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 93; Abel 1938: 396–397; Avi-Yonah 1976: 83; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 148; Reeg 1989: 444–445; Tabula: 194–195. 2 Avi-Yonah 1954: 44–47, Pl. 6. For a discussion on Neapolis’ description on the Madaba Map, see Magen 2009 I: 44–54. 3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 389–423; SWP II: 203–210; Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 310–329; Abel 1923a. For the excavations of the city theater, see: FitzGerald 1929; Magen 1983; 1984; 2005; 2009. For the excavations of the Roman mausoleum, see Magen 1987. For the second century CE mosaic, see Dauphine 1979. For evidence of the Samaritan synagogues in the city, see: Hüttenmeister and Reeg 1977 II: 563–567, 632–633, 640–644, 644–656. See also: Wilkinson 1977: 165–166; Bagatti 2002: 61–70. 4 Guérin 1874–75 I: 389–423.
[123]
Corpus of Christian sites
18.3. Nablus, Jami el Kabir mosque.
18.4. Nablus, interior of Jami el Kabir mosque.
19. Jacob’s Well Ref. IOG: 17700 17950 Ref. ITM: 22700 67950 Ref. UTM: 71524 56585 The site is located north of the village of Balatah, on the eastern edge of Shechem-Nablus. From the beginning of the Byzantine period, it was identified as the spot where Jesus met the Samaritan woman (John 4:5–12). In the Gospel of John the settlement’s name is Sukkar (Sychar). Today it is the village of ʿAskar, which is located north of Jacob’s Well. In the village there is a spring, ʿEin Askar. The well under consideration was constructed in the Roman period, hundreds of meters from Sychar (Συχάρ).1 The site became a pilgrimage site, and a church was erected here in the fourth century CE.2 Pilgrim accounts describe it as having the plan of a Greek cross, with the well opening in the center. The remains visible today belong to the Crusader church, which was erected over the ruins of its Byzantine predecessor. Wall segments belonging to the latter, as well as sections of its colorful mosaic floor adorned
with geometric motifs, were found underneath the remains of the later church. Other finds apparently belonging to the Byzantine church include columns, chancel screen posts and fragments, and two pieces of marble slabs bearing traces of a Greek inscription.3 For the well location and the identification of Συχάρ, see: Thomsen 1907: 108; Mansur 1910; Abel 1933; Schenke 1968; Avi-Yonah 1976: 98; Wilkinson 1977: 172; Bagatti 2002: 60; Magen 2009 I: 30–31 (ʿEin-Sychar-Sukkar), 32 (Jacob’s Well); Tabula: 238. 2 See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 III: 108–110; Guérin 1874–75 I: 376–382; Bliss 1894; Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 325; SWP II: 172–178; III: 437; Spyridonidis 1908; Vincent 1958; Bagatti 1965–66. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 244–246, no. 59; Bagatti 2002: 56–59; Tabula: 205. 3 Bagatti 1965–66. He dated the church to the sixth century CE based on epigraphic considerations. 1
[124]
Corpus of Christian sites
19.1. Jacob’s Well.
19.2. Jacob’s Well, the well is in the center of the compound.
[125]
Corpus of Christian sites
19.3. Jacob’s Well, Crusader church.
20. Mount Gerizim (Jebel et-̣ Ṭ ur; Dschebel et-̣ Ṭ or) Ref. IOG: 17590 17870 Ref. ITM: 22590 67870 Ref. UTM: 71416 56502 The church dedicated to Mary Theothokos (“giving birth to God”) was erected in 484 CE, over the ruins of the sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim (Argarizos; ´AργαρίζJ), the Samaritan community’s sacred mountain.1 Extensive excavations were carried out periodically at the site between 1985 and 2008. The Byzantine complex (the remains of which are called el-Kulʾah by the Palestinians) was built in two
phases, and includes a fortified compound with a defensive wall and towers surrounding an octagonal church dating to the reign of Zeno in 484 CE, and another compound to its north, built by Justinian in 529 CE. The church, concentric in plan (37.4×30 m), has a single apse that protrudes from its east. Three entrances lead from the narthex in the west to the central prayer hall. In the middle of this hall a
[126]
Corpus of Christian sites
stylobate bearing internal columns sustained another set of roof-supporting columns. The hall was surrounded by four apsidal chapels, each linked to it by an opening. The two western chapels were also connected to the narthex through additional openings. Between each of the chapels was an elongated room joining the hall. The southeastern chapel was the grandest, its walls lined with marble slabs. In its apse was a hexagonal installation that the excavator interpreted as a reliquary. The altar possibly rested on it. The church’s central apse was raised above its surroundings and flanked by pastophoria entered from outside the structure. Most of the church area was evidently paved in marble slabs. A colorful
mosaic was observed in one of the chapels. The site finds include numerous pieces of marble, columns, Corinthian capitals, some with cross decorations, an altar fragment, and several dedicatory inscriptions.2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 24–25; Avi-Yonah 1976: 61; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 66– 67; Reeg 1989: 222–223; Pummer 2002: 423–424; Tabula: 133–134. For the church excavations, see: Schneider 1951; Magen 1990a; 1993; 2008c; Di Segni 1990a. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 III: 99–101; Guérin 1874–75 I: 424–425; SWP II: 187–193. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 140–142, no. 143; Wilkinson 1977: 157; 1981; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 258, no. 76; Bagatti 2002: 71–72. 2 Magen 1990a; 2008c, especially pp. 249–263. 1
0
Late Roman Period Byzantine Period (467-491 CE) Byzantine Period (527-565 CE) 20.1. Mt. Gerizim, construction phases of the church compound.
[127]
25 m
Corpus of Christian sites
20.2. Mt. Gerizim, church enclosure in early phase of excavations, view from the west.
21. Khallat el-Fuleh Ref. IOG: 19456 17380 Ref. ITM: 24456 67380 Ref. UTM: 73292 56051 The site is located in Giftlik, northwest of the source of Naḥ al Tirẓa. The survey conducted on the western edge of the wadi revealed a Middle Bronze Age settlement.1 The salvage excavation conducted in the built area in 2008 uncovered remains of structures, dirt floors, and Byzantine finds, including pottery, glass fragments, and coins, along with a fragment of
a magnificent stone capital embellished with Maltese crosses in relief.2 See the survey, Zertal 2005: 275, no. 81. The excavations were undertaken under the direction of Y. Peleg (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 1099), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. 1
2
[128]
Corpus of Christian sites
22. Yarḥ iv Ref. IOG: 14790 17390 Ref. ITM: 19790 67390 Ref. UTM: 68626 55965 The site is located in the settlement of Matan, east of Moshav Yarḥ iv, in the area of the Jami ʿa el-ʿUmari maqam. The excavation in 1993 exposed a Byzantine structure, as well as a number of burial caves to its west. A metal cross pendant was retrieved from among the bones of the deceased in one of the caves. The excavators are uncertain whether to identify the
site as a settlement or as a farmstead. Judging by the finds, it was occupied from the fourth century CE and abandoned at the end of the Byzantine period.1 It is doubtful, however, that the site was Christian. For the excavations, see Gudovitch 1999; for the metal cross pendant, see Fig. 83:3.
1
23. ʿIzzun ʿAtme (ʿAzun Atmah; Kh. ʿAzzun Ibn ʿAtma; Azzûn Ibn Atmeh; Kh. ʾAzoun; ʿIzzūn ʿAtme) Ref. IOG: 15180 17000 Ref. ITM: 20180 67000 Ref. UTM: 69024 55583 The site is located in a village on a hill, 8 km southwest of Qalqiliya.1 V. Guérin observed a column lying on the ground beside the mosque ruins on the hilltop.2 A cross-adorned lintel was in secondary use in one of the later houses in the village.3
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 143–144; SWP II: 305; Kochavi 1972: 230, no. 193; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 290–291. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 143–144. 3 Dar 1986: 51.
1
23. ʿIzzun ʿAtme, mosque ruins.
[129]
Corpus of Christian sites
24. Khirbet ed-Duweir Ref. IOG: 15120 16890 Ref. ITM: 20120 66890 Ref. UTM: 68966 55472 The site is located on a hill, ca. 3 km east of Kafr Qasim.1 An ancient road leads from it to Kh. Sirisya, ca. 1 km to the southeast. Excavated in 1993, the site revealed an ashlar-built farmstead consisting of three wings enclosing a mosaic-paved courtyard. A burial cave, winepress, and remains of an oil press were observed in its vicinity.2 A stone lintel adorned with Greek cross inside circle enclosed by tabula ansata was found in the 1930s near a stone complex, the latter probably the farmstead excavated in 1993.3 The excavations did not uncover a Byzantine church and the lintel was not observed at the site.
In our opinion, it is also unclear whether the site was a Christian farmstead; and the discovery of a cross-adorned lintel does not necessarily prove the existence of a church. The site name does not appear on the map. Rather, it is designated as “elevation point 168.” The name Kh. edDuweir appears in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 48), and it is possible that it is referring to Kh. edDuweir, mentioned in the SWP as being near Mŭghr Abu Shăr (SWP II: 333). 2 Aronshtam and Peleg 2009. 3 SRF 48. 1
24. Kh. ed-Duweir, stone lintel adorned with a Greek cross enclosed by a tabula ansata.
[130]
Corpus of Christian sites
25. Qarawat Bani Ḥ asan (Qarawat bene Hassan; Qarāwat Banī Ḥ asan; Kurâwa Ibn Hasan; Qarāwa at-Taḥ tā; Shâm et-Tawîl) Ref. IOG: 15950 17060 Ref. ITM: 20950 67060 Ref. UTM: 69793 55659 The site is located in a village on a spur, northeast of Biddya.1 In the village area and its surroundings, numerous vestiges from the Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader periods were surveyed and excavated.2 The old mosque of Sheikh ʾAly el-Amanat, in the southeast of the village, was partially built over the remains of a structure from the Roman-Byzantine period. The scholars who surveyed the structure in the nineteenth century surmised it was a church.3 A stone lintel adorned with a Maltese cross was found in secondary use over the mosque entrance.4 In 1978 a salvage excavation undertaken at the mosque and in its vicinity exposed the remains of a public structure.5 Among the finds from the village noted in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) is a cornice fragment bearing a Greek inscription.6 For its proposed identification as one of the two villages called Qorahim in the Mishnah and as the village of Qarawa in the Samaritan annals, see: Press 1946–55 IV: 838–839;
1
Hüttenmeister and Reeg 1977 II: 629–630. The finds attesting to a Christian population at the site in the Byzantine period are incompatible with its identification as a Samaritan village. 2 For the excavations of the Roman mausoleum Deir edDerb, east of the village, see Ḥ A 1972b. A fourth century CE grave was excavated by S. Dar in 1975 (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 116), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 173–175; SWP II: 285, 358–360; Kochavi 1972: 230, no. 194; Dar 1986: 235–248; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 299–301. See also Tabula: 206. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 174; SWP II: 285, 359–360. 4 Guérin 1874–75 II: 174. 5 Dar 1986: 235–236. The excavations were undertaken under the direction of S. Dar (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 177), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. In the excavator’s opinion, it is impossible to identify the structure as a church. 6 SRF 151.
0
25. Qarawat Bani Ḥ asan, cornice fragment bearing a Greek inscription.
[131]
10
20
Corpus of Christian sites
26. Deir ʿIstiya (Deir Estia) Ref. IOG: 16340 17080 Ref. ITM: 21340 67080 Ref. UTM: 70182 55687 The site is located in a large village on a spur near the ancient road between Lod-Diospolis and ShechemNeapolis.1 V. Guérin observed marble columns in secondary use in one of the two village mosques. In the village houses he also noted early lintels, some adorned with crosses, in secondary use.2 A sarcophagus fragment adorned with two medallions, one apparently containing a defaced cross, was in secondary use as a lintel in the entrance to the
mosque of Jami Nabiya Allah Amisiya, located in the north of the village. The word deir means “monastery” in Arabic, and there was possibly a monastery here in the Byzantine or Crusader period.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 160; SWP II: 284, 315; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 487– 488. See also Bagatti 2002: 153. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 160. 3 SRF 45.
1
26. Deir ʿIstiya, adorned sarcophagus fragment in secondary use as a lintel in entrance to mosque of Jami Nabiya Allah Amisiya.
[132]
Corpus of Christian sites
27. ʿEin ʿAbus (ʿAin ʿAbûs; ʿEin ʿAbūs; ʿEinabus) Ref. IOG: 17330 17260 Ref. ITM: 22330 67260 Ref. UTM: 71168 55887 The site is located in a village on a hillslope, ca. 1.5 km southwest of Huwwara.1 A terracotta ampulla found at the site was decorated with three amphorae and a cross flanked by two pigeons.2 It should be noted, however, that a survey undertaken here failed to yield pottery from the Byzantine period.3
See the surveys: SWP II: 283; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 679–681. 2 Bagatti 2002: 161, Pl. 49:1. 3 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 679–681. 1
27. ʿEin ʿAbus, beginning of the twentieth century, view from the southwest.
[133]
Corpus of Christian sites
28. ʿAqraba (ʿAqrabah; ʿAkrabeh) Ref. IOG: 18230 17040 Ref. ITM: 23230 67040 Ref. UTM: 72073 55686 mosque in the east of the village was built over the remains of a church; and, in fact, a doorpost and lintel (1.7×0.7 m), adorned with a rosette and bearing a Greek dedicatory inscription accompanied by a cross, were observed here in secondary use.2 Column bases
A large village in eastern Samaria has been identified as the site of Acraba (´Aκράβετα / ´Aκραββείν), the capital of a toparchy (War 3:48, 55; 4:504, 511, 551), which had two Monophysite monasteries in the sixth century CE.1 According to local tradition the old
0
10
20
28.1. ʿAqraba, lintel in the mosque entrance in secondary use, adorned with a rosette and bearing a Greek inscription accompanied by a cross.
[134]
Corpus of Christian sites
and a Corinthian capital were also found inside the mosque in secondary use.3 Local tradition furthermore identifies the ruins of another structure as a monastery; it was built partially over vaults located next to the pool in the middle of the village.4
(2002: 55) dates the inscription to the fifth century CE, based on epigraphical considerations. 3 SRF 9. 4 SWP II: 389–390.
Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 19– 20; Abel 1938: 247–248; Avi-Yonah 1976: 26; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 11; Reeg 1989: 498; Tabula: 56–57. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1857: 296–297; Guérin 1874– 75 II: 3–5; SWP II: 386, 389–390; Clermont-Ganneau 1896– 99 II: 302–303; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 818–820. See also Wilkinson 1977: 149. 2 Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 302–303; SRF 9; Bagatti
1
0
10
20
0
10
20
28.2. ʿAqraba, lintel with a Greek inscription.
29. ʿEin er-Rashash Ref. IOG: 18530 16081 Ref. ITM: 23530 66081 Ref. UTM: 72390 54733 The site is located on the cliffs of Wadi Fasayil, close to where the ʿEin er-Rashash spring issues forth, and is some 3 km southeast of the village of Duma. The site contains an anchorite cave (4.5×3.5 m, maximal height: 2.5 m) with a small niche for a lamp and with four crosses etched on the walls. The cave, which could be closed by a door, was reached through a partly roofed corridor. This was apparently the bedrock shelter of an anchorite monk.1 See the surveys: Frumkin 1982: 188; Hirschfeld 1989–90: 47; 1990: 70–71, B; 1992: 216–218. See also Tabula 117.
1
0
3
m
29. ʿEin er-Rashash, general plan 0of the anchorite cave. 3
m
[135]
Corpus of Christian sites
30. Khirbet Kesfa (Kesfa; Kh. Kasfa) Ref. IOG: 14990 16670 Ref. ITM: 19990 66670 Ref. UTM: 68841 55249 The site is located in a village extending over the slopes of a flat spur, ca. 1.5 km east of Kh. Umm el-Burid.1
A structure, east–west in orientation and apparently a church, was observed on the site. Two columns were found in its immediate area, and a lintel adorned with five crosses inside circles was found nearby.2 In 2005 a test excavation at the site revealed a Byzantine hewn arcosolia tomb and five oil pressing installations in different areas of the site that have been dated to the seventh and eighth centuries CE.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 136; SWP II: 337; Kochavi and Beit-Arieh 1994: 63–64, nos. 120–121. See also Bagatti 2002: 158. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 136. 3 Magen 2008d: 275–278. 1
30. Kh. Kasfa, architectural elements strewn about the site.
31. Khirbet el-Burak (Kh. el-Buraq) Ref. IOG: 16080 16800 Ref. ITM: 21080 66800 Ref. UTM: 69928 55402 The site, a Roman-Byzantine settlement, is located on a hillslope near the ancient road between LodDiospolis and Shechem-Neapolis.1 In 1978 a basilical church (18×12 m) was excavated in the settlement’s northeastern corner. Its prayer hall was divided into a nave (5.9 m wide) and two aisles (the southern aisle, 2.4 m wide; the northern one, 1.2 m wide) by means of two rows of five columns each. The nave terminated in an internal apse. Two entrances were fixed in the structure’s western wall—one in the nave, the other in the southern aisle. Broken columns and cornice fragments were found in the structure. The nave mosaic floor comprised a colorful carpet adorned with
geometric patterns forming medallions that contained zoological figures: a leopard, tiger, deer, and hunting dog. There was a cross in the middle of the floor. The carpet was enclosed by a frame of acanthus leaves. In the mosaic carpet, opposite the nave entrance, is a sixline Greek inscription, including a dedication to St. Cyriacus. S. Applebaum opines that the dedication to this saint hints at the Samaritan origin of the village’s Christian population.2 S. Dar, who excavated the site, dates the church to the fifth or sixth century CE. He ascribes its destruction to one of the Samaritan rebellions that beset this region during the period under discussion.3
[136]
Corpus of Christian sites
In our opinion, the village was Christian in origin, rather than consisting of Samaritans who converted to Christianity. The village was located south of the Samaritan settlement area, where there were only Christian settlements.4
For the excavations, see: ESI 1982a; Dar 1988: 232–237. See the surveys: Dar 1986: 51–76; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 432–433. See also Tabula: 92. 2 Applebaum, Isaac and Landau 1981–82: 104. We consider this view highly unlikely. 3 Dar 1986: 53–55, Fig. 38, Photo 22; Dar 1988: 237. 4 Magen 2008b: 97–99. 1
0
5 m
Reconstruction 31.1. Kh. el-Burak, general plan of the church. The wall added to the church is our reconstruction of the location of the northern wall.
[137]
Corpus of Christian sites
31.2. Kh. el-Burak, nave mosaic floor.
32. Khirbet Umm el-Ḥ ammam (Kh. Umm el Hŭmmâm; Kh. Umm el Ḥ wmman) Ref. IOG: 14970 16530 Ref. ITM: 19970 66530 Ref. UTM: 68824 55109 The site is located in a settlement extending over a slope ca. 1.5 km south of Kh. Umm el-Burid.1 Architectural elements, such as ashlars, broken columns, bases, and capitals, were surveyed on the site. They included a cross-adorned ashlar with marginal drafting.2 On a neighboring hill, V. Guérin surveyed a structure that he identified as a small church that had been part of a monastery. Three entrances were fixed in its northern wall, and it was apparently divided into a nave and two aisles. Columns were strewn about its
ruins. A number of other structures adjoined it, and a defensive wall surrounded the hill.3 C.R. Conder, on the other hand, believed that these remains were not of a church, but rather of a Muslim maqam.4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 135; SWP II: 356– 357; Kochavi and Beit-Arieh 1994: 76–77, no. 158. See also Bagatti 2002: 154–155. 2 JSRF 31/7. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 135. 4 Conder 1889: 146. 1
[138]
Corpus of Christian sites
32.1. Umm el-Ḥ ammam, capital found at the site.
32.2. Umm el-Ḥ ammam, stone adorned with a cross in relief.
[139]
Corpus of Christian sites
33. Khirbet Ḥ amad (Kh. el-Fakhâkhîr; Hammād) Ref. IOG: 15960 16600 Ref. ITM: 20960 66600 Ref. UTM: 69812 55199 The site, a Byzantine settlement ruins, is located on a hill at the end of a spur ca. 1.5 km southeast of Sarta; it lies near the ancient road between LodDiospolis and Shechem-Neapolis.1 In 1992 a church was excavated near the site (ca. 20 m from the Byzantine settlement’s outlying structures). It was basilical in plan (19.9×11.5 m), with a narthex. The prayer hall was divided by two rows of four columns each into a nave and two aisles. The hall had a single apse flanked by pastophoria. The base of an altar with a reliquary niche was discovered in the apse. Mosaic floors adorned with geometric motifs were found in the narthex and prayer hall. On the basis of the finds, the church was dated to the fifth to sixth centuries CE.2 1
Dar 1986: 38–42; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 285–286. See also Bagatti 2002: 154. 2 Aronshtam 1997; 2012.
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 157; SWP II: 333–334;
33.1. Kh. Ḥ amad, the church, view from the north.
[140]
33.2. Kh. Ḥ amad, medallion with a star formed of two concave squares, in the nave mosaic floor.
Corpus of Christian sites
0
33.3. Kh. Ḥ amad, general plan of the church.
[141]
3 m
Corpus of Christian sites
34. Khirbet Deir Samʿan (Deir Simʿān; Deir Simàn; H. Deir Samʿan; Kh. Deir Samʿān) Ref. IOG: 15500 16390 Ref. ITM: 20500 66390 Ref. UTM: 69356 54980 The site, a monastery ruins, is located on the shoulder of a spur ca. 1.5 km northeast of Deir Qalʿa. It lies north of the ancient road between Lod-Diospolis and Shechem-Neapolis.1 Excavations conducted at the site in 1992–1994 and 2007 exposed a Byzantine monastery erected in a fourth century CE Roman fortress.2 The monastery, rectangular in plan (39×36.5 m), consists of a set of rooms around a central courtyard. Water cisterns and open pools were built north and northwest of the structure; cisterns were also built inside it. Part of the water system was built in the fortress phase and extended in the Byzantine period. West of the site were two winepresses. A wide staircase led to a church, installed on the second story of the structure’s southern wing.3 The church (estimated dimensions, 15.2×8 m) consists of a prayer hall with two rows of columns and a narthex.
Underneath the second story church is a semicircular apse, partially built and partially hewn into the bedrock, which appears to constitute the foundations of the upper level apse. The church floor was paved with a colorful mosaic. Abundant mosaic segments featuring geometric patterns were found in the rooms beneath the second story church. Column bases and capitals adorned with crosses and other architectural elements like chancel screen slabs and posts, marble fragments, and tiles were also found in the rooms beneath the second story church. In the northern wing was a chapel (12.5×5.5 m), consisting of a prayer hall, east of which was a room that served as a bema. The eastern room was paved in a white mosaic with a cross at its center. Opposite the room’s opening is another small cross. The prayer hall was paved in a colorful mosaic adorned with
34.1. Kh. Deir Samʿan, view from the west.
[142]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
34.2. Kh. Deir Samʿan, general plan of the monastery.
[143]
6
m
Corpus of Christian sites
34.3. Kh. Deir Samʿan, foundations of the second story church apse.
34.4. Kh. Deir Samʿan, chapel in the northern wing.
geometric patterns, of which there are only scant segments. An additional room west of the prayer hall apparently served as a narthex. Beneath the room in the monastery’s northeastern corner was a burial cave, probably the monastery crypt. Crosses were engraved on the tomb walls. A similar hewn tomb was found north of the main structure. The monastery was built in the mid-sixth century CE and was abandoned during the Arab conquest. An oil press was established in the Early Islamic period.4
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 124–126; SWP II: 319–320; Kochavi 1972: 231, no. 203; Dar 1986: 26–35; Tepper 1986; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 261–262. See also: Avi-Yonah 1933: 153, no. 61; Ovadiah 1970: 49, no. 36; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 130, no. 13; Hirschfeld 2002: 185, note 65; Bagatti 2002: 153; Tabula: 112. 2 For the excavation, see Magen 2012a. See also Magen 2008e: 185–189. 3 SWP II: 320; the surveyors correctly noted that the church was on the structure’s southern side, although they described a chapel as being on the ground floor. 4 Magen 2008d: 269–271. 1
[144]
Corpus of Christian sites
35. Khirbet el-Mehalhela (Kh. Deiria; Kh. Mahalhala) Ref. IOG: 15650 16370 Ref. ITM: 20650 66370 Ref. UTM: 69507 54963 The site is located on a slope, ca. 1.5 km east of Deir Samʿan, on the ancient road between Lod-Diospolis and Shechem-Neapolis.1 V. Guérin found a stone lintel adorned with an encircled cross.2 In surveys undertaken over recent years in the site’s vicinity column fragments and a column base have been observed.3 A salvage excavation was conducted in 1998–1999, but no church was found; and in the
excavators’ opinion the site was not settled in the Byzantine period.4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 155; Kochavi 1972: 231, no. 204 (unnamed site); Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 265 (unnamed site). 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 155. 3 JSRF 20/7. 4 Aizik and Peleg 2005. 1
35. Kh. el-Mehalhela, before excavations.
[145]
Corpus of Christian sites
36. Kafr ed-Dik (el-Kafr; el Kefr) Ref. IOG: 15790 16360 Ref. ITM: 20790 66360 Ref. UTM: 69647 54956 The site is located in a village situated on a spur, ca. 2.5 km north of Deir Ghassana.1 V. Guérin observed lintels adorned with crosses enclosed by a tabula ansata. In his opinion, the two village mosques were constructed with stones from Byzantine churches. He also described a large, totally ruinous structure adjoined by a small tower, with a vaulted
roof, containing a cistern. The lintel over the tower entrance was adorned with a cross.2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 153–154; SWP II: 284, 324; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 267–268. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 153–154. 1
36. Kafr ed-Dik, decorated stone in secondary use in the mosque.
[146]
Corpus of Christian sites
37. Deir Qalʿa (Deir Qalʿah; Deir Kŭlàh) Ref. IOG: 15430 16270 Ref. ITM: 20430 66270 Ref. UTM: 69289 54858 The site, a monastery ruins, is located on a high spur north of Naḥ al Shiloh; it lies ca. 2 km northeast of Deir Ballut, on the ancient road between LodDiospolis and Shechem-Neapolis.1 The monastery was erected inside a fourth century CE Roman fortress. The site (overall exterior dimensions 100×90 m) consists of a rectangular structure (ca. 53×38 m), and pools outside the structure to the northeast and southwest. A Maltese cross was engraved in the western pool. The structure was constructed of very large ashlars, the walls being preserved for up to 19 courses. It consists of a set of rooms around a central courtyard. In the southeast of the structure were a tower and a cistern beneath it. Crosses were found on lintels at the south gate and at the tower.
Excavations conducted at the site in 2004 exposed two chapels, and rooms erected inside the central courtyard.2 The southern chapel (25.3×8.3 m) exhibits two phases; including a longitudinal prayer hall with a narthex to the west. The prayer hall has a raised chancel with an internal apse. The chapel was paved in a colorful mosaic adorned with geometrical patterns; the mosaic in the prayer hall was partly preserved. The chapel was built in the second half of the fifth century CE.3 North of the chapel, another one (12×5 m), was erected. This chapel also exhibits two phases. The prayer hall was paved with colorful mosaic adorned with medallions of grape branches issuing forth from an amphora. The medallions were decorated with fruit trees and geometric motifs.
37.1. Deir Qalʿa, southern chapel, view from the west.
[147]
Corpus of Christian sites
22
W4002
L53
W4004
W4001
W4000
W4005
W4009
W4008
W4003 W1032
W4006
W3002
W3002 F29
W1031
W1032
W3007
W3003
F29
W1031
10
W1026
W1028 W3006
W1027
W3008
W1022
W1020
W1029
W1015
17
W10
5
9
F5
383.3
F4
F13
W2003
W2006
W1025
W1030
W2004
L65
F14
W1021
6
W1023
W1004
W1023 W1007 W1007
W1005
W1016 W1018 W1019
L38
W1024
W1006
W1006
L9
W1010
W1000
L39
W1008
W1012
W1014
W1000
W1009
L302 L304
W1001
5
Late Roman Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic Period 37.2. Deir Qalʿa, construction phases of the site.
[148]
F31
8
384.0
W1001
0
10 m
Corpus of Christian sites
0
37.3. Deir Qalʿa, general plan of the two chapels.
[149]
5
m
Corpus of Christian sites
The mosaic carpet incorporates a Greek inscription that attests to the monastery being constructed by Justinian.4 Two rooms paved in mosaic were built between the chapels. In one of the rooms a mosaic carpet adorned with geometrical patterns dates to the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century CE. The monastery was abandoned during the Arab conquest. An oil press was established in the Early Islamic period.5
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 126–129; SWP II: 315– 319; Kochavi 1972: 232–233, no. 208; Hirschfeld 1989–90: 47–51; 2002; Finkelstein Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 251–253. See also: SRF 46; Bagatti 2002: 169; Tabula: 111. 2 For the excavation, see Magen and Aizik 2012. See also: Magen 2008d: 271; 2008e: 189–195; 2010: 196–201. 3 The chapel ruins were already observed in the nineteenth century; see Guérin 1874–75 II: 126; SWP II: 315–319. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 49, no. 35; Avi-Yonah 1933: 153, no. 58. 4 Magen 2010: 197, 199; Di Segni 2012a. 5 Magen 2008d: 271.
1
37.4. Deir Qalʿa, apse mosaic floor of early phase southern chapel, view from the east.
[150]
Corpus of Christian sites
37.5. Deir Qalʿa, northern chapel, view from the west.
[151]
Corpus of Christian sites
38. Khirbet Deir Daqle (Kh. Deir Daqla) Ref. IOG: 15210 16210 Ref. ITM: 20210 66210 Ref. UTM: 69070 54794 The site is located on a high hilltop south of Naḥ al Shiloh and southwest of Deir Qalʿa.1 V. Guérin discerned the remains of an apsidal church.2 According to M. Avi-Yonah, the prayer hall and southern aisle were paved in a colorful mosaic with geometric patterns.3 Excavations conducted at the site in 2008 exposed a fourth century CE Roman fortress with a monastery erected inside it. The structure was rectangular, east– west in orientation, and built of large ashlars.4 The compound’s western and southern walls were extant to a height of eight courses. The northern wall was ruinous in its eastern section, while the eastern wall was buried under a layer of erosional debris. The walls comprising the internal division of the compound were visible in the southwest. They form a rectangular unit (ca. 30×20 m). Along the compound’s northern wall was a long corridor whose western section survived to the height of its roof. A series of constructed piers inside supported the vaulted roof and divided the corridor into a row of rooms. The corridor was extant to the height of its roof for ca. 20 m, and in its eastern section it was possible to distinguish the pier bases for an additional ca. 10 m. At the end of the corridor a hewn staircase descended into a rock-cut cave, whose opening faced west. Another cave was located in the structure’s northeastern corner; its opening was hewn at the junction of two walls. A church was apparently located in the southeast of the structure, where numerous tesserae and three fragments of a marble chancel screen panel (or panels) were found; one bore traces of a Greek inscription. Two limestone columns were observed in secondary use in the modern terraces in the compound’s vicinity, as well as a base, a capital, and an ashlar that was crudely engraved with a cross. In the compound’s southwestern corner were the remains of a reservoir system; it included at least two
hewn pools: one inside the compound’s southern wall and the other, outside of it. They were connected by a hewn drain. A constructed channel conducted water to the outer pool from the south. East of the structure was a large pool (11×9 m, of unknown depth). It was partly hewn, partly built of small ashlars, and coated on the inside with a layer of gravel and hydraulic plaster. In its southwestern corner, a hewn staircase descended into it. West of the pool were a number of hewn channels and a surface cut on the bedrock. West of the structure was an industrial area that included an improved winepress comprising several constructed treading floors (one with a system for receiving the screw) and several collecting vats. Nearby were four hewn bell-shaped cisterns. Next to them was a rectangular surface cut into the bedrock; it possibly belonged to another winepress. Further cuttings into the bedrock were observed south of these installations. Some of them were probably connected with an oil press. An oil press was established in the Early Islamic period in a cave underneath the structure.5 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 121–122; SWP II: 313; Kochavi 1972: 231, no. 206; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 241–242; Hirschfeld 2002: 186–187, note 66. See also: Avi-Yonah 1933: 152, no. 53; Ovadiah 1970: 46, no. 31; Tabula: 110. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 121–122. 3 Avi-Yonah 1933: 152, no. 53. The description of a mosaicpaved church and cross-adorned tombs in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive), included in the file of Kh. Burraʿish, possibly actually relates to Kh. Deir Daqle. Concerning this issue, see the description of Kh. Burraʿish (site no. 39) in this volume. 4 The excavations were undertaken under the direction of Y. Magen and B. Har-Even (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 1099), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. 5 Magen 2008d: 272. 1
[152]
Corpus of Christian sites
38.1. Deir Daqle, view from the east.
38.2. Deir Daqle, mosaic with geometric patterns where church was surmised to have been.
[153]
Corpus of Christian sites
39. Khirbet Burraʿish (Kh. Barraʿish; Kh. Burrāʿish) Ref. IOG: 15280 16160 Ref. ITM: 20280 66160 Ref. UTM: 69141 54745 The site is located on a spur ca. 1 km south of Kh. Deir Daqle.1 To its east are the remains of a maqam, evidently built over the foundations of a Roman mausoleum and incorporating ashlars and a monolithic column. Burial caves were surveyed near the maqam.2 The Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) contains the description of a Byzantine church with a mosaic floor, whose ruins were surveyed here in 1919. Columns and a stone lintel adorned with a Maltese cross inside
a circle were observed in the church. Decorative crosses were found in the burial caves on the site.3 1 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 122; Kochavi 1972: 233, no. 209; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 237–238. 2 Kochavi 1972: 233, no. 209. 3 SRF 25. The author of this file, S.H. Karshaw, was possibly actually describing the remains of Kh. Deir Daqle; see site no. 38 in this volume.
40. Khirbet ʿAli Ref. IOG: 15320 16090 Ref. ITM: 20320 66090 Ref. UTM: 69183 54676 The site is located on a spur, ca. 2.5 km northeast of Rantis, near the junction of the ancient roads between Lod-Diospolis and Shechem-Neapolis and between Aphek-Antipatris and Jerusalem.1 Remains of a church with columns and a mosaic floor were observed.2 Apparently, there was also a fourth century CE Roman fortress here.3 A double oil press was discovered from the Early Islamic period.4
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 111–112; SWP II: 327; Kochavi 1972: 233, no. 213; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 243–244. 2 SRF 7. 3 This monastery may be of the same type found in Kh. Deir Samʿan, Deir Qalʿa, and Kh. Deir Daqle, which were all built inside fourth century CE Roman fortresses; see: Kh. Deir Samʿan (site no. 34), Deir Qalʿa (site no. 37), and Kh. Deir Daqle (site no. 38) in this volume . See Magen 2008e: 185–195, 202. 4 Magen 2008d: 279–281. 1
[154]
Corpus of Christian sites
40. Kh. ʿAli, stone lintel adorned with a cross.
41. Khirbet ed-Duweir Ref. IOG: 15720 16140 Ref. ITM: 20720 66140 Ref. UTM: 69582 54734 The site, remains of a monastery, is located on a spur ca. 4 km west of Deir Ghassane.1 The remains include the monastery compound itself and the adjoining agricultural installations. The rectangular compound (30×20 m) was built of ashlars (the walls were extant to a height of 4 m); it was entered from the north and divided into a northern and a southern wing. In the northern wing were two rooms and a number of caves and plastered cisterns. The rooms: one in the west; the other, which was vaulted, surmounted the cave in the northeastern corner. In the southern wing, a set of rooms ran along the western and northern walls. In the east of that wing was a chapel with an apse. Numerous tesserae were scattered amongst the rubble from the chapel. South of the compound was
a baptismal font, partly hewn into the bedrock and partly constructed. To its north were the remains of an oil press.2 According to the surveyor’s account, the structure had four entrances: one led directly to the vaulted room in the northeastern corner; another to the courtyard in front of the chapel.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 151–152; SWP II: 333; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 266. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 109, no. 105; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 148, no. 33; Bagatti 2002: 154 (B. Bagatti mistakenly relates the report in the SWP to Kh. Duweir, which is next to Kh. Kesfa); Tabula: 114. 2 JSRF 24/10. 3 SRF 48. 1
[155]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
41.1. Kh. ed-Duweir, general plan of the monastery.
41.2. Kh. ed-Duweir.
[156]
9
m
Corpus of Christian sites
41.3. Kh. ed-Duweir, remains of the church.
42. Deir Ghassane (Deir Ghassāne; Deir Ghassana; Khallet Ṣ erîdah; Khallet Serîde1) Ref. IOG: 15940 16150 Ref. ITM: 20940 66150 Ref. UTM: 69801 54743 The site is located in a village on a mountaintop, ca. 2 km north of Beit Rima.2 B. Bagatti believes that the name is connected with the tribe of the Ghassanids—nomads who accepted Christianity in the sixth century CE and joined the Monophysite movement.3 According to the Palestinians, the village mosque was erected over an ancient church. Father Piccirillo discerned early foundations beneath the mosque walls, and even distinguished architectural elements deriving from the former structure.4
The name “Khallet Ṣerîdah” actually belongs to a small ruins located in the southwestern corner of the village of Deir Ghassane. 2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 150–151; SWP II: 290; Kochavi 1972: 233, no. 210; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 281–282. For the site’s identification as Zereda, mentioned in I Kings 11: 26 and in the Mishnah (Soṭah 9:9), see: Albright 1933: 26–28; Abel 1938: 457; AviYonah 1976: 96; Reeg 1989: 550–551; Tabula: 228. 3 Bagatti 2002: 152. 4 Bagatti 2002: 153. 1
[157]
Corpus of Christian sites
42. Deir Ghassane, view from the east.
43. Khirbet ed-Deir (Kh. Deiria; Deira) Ref. IOG: 16530 16185 Ref. ITM: 21530 66185 Ref. UTM: 70390 54796 The site is located on a hilltop northwest of the village of Mazri ʿ en-Nubani.1 V. Guérin observed crossadorned ashlars in secondary use in later buildings.2 The remnants of a monastery, including a large structure and several vaulted rooms, were found on the hilltop. West of the structure was a plastered pool, and to its north and east were vaulted burial caves. In addition, a winepress, cisterns, and mosaic floors consisting of white tesserae were observed in the vicinity.3 I. Finkelstein believes this description refers to a different site bearing the same name. However,
apart from the monastery structure, Finkelstein’s description is identical to that in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive)4; and the later hilltop structure he describes possibly overlies the aforementioned remains. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 155; SWP II: 331; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 462–463. See also Bagatti 2002: 153–154. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 155. 3 SRF 44. 4 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 462. 1
[158]
Corpus of Christian sites
43. Kh. ed-Deir.
44. Tel Shiloh (Kh. Seilûn; Seilûn; Kh. Seilūn; Kh. Siloun) Ref. IOG: 17750 16250 Ref. ITM: 22750 66250 Ref. UTM: 71609 54886 The Byzantine site of Silo (Σηλώ; On. 156:28) is partially located on the biblical tell, but mostly to its south.1 It has been surveyed on numerous occasions, and wide-ranging excavations have been undertaken there.2 Four churches were revealed, two built one above the other. The “Pilgrims’ Church,” basilical in plan, was excavated in 1929 by a Danish expedition. Three building phases were discerned: the first
dates to the sixth century CE; the second (with slight structural alterations), to the first half of the seventh century (600–650 CE); the third, when the structure no longer served as a church. The church complex (22.5×12.2 m) comprises an atrium (6.5×4.4 m), a narthex (6×2.4 m), a prayer hall with an apse (13.7×5.5 m) and pastophoria. A number of additional rooms were built around the atrium and narthex. Colorful mosaic carpets were
[159]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
44.1. Tel Shiloh, general plan of the “Pilgrims’ Church.”
44.2. Tel Shiloh, general plan of the “Basilica Church.”
[160]
5 m
Corpus of Christian sites
44.3. Tel Shiloh, nave mosaic floor of the “Basilica Church.”
exposed in the prayer hall, in the pastophoria, and in the additional rooms. They consist of geometric and floral patterns. The mosaic on the bema floor includes floral patterns, the figures of two gazelles standing on either side of the Tree of Life, and two fish. The carpet in one of the pastophoria had a fiveline dedicatory inscription in Greek and a cross, enclosed by a round frame.3 The church, known as el-Ḥ abs (the excavators called it the “Basilica Church”), was partially excavated in 1932, and again in 1990.4 It exhibits two phases. The end of the first phase was dated to the Samaritan rebellions during the reign of Justinian in 529 CE. The end of the second phase was ascribed to the earthquake of 749 CE. The church is basilical in plan (40.4×15.2 m). It consists of: a narthex (13.7×3 m); an atrium (13.7×10.2 m); and a prayer hall (20.5×13.7 m), which is divided into a nave and two aisles, and has three openings in its western wall. Colorful carpets were observed in the prayer hall and narthex. Those in the aisles and narthex consisted of geometric
patterns. Those in the aisles were laid over earlier mosaics. The nave mosaic consists of figures inside medallions formed of geometric patterns. It reveals signs of the iconoclasm; the figures inside the medallions were replaced by floral decorations. A two-line dedicatory inscription in Greek, accompanied by crosses, was incorporated into the narthex mosaic carpet.5 Two churches, one above the other, were excavated in 1998 and 2006–2007; a maqam was built above them.6 The early one was founded at the beginning of the fifth century CE. It was basilical in plan (19×18.5 m), with neither atrium nor narthex. The entrance was via an anteroom north of the prayer hall. The anteroom was paved in a colorful mosaic. A mosaic carpet consisting of geometric patterns was exposed in the prayer hall. Four Greek inscriptions were uncovered in the church, one mentioning the name Shiloh.7 The late church, also basilical (34.5×14 m), was founded at the beginning of the sixth century CE and remained in use until the eighth century CE. It includes an atrium, a narthex, a prayer hall with an apse, and
[161]
Corpus of Christian sites
additional rooms. Its mosaic floors were exposed in various sections of the church.8 The nave mosaic contains geometric patterns incorporating faunal and floral motifs. It also reveals signs of the iconoclastic campaign; the figures were replaced by floral decoration or a diamond. Two Greek inscriptions were exposed in the northern aisle.9 A baptistery was exposed southwest of the maqam; it was active at the same time as the churches. A Greek dedicatory inscription was observed on its floor.10 A square baptismal font, one of the earlier in Israel, was discovered inside. In addition, a lintel adorned with an amphora was observed at the site. According to some scholars, it initially belonged to a synagogue.11 It is doubtful, however, that a Christian-Byzantine village containing several churches would also have had a synagogue, especially in a region in which no Jews dwelled after the destruction of the Second Temple. Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 105; Abel 1938: 462–463; Avi-Yonah 1976: 96; Reeg 1989: 604; Tabula: 232. 2 For the finds from the classical periods, see: Kjaer 1930; Andersen 1985; Finkelstein, Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993; Dadon 1997; 2012; Magen and Aharonovich 2012. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 III: 85–86; Guérin 1874–75 II: 21–27; SWP II: 367; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 653. See also: Avi-Yonah 1934: 40–41, nos. 300–302; Ovadiah 1970: 164–165, nos. 163–164; Wilkinson 1977: 170–171; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 162, no. 48; Ilan 1991: 251; Safrai 1993: 182–183; Bagatti 2002: 48–54; Magen 2010: 184–195. 3 Andersen 1985: 61–75. 4 Andersen 1985: 51–55; Dadon 1997; 2012. 5 Dadon 1997. 6 Magen and Aharonovich 2012.
Magen 2010: 189–192; Di Segni 2012b. The mosaics were partially exposed by the Danish expedition (SRF 171; Andersen 1985: 48–49, Fig. 13). 9 Magen 2010: 194–195; Di Segni 2012c: 219–221. 10 Magen 2010: 192; Di Segni 2012b: 213–214. 11 Ilan 1991: 251.This was disproven in the excavations. 7 8
1
44.4. Tel Shiloh, southern aisle mosaic floor of the “Basilica Church.”
[162]
Corpus of Christian sites
Maqam
Roman period Early Byzantine period Late Byzantine period 0
Islamic period 44.5. Tel Shiloh, construction phases of the churches under the maqam and the baptistery southwest of it.
[163]
5
m
Corpus of Christian sites
44.6. Tel Shiloh, churches under the maqam, view from the west.
44.7. Tel Shiloh, late church under the maqam , view from the west.
[164]
Corpus of Christian sites
45. Khirbet Sara (Kh. Sāra) Ref. IOG: 17915 16260 Ref. ITM: 22915 66260 Ref. UTM: 71174 54887 The site is located on a hilltop ca. 1.5 km northeast of Tel Shiloh. Several structures were observed. The wall of one contained a stone decorated with a cross in a circle in relief. Next to the structure was a column base.1
1 See the surveys: SWP II: 394; Kochavi 1972: 169, no. 38; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 662.
45. Kh. Sara.
[165]
Corpus of Christian sites
46. Duma (Dûma; Dūma; Dômeh) Ref. IOG: 18485 16255 Ref. ITM: 23485 66255 Ref: UTM: 72344 54906 The site is located in a village on a plateau ca. 6.5 km east of Tel Shiloh.1 It has been identified with Eduma (Έδουμά), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 86:26).2 In the 1930s, remains of a church with columns and traces of a white mosaic floor were observed north of the village at a spot known by the Palestinians as el-Khudr.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 14–15; SWP II: 386, 390; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 784–786. For the excavations of the Roman burial cave, see Hamran and Sion 1994. See also Bagatti 2002: 54. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 58; Abel 1938: 310; Avi-Yonah 1976: 53; Tabula: 115. It has been surmised that Eduma of Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 86:26) is also Talmudic Edom (Reeg 1989: 25). 3 SRF 48. C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener also note that the site dedicated to St. George (el-Khudr) was north of the village (SWP II: 386), and that a mosque built over the ruins of a church dedicated to the saint even incorporated elements from it (SWP II: 390). These descriptions possibly refer to the same church and to a small mosque that occupied the site at the end of the nineteenth century.
1
46. Duma.
47. ḥ orbat Ḥ ani (Burj el-Ḥ aniyeh; Kh. Burj el-Ḥ aniya) Ref. IOG: 14700 15940 Ref. ITM: 19700 65940 Ref. UTM: 68566 54514 This site is the remains of a settlement, 2 dunams in size, on a hilltop ca. 5 km west of Rantis.1 A survey conducted at the site revealed the remains of two structures (ca. 30×30 m and ca. 10×9 m). The surveyors surmised this had been a farmhouse. The site also yielded winepresses, cisterns, oil press remains, and, to the east, arcosolia tombs.2 In 2002, based on an inscription found there, excavations were conducted of a nunnery that had
its beginnings in the late fourth or early fifth century CE and continued to exist until its abandonment in the eighth or early ninth century CE. Two structures were uncovered. The main structure, built on a hilltop, contains a church, rooms, a tower, and a burial complex. Five building phases are evident in the structure. In the first phase (late fourth or early fifth century CE), the church was built over a system of arcosolia tombs. It had a longitudinal hall and a simple
[166]
Corpus of Christian sites
47.1. Ḥ. Ḥani, general plan of the nunnery.
47.2. Ḥ. Ḥani, the church, view from the west.
[167]
Corpus of Christian sites
mosaic floor with geometric patterns and crosses. In the second phase (fifth century CE), a monastery was established, and various rooms were added around the church, some paved in mosaic. The church hall was paved in a geometric mosaic. Part of a mosaic with a menorah-like pattern was uncovered at the apse. North of the church, a residential wing was built that included a vestibule paved in white mosaic with a tabula ansata containing a dedicatory inscription. In the third phase (sixth century CE) the church mosaic floor was replaced by a colorful mosaic comprising a guilloche frame and a carpet field including round and square medallions containing faunal and floral depictions. One medallion contains a Greek dedication inscription. The fourth phase is dated, by signs of iconoclasm in the mosaic, to the eighth century CE; these signs attest that the monastery was not
abandoned upon the Arab conquest. When the mosaic was repaired following the effacement of the images, an inscription was added blessing the Mother of the nunnery, thus teaching the function of the structure. The second structure was built south of the main one, an open courtyard separating the two. This structure was part of the nunnery complex and dates to the site’s second phase. The structure contained a kitchen, a narrow hall (probably a refectory), and two rooms. In the last phase, the nunnery was abandoned and destroyed. Burials from various periods were discovered at the site.3 For the excavations, see: Dahari 2003. See the surveys: SWP II: 307; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: 21, nos. 8–9. 2 Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: 21, nos. 8–9. 3 Dahari 2003. 1
47.3. Ḥ. Ḥani, church hall mosaic floor segment.
[168]
Corpus of Christian sites
48. Deir ʿAlla (Deir ʾAlla; Kh. Deir ʿAlla; Ḥ . ʿAl) Ref. IOG: 14950 15950 Ref. ITM: 19950 65950 Ref. UTM: 68816 54529 The site is a Byzantine settlement ruin spread over a flat hilltop 2 km west of Rantis.1 To its southwest were the remains of a basilical church (ca. 27.5×9 m).2 Its prayer hall was divided into a nave and two aisles. The church had a mosaic floor consisting of small tesserae. Underneath one of the aisles was a cistern.3 The church contained four monolithic columns (ca. 2.6 m high; 0.5 m in diameter), two column
bases (0.6×0.6 m; 0.3 m high), and a crudely carved Corinthian capital.4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 120–121; SWP II: 310; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: 23, no. 14. See also: AviYonah 1933: 151, no. 48; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 212, no. 12; Bagatti 2002: 150; Tabula: 109. 2 SWP II: 310. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 121. 4 SWP II: 310.
1
49. Rantis (Rantīs; Rentîs) Ref. IOG: 15190 15930 Ref. ITM: 20190 65930 Ref. UTM: 69056 54514 The site is located in a village bearing the same name. The village extends over a spur near the junction of the ancient roads between Aphek-Antipatris and Jericho and between Lod-Diospolis and ShechemNeapolis.1 The site has been identified as the large village of Arimathea (Άριμαθαία; Matt. 27:57) and as Remphthis (`Pεμφθις; On. 144:28), a Byzantine pilgrimage center.2 In the 1930s the foundations of a church with an apse and mosaic floor were observed in the middle of the village.3 Apparently, these remains were partially exposed during the erection of a new mosque in the village’s old center in 1994. They included a segment of a white mosaic floor (ca. 0.5×0.3 m), Byzantine pottery sherds, and roofing tiles. The structure’s walls were destroyed in the course of construction.4 South of the village, at a place called el-Keniseh, the foundations of an ashlar-built structure were discerned. Nearby were the sparse traces of a mosaic
floor in white, black, red, and orange.5 To its southwest were the remains of another mosaic floor consisting of white tesserae.6 Numerous ashlars in secondary use, including a “pseudo-Greek” capital, were observed in the tomb of Sheikh Barhum in the south of the village.7 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 113; SWP II: 367; Schneider 1933: 156; Kochavi 1972: 234, no. 215; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 179–180. See also: Horning 1909: 133; Wilkinson 1977: 150, 168; Bagatti 2002: 150–151. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 24; Abel 1938: 428–429; Avi-Yonah 1976: 31; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 158–159; Tabula: 67. See also Notley and Safrai 2005: 36, note 144. 3 SRF 156. 4 JSRF 72/10. 5 Schneider 1933: 156; Avi-Yonah 1934: 38, no. 281. 6 SRF 156. 7 Kochavi 1972: 234, no. 215. 1
[169]
Corpus of Christian sites
49. Rantis, remains of the church apse.
50. St. Barbara (ʿAbud) (Barbāra el-Kenīseh; Barbāra el-Kadīseh) Ref. IOG: 15605 15840 Ref. ITM: 20605 65840 Ref. UTM: 69473 54432 The site is located on a hilltop ca. 1 km northwest of the village of ʿAbud. It is associated with St. Barbara, and is a pilgrimage venue for the Christian population in the area.1 The remains were identified as those of a monastery.2 On the hilltop are the ruins of a church. It is a rectangular structure (ca. 14×7 m; wall thickness, 0.9 m) consisting of ashlars, some with marginal drafting.3 A later structure was erected over the church’s eastern section. Tesserae were strewn about the area. Near the structure entrance, a cross-adorned stone bears traces of an undecipherable Greek inscription.4 Near the structure was a hewn pool with a vaulted roof.5 A large cave on the hillslope was also associated with the local cult of St. Barbara.6
According to a local tradition recorded at the beginning of the twentieth century, Barbara was a princess murdered by her father, the pagan king, because she converted to Christianity (SRF 4). The site was still a pilgrimage venue for the local Christian population there at the end of the nineteenth century. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 88; SWP II: 305; Schneider 1933: 155; Bagatti 1959–60: 188; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 204. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 17, no. 1; Bagatti 2002: 143. 2 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 204. 3 Schneider 1933: 155. Its mode of construction led Schneider to date the structure to the sixth century CE. 4 Bagatti 1959–60: 188. 5 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 204. 6 Guérin 1974–75 II: 88. 1
[170]
Corpus of Christian sites
50. St. Barbara (ʿAbud).
51. ʿAbud (ʾÂbûd; ʿAbūd; el-ʿAbūd; Aʿboud) Ref. IOG: 15660 15800 Ref. ITM: 20660 65800 Ref. UTM: 69528 54393 The site is located in a village that extends over a mountain slope overlooking the ancient road between Aphek-Antipatris and Jericho. The remains of a Byzantine settlement buried under later construction were observed.1 The ruins of at least four Byzantine churches were found in the village area, but it is difficult to determine the location and extent of the settlement’s ancient core, and to thus establish the position of the churches in relation to it.2 The first stage of the Greek Orthodox church of Setti Miriam, still in use today, possibly dates to the Byzantine period. It is basilical in plan (22.8×14.5 m), with a narthex, and the prayer hall is divided into a nave and two aisles. The central apse is external (2 m deep; 4 m in diameter), while the lateral aisles terminate in small internal apses. The southern row of columns is still intact and is integrated into the later pilasters. These limestone columns are monolithic
and bear Ionic and Corinthian capitals. The lintel over the main entrance is decorated with two rosettes and a cross inside a circle.3 North of the Greek church, in the area of a modern Catholic church, at a spot called Deir Simʿan, two colorful mosaic floors and foundation remnants were surveyed.4 Owing to the proximity of the site to the Greek church, one can infer that both churches were erected over the same Byzantine compound. The church of Mar Aʿbadia (Mar Abadja), in the northwest of the village, comprises only one hall (13.2×8.7 m; wall thickness, 0.9 m), with a single external rectangular apse (4 m long; 2 m wide). The location of its entrance is unclear.5 V. Guérin observed a tomb or reliquary niche beneath the bema.6 The remnants of another church were found in the northeast of the village. The church was known as Mar Todros or Mar Thodrous (St. Theodore) by the
[171]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
20
40
51.1. ʿAbud, stone lintel adorned with two rosettes and a cross from the church of Setti Miriam.
rectangular niche was built into the southern wall of its eastern section.10 Several architectural elements found on the modern village grounds are connected with public buildings of Christian character, although they cannot be ascribed to any particular church. These elements include fragments of a lintel adorned with crosses and the figure of a dove,11 other lintels adorned with rosettes, and an ashlar with traces of an undecipherable Greek inscription.12 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 87–88; SWP II: 302–303; Schneider 1933: 155–158; Bagatti 1959–60; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 202–203. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 17–18, nos. 2–4; Bagatti 2002: 142–148; Tabula: 56. 2 Note that the churches of Mar Abadja, Mar Todros, and Deir Nostas were outside the village boundaries in the nineteenth century (Guérin 1874–75 II: 88). Local tradition speaks of seven ancient churches in or around the village (SRF 4; JSRF 71/10). This number includes the church of St. Barbara (see site no. 50 in this volume). In Bagatti’s opinion (2002: 142–143), the churches of Sitti Miriam and Mar Todros were located within the Byzantine settlement. 3 Bagatti 1959–60: 190–196, Fig. 4. In Bagatti’s opinion, the structure originated in the Byzantine period. The column capitals led him to ascribe this stage to the fifth to sixth centuries CE, and the structure alterations to the eleventh century CE. For the Syriac dedicatory inscription (eleventh century) from the church area, see Milik 1959–60. For the salvage excavation of the northern annex of the church, see Taha 1997. Although the church is dedicated to the Holy Virgin, the site itself is associated with the cult of the prophet Ovadiah, who, according to local belief, is the village patron. This belief possibly arose from the etymology of the village name (Guérin 1874–75 II: 87). 4 Horning 1909: 133; Schneider 1933: 155; Avi-Yonah 1933:
1
51.2. ʿAbud, stone lintel adorned with two rosettes and a cross from a late church.
Palestinians. Its eastern section was wholly ruinous. Its construction mode was identical to that of Mar Aʿbadia. The prayer hall was ca. 6 m wide.7 A lintel adorned with a cross flanked by two doves was discovered in the village; its inscription reveals that it belonged to the martyrium of St. Theodore.8 In the south of the village was the church of Deir Nostas or Deir Nestesieh, which apparently belonged to a monastery. The church includes a prayer hall (10.6×5.9 m; wall thickness, 0.7 m) and a rectangular, external apse (1.7 m wide; 3.4 m long).9 An entrance was fixed in the structure’s western wall, and a
[172]
Corpus of Christian sites
137, no. 3. One of the mosaics was still visible in 1912, when a new church was erected over it. According to the testimony of Palestinians, the colorful mosaic was adorned with various patterns (SRF 4). It was apparently this mosaic that was exposed again in 1952, when the new Catholic church was constructed (JSRF 71/10). Local tradition associates the name of the site with Mar Simʿam (evidently Simeon), who was a monk or hermit in the village vicinity. 5 Schneider 1933: 156, Fig. 3. Judging by its character, A.M. Schneider dates the structure to the seventh to eighth centuries CE. The site name is probably connected with the prophet Obadiah. The lack of post-Byzantine ruins in the church vicinity suggests this tradition is ancient, and that the church was dedicated to Obadiah. The tradition was transferred (apparently in the Middle Ages) to the church of Sitti Miriam, the only church to preserve the tradition of the sanctuary from the Byzantine period until today (see above). 6 Guérin 1874–75 II: 88. 7 Schneider 1933: 156. 8 SWP II: 303; Bagatti 1959–60: 186–187, Fig. 2. Only the first letter of the saint’s name (Θ) was extant in the inscription, and the name of Θεόδωρος (Theodore) was reconstructed (Schneider 1933: 155). That the church was called a μαρτύριον (martyrium) suggests that it was a pilgrimage venue. 9 Schneider 1933: 156, Fig. 4. 10 Bagatti 1959–60: 188–189, Fig. 3:2. According to local tradition, the church was dedicated to St. Anastasia (Guérin 1874–75 II: 88). Schneider (1933: 156), however, records the site as Der Nostas, and associates it with St. Anastasius. 11 Bagatti 1959–60: 187, Fig. 2. 12 SRF 4.
0
3
m
51.3. ʿAbud, general plan of the church of Mar Aʿbadia.
52. Kh. Ras ʾAlam Ref. IOG: 16030 15800 Ref. ITM: 21030 65800 Ref. UTM: 69898 54401 The site is located on a hill ca. 1.8 km south of the village of Beth Rima, near the ancient road between Apheq-Antipatris and Jericho.1 Its remains have been identified as those of a monastery.2 In the east of the site is an ashlar-built structure, east–west in orientation, probably a church. Broken limestone columns, a capital adorned with crosses, and marble chancel screen panel fragments were strewn
around it. In the east of the structure was a small subterranean room with a vaulted roof, apparently the church crypt.3 See the surveys: Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 372; Itah and Baruch 2001: 166. 2 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 372. 3 Itah and Baruch 2001: 166. 1
[173]
Corpus of Christian sites
52. Kh. Ras ʾAlam.
53. Jiljiliya (Jiljiliye; Jiljilîa) Ref. IOG: 17120 15970 Ref. ITM: 22120 65970 Ref. UTM: 70985 54593 The site, located in a village ca. 3.5 km southwest of Sinjil, can be identified with biblical Gilgal (I Sam. 7:16; II Kings 2:1; 4:38) and the village of Galgala (Γάλγαλα), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 66:6).1 A mosaic floor, apparently belonging to a church, was exposed in the north of the village.2
Concerning the site identification, see Abel 1938: 337. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 167–168; SWP II: 290; Dalman 1909: 14; Kochavi 1972: 170, no. 46; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 557. 2 SRF 76.
1
[174]
Corpus of Christian sites
54. Khirbet ʿAlyata (Kh. Âliâta; Kh. ʿAlyāta) Ref. IOG: 17270 15935 Ref. ITM: 22270 65935 Ref. UTM: 71136 54561 The site is located on a hill ca. 2.5 km southeast of Jiljiliya.1 De Vaux identified the site with Gilgal (II Kings 2:1; 4:38).2 In the east of the site is an apsidal structure, apparently a church. Nearby were columns (ca. 3.5 m high), the base of a corner column, colorful tesserae, and roofing tiles.3
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 167; SWP II: 328; de Vaux 1946: 265–266; Kochavi 1972: 170, no. 47; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 560–561; Itah and Baruch 2001: 164–165. 2 De Vaux 1946: 266. 3 Itah and Baruch 2001: 164–165. 1
54. Kh. ʿAlyata.
[175]
Corpus of Christian sites
55. Khirbet Masʿud Ref. IOG: 17210 15790 Ref. ITM: 22210 65790 Ref. UTM: 71078 54415 The site is located ca. 3.7 km southwest of Sinjil.1 In its south is a church, basilical in plan (14×12.5 m), with a single apse flanked by pastophoria. Segments of a colorful mosaic were found on its floor. Various architectural elements, including chancel screen posts and four chancel screen panels adorned with crosses, were found in the area of the site.2 1 See the surveys: Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 559; Itah and Baruch 2001: 163–164 (the site location is imprecise). 2 Itah and Baruch 2001: 163, Fig. 2.
55.2. Kh. Masʿud, chancel screen fragment adorned with a cross.
55.1. Kh. Masʿud, broken chancel screen panel adorned with a cross.
[176]
Corpus of Christian sites
55.3. Kh. Masʿud, remains of the church apse.
56. Khirbet Batin Ref. IOG: 17360 15850 Ref. ITM: 22360 65850 Ref. UTM: 71227 54478 The site, a small ruin, is located ca. 2 km southwest of Sinjil.1 An ashlar-built structure, apparently a church, was located in the west of the site. A number of architectural elements were found in the area—e.g., a cornice, a column base, and a marble chancel screen panel—apparently deriving from the church.2
See the surveys: SWP II: 355; Itah and Baruch 2001: 167 (the site location is imprecise). 2 Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. 1
[177]
Corpus of Christian sites
56. Kh. Batin.
57. Khirbet et-Tell Ref. IOG: 17490 15870 Ref. ITM: 22490 65870 Ref. UTM: 71357 54501 The site is located ca. 1.5 km south of the village of Sinjil, near the ancient road between Jerusalem and Neapolis-Shechem. It has been identified as the village of Gaba (ΓηΒά), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 74:2).1 The ancient weli of Sheikh Ḥ asan, on top of the tell, was apparently erected over the church remains. Columns and a capital adorned with crosses were observed here.2 Column bases, additional capitals, and a chancel screen post, apparently deriving from the church, were strewn around the site.3 Several mosaic floors were also found.4 Concerning the site identification, see: Abel 1938: 329; Mazar (Maisler) 1940–41; Avi-Yonah 1976: 59; Tabula: 1
57.1. Kh. et-Tell, Byzantine capital adorned with a cross.
[178]
Corpus of Christian sites
125–126. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 35–36; SWP II: 287; Alt 1927: 50; Kochavi 1972: 170, no. 51; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 578–580. See also Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 234, no. 44.
2 3 4
57.2. Kh. et-Tell, Byzantine capital in secondary use in a later wall.
57.3. Kh. et-Tell, columns, one in secondary use in a later wall.
[179]
Guérin 1874–75 II: 35–36. SRF 183; Kochavi 1972: 170, no. 51. Alt 1927: 50.
Corpus of Christian sites
58. Khirbet Siyaʿ (Kh. Sîa) Ref. IOG: 18045 15795 Ref. ITM: 23045 65795 Ref. UTM: 71913 54437 The site is located on a spur ca. 2 km northeast of the village of Kh. Abu Falah.1 The remains of a monastery called Deir Abu Sekub were observed near the site, apparently to its northeast.2 These comprise a large solitary structure that was totally dismantled to reuse its building stones. Scant vestiges of its foundations and walls were surveyed beneath an animal pen later built on the spot.3
See the surveys: SWP II: 390, 395; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 725–726. See also: Avi-Yonah 1984: 180, no. 36; Bagatti 2002: 48; Tabula: 233–234. 2 SWP II: 390, 395; SRF 44. 3 SRF 44. 1
58. Kh. Siyaʿ.
[180]
Corpus of Christian sites
59. Khirbet Jabaʿit (Jabaʿit; Jibʿit; Kh. Jibeit; Djebaʾid) Ref. IOG: 18460 15980 Ref. ITM: 23460 65980 Ref. UTM: 72325 54630 The remains of the large settlement extend over a hill on the eastern slopes of the Samarian highlands. A church (14.7×10.5 m) was excavated in 1982 in the northwest of the site.1 It was situated in the midst of an ashlarbuilt compound called el-Kalaʾh. The prayer hall was divided into a nave ending in an apse, and two aisles. Segments of a mosaic exhibiting a lozenge pattern in red, black, and white were exposed in the nave and aisles. West and south of the church were stone-paved courtyards. North of the church was a corridor. Broken columns, capitals, and a cross-adorned stone were observed in the structure. Based on its finds, the church has been dated to the fifth to sixth centuries CE.2 Its location at the edge of the site, as well as its relatively small dimensions and plan, gives the impression that the remains are of a monastery. For the excavation of the church and the exploration of the cave complex, see: Ilan and Dinur 1982; 1987. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 16–17; SWP II: 393; Ilan 1977: 161–165; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 751–753. See also Tabula: 156. 2 Ilan and Dinur 1982: 43; 1987: 123–125. 1
0
59.2. Kh. Jabaʿit, general plan of the church.
59.1. Kh. Jabaʿit, before excavations.
[181]
6 m
Corpus of Christian sites
60. Khirbet Faṣayil (Kh. Faṣāyil; Kh. Faṣāʾil; Tell el-Fasaïl; Kh. Fŭsâil; Kh. Fasâyil; Kh. Faṣâyil; Kh. Faṣâʿyil; Fasayil) Ref. IOG: 19190 15950 Ref. ITM: 24190 65950 Ref. UTM: 73055 54615 The site, located on a hill at the western end of the Phasael valley, is identified with Phasaelis (Φασαηλίς), a settlement mentioned by Josephus as having been built by Herod in honor of his brother Phasael (War 1:418; Ant. 16:145).1 Surveys conducted in and around the site unearthed remains of walls, a bathhouse, and channels that brought water to the site from Naḥ al Phasael and from the Phasael springs.2 Trial excavations were conducted in 1972–1973 and 1982 along the channels, which are dated to the time of Herod and to the Umayyad period.3 A structure (70×70 m), with a corner tower, nearby pool, and water channel was surveyed. A. Augustinović identified the structure as a Byzantine monastery, and proposed identifying it with the monastery next to the church of Cyriac.4 This church is mentioned by Joannes Moschus (Leimonarion XCII.2949), who relates that it was built in the Phasael area by George, archimandrite
of the Theodosius Church. Recent excavations at the site revealed a church with an inscription and a monastery; along with finds confirming settlement at the site in the Second Temple period.5 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 113; Abel 1913: 235–236; 1938: 408–409; Glueck 1951: 414–415; Avi-Yonah 1976: 87; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 187–188; Tabula: 202–203. 2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 228–232; SWP II: 388, 392–393; Harder 1962: 54–60; Kochavi 1972: 106, no. 15. 3 On the water supply system excavations, see: Ḥ A 1973b: 11–12; Porath 1983. See also Porath 1985: 29–45. 4 For Augustinović’s identification see: Hirschfeld 1990: 56, no. 42; Bagatti 2002: 103–104. 5 The excavations were undertaken under the direction of H. Hizmi (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 1129), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. 1
61. Khirbet el-Bira (Kh. el-Bîreh; Kh. el-Bireh) Ref. IOG: 14690 15820 Ref. ITM: 19690 65820 Ref. UTM: 68558 54393 The site is located north of Naḥ al Beit ʿArif and southwest of Rantis. Kh. el-Bira was defined in surveys as a Byzantine settlement, with remains of structures, reservoirs, cisterns, and agricultural installations like winepresses.1 It was excavated in 1980–1983, when it was defined as a monastery or estate house. According to the excavators, the basilica church discovered (17.5×11 m) was built inside a Roman villa of fine ashlar construction, with walls (0.7–0.8 m-thick) that rested on the bedrock.2
The main church entrance was through a courtyard into the nave, through a 1.2 m-wide entrance flanked by two 0.8 m-wide entrances. The threshold stones and doorposts were found in situ. The prayer hall was divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of columns, three columns on each side (of which only the bases remain). The hall was paved in a colorful mosaic, only the edges of which were preserved. Two steps led from the hall to the bema, which was encompassed by a chancel screen. The apse was
[182]
Corpus of Christian sites
flanked by niches and paved in a colorful mosaic. One room with a mosaic floor adjoined the basilica’s southern wall. West of the church, two rooms, one with a mosaic floor, were excavated. The church fell into disuse in the Early Islamic period, and an oil press of the type characteristic of this period was established.3 We assume that this was a way station with a church, rather than a monastery, as there are no structures around the church that would be characteristic of a monastery. See the surveys: SWP II: 329; Dar 1984; Gophna and BeitArieh 1997: 30, no. 34; according to the latter survey the ruin was divided into several sites, nos. 33–41. It seems that site no. 34 is the church that was discovered there. See also Tabula: 90. 2 Safrai and Dar 1982: 12; 1997, especially pp. 59–69, 92– 93. See also Ovadiah and de Silva 1984: 141, no. 32. We opine that the church, of fine ashlars, was built inside a fourth century CE Roman structure, either a fortress or a tower. Remains of segments of mosaics from this period were also found. This structure should be linked to the series of Late Roman fortresses in Samaria. See Magen 2008e: 201. 3 Safrai and Dar 1982: 12–13; 1997: 69, 73, Figs. 11–12; Magen 2008d: 293. 1
0
3
m
61. Kh. el-Bira, general plan of the site.
[183]
Corpus of Christian sites
62. Khirbet Deir el-ʿArab (Kh. Deir el-ʾArab; Deir ʾArâby; Dēr ʾArabi) Ref. IOG: 15160 15750 Ref. ITM: 20160 65750 Ref: UTM: 69030 54333 The site is located on a spur ca. 2 km south of the village of Rantis. Its name attests to the existence of a monastery. The site, surveyed on numerous
occasions and partly excavated in 1993, has been identified as a Byzantine monastery.1 B. Bagatti proposed identifying it with the “Monastery
62.1. Kh. Deir el-ʿArab, before excavations.
62.2. Kh. Deir el-ʿArab, stone lintel adorned with a cross.
[184]
Corpus of Christian sites
of the Arabs,” mentioned in the writings of the Monophysites.2 Its main structure, rectangular in plan (71.3×35.9 m), is entered from the north via a short corridor. A number of rooms are arrayed along its western and eastern walls, and a wide courtyard is situated in the west of the structure. The structure has two towers.3 A chapel, erected in the middle of the structure, comprises a rectangular room (17×6.7 m) with a single apse and an entrance in the northern wall.4 A corridor ran along the chapel’s southern wall. Underneath the chapel a burial chamber was hewn that contained three arcosolia. The chamber was entered from outside the chapel, in the south.5 North of the chapel was a hewn cistern.6 The excavations exposed a corridor connecting the western courtyard with the main structure; it comprises the main monastery entrance.7 The walled courtyard, rectangular in plan (36×14.2 m), was paved with stone slabs; it was entered from the south. West of the courtyard were two reservoirs constructed of large stones and coated with plaster. Water was conducted to the reservoirs through a hewn channel.8 In the north of the courtyard was a winepress paved in white mosaic.9 Three crossadorned lintels were found amidst the ruins. One was adorned with two Maltese crosses enclosed by a rectangular frame; above the crosses were triangles and the depiction of an entrance underneath a conch.10 There was also a marble object identified as an alter colonnette.11 Judging by the structure’s character, A.M. Schneider suggested that the complex be ascribed to the reign of Justinian (mid-sixth century CE).12 North of the monastery structure was a smaller structure. A stone-carved basin, probably a baptistery, was found here.13 Southwest of the monastery structure were the ruins of a watchtower.14 For the excavations, see Itah 2001. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 113–115; SWP II: 311–313; Schneider 1933: 156–158; Kochavi 1972: 234, no. 219; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 177; Itah and Baruch 2001: 164. See also: Avi-Yonah 1934: 27, no. 193; 1935: 188, no. 374; Ovadiah 1970: 45–46, no. 30; Hirschfeld 2002: 187, note 68. 2 For the proposal concerning the site identification, see: Bagatti 2002: 149–150; Tabula: 110. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 114; the location of the towers is unclear. 4 SWP II: 311–313. A lintel (ca. 2.5 m long) adorned with a
1
0
10 m
62.3. Kh. Deir el-ʿArab, general plan of the monastery.
[185]
Corpus of Christian sites
Guérin (1874–75 II: 114–115) suggests that this symbolizes the Holy Trinity. 8 Itah 2001. 9 SRF 44; for the courtyard mosaic, see: Guérin 1874–75 II: 114; Schneider 1933: 157. 10 SWP II: 312. A fragment of this lintel was found in the excavations: Itah 2001: 93, Fig. 141. 11 Bagatti 2002: 150. 12 Schneider 1933: 158. 13 Schneider 1933: 158; SRF 44. 14 SWP II: 313.
cross inside a circle surmounted by an arch was observed over the chapel opening (Schneider 1933: 157, Fig. 5). Another lintel (ca. 2.2 m long) adorned with a cross inside a circle was observed over the north entrance of the structure (Guérin 1874–75 II: 115). 5 SWP II: 311–313. Guérin (1874–75 II: 115) also notes two subterranean rooms west of the chapel. 6 SWP II: 311. 7 In the nineteenth century, a lintel was surveyed that was adorned with two crosses, each inside a circle; and above each circle was a triangle that contained two triangles.
1
2
3 0
40
62.4. Kh. Deir el-ʿArab, lintels adorned with crosses.
[186]
80
Corpus of Christian sites
63. Unnamed Site Ref. IOG: 15945 15690 Ref. ITM: 20945 65690 Ref. UTM: 69816 54289 The site is located on a small hilltop ca. 1.5 km west of Deir Nidham. It has been identified as a monastery, and includes a single structure. It was apparently built around a central courtyard, where a cistern and many white tesserae were found.1
See the survey, Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 227. 1
64. Khirbet Tibne (Kh. Tibna; Tibneh) Ref. IOG: 16030 15720 Ref. ITM: 21030 65720 Ref. UTM: 69900 54321 The site is located on a tall hill ca. 1 km north of Deir Nidham, on the ancient road between AphekAntipatris and Jericho.1 It has been identified as biblical Timnathserah (Josh. 19:50; Judg. 2:8–9) and as the large village of Thamna (Θαμνά/ Θαμναθά), the burial place of Joshua the son of Nun, mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 100:1) and in the Church literature (Ep. 108, 13).2 V. Guérin identified a loculi tomb from the first to second centuries CE as the burial place of Joshua the son of Nun, a totally mistaken identification. 3 In 1977, due to roadwork at the foot of the south of the ruin, a mosaic of a structure, east–west in orientation, was uncovered, as were column drums
and tiles. The structure is most probably a Byzantine church. In addition, an olive press was discovered that was evidently Muslim.4 1 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 89–104; SWP II: 374– 378; de Vaux 1946: 270–271; Kochavi 1972: 234, no. 220; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 367–369. See also Wilkinson 1977: 174. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 67; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 94; Avi-Yonah 1976: 100; Reeg 1989: 615–616; Tabula: 247. See also Limor 1998: 150. Eusebius (On. 96:24) notes another village, named Thamna, located near Lod-Diospolis. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 89–104; Magen 2008f: 141–143. 4 JSRF 47/10.
[187]
Corpus of Christian sites
64. Kh. Tibne, second half of the twentieth century.
65. Deir Nidham (Deir Nidhām; Deir en Nidhâm; Deir Nidam) Ref. IOG: 16090 15660 Ref. ITM: 21090 65660 Ref. UTM: 69961 54262 The site is located in a village on a hill some 0.5 km south of Kh. Tibne.1 Numerous ashlars, a complete monolithic column, fragments of other columns, as well as bases and capitals, were found in secondary use in the village houses.2 One of the capitals was adorned with a cross.3
See the surveys: SWP II: 290; de Vaux 1946: 271; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 366; Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. Concerning the site identification as a fifth century CE coenobitic monastery connected with the Monophysites, see Bagatti 2002: 133 (el-Janiya). 2 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 366; JSRF 46/10. 3 Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. 1
[188]
Corpus of Christian sites
65.1. Deir Nidham.
65.2. Deir Nidham, stone lintel adorned with a cross.
[189]
Corpus of Christian sites
66. Unnamed Site Ref. IOG: 16375 15725 Ref. ITM: 21375 65725 Ref. UTM: 70245 54333 The site, on a hill ca. 2 km west of Umm Safa, consisted of the remains of a monastery, which were surveyed. The remains included a structure, partially ashlar built, and a round courtyard containing a cistern, winepresses, and an oil press. Vestiges of
a mosaic and marble fragments were strewn about the area.1 See the survey, Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 391. 1
67. Jibiya (Jîbia; Djibiya) Ref. IOG: 16520 15620 Ref. ITM: 21520 65620 Ref. UTM: 70392 54231 The site is located in a village at the end of a spur ca. 1 km south of the village of Umm Safa, near the ancient road between Aphek-Antipatris and Jericho.1 V. Guérin suggested that it should be identified as Gibeah (Γαβαάς), the burial place of Eliezer the son of Aaron, mentioned by Eusebius (On. 70:22) and Hieronymus (Ep. 108, 13).2 The Survey of Western Palestine suggested identifying the site with Geba (Γηβά), mentioned by Eusebius (On. 74:2). This identification was rejected by some researchers.3 Numerous architectural elements, apparently deriving
from a church, were strewn about the area or observed in secondary use in later houses. These included three columns,4 a chancel screen post, and a cross-adorned stone.5 See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841: 80–81; SWP II: 290; de Vaux 1946: 267; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 399–400; Itah and Baruch 2001: 160, Map 1. 2 Guérin 1868–69 III: 37–38; 1874–75 II: 106–109. 3 SWP II: 290, 322; Mazar 1975: 86. 4 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 399–400. 5 JSRF 59/10. 1
67.1. Jibiya, chancel screen post in secondary use.
[190]
Corpus of Christian sites
67.2. Jibiya, chancel screen post in secondary use in later construction.
68. Kaubar (Kûbar) Ref. IOG: 16510 15530 Ref. ITM: 21510 65530 Ref. UTM: 70384 54141 The site is located in a village on a hill ca. 4.5 km northwest of Bir Zeit.1 The mosque dedicated to Sheikh Ahmad, in the middle of the village, was partially erected over an earlier structure. The latter, east– west in orientation, was built of ashlars. Next to the mosque were limestone columns and bases, and numerous tesserae were scattered about the area.2 One can assume that this is another instance of the phenomenon of mosques being built over Byzantine
churches, as attested at various sites, e.g., Tel Shiloh, Kafr Malik, Jifna, etc.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 36; SWP II: 290; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 397–398; Itah and Baruch 2001: 165–166. 2 Itah and Baruch 2001: 165–166. 3 See: Tel Shiloh (site no. 44), Kafr Malik (site no. 74), Jifna (site no. 86) in this volume.
1
[191]
Corpus of Christian sites
68. Kaubar, architectural elements strewn about the site.
69. Khirbet Siya (Kh. Siyâ; Kh. Siyye; Kh. Seya) Ref. IOG: 16565 15585 Ref. ITM: 21565 65585 Ref. UTM: 70438 54197 The site, a Byzantine settlement, extends on a hill south of the village of Jibiya.1 Remains of a basilical church (15×12 m) were located in the northeastern corner of the site. Its eastern section was ruinous. Three entrances were fixed in its western wall. The prayer hall was divided by means of two rows of five
columns each into a nave and two aisles (the aisles are 3 m wide; the nave, 6 m wide). Four column bases were found in situ. Broken columns and capitals, including one decorated with a cross,2 as well as an abundance of tesserae of different hues,3 were strewn about the structure’s area.
[192]
Corpus of Christian sites
See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 40; 1874–75 II: 106– 109; de Vaux 1946: 267–270; Kochavi 1972: 172, no. 59; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 395–396. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 124, no. 125; Bagatti 2002: 141–142; Tabula: 233–234. 2 De Vaux 1946: 267–270, Fig. 2. 3 SRF 178. Further columns adorned with Maltese crosses were observed strewn around the site. 1
0
5 m
69.2. Kh. Siya, general plan of the church.
69.1. Kh. Siya.
[193]
Corpus of Christian sites
70. Burham (Burhām; Kh. Burhâm) Ref. IOG: 16660 15505 Ref. ITM: 21660 65505 Ref. UTM: 70534 54119 The site is located in a village ca. 3 km northwest of Bir Zeit.1 In its north are the remains of a church, known by Palestinians as el-Keniseh, and possibly dedicated to St. Mary, which would explain why tradition has also preserved another name for the village: Kafr Miriam.2 The structure was built of ashlars, some with marginal drafting. Only its southwestern corner and part of its southern wall are visible on the surface. The structure’s dimensions are uncertain, but according to its reconstruction, it was basilical in plan (10.3 m wide), and divided by two rows of columns (at intervals of 3.8 m) into a nave and two aisles, with the entrance (or entrances) in
the western wall. Over the southern aisle there was apparently a gallery roofed with wooden beams. Based on the structure’s character, the surveyors have dated it to the fifth to sixth centuries CE. Two columns (0.4 m in diameter and 1.2 and 1.5 m high) were observed in secondary use in the mosque dedicated to Sheikh Ahmad el-Burhami, some 30 m south of the church.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 39–40; SWP II: 290, 330–331; de Vaux 1946: 267; Pringle and Leach 1983; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 408–409. 2 Guérin 1868–69 III: 39–40. 3 Pringle and Leach 1983.
1
70. Kh. Burham.
[194]
Corpus of Christian sites
71. esh-Sheikh QaṬ rawani (esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawâni; esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawānī) Ref. IOG: 16885 15555 Ref. ITM: 21885 65555 Ref. UTM: 70758 54173 The site is located on a spur ca. 2.5 km north of Bir Zeit, near the ancient road between AphekAntipatris and Jericho.1 The weli of esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawani is situated in its southeastern sector. According to local tradition, a monastery dedicated to St. Catharine was situated here; this explains the site name.2 The tomb was partially built over the ruins of a Byzantine church (ca. 31×15.5 m) which are visible to the east. Two rows of columns belong to the prayer hall (nave width, ca. 12 m; the columns are ca. 4 m apart). In the southern row, six
columns were found in situ. Additional columns were observed in secondary use in the tomb itself,3 and remains of walls and cisterns were surveyed to its west.4 See the surveys: de Vaux 1946: 264; Kochavi 1972: 172, no. 60; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 421– 422. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 254–255, no. 71; Bagatti 2002: 141; Tabula: 229. 2 Canaan 1927: 288, note 5. 3 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 422. 4 Kochavi 1972: 172, no. 60.
1
71. Esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawani.
[195]
Corpus of Christian sites
72. Khirbet Ṭ arfein (Kh. Tarafin; Tarfîn; Turfein; Râs et Turfîneh) Ref. IOG: 17010 15560 Ref. ITM: 22010 65560 Ref. UTM: 70883 54181 The site is located on a high hill ca. 2 km northeast of Bir Zeit.1 A church was surveyed in its south. Its prayer hall contained limestone column fragments, and tesserae were strewn around the grounds.2 The prayer hall’s southern wall appears to be ca. 30 m long. West of the prayer hall was a white mosaic floor, apparently belonging to the atrium.3
See the surveys: SWP II: 367; Abel 1928: 51–53; de Vaux 1946: 263; Kochavi 1972: 172, no. 61; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 549–551; Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. See also: Avi-Yonah 1934: 45, no. 324; Ovadiah and de Silva 1984: 148, no. 54; Bagatti 2002: 140–141; Tabula: 239. 2 Abel 1928: 52. 3 Itah and Baruch 2001: 167.
1
72. Kh. Ṭarfein.
[196]
Corpus of Christian sites
73. Khirbet el-Burj (Burj el-Lisāneh; Burj el Lisâneh; Burj el Isâna) Ref. IOG: 17485 15615 Ref. ITM: 22485 65615 Ref. UTM: 71357 54245 a lintel adorned with a wreath and rosettes, and a capital adorned with a cross.3
The site is located on a hill ca. 1.5 km southwest of the village of el-Mazraʿa esh-Sharqiya, near the ancient road between Jerusalem and NeapolisShechem. Today known as Burj el-Lisaneh, it has been identified with biblical Jeshanah (II Chron. 13:19) and the village of Isana (Ίσανά), mentioned in Josephus (Ant. 14:458; War 1:334).1 There is an ashlar-built church on the hilltop. Basilical in plan (the nave, ca. 9 m long), one of its aisles ended in a niche (opening width and depth, 1.4 m; rear wall, 0.9 m wide). Six columns (2.4 m high; diameter 0.5 m) were lying on the structure’s grounds, while two column bases were found in situ.2 Nearby were
Concerning the site identification, see: Albright 1923: 7–8; 1924: 125–126; Abel 1938: 364; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 111; Avi-Yonah 1976: 67; Tabula: 155. Concerning the identification of the village mentioned by Josephus (War 1:334) with the village of Isana, see Ullmann, Shatzman and Price 2009: 148, note 334. See the surveys: Drake 1872b: 88; SWP II: 307–309; Kochavi 1972: 171, no. 57; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 573–575. See also Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 233, no. 42. 2 SWP II: 308–309. 3 Kochavi 1972: 171, no. 57.
73.1. Kh. el-Burj, architectural elements strewn about the site.
73.2. Kh. el-Burj, columns strewn about the site.
1
[197]
Corpus of Christian sites
74. Kafr Malik (Kafr Mālik; Kefr Mâlik) Ref. IOG: 17930 15520 Ref. ITM: 22930 65520 Ref. UTM: 71804 54160 The site is located in a village on a hill ca. 4.5 km southeast of Mazraʿa esh-Sharqiya.1 Some scholars identify the site as Bemeselis (Βεμέσελις), mentioned in Josephus (War 1:96).2 In the nineteenth century, three standing columns and a number of Doric capitals were observed in the courtyard of one of the houses.3 Underneath the later village mosque, an ashlar-built structure was discerned, whose courtyard contained capitals and column bases.4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 208–209; SWP II: 292; Kochavi 1972: 172, no. 64; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 593; Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. See also Bagatti 2002: 48. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Klein 1929; AviYonah 1976: 38. 3 Guérin 1874–75 I: 209. Guérin believed that these elements initially belonged to some kind of pagan structure and were later integrated in secondary use into a church. 4 Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. 1
74.2. Kafr Malik, architectural elements.
74.1. Kafr Malik, column bases and capital.
[198]
Corpus of Christian sites
75. Khirbet el-Marjame (Kh. el-Marjama; Kh. el Merâjim) Ref. IOG: 18160 15540 Ref. ITM: 23160 65540 Ref. UTM: 72034 54184 The site, extending over a biblical tell, is located ca. 2 km east of Kafr Malik.1 At the base of the tell’s southern and western slopes are the remains of a church (15.5×14 m) featuring a colorful mosaic floor. The structure exhibits signs of repair from the Crusader period. To its east is a pool.2 1 See the surveys: SWP II: 394; Kochavi 1972: 172–173, no. 65; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 732– 733. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 236, no. 48; Zissu
2001: 151; Tabula: 180. W.F. Albright suggested identifying the site as biblical Ephraim (II Kings 13:23), identified with the village of Ephraim (’Ejra¡m; On. 86:1); see Albright 1924: 132; 1925. For a more accepted identification by scholars, see et-Taiyiba (site no. 92) in this volume. 2 Kochavi 1972: 172–173, no. 65. The architectural remains surveyed by Guérin (1874–75 I: 211) near the spring of ʿEin Samiya, as well as the column bearing an inscription found in the same area (Macalister 1907b: 237–238), possibly initially belonged to the church under discussion. See Kh. Samiya (site no. 76) in this volume.
75. Kh. el-Marjame.
[199]
Corpus of Christian sites
76. Khirbet Samiya (Kh. Sāmiyye; Kh. Sâmieh) Ref. IOG: 18170 15500 Ref. ITM: 23170 65500 Ref. UTM: 72044 54144 The Byzantine settlement extends on a slope ca. 0.5 km south of Kh. el-Marjame.1 The proximity between Kh. Samiya and Kh. el-Marjame complicates attributing the finds to one or the other. Some scholars identify Kh. Samiya with Kaḥ elet, mentioned in both the Copper Scroll and the Talmud (BT ḳ iddushim 66a).2 Columns, bases, and capitals were found on the grounds of the site.3 One of the columns bears a nineline Greek dedicatory inscription dating to 557 CE.4 According to F.M. Abel’s reconstruction, it appears to refer to persons holding the titles of bishop and archbishop.5 Further evidence of the settlement’s Christian character during the Byzantine period is provided by the discovery of cross-adorned oil lamps in the burial cave excavated in the south of the site in 1942.6 The segments of a mosaic floor in a vaulted structure over the ʿEin Samiya spring were destroyed at the beginning of the twentieth century.7
1
76.1. Kh. Samiya.
76.2. Kh. Samiya, aqueduct that carried water from the ʿEin Samiya spring, view from the south.
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 210–213; Lyon 1908; Kochavi 1972: 173, no. 66; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 734–735. See also: Bagatti 2002: 46; Tabula: 221. For the excavations of the burial caves near the site, see: Ḥ A 1971a; Yeivin 1971. 2 Zissu 2001. 3 Guérin 1874–75 I: 211. The objects found near the spring of ʿEin Samiya possibly originate in Kh. el-Marjame; see: Kochavi 1972: 173, no. 66; SRF 168. 4 Macalister 1907b: 237–238. The description of the column’s location indicates the column’s possible origin at Kh. el-Marjame (site no. 75) in this volume. 5 Abel 1907. 6 ATQ/895 (IAA Archive; SRF 168), Tomb 2. The excavations were conducted by D.C. Baramki, but were not fully published. For their partial publication, see Zissu 2001: 155. 7 SRF 168. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the structure concerned was replaced by another.
[200]
Corpus of Christian sites
77. el-Qaṣ r Ref. IOG: 18230 15440 Ref. ITM: 23230 65440 Ref. UTM: 72106 54086 The site is a monastery, situated on the northern edge of the Judean Desert, ca. 1 km southeast of Kh. Samiya.1 The rectangular structure (14.7×11.4 m) was entered from the west via a small courtyard containing a cistern. A chapel with an apse was located in the northeast of the structure, with a crypt beneath its floor. Three dwelling rooms were situated south of the courtyard and chapel. Some 250 m east of the monastery the remains of a farmstead and a pen for the flock were discovered.2 See the surveys: Hirschfeld 1988–89a; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 744. See also: Hirschfeld 1990: 56, no. 43; Tabula: 206. 2 Hirschfeld 1988–89a. 1
77.2. El-Qaṣr, cistern arches.
0
77.1. El-Qaṣr, general plan of the monastery.
[201]
3
m
Corpus of Christian sites
77.3. El-Qaṣr, remains of the church apse.
78. Khirbet el-Beida (Kh. el Beiḍ a; Kh. el-Beidah) Ref. IOG: 14830 15560 Ref. ITM: 19830 65560 Ref. UTM: 68703 54136 The site is located on a hill slope ca. 4.5 km west of Shuqba. At present there are no architectural remains on the surface,1 but V. Guérin observed a structure, east–west in orientation, apparently a church. The three openings in its western wall attest to its division into a nave and two aisles. In the east of the structure was a single column, probably in situ, and also some white tesserae. A hewn cistern was situated next to the
structure’s facade. The remains of additional buildings were discerned around the church.2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 77–78; SWP II: 328–329; Gophna and Beit-Ariah 1997: 60, no. 115. See also Bagatti 2002: 211. 2 Guérin 1874–75 II: 78. The structure measured 47 paces long by 19 paces wide (37.6×15.2 m).
1
[202]
Corpus of Christian sites
79. Unnamed Site Ref. IOG: 15265 15470 Ref. ITM: 20265 65470 Ref. UTM: 69140 54055 The site is located on a saddle ca. 1 km northeast of the village of Qibya and ca.1 km west of the village of Shuqba. The site is midway between the two villages. Its architectural remains were totally ruinous. A cross-
adorned lintel was found in the southeast of the site.1 See the survey, Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 185. 1
80. Jammala (Jammāla; Jemmâla) Ref. IOG: 15890 15320 Ref. ITM: 20890 65320 Ref. UTM: 69768 53918 The site is located in a village ca. 1 km south of the ʿEnot Zarka Reserve.1 It has been identified as the burial place of St. Stephen, mentioned in ecclesiastical literature from the beginning of the fifth century CE.2 In the south of the village, at a place called Khallet elʿAraies, the remains of a church were found. In 1924, A. Mallon cut two trial trenches across its middle and eastern sections. These exposed part of a stylobate, east–west in orientation; and, adjoining it, two bases and columns adorned with crosses in relief. North of the stylobate was a plaster-coated floor of beaten earth; to the south were several segments of a crude mosaic floor of white tesserae. A probe undertaken at the
conjectured bema site revealed ashlars with marginal drafting and segments of additional mosaics.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 82; SWP II: 294; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 214–215. See also: Wilkinson 1977: 160; Bagatti 2002: 134. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 79; Abel 1924; 1938: 289; Vincent 1926; Avi-Yonah 1976: 46; Tabula: 98. 3 At the conclusion of the excavation, the site was covered over with earth. The findings were never published. For the results, see the excavator’s letter in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 73). See also Vincent 1926: 128, notes 2–3.
1
80. Jammala, beginning of the twentieth century.
[203]
Corpus of Christian sites
81. Deir ʿAmmar (Deir ʾAmmâr; Deir ʿAmmār) Ref. IOG: 15985 15270 Ref. ITM: 20985 65270 Ref. UTM: 69864 53870 The village is located on a hill. The name Deir implies that a Byzantine or Crusader monastery was possibly situated here.1 Next to the village mosque, an ashlarbuilt structure, conceivably a church, was found. The site yielded cross-adorned stones and a column fragment.2 The Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) mentions a mosaic floor.3
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 82–83; SWP II: 294; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 224–226; Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. 2 Itah and Baruch 2001: 167. 3 SRF 44.
1
81. Deir ʿAmmar, view from the northeast.
[204]
Corpus of Christian sites
82. Khirbet Kafr Fidiya (Kh. Kefr Fidîa) Ref. IOG: 16300 15460 Ref. ITM: 21300 65460 Ref. UTM: 70175 54066 The site is located on a spur extending from the highland ridge 2 km southwest of Kaubar.1 At its center is an ashlar-built structure, east–west in orientation, apparently a church. Robber trenches cut across the structure revealed numerous colorful tesserae.2
1 See the surveys: SWP II: 336; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 390; Itah and Baruch 2001: 165. 2 Itah and Baruch 2001: 165.
82. Kh. Kafr Fidiya.
[205]
Corpus of Christian sites
83. Khirbet Nilʿan (Kh. Nâlân) Ref. IOG: 16440 15190 Ref. ITM: 21440 65190 Ref. UTM: 70321 53799 The site is located on a hill ca. 1 km north of the village of Mazraʿa el-Qibliya.1 In its northeast is a large structure known by Palestinians as el-Keniseh, apparently a church. East–west in orientation, it is divided into several halls.2
1 2
83. Kh. Nilʿan, remains of the structure called el-Keniseh.
[206]
See the survey, SWP II: 354. SRF 148.
Corpus of Christian sites
84. Khirbet Deir el-ʿUqban (Kh. Deir el ʾOkbân; Deir el-ʿOqbân; Kh. Deir el-ʿUqbān) Ref. IOG: 16755 15415 Ref. ITM: 21755 65415 Ref. UTM: 70451 54027 The site is located on a hillslope ca. 2 km northwest of Bir Zeit, near the ancient road between AphekAntipatris and Jericho.1 The Survey of Western Palestine identified a monastery here.2 They observed large structures, one in the middle of the site, and another to the south of the spring of ʿEin el-ʿUqban. The surface was strewn with ashlars, broken columns, and bases.3
See the surveys: SWP II: 332; Abel 1928: 53; de Vaux 1946: 266–267; Kochavi 1972: 173, no. 67; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 412. See also Bagatti 2002: 151. 2 SWP II: 332. 3 Abel 1928: 53; de Vaux 1946: 266. 1
85. Bir Zeit (Bîr Zeit; Bîr ez Zeit) Ref. IOG: 16910 15300 Ref. ITM: 21910 65300 Ref. UTM: 70789 53912 The site is located in a village that extends over a spur near the junction of two ancient roads traversing southern Samaria from north to south and east to west.1 Some scholars identify it with the village of Beerzaith (Βηρζηθώ), mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12:397).2 Others, however, identify Beerzaith with the nearby ruins of Kh. Bir Zeit.3 A large structure, apparently a church, occupies the site; it yielded a column, a column base, and a stone featuring a tabula ansata,4 as well as a pseudo-Ionian capital.5 Some 3 km south of the site a colorful mosaic floor was discovered.6
See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 33–34; SWP II: 293; Abel 1928: 49–50; de Vaux 1946: 260–262; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 426. See also Bagatti 2002: 140. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 42; Avi-Yonah 1976: 36; 1984: 101. 3 Abel 1938: 286; Wibbing 1962: 167–170; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 46–48; Tabula: 76. 4 Abel 1928: 49. De Vaux (1946: 262) dated the structure to the Byzantine period, but it might, in fact, be the medieval Greek church dedicated to St. George, whose ruins were described by Guérin (1868–69 III: 33–34). 5 De Vaux 1946: 262. 6 SRF 38. 1
[207]
Corpus of Christian sites
86. Jifna (Jufna; Gifna; Djifna; Djifneh) Ref. IOG: 17050 15210 Ref. ITM: 22050 65210 Ref. UTM: 70930 53832 The site is situated in a village on a hill ca. 1.5 km southwest of Bir Zeit, at the junction of the ancient roads crossing southern Samaria from north to south and east to west. It has been identified with the village of Gophna (Γοφνά), the capital of a toparchy in southern Samaria (Ant. 14:275; War 1:45, 222; 2:568, etc.), later mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 168:16).1 At least two Byzantine churches are located in the village area.2 In the northeast of the village, near the presentday Catholic church, are the remains of a Byzantine church integrated into a Crusader church. In the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) the church is called Keniset el-Adrah.3 According to local tradition, it was dedicated to St. George. The Crusader church apse and chancel screen foundation in front of it date to the Byzantine structure. Two columns on either side of the apse served in secondary use as pilasters. A niche in the church’s northern wall, near the apse, also dates to the Byzantine period, and probably served some liturgical function. Ionian and Corinthian capitals, some adorned with crosses, and a lintel adorned with a cross in a circle were found in the church in secondary use, as well as on the ground. North of the church was a burial cave cut into the bedrock and plastered; it also dates to the Byzantine period.4 A square stone slab (ca. 0.5×0.5 m) with traces of a Greek inscription was found in the church area.5 Capitals, additional column bases, and a round baptismal font with a rounded cruciform basin were found near the present-day Orthodox church, south of the Catholic church.6 The remains of a mosaic were observed near the church,7 and a burial cave adorned with a relief including an angel and a Greek inscription was discovered in the vicinity.8 There was another Byzantine church in the village area, but its location is presently unknown.9 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 53; Abel 1938: 339, 401–402; Avi-Yonah 1976: 63; Tabula: 137.
1
0
3 m
86.1. Jifna, general plan of the Crusader church of St. George.
86.2. Jifna, decorated elements, some adorned with crosses, in secondary use in the Crusader church.
[208]
Corpus of Christian sites
For the excavations, see Bagatti 1971. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 III: 77–78; Guérin 1868–69 III: 28–32; 1897: 330–331; Kitchener 1878: 64–65; SWP II: 294, 323; Vincent 1913; Abel 1923b; Schneider 1933: 158– 159; Sukenik 1933–34; Kochavi 1972: 174–175, no. 73; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 543–547. See also: Lagrange 1895: 96; Avi-Yonah 1933: 178, no. 165; 1948: 162, Pl. XLVII:6; Schwabe 1954; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 226–227, nos. 29–30; Bagatti 2002: 135–140. 3 SRF 76. 4 Bagatti 1971: 252–254. The apse is 2.8 m deep and 4.8 m in diameter (Schneider 1933: 158–159, Fig. 7). 5 SRF 76. The discovery of the inscription in the vicinity of the Byzantine church is mentioned twice in different documents dating to 1921. The inscription was photographed, but the photograph was not found in the Mandatory Archive Record 2
File (IAA Archive); it was partially deciphered by J. Walois: …oÏkon ÷n Ìdrusa… (“…founded this structure…”). 6 Bagatti (1971: 254–255; 2002: 138, Pl. 43:2) dates the baptismal font to the sixth century CE. Initially, it probably belonged to the church of Keniset el-Adrah, where it was surveyed (“partially buried in the soil”) by E. Robinson in the nineteenth century (Robinson and Smith 1841 II: 78). 7 Schneider 1933: 158. 8 SRF 76. The cave is located near the entrance of the Greek church, erected in 1892. This is possibly the same cave surveyed by L.H. Vincent in 1913, as he describes its location as being “at the end of the village in the courtyard of a new house” (Vincent 1913). 9 For a review of the evidence concerning the location of this church, see: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 227, no. 30; Bagatti 2002: 139.
86.3. Jifna, remains of the Crusader church apse, view from the southeast.
[209]
Corpus of Christian sites
87. Khirbet Shatta (Kh. Shaṭtị ; Kh. Satty) Ref. IOG: 17195 15395 Ref. ITM: 22195 65395 Ref. UTM: 71072 54020 The site is located on a spur ca. 1 km west of Yabrud, on the ancient road between Aphek-Antipatris and Jericho.1 In the east of the site was a structure, east–west in orientation, apparently a church. The remains of an apse were visible in its eastern wall. In the structure area one column stood upright, while fragments of other columns lay nearby.2
1 See the surveys: SWP II: 355; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 554–555; Itah and Baruch 2001: 165. 2 Itah and Baruch 2001: 165.
88. Yabrud (Yebrûd; Yabrūd) Ref. IOG: 17310 15380 Ref. ITM: 22310 65380 Ref. UTM: 71187 54007 The site is located in a village on a mountainous ridge ca. 1.5 km northeast of ʿEin Siniya, on the ancient road between Jerusalem and Shechem-Neapolis.1 The foundations of a small church were discerned near the weli of esh-Sheikh Yusuf in the west of the village. The tomb was constructed of stones in secondary use, and the lintel over its entrance was adorned with a tabula ansata and a cross, which was defaced. Near the tomb, a stone bearing traces of a four-line Greek inscription was observed,2 as well as a mosaic floor segment.3 Adjoining the tomb of esh-Sheikh Salih were columns, Corinthian capitals,4 a decorated lintel, and a hexagonal stone featuring four sockets—probably a table base.5
See the surveys: SWP II: 292; Macalister 1907b: 236–237; Kochavi 1972: 173, no. 70; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 565–566. For the excavation of the Second Temple period cave, see Ḥ A 1978. See also: AviYonah 1935: 192, no. 424; Bagatti 2002: 45; Tabula: 258. 2 Macalister 1907b: 236. 3 Kochavi 1972: 173, no. 70. 4 Kochavi 1972: 173, no. 70. 5 Macalister (1907b: 236–237, Figs. 1–2) identifies the second object as a chrismatory; Bagatti (2002: 45), in contrast, identifies it as a pulpitum. 1
[210]
Corpus of Christian sites
88.1. Yabrud, stone lintel in secondary use adorned with a tabula ansata.
88.2. Yabrud, capital in secondary use in a later wall.
0
0
88.3. Yabrud, adorned lintel.
20
40
0
20
40
88.4. Yabrud, hexagonal stone featuring four sockets.
[211]
20
40
Corpus of Christian sites
89. Khirbet Kafr ʿAna (Kh. Kafr ʿĀne; Kefr ʾAna) Ref. IOG: 17360 15260 Ref. ITM: 22360 65260 Ref. UTM: 71240 53858 The site is located in a village on a hilltop ca. 1.5 km south of Yabrud.1 In the northeast of the site is a small ashlar-built structure (ca. 11×11 m), east–west in orientation, with an entrance in its western wall.2 A limestone column and a stone adorned with a Maltese cross were surveyed near the structure.3 Broken columns and ashlars were observed in secondary use in the north of the village.4
See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 43–44; 1874–75 II: 38; SWP II: 299; Kochavi 1972: 175, no. 75; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 564; Itah and Baruch 2001: 164. See also Abel 1938: 289. 2 Kochavi 1972: 175, no. 75. 3 Itah and Baruch 2001: 164. 4 SRF 116.
1
89. Kh. Kafr ʿAna, column in secondary use in later construction.
[212]
Corpus of Christian sites
90. ʿEin Yabrud (ʿEin Yabrūd; ʿAin Yabrûd; ʿAin Yebrûd) Ref. IOG: 17320 15140 Ref. ITM: 22320 65140 Ref. UTM: 71202 53767 The village is located on a hilltop ca. 2.5 km southeast of the village of Jifna.1 In 1935 a burial cave excavated there yielded several cross-adorned oil lamps.2 See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 42–43; SWP II: 291; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 563.
1
Husseini 1938: Pl. VII:3; Pl. VIII:6. The excavator dated the cave on the basis of the coins found there to the fourth century CE. However, new information concerning lamps of the “ʿEin Yabrud” type allow us to redate it to the end of the fourth and the fifth century CE (see Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 112–116). For other burial caves in the area, see: SRF 52.
2
91. Tell ʿAsur (Tell ʿAsūr; Tell ʿAsûr; Tell ʿAzūr; Tell Azour) Ref. IOG: 17710 15390 Ref. ITM: 22710 65390 Ref. UTM: 71587 54025 The site is located on the biblical tell of BaʿalHazor—the highest point in southern Samaria.1 In the list of historical sites compiled under the auspices of the British Mandate, its description mentions the ruins of a church.2 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 209–210; SWP II: 371–372; Orr-Ewing 1927. See also Abel 1938: 259. 1
Schedule: 240. These ruins, like the other ancient remains on the site, had disappeared by the 1930s, and there was no longer any trace of a church (SRF 10). The description in the Schedule possibly simply copied V. Guérin’s description of Kh. et-Tell (see site no. 57 in this volume), which was erroneously ascribed by C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener to Tell ʿAsur (SWP II: 372).
2
92. et-Taiyiba (eṭ-Ṭ ayibe; eṭ-Ṭ aijibe; Taiyibeh) Ref. IOG: 17840 15130 Ref. ITM: 22840 65130 Ref. UTM: 71722 53768 The large Christian village is situated on a hill ca. 2.5 km north of Kafr Rammun, on the ancient road between Aphek-Antipatris and Jericho.1 It has been identified with the village of Apharaema
(Αίφραίμ) / Ephraim (’Eφραΐμ), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 28:4; 86:1).2 The village’s Greek Orthodox church was erected in 1927, after the destruction of an earlier church
[213]
Corpus of Christian sites
dating to the eighteenth century. Numerous Byzantine architectural elements discovered during the later church’s construction, e.g., three chancel screen posts,3 columns, bases, and a Corinthian capital, were incorporated into the new church.4 The church also yielded a round, rock-cut baptismal font with a rounded cruciform basin (ca. 0.8 m in both diameter and height), as well as another, smaller baptismal font (0.8 m in diameter; 0.5 m high).5 The segment of a mosaic decorated with a winding band forming medallions was found on the bema.6 It bore traces of a Greek inscription in its carpet.7 The segment of another mosaic of geometric decoration was discovered northeast of the modern church.8 A cross was carved on the facade of one of the burial caves in the northwest of the site.9 1 See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 II: 121–122; Guérin 1868–69 III: 45–51; 1874–75 I: 206–207; SWP II: 293, 370–371; Schneider 1931a; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 587–590. See also Bagatti 2002: 39–45. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 19, 29, 63; Abel 1938: 318–319, 402; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 90–91; Avi-Yonah 1976: 29, 56; Tabula: 64. 3 SRF 181. 4 Schneider 1931a: 20–21, Fig. 9 (judging by its mosaic and architectural features, A.M. Schneider dates the church to the end of the fifth to the sixth century CE); Bagatti 2002: 41,
92. Et-Taiyiba, architectural elements from the church. Pl. 8:2–3. In the course of constructing the later church, nine columns and two column bases inscribed with Greek letters were found (SRF 181). 5 Bagatti 2002: 41, Pl. 7:3. 6 Schneider 1931a: 20, Fig. 8. 7 Bagatti 2002: 41, Pl. 9:1. 8 Bagatti 2002: 41, Pl. 9:2. 9 SWP II: 370. For the excavations of the other burial caves at the site, see SRF 181.
93. el-Khadr (El Khudr) Ref. IOG: 17880 15110 Ref. ITM: 22880 65110 Ref. UTM: 71762 53748 A solitary church is located on a high hill ca. 0.5 km east of the village of et-Taiyiba.1 According to local tradition, it was dedicated to St. George, which explains the site’s name. It was considered a holy site, at least until the beginning of the twentieth century. The church complex exhibits two stages: a small Crusader chapel was built over the remains of a large Byzantine church. The latter, basilical in plan
(28.6×22 m), had a nave (22.5×12.5 m) and two aisles (ca. 19×6 m). The nave and both aisles end in apses (the central apse is 3.2 m deep and 5.5 m in diameter; the lateral apses are 3.15 m deep and 5.5 m in diameter). There is a small room on either side of the apse, the northern one affording access to the apse itself. The nave features transepts (ca. 11 m long) terminating in apses in the north and south. In front of
[214]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
Byzantine Period
5
m
Crusader Period Modern Period 93.1. El-Khadr, construction phases of the church.
the church are the remains of a staircase that probably led to the narthex.2 A hewn burial cave in the northwest of the church consisted of a single burial chamber containing three arcosolia.3 Adjoining the southern apse was a small, round baptismal font with a rounded cruciform basin (0.76 m high; 1.06 m in diameter).4
Meager segments of a mosaic in black, white, and red were found in the southwestern corner of the southern aisle.5 A stone lintel with a tabula ansata was found in situ over the entrance to the southern aisle.6 The area of the church produced two large reliquary caskets (0.28×0.42×0.83 m), a column with a lotus-shaped
[215]
Corpus of Christian sites
capital, a column base, and two chancel screen posts adorned with rosettes.7 The church’s irregular plan and the discovery of a tomb in its midst suggest that the church was a memorial structure. See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 46–47; SWP II: 324–326; Peters 1904: 383; Schneider 1931a; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 590. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 61, 66–67, nos. 49, 56 (et-Taiyiba); Bagatti 2002: 42–44. 2 Schneider 1931a: 15–18, Pl. 1. 3 Schneider 1931a: 16; SRF 181 (et-Taiyiba). 4 Schneider 1931a: 20, Fig. 7. 5 SRF 121. 6 Schneider 1931a: 17, Fig. 3. 7 Schneider 1931a: 19–20, Figs. 4–6, Pls. III:2–3. On the basis of these elements and the mode of construction, A.M. Schneider dates the church to the sixth century CE. 1
0
20
40
93.3. El-Khadr, baptismal font with rounded cruciform basin.
93.2. El-Khadr, remains of the church apse.
[216]
Corpus of Christian sites
94. el-ʿAuja Ref. IOG: 18840 15065 Ref. ITM: 23840 65065 Ref. UTM: 72723 53723 The site is located on the northern bank of Naḥ al Yitav, ca. 6.5 km west of Kh. el-ʿAuja et-Taḥ ta. The excavation conducted in 1997 uncovered a large rectangular compound with a church at its center.1 Rooms were discovered along the compound walls. The church consists of a narthex, prayer hall, and chancel, paved with a colorful mosaic that includes crosses and birds. Adjacent to the prayer hall entrance
is a Greek inscription that mentions a spring, probably the el-ʿAuja spring, the largest in the vicinity of Jericho.2 The excavations were undertaken under the direction of Ḥ. Hizmi (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 1132), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. 2 Magen 2010: 218–219. 1
94. El-ʿAuja, Greek inscription in the church mosaic floor.
[217]
Corpus of Christian sites
95. Khirbet el-Beiyudat (Kh. el-Beyādāt; Kh. al-Bayudat; Kh. el-Beiyûdât; Kh. Beyadat) Ref. IOG: 19460 15249 Ref. ITM: 24460 65249 Ref. UTM: 73340 53920 The site is located 12 km north of Jericho, on the road between the city and Beth Shean-Scythopolis, on the alluvial fan of Wadi el-ʿAuja.1 It is identified with the settlement of Archelais (Άρχελαϊς), built and named after himself by Herod’s son, Archelaus (Ant. 17:340; 18:31; Pliny, NH XIII, 44).2 This identification is confirmed by the Second Temple period finds.3 It apparently continued to exist in some manner in the Roman period. A large basilica church (23.6×15.5 m) was excavated in 1986–1989 in the center of the site, close to the road. There was a narthex in front of the church, to the west. An entrance leads from the narthex to the nave. There are three additional entrances in the church’s southern wall; one leads to a stone path, the other two, to two square rooms appended to the church wall. The narthex is divided lengthwise by a row of columns, four column bases being found in situ. The narthex is paved in a colorful squarepatterned geometric mosaic. The prayer hall is divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of six columns. The nave is paved in a mosaic carpet of diamond pattern, its edges decorated in a recurring square pattern. The northern aisle floor is composed of a similar pattern. The southern aisle is paved in five geometric carpets of various patterns. Between the southern columns are carpets ornamented differently from the mosaic between the northern columns and aisle, following changes introduced in the church structure. The church apse is internal, and is flanked by two small rooms. A chancel screen encompasses the raised bema before it. A limestone reliquary in a niche was found underneath the bema
mosaic floor. The northwestern corner of the bema contained the protruding base of an ambo. Three floor phases are discernible in the bema. Of the early floor, traces of white mosaic remain in the reliquary niche. Of the second phase floor, the mosaic under the altar table is partially preserved, with a panel containing a medallion of interlaced pattern. In the last phase the floor was decorated with two panels, the bema with a colorful mosaic carpet, and the apse with amphora patterns.4 Five inscriptions were discovered, most apparently mentioning church donors. One inscription mentions Emperor Flavius Iustinus. L. Di Segni opines that this refers to Justin II, and that the inscription is to be dated to 570 CE.5 The protracted excavations conducted at the site did not uncover a Byzantine town or village, and this might have been a church for travelers on the main road, like that at Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan), Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, etc.6 For the site excavation, see: Hizmi 1986; 1990; 1992; 1993; 2004. See the surveys: SWP II: 392; Kochavi 1972: 108, no. 22. See also Porath 1989: 20. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Guthe 1911; Porath 1985: 54–55; Tabula: 67; Piccirillo and Alliata 1999: 51, no. 9; Hizmi 2004. Some scholars identify Archelais’ settlement with other sites in the area; see: Guérin 1874–75 I: 235–238; 250–253; Abel 1938: 249; Avi-Yonah 1954: 36, no. 4; 1976: 30. 3 Hizmi 2004; 2008. 4 Hizmi 1986; 1990; 1992; 1993. 5 Di Segni 1990b. 6 See: Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan; site no. 164) in this volume and Kh. el-Laṭaṭin (site no. 167) in volume II (JSP 14). 1
[218]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
95. Kh. el-Beiyudat, general plan of the church.
[219]
5
m
Corpus of Christian sites
96. el-Haditha (Ḥ adîtheh; el-Ḥ adîtheh; el-Hadîthe; el-Ḥ adītha; Haditha; el-Haditeh; el-Haditheh; el-ḥ adīte̱ ; Ḥ adîd; Ḥ adid) Ref. IOG: 14550 15240 Ref. ITM: 19550 65240 Ref. UTM: 68430 53811 The site is a tell located south of Moshav Beth Neḥ emya, ca. 5 km east of the city of Lod.1 It is identified with biblical Ḥ adid (Ezra 2:33; Neh. 7:37; 11:34), and is mentioned in Maccabees (I Macc. 12:38; 13:13) and by Josephus (Ant. 13:203). Eusebius (On. 24:24) describes Aditha (Άάθιδ), a village east of Diospolis. The settlement also appears in the Madaba Map.2 The southeast of the tell was excavated in 1940; remains of a structure that apparently served some ritual purpose were uncovered. This structure was part of a complex of buildings that were not excavated. One of its rooms, whose walls are not preserved, was paved in mosaic. The room is rectangular (5.25×4.25 m), and west–
east in orientation. The partially preserved colorful mosaic contains floral and faunal decorations, human depictions, and a sailboat on a river. The mosaic contains a depiction of a city, next to which is the name Egypt (EΓΥΠΤΟΣ). This city, encompassed by a wall, contains a domed structure and two structures with gabled roofs. Two Greek inscriptions that begin with the mark of a cross and face east are preserved in medallions in the field of the mosaic, around which are grape clusters and grape leaves. One inscription consists of two rows, the other, of six. The mosaic and the structure as a whole date to the second half of the sixth century CE.3 Tombs and cisterns were also discovered at the site.4
96.1. El-Haditha, two Greek inscriptions in the mosaic floor.
[220]
Corpus of Christian sites
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 64–67; SWP II: 297, 322; Haiman and Dagan 1996: 122; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: 77–78, no. 170. Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 15; Abel 1926: 218; 1938: 340–341; Schürer 1973: 186, note 36; Avi-Yonah 1976: 63; Reeg 1989: 246; Tabula: 138.
1
Avi-Yonah 1954: 61, no. 59. Avi-Yonah 1972; 1973; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 62– 63, no. 86. See also: SRF 59; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 217, no. 18; Bagatti 2002: 208–209. 4 Guérin 1874–75 II: 65; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: 77– 78, no. 170; Bagatti 2002: 208; SRF 59. 2 3
96.2. El-Haditha, sailboat on a river and human figures in the mosaic floor.
96.3. El-Haditha, city, next to which is the name Egypt, in the mosaic floor.
[221]
Corpus of Christian sites
97. Khirbet Ḥ armush (Kh. Harmûsh; Ḥ . Ḥ ermeshit; Neʾot Qedumim) Ref. IOG: 14750 15070 Ref. ITM: 19750 65070 Ref. UTM: 68633 53645 The site is located in the Neʾot Qedumim park. It includes the remains of a Roman-Byzantine settlement on the top and slopes of a hill.1 Excavations in 1990 at the summit exposed the west of a structure, east– west in orientation, probably a church. To its west was a large paved courtyard containing an oil press. The structure was divided into several units. A stylobate, found in the northeastern unit, which apparently was the prayer hall, supported a row of columns dividing the unit into two (the southern aisle was ca. 3 m wide). The floor in this unit displayed segments of a colorful mosaic adorned with medallions and geometric patterns. In another unit to its west, a white mosaic floor was exposed. South of these two units were two rooms, one of which showed traces of a white mosaic floor. There were numerous tiles strewn about the structure, as well as a marble slab fragment, probably a chancel screen panel, with part of an inscription.2 The excavators exposed a structure in the northeast of the hill that they identified as the chapel of an estate or monastery. It was rectangular in plan (8.4×6.2 m), ashlar built, and north–south in orientation. The structure had two entrances near its southwestern corner, and was apparently divided into two rooms: northern and southern. It was entirely paved in white mosaic. The mosaic in the southern room featured a cross opposite the entrance in the western wall. A rectangular frame enclosed the cross, underneath whose arms were the letters A and Ω.3 The northern room contained a column base. Various agricultural installations adjoined the structure. A crucifix pendant was discovered in the settlement’s residential quarter.4 Several oil presses were discovered at the site, one dating to the Early Islamic period.5 For the excavations, see: Greenhut 1988–89; 1989–90; 1998; Greenhut and Yron-Lubin 1991; Yron-Lubin 1994; 1996; 1999; Yron-Lubin and Sebah 1998; Winter 1998; Ariel 1998. See the surveys: SWP II: 335; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: 97–98, no. 215. See also Tabula: 142.
Yron-Lubin 1999. The excavator dates the structure broadly to the Byzantine period. 3 The presence of the cross in the mosaic floor led Z. Greenhut to date the structure before 427 CE. However, the pottery found in the structure dates to the end of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Greenhut 1998: 125). It should be noted that mosaic crosses dating to the sixth and seventh centuries CE have been discovered in numerous churches and chapels in both Judea and Samaria, e.g., Kh. Beit ʿAnun, Qaṣr Khalife, Kh. Umm Deimine, etc., and thus the date 427 CE is by no means binding. See: Kh. Beit ʿAnun (site no. 280), Qaṣr Khalife (site no. 283), Kh. Umm Deimine (site no. 347), etc. in volume II (JSP 14). 4 Yron-Lubin 1996: 68, Fig. 66. 5 Greenhut 1998: 167; Yron-Lubin 1999. See also Magen 2008d: 293. 2
1
0
97.1. Kh. Ḥarmush, general plan of the chapel.
[222]
4
m
Corpus of Christian sites
97.2. Kh. Ḥarmush, the chapel, view from the southwest.
97.3. Kh. Ḥarmush, chapel mosaic floor segment adorned with a cross.
[223]
Corpus of Christian sites
98. Deir Qaddis (Deir Qaddīs; Deir Kuddîs) Ref. IOG: 15445 15070 Ref. ITM: 20445 65070 Ref. UTM: 69328 53659 The site is located in a village on a plateau.1 The name suggests the existence of a monastery. The surveyors of the Survey of Western Palestine describes the site as a monastery and an adjoining cave,2 but a later survey failed to detect ancient remains in the present-day settlement.3 The first-mentioned surveyors may have been describing another site, as can be deduced from
the topographic description that mistakenly situates the site on a high hilltop. See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 85; SWP II: 297; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 192. See also: Bagatti 2002: 149; Tabula: 111. 2 SWP II: 297. 3 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 192. 1
99. Kharbata Ref. IOG: 15680 15010 Ref. ITM: 20680 65010 Ref. UTM: 69565 53604 The site is located in a village on a plateau ca. 2.5 km east of Deir Qaddis.1 In the nineteenth century, the remains of a church were observed; it had been almost totally destroyed.2 Various architectural elements (e.g., a capital and a cornice fragment) were seen in secondary use in later construction in the village.
Numerous column drums were strewn about the area of the village mosque.3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 84; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 200. 2 Guérin 1974–75 II: 84. 3 JSRF 68/10. 1
100. Khirbet en-Nebi ʿAnnir (Kh. ʾAnnîr; Kh. en-Nabi ʿAnnir) Ref. IOG: 16030 15135 Ref. ITM: 21030 65135 Ref. UTM: 69912 53736 The site is located on a spur, ca. 4 km west of Mazraʿa el-Qibliya and 1 km south of Deir ʿAmmar.1 Walls and other structural remains are visible on the surface. South of the sheikh’s tomb, in the west of the site, are the vestiges of a large structure, east–west in orientation, apparently a church. Nine monolithic columns were strewn in its vicinity. Broken columns and bases were
observed in secondary use in the sheikh’s tomb. The fragment of a marble table, apparently the altar table, was found on the site.2 See the surveys: SWP II: 328; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 362–363. 2 JSRF 45/10. 1
[224]
Corpus of Christian sites
100.1. Kh. en-Nebi ʿAnnir.
100.2. Kh. en-Nebi ʿAnnir, column base in secondary use in the sheikh’s tomb.
100.3. Kh. en-Nebi ʿAnnir, column found at the site.
[225]
Corpus of Christian sites
101. Wadi el-ʿAuja Ref. IOG: 19440 14981 Ref. ITM: 24440 64981 Ref. UTM: 73325 53651 The site is located on a hill on the northern bank of Naḥ al Yitav, about 1 km south of Kh. el-ʿAuja etTaḥ ta. In a survey of the site, a walled compound was discovered (51×35 m), with remains of a staircase in its southeastern corner. The compound contained remains of a structure, a plastered pool, and a plastered cistern with a vaulted roof. The site also yielded tesserae and Byzantine sherds.1 Y. Hirschfeld notes that the pool was paved in mosaic, and might have been used as a winepress. Based on the compound’s location and the finds within it, he also suggests its identification as a Byzantine monastery.2 1 2
See the survey, Kochavi 1972: 110, no. 31. Hirschfeld 1987: 64, no. 69.
0
6
m
101. Wadi el-ʿAuja, general plan of the compound.
102. Khirbet Umm Zaqum (Kh. Umm Zaquma; Kh. el-ʿAwja et-Tahtā; Kh. ʿAuja et-Taḥ tā) Ref. IOG: 19498 14967 Ref. ITM: 24498 64967 Ref. UTM: 73383 53638 The site is located on a small hill north of Wadi elʿAuja, and some 1.5 km south of the village of Kafr el-ʿAuja et-Taḥ ta. Its first excavation, conducted in 1948, unearthed a chapel with a mosaic floor. The salvage excavation conducted in 1971 revealed
part of the monastery rooms and of the water system, composed of built channels and cisterns. An additional excavation was conducted in 2005– 2006, uncovering a mausoleum predating the monastery, additional portions of the monastery,
[226]
Corpus of Christian sites
and later remains from the Umayyad period.1 The mausoleum is of ashlar construction and has a vaulted roof. It was entered from the east, through an entrance closed with a rolling stone. The structure was divided into six burial chambers, which contained many skeletons of men, women, and children.2 Various burial offerings were also found, including a ring decorated with a cross, thus attesting that the structure served the Christian population. The mausoleum is dated to the fourth to early sixth century CE. A walled monastery was built in the sixth century CE. In its northern part, a chapel (10.7×4.9 m) was built next to the mausoleum’s western wall. The prayer hall was decorated in a colorful mosaic carpet with a grid pattern composed of rows of leaves. A step led from the hall to the bema and apse, which were ornamented with a white mosaic whose center was emphasized by buds. The chapel was decorated with
frescoes, of which colorful fragments survived. It was entered from the south, through an auxiliary room paved in a colorful mosaic that comprised two panels. In the western panel, a cluster of vine scrolls emerges from an amphora, forming medallions containing faunal figures and floral patterns. The eastern panel is embellished with alternating buds and diamonds.3 There are rooms south and east of the chapel, and a cistern and pool to its west. Additional rooms were uncovered in the south and west of the compound. In the southeast of the site is a square structure, apparently a tower and cistern. The monastery was probably abandoned in the early seventh century CE, during the Arab conquest. In the Umayyad period use was made of the cisterns and architectural items from the chapel, e.g., parts of the chancel screen and bitumen table legs were used in the construction of water channels.
102.1. Kh. Umm Zaqum, chapel and the auxiliary room, view from the west.
[227]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
102.2. Kh. Umm Zaqum, general plan of the site.
[228]
10 m
Corpus of Christian sites
The site was first excavated by S.A.S. Husseini on behalf of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, the results being published by R. Reich (1985). The salvage excavation by B. Shantour was published in a preliminary report (Ḥ A 1971b). The 2005–2006 excavations were undertaken under the direction of Y. Peleg on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; see Peleg 2012. See also: Ovadiah and
1
de Silva 1981: 236–237, no. 50; Hirshfeld 1990: 57, no. 45; Tabula: 255. 2 For the anthropological report by Y. Nagar, see JSRF L-1097. 3 For a depiction of the mosaic floor, see: Avi-Yonah 1935: 190, no. 390; Reich 1985: 212–213; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 102, no. 171, Pls. CVII–CVIII; Peleg 2012: 244–247, Figs. 19–22.
102.3. Kh. Umm Zaqum, the chapel, view from the west.
103. Unnamed Site Ref. IOG: 19790 14920 Ref. ITM: 24790 64920 Ref. UTM: 73676 53597 The site is located on a hill on the northern bank of Naḥ al Yitav, ca. 4 km southeast of Kh. el-ʿAuja etTaḥ ta. The survey revealed a compound (37×30 m) with an entrance in the eastern wall. In the compound vicinity are a plastered and vaulted cistern, a pool, a trench with remains of pottery pipes, and considerable finds of colorful tesserae and Byzantine sherds.1 This site was also surveyed by Y. Hirschfeld, who proposed identifying it as a Byzantine coenobium.2
See the surveys: Kochavi 1972: 110, no. 34; Hirschfeld 1989–90: 46–47. Hirschfeld observed that the surveyed site (IOG:1974/1497) was 289 m below sea level. This site is identical to site no. 33 in the P. Bar-Adon survey, while the site description and finds are parallel to site no. 34 in that survey. See also: Thomsen 1912: 73; Tabula: 256. 2 Hirschfeld 1989–90: 46; 1990: 57–58, no. 46. 1
[229]
Corpus of Christian sites
104. Khirbet Zakhariya (Kh. Zakarîya; Kh. Zakariyeh; Ḥ . Zekharya) Ref. IOG: 14750 14800 Ref. ITM: 19750 64800 Ref. UTM: 68639 53375 Kh. Zakhariya is the common name of several individual sites buried under the industrial quarter of the modern city of Modi ʿin.1 In 1944, excavations were conducted near the maqam Nebi Zakhariya, which occupied the site, but the results were never published. Even the excavator’s name is unknown, and the site report is absent in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive). The only extant documentation comprises several photographs in the site’s general survey file in that archive.2 They indicate partially excavated foundations of an ashlar-built structure
near the maqam. Although the structure is extant only to foundation height, the remains of a hall with an entrance are distinguishable. The hall is paved in a colorful mosaic. A meander pattern appears opposite the entrance, and the corner of a double frame, apparently containing a lozenge, appears in the middle of the hall. To the right of the entrance is a drainage depression that was also paved in mosaic. Some photographs show another mosaic floor segment adorned with lozenges inside a double frame, presumably a continuation of the same mosaic.
104.1. Kh. Zakhariya, mosaic floor segment in the ashlar-built structure.
[230]
Corpus of Christian sites
Other photographs indicate that, in addition to the mosaic-paved hall, the excavation yielded sections of stone-paved floors and architectural elements, e.g., a lintel and fragments of a cornice.3 At the site of el-Ḥ abs, on the grounds of Kh. Zakhariya, a hermit cell was surveyed. It was cut into a bedrock wall facing north. Entered from the east, its windows faced north. Crosses were carved into the walls at different places. A hewn pool was located near the cell.4 A number of burial caves were observed in the vicinity, one consisting of two arcosolia with carved crosses in their walls. A Greek sepulchral inscription naming the deceased and accompanied by crosses was engraved on one of the walls.5 In the east of Kh. Zakhariya, at a site called Kh. el-Kelkh,6 a hewn circular baptismal font with a rounded cruciform basin was found. Engraved on its upper portion was a one-line Greek inscription that commences with a cross; it states that a woman named Sophronia dedicated the font in memory of a deceased relative named Baricha.7 Another inscription from the same site was destroyed before it could be copied.8 A survey conducted here recorded tesserae.9 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 53–54; SWP II: 321–322 (El-Habs), 336–337 (Kh. el Kelkh), 358 (Kh. Zakariya); Séjourné 1892: 123–125; Germer-Durand 1893: 212; Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 354–358; Barda 2000. See also: Bagatti 2002: 204–206; Tabula: 260. 2 SRF 195. 3 The foundations of a structure consisting of roughly dressed stones surrounding the maqam were also surveyed at the end of the nineteenth century (SWP II: 358). 4 SWP II: 358. The site’s location in Kh. Zakhariya is unclear.
1
0
20
40
104.2. Kh. Zakhariya, Kh. el-Kelkh, baptismal font with rounded cruciform basin bearing a Greek inscription. Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 355–356. This site also has a Hebrew name, Ḥ . Kelaḥ . 7 Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 356–358. The baptismal font dimensions were supplied by Séjourné (1892: 123): diameter, 1.56 m; height, 0.90 m; the cross (from end to end), 1.20 m. This same font was apparently resurveyed in 1960 (Ḥ A 1966). Bagatti (2002: 205–206) dates it, based on parallels, to the sixth century CE. 8 Séjourné 1892: 124. 9 Barda 2000: 70. 5 6
[231]
Corpus of Christian sites
105. Mevo Modiʿim Ref. IOG: 14880 14890 Ref. ITM: 19880 64890 Ref. UTM: 68767 53467 The site is a monastery on a hilltop in the settlement of Mevo Modi ʿim. Salvage excavations were conducted at the site in 1976 and 1985.1 The complex consists of three wings around a central courtyard. The latter was paved in crude mosaic, partially replaced at a later stage by stone tiles. A cistern was hewn in the west of the courtyard, a tomb with two burial places hewn in its north. The chapel hall (10.5×6 m) was raised in the east to serve as a bema, the latter paved in a colorful mosaic decorated with geometric patterns around an encircled cross.
The mosaic in the west of the hall was adorned with vines, grape clusters, leaves, tendrils, and a bird. Marble objects strewn about the grounds included chancel screen panels and a post, and fragments of a table surface and table legs. West of the courtyard was an elongated hall, north–south in orientation and paved in white mosaic, apparently the refectory. In the eastern wing were an oil press and storerooms. Evidence of a second story was observed in the eastern and western wings. A winepress and three cisterns were located near the monastery structure.
0
105.1. Mevo Modi ʿim, general plan of the monastery.
[232]
5 m
Corpus of Christian sites
The excavators opined that the monastery was erected before the middle of the fifth century CE, remaining in existence until the end of the Byzantine period.2 We believe that the oil press was installed after the monastery was abandoned and should be dated to the Early Islamic period.3
For the excavations at the site, see: Ḥ A 1965a; 1965b; 1977; Eisenberg and Ovadiah 1998. For the survey of the site’s vicinity, see Haiman 1999. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 243, no. 57; Bagatti 2002: 208; Tabula: 185. 2 Eisenberg and Ovadiah 1998. 3 Magen 2008d: 293. 1
105.2. Mevo Modi ʿim, chapel mosaic floor segments adorned with vines, grape clusters, and a bird.
105.3. Mevo Modi ʿim, bema mosaic floor.
[233]
Corpus of Christian sites
106. Ḥ orvat Sher (Kh. Sher) Ref. IOG: 14910 14915 Ref. ITM: 19910 64915 Ref. UTM: 68797 53493 The ruin, known in Arabic as Umm es-Sur, is situated north of Ḥ . Shanna, at the edge of the new city of Modi ʿin. A. Ovadiah and C.G. de Silva noted the remains of a church at the site, without giving further details.1 The survey revealed a dressed stone on which two crosses were carved, found in secondary use in a terrace wall in the north of the ancient settlement.2 The excavations conducted in 2004–2005 unearthed a large quantity of white tesserae, numerous pottery
vessels, and coins, all Byzantine. According to the excavators, the excavation and survey finds attest the presence of a Christian settlement that also contained a church or monastery.3 Ovadiah and de Silva 1984: 144, no. 42. See the survey, Gadot 2005, Fig. 2. 3 For the excavations, see: Farhi and Gadot 2006; Farhi et al. 2009: 108 ff. 1
2
107. Khirbet el-Midye (el-Midya; Kh. Midieh; Kh. Medieh) Ref. IOG: 15050 14910 Ref. ITM: 20050 64910 Ref. UTM: 68937 53491 A cluster of sites (including Kh. el-Midye, Sheikh el-Gharbawy, Kh. Hummam, Kh. el-Loz, and er-Ras) extending over the area of the village of el-Midye and the two nearby hills and wadi of el-Midye, presently below the modern town of Modi ʿin.1 The place has been identified as Modiin (Mωδεείν) of the Hellenistic period (I Macc. 2:1, 15, 23, 70; 9:19; 13:25, 30; 16:4; II Macc. 13:14).2 The remains of a church were destroyed in the nineteenth century. Among its stones, taken to Lod, were ashlars (whose exteriors were well dressed, their inner sides only crudely dressed), a broken column, and a marble chancel screen adorned with a cross.3 Excavations conducted in the south of the site in 1996–19974 revealed two occupation levels, from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. The wall foundations from the later stage contained an architectural element bearing a cross in relief.5
For the surveys of Kh. el-Midye and the other sites occupying this area, see: Guérin 1874–75 II: 55–64, 395, 404; SWP II: 335 (Kh. el Hûmmâm), 341–352; ClermontGanneau 1896–99 II: 377, 471–472, 476–477; Ḥ A 1963; Kochavi 1972: 235, no. 226 (Er-Rās); Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 30, no. 1 (er-Ras). See also Bagatti 2002: 206–208. 2 Concerning its identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 90; Abel 1938: 391; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 146; Avi-Yonah 1976: 81; Reeg 1989: 400–401; Tabula: 188. 3 Clermont-Ganneau 1896–99 II: 377, 471–472, 476–477. 4 For the excavations, see Weinblatt 1999. The excavator called the site her account focused on Ḥ . ha-Ṭ arsi. This is the Hebrew name of Kh. er-Rujm, which is actually ca. 1 km west of the excavations, in the area of Mevo Modi ʿim (site no. 105 in this volume). The coordinates of the excavated site (ITM: 19950 / 64850) indicate its location in the south of Kh. el-Midye. 5 It can be assumed that this element originated in the lower level. The two strata were dated by the excavator as a continuum from the sixth to tenth centuries CE. In her opinion, the use of this architectural element in the later stage suggests that the population was not Christian. 1
[234]
Corpus of Christian sites
108. el-Janiya (el-Jāniya; Janiah; Jânieh) Ref. IOG: 16150 14940 Ref. ITM: 21150 64940 Ref. UTM: 70036 53543 The village extends over a spur ca. 2.5 km northeast of Kefar Naʾama.1 Some scholars identify the site as a coenobitic monastery from the mid-fifth century CE, associated with the Monophysite movement.2 The village mosque was erected over a church ruins whose columns were still visible on the surface in the nineteenth century.3 One of the columns in the mosque courtyard was apparently in situ; others, and a Corinthian capital, were strewn over the ground in the vicinity. A tombstone bearing a three-line Greek inscription was found in secondary use in a window frame in the mosque.4 A colorful mosaic floor was observed on a hill north of the site.5
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 83; SWP II: 294; Peters 1904: 384–385; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 55, no. 37; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 314. 2 Clermont-Ganneau 1888–1924 III: 230–231; Abel 1938: 325; Tabula: 129. Bagatti (2002: 133) proposes that the monastery be identified not with the village itself, but with one of the sites in the area: Deir ʿAmmar or Deir Nidham. This suggestion seems implausible in view of the considerable distance between these sites and el-Janiya. 3 Guérin 1874–75 II: 83. 4 Peters 1904. For the various readings of the inscription, see: Wright 1904; Clermont-Ganneau 1904. 5 SRF 74. 1
108. El-Janiya.
[235]
Corpus of Christian sites
109. el-Wili Shabbuni Ref. IOG: 16070 14765 Ref. ITM: 21070 64765 Ref. UTM: 69959 53367 A sheikh’s tomb is located on top of a hillock ca. 2 km south of the village of el-Janiya. Close to the tomb, to the east, are the remains of a large structure (30.5×24 m), most likely a monastery, built of dressed stones. The structure, east–west in orientation, is entered through the western wall. It consists of a central unit (24×19.5m), and to its south, two long
halls formed by two parallel walls on a lower terrace. Tesserae, cisterns, and a burial cave were discovered in and around the structure.1 See the surveys: Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 51–52, no. 31; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 308. 1
109.1. El-Wili Shabbuni.
[236]
Corpus of Christian sites
109.2. El-Wili Shabbuni, view from the south.
110. Khirbet et-Tira (Kh. el-Tireh; Kh. et-Thireh; Kh. et-̱ Ṯ ira; Kh. eṭ-Ṭ ira) Ref. IOG: 16745 14675 Ref. ITM: 21745 64675 Ref. UTM: 70636 53290 The site is located in southern Samaria, 2 km northwest of Ramallah. The numerous surveys of the site noted remains of a basilica church and architectural items including column bases, column parts, and capitals. An oil press in a cave, a hewn pool, and burial caves were also discovered.1 The ashlar-built church contains a narthex (18×10.75 m), whose entrance was in the southern wall. Three entrances in the western wall led to the prayer hall, which is divided into a nave and two
aisles by two rows of three columns and two piers each; two of the column bases are preserved in situ. The northern aisle continues to the church’s eastern wall; the shorter southern one reaches the beginning of the apse. The church has a raised bema and an inner apse.2 Its floor was paved in a mosaic containing geometric patterns and medallions with faunal depictions that bear signs of iconoclasm.3 The apse was destroyed over time, and no trace of it remains at present. V. Guérin wrote that in his time stones were
[237]
Corpus of Christian sites
removed from the church to build the Greek church in Ramallah.4 The site yielded fragments of a marble chancel screen bearing two Greek inscriptions with a cross decoration.5 A.M. Schneider dated the church’s construction to the fifth century CE.6 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 II: 43–44; Lagrange 1892: 452–453; Grant 1926: 190–191; Schneider 1934a: 219–221; Kochavi 1972: 178, no. 92; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 72–73, no. 67; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 352–353. See also: SRF 186; Bagatti 2002: 125–128; Tabula: 251. 2 Ovadiah 1970: 116–117, no. 113; Bagatti 2002: 125–126, Fig. 40. 3 Lagrange 1892: 452–453; Bagatti 2002: 125. 4 Guérin 1874–75 II: 44. 5 Bagatti 2002: 126–127, Fig. 40. 6 Schneider 1934a: 219–221.
1
0
110.1. Kh. et-Tira, general plan of the church.
0
10
20
110.2. Kh. et-Tira, marble chancel screen bearing two Greek inscriptions with a cross decoration.
3 m
110.3. Kh. et-Tira, remains of the church apse.
[238]
Corpus of Christian sites
111. Beitin (Beitīn; Beitîn) Ref. IOG: 17275 14815 Ref. ITM: 22275 64815 Ref. UTM: 71163 53441 This is a Byzantine village extending over a biblical site. It has been surveyed on numerous occasions, and excavations have been conducted there.1 The site has been identified as biblical Bethel (Gen. 12:8; 13:3; 28:19 etc.) and as a village mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (Βαιθήλ; On. 4:28; 6:2; 40:20; 120:8).2 The village mosque was erected over the ruins of a Byzantine church, described as possessing only one hall (ca. 8 m wide). North of the church was a large pool.3 In the course of the excavations conducted in 1954, the remains of a structure, identified as a monastery, were exposed east of the mosque. Architectural elements belonging to the church were strewn over the ground.4
For the excavations, see: Albright and Kelso 1968. For coffin lid with a Greek inscription, see Rahmani 1987: 136– 137, Pl. 15:C. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 II: 125–127; Guérin 1868–69 III: 14–27; 1897: 323–327; SWP II: 295–296, 305; Lagrange 1892: 453–454; Sternberg 1915; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 80, no. 82; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 518. See also: Wilkinson 1977: 151; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 208, no. 6; Bagatti 2002: 30–34. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 31; Abel 1938: 270–271; Avi-Yonah 1976: 38; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 44–45; Reeg 1989: 90–91; Tabula: 81. 3 Guérin 1868–69 III: 15; Lagrange 1892: 453. This same church was apparently surveyed after being transformed into a mosque. Its dimensions: ca. 32.9 m long; ca. 14.3 m wide; apse diameter, ca. 4.8 m (SWP II: 295). 4 Albright and Kelso 1968: 42, Pls. 79:7–12, 90d. For the structure, identified as a monastery, see pp. 43, 53. 1
111. Beitin, architectural elements strewn about the village.
[239]
Corpus of Christian sites
112. Khirbet Deir Shabab esh-Shamaliyya (Kh. Deir Shabāb esh-Shamāliyyā; Kh. Deir Shabab esh-Shamaliya; Kh. Deir Shebâh) Ref. IOG: 17370 14890 Ref. ITM: 22370 64890 Ref. UTM: 71257 53518 The settlement is located on a hill slope ca. 1.5 km north of Beitin, near the ancient road between Jerusalem and Shechem-Neapolis.1 The Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) notes a monastery and church ruins to its east in the north of the site.2 There were also fallen columns (2.28 m high; 0.4 m in diameter), a lintel (2.2 m long) bearing a tabula ansata, and a round baptismal font (1.2 m in diameter), with a rounded cruciform basin.3
See the surveys: SWP II: 332; Kochavi 1972: 178, no. 89; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 83, no. 87; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 523–525. See also: Bagatti 2002: 148–149; Tabula: 111. 2 SRF 46. 3 SWP II: 332. 1
112. Kh. Deir Shabab esh-Shamaliyya.
[240]
Corpus of Christian sites
113. Burj Beitin (Burj Beitîn; Burj Beitīn; Burdsch bētīn) Ref. IOG: 17335 14785 Ref. ITM: 22335 64785 Ref. UTM: 71224 53412 many architectural details, including Corinthian capitals, column and base parts, and an ashlar bearing a tabula ansata.4
The ruin is located some 0.8 km southeast of Beitin. Surveyed a number of times, it was identified as a Byzantine monastery with a tower (Burj) built in a later period.1 The site contains remains of ashlar-built structures. The tower, as well, is of ashlars, most in secondary use, including a Byzantine capital and a decorated lintel with a cross between two palm fronds in its center.2 Surrounding the tower is a courtyard with a well. D.C. Baramki, who surveyed the site in the 1930s, mentioned remains of a church, but did not describe them; the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive) contains a plan of a basilica church.3 The site yielded
See the surveys: SWP II: 307; Kochavi 1972: 178, no. 91; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 82, no. 86; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 522–523. See also Schneider 1934b: 187–189. 2 SWP II: 307; Kochavi 1972: 178, no. 91; SRF 40. 3 For Baramki’s survey report, see the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 40). 4 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 82, no. 86; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 522; SRF 40.
113.1. Burj Beitin, stone lintel and capital in secondary use in the tower.
113.2. Burj Beitin, general plan of the church.
1
[241]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
10
20
113.3. Burj Beitin, lintel adorned in its center with a cross between two palm fronds.
114. Khirbet el-Mukatir (Kh. el-Mukâtir; Kh. el-Maqatir; Ch. el-maḳ āṭir; Ch. el-Muqâter) Ref. IOG: 17378 14693 Ref. ITM: 22378 64693 Ref. UTM: 71269 53321 The site is located 1.5 km south of the village of Beitin. It was surveyed on numerous occasions, and was excavated in 1995–2000.1 The surveys and excavations conducted at the site revealed finds from the Late Bronze Age to the Byzantine period.
The Byzantine finds include a monastery, a basilica church, and a tomb.2 A rectangular church (20×16 m), entered from the west, was discovered. In the atrium, two rows of columns rest on stylobates, one row in the north of the
114.1. Kh. el-Mukatir, before excavations, view from the east.
[242]
Corpus of Christian sites
atrium, the other in its south. Four rectangular rooms, two on each side, flank the atrium entrance. Only the atrium’s northwestern column remained in situ. Three entrances lead from the atrium to the prayer hall, which is divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of three columns on stylobates. A colorful mosaic with geometric patterns was uncovered in the church floor, dated to the fifth and sixth centuries CE.3
For the excavations, see: Wood 2000a; 2000b; 2001. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841: 126; Wilson 1869; SWP II: 353; Thomson 1882: 94–95; Schneider 1934b: 189; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 81, no. 84; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 519–520. See also: Sternberg 1915: 16–18; Bagatti 1951: 280; Wood 2008: 237–238. 2 The church size and the lack of any description and finds for the monastery cast doubt on the latter’s existence. 3 Ovadiah 1970: 112–113, no. 110. 1
0
114.2. Kh. el-Mukatir, before excavations, view from the north.
114.3. Kh. el-Mukatir, general plan of the church.
[243]
6 m
Corpus of Christian sites
115. Khirbet Ḥ aiyan (Kh. Haiyan; Kh. Ḥ eiyān; Kh. Ḥ aiyân; Kh. Haiyân) Ref. IOG: 17560 14580 Ref. ITM: 22560 64580 Ref. UTM: 71453 53212 The site is located on the lower end of a ridge, 0.5 km south of Deir Dibwan.1 Remains of a Byzantine church were excavated in 1969.2 The church floor was paved in white tesserae, and a maqam was built over the apse at a later period. Dwelling rooms, a stable, and a winepress were found next to the church. The excavator ascribes the finds to a monastery built in the fifth century CE, and rebuilt in the sixth century CE.3 With no plan and only a partial publication of the excavation, we were unable to determine with certainty that this was a monastery. Nearby, surveys uncovered a reservoir, tombs, and monolithic column fragments.4
Avi-Yonah 1976: 27 identifies the site with Ailon (Αίλών), mentioned by Eusebius (On. 18:14). 2 For the church excavations, as well as other excavations at the site, see: Callaway and Nicol 1966; Callaway 1969a; 1970a: 393–394. See the surveys: SWP III: 113; Kochavi 1972: 178–179, no. 96; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 183, no. 218. See also: Wilkinson 1977: 158; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 235, no. 46; Hirschfeld 1987: 66, no. 76; Bagatti 2002: 34–35; Tabula: 59. 3 Callaway 1969a; 1970a: 393–394. 4 SWP III: 113; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 183, no. 218. 1
116. Khirbet Khudria (Kh. el-Koudeireh; Kh. el-Khŭdrĭyeh; Kh. Khudariya; Kh. Khudriya) Ref. IOG: 17744 14661 Ref. ITM: 22744 64661 Ref. UTM: 71635 53297 The site is located ca. 1.5 km east of the village of Deir Dibwan. V. Guérin surveyed Kh. Khudria and discovered remains of walls, tesserae, columns, cisterns, and tombs, which he attributed to the settlement that existed there. He identified the site with biblical ʿAi.1 The excavations, conducted in the 1960s, uncovered a church and a monastery. North of the church are industrial structures, and close to them, an oil press, a winepress, a cave, three large cisterns, and tombs containing Roman and Byzantine ossuary fragments and oil lamps. The plan, which would enable us to understand the structures of the monastery and church, has not been published, and the excavation finds have been
only partly published.2 Remains of the apse walls, of the prayer hall, and of two additional rooms were discovered. The prayer hall is paved in a mosaic, in the center of which is a square decorative pattern enclosing a circle, with an interlaced rosette in the center of the latter. The repairs evident in the mosaic teach of its partial destruction as a result of iconoclasm. The rooms were paved in a colorful mosaic of geometrical pattern.3 The prayer hall contains a baptismal font.4 B. Bagatti mentioned that while touring the site during the excavation, Fr. Saller saw columns in situ. Bagatti attributes to the church a chancel screen with a Greek inscription found in secondary use in Deir Dibwan.5
[244]
Corpus of Christian sites
See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 57–59; SWP III: 118; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 88, no. 98; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 536. 2 For the excavations see: Ḥ A 1968: 39; Schoonover 1968: 247; 1969: 426. Callaway 1969b: 4–5; 1970b: 10–11. See also: Biran 1969: 46; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 235–236, 1
no. 47; Bagatti 2002: 35–38; Tabula: 168. 3 Schoonover 1968: 247, Pl. XXV:b; Callaway 1970b: 10; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 97, no. 165. 4 Bagatti 2002: 37, Fig. 7:1; Pl. 7:2. 5 Bagatti 2002: 36.
117. Rammun (Rammūn; Rŭmmôn; Rimmoun) Ref. IOG: 17850 14840 Ref. ITM: 22850 64840 Ref. UTM: 71738 53478 This is a village on a hillock ca. 2.5 km south of et-Taiyiba.1 It has been identified with the village of Rimmon (`Pεμμών), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 144:11) and appearing on the Madaba Map.2 The local mosque, evidently built over a church, still preserves its mosaic floor.3 The memory of the former Christian presence in the settlement is possibly retained in the name of one of the caves south of the village: Shaʿf Nasara—“Cave of the Christians.”4
See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 51–53; 1897: 326– 329; SWP II: 292–293; Grant 1926: 194–195; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 89, no. 101; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 538–539. See also: Dalman 1913: 14– 15; Bagatti 2002: 45. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 99; Abel 1938: 437; Avi-Yonah 1976: 91; Tabula: 215. 3 SRF 156. 4 Grant 1926: 195. 1
117. Rammun, beginning of the twentieth century, view from the north.
[245]
Corpus of Christian sites
118. Khirbet el-Kiliya (Kh. el-Kilya; Kh. el-Kīliya; Kh. el-Kīlya; Kîlia) Ref. IOG: 18265 14875 Ref. ITM: 23265 64875 Ref. UTM: 72152 53521 The site is located on a hilltop overlooking Wadi elWahitah, ca. 4.5 km east of Rammun.1 Excavations there in 1982–1988 exposed a fourth century CE fortress that was transformed into a monastery. The
latter remained in use throughout the Byzantine period.2 The building included a square structure (20.5 m each side), the rooms arranged around a central
118.1. Kh. el-Kiliya, construction phases of the site.
[246]
Corpus of Christian sites
courtyard. The entrance, from the south, was equipped with a rolling stone. The area in front of the building was paved and enclosed by a wall. In the northern set of rooms, the monastery crypt was exposed; it consisted of various tombs installed underneath one of the room’s mosaic floor. Several skeletons were interred in the same tomb. The church was apparently erected on the second story, above the room with the crypt and part of the central courtyard. Pillars and pilasters of stones in secondary use were constructed in the central courtyard to bear arches supporting the chapel on the second story. The monastery was abandoned in the late Byzantine period, and in the Early Islamic period the site served as a center for sheep farming. Changes were made in the building and another building was erected on the paved area to the south.3 Architectural elements, e.g., columns, capitals, and chancel screen fragments, were strewn about the area.4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 215–216; SWP II: 395; Hüttenmeister and Reeg 1977 I: 270; Ilan 1977: 165; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 307–309, no. 369; Finkelstein,
Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 II: 722. See also: Hirschfeld 1990: 56–57, no. 44; Tabula: 168. 2 For the excavations, see: Magen 1990b; Magen 2008e: 178–183; 2012b. 3 Magen 2012b; 281–287. 4 Magen 1990b.
1
118.3. Kh. el-Kiliya, inner side of sarcophagus cover with a cross carved in relief.
118.2. Kh. el-Kiliya, view from the northwest.
[247]
Corpus of Christian sites
119. ʿAlali el-Benat (ʿAlali el Banat; ʿAlāli el-Benāt; ʿAlâli el-Benât) Ref. IOG: 18290 14870 Ref. ITM: 23290 64870 Ref. UTM: 72177 53517 This is a hermit cave on the southwestern bank of Wadi el-Wahitah, ca. 250 m northeast of Kh. elKiliya.1 Access to the cave (ca. 7×5.2 m) is via a rock-cut staircase. The cave contains three plastered cisterns, and several niches and rock-cut basins. A tunnel leads from it to a small room (1.5×1 m) with rock-cut benches, a small basin, and two windows.2
The hermit cave might be part of the Kh. el-Kiliya monastery. See the surveys: SWP II: 395; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 309, no. 370. See also: Hirschfeld 1990: 56, no. 44; SRF 7. 2 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 309, no. 370. 1
120. Qattar (Qaṭtạ r; El-Qatar; Ḳ aṭār; El-Ḳ aṭār) Ref. IOG: 19930 14561 Ref. ITM: 24930 64561 Ref. UTM: 73824 53241 The site is a monastery located ca. 9 km northeast of Jericho. The surveys revealed a large monastery, a plastered stone structure, a double-vaulted cistern, and a round, partly preserved pool.1 A few segments of a colorful mosaic floor were discovered.2 The site is currently a ruin.
See the surveys: Van Kasteren 1890: 111–112; Kochavi 1972: 112, no. 47. See also: Hirschfeld 1990: 58, no. 47; Tabula: 208. 2 Avi-Yonah 1934: 37, no. 277. 1
121. Khirbet Huriya (Kh. el-Haourieh; Hūriye; Hūriya) Ref. IOG: 15400 14593 Ref. ITM: 20400 64593 Ref. UTM: 69293 53181 This large ruin extends over an area of ca. 5 dunams, north of the ancient main road between the Shephelah and Jerusalem. An additional ruin, Kh. Kafr Lut, lies nearby, on the site’s southwest, in the area of the present-day settlement of Kefar Rut. The two ruins, separated by a saddle, are actually one site.1 A survey conducted in 1980 revealed a church at the site.2
Extensive excavations conducted at the site in 2005 yielded finds from the Second Temple, Late Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, and Mamluk periods.3 A monastery established there in the Byzantine period might also have served as a hospice that contained a church in which two building phases were discerned. This is a basilica church (27×14 m), with
[248]
Corpus of Christian sites
two rows of columns set on stylobates separating the nave (6 m wide, 15.5 m long, including the bema) from the aisles (3 m wide, ca. 16 m long). A strip of the nave carpet mosaic remains, from which a central medallion can be reconstructed. A section of a large mosaic in the northern aisle is divided into three panels decorated with geometrical patterns; two panels are preserved in their entirety, while only part of the third remains. Only a few mosaic segments of the southern aisle floor were found. The church had an internal apse flanked by two pastophoria. A number of changes were introduced in the church in
the second phase: square pillars were installed along the nave, cutting the early mosaic floor, which was repaired with a coarse white mosaic; benches were set along the aisle walls; and wider chancel screen posts were installed. The monastery fell into disuse in the Umayyad period, to be replaced by a way station built near the road between the Shephelah and Jerusalem. A new way station was built on the southeastern slope in the Mamluk period. In our opinion, in the Byzantine period this was not a monastery, but a hospice that served pilgrims going to Jerusalem.
0
121.1. Kh. Huriya, general plan of the site.
[249]
6
m
Corpus of Christian sites
See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75II: 395–396; SWP III: 103 (Kefr Rût); Kochavi 1972: 235, no. 231; Ḥ A 1980: 19; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 38, no. 13; Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996: 179, no. 72. In the survey conducted by R. Gophna and Y. Porat, Kh. Huriya and Kh. Kafr Lut are 1
identified with Kfar Rutha (Kaferouta) in the Madaba Map. See Kochavi 1972: 202; see also Avi-Yonah 1954: 60–61, Pl. 7. 2 Ḥ A 1980: 19; Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996: 179, no. 72. 3 For the excavation, see Har-Even and Greenfeld 2012.
121.2. Kh. Huriya, the church, view from the northwest.
121.3. Kh. Huriya, the nave, view from the west.
[250]
Corpus of Christian sites
122. Khirbet Faʿush Ref. IOG: 15391 14527 Ref. ITM: 20391 64527 Ref. UTM: 69285 53115 The site is located at the Maccabim Junction, on top of a hill and its southern hillslope that dominate the south of the area, with Kh. Kafr Lut and Kh. Huriya to its north. It is on the ancient road (ca. 300 m north of the site) between Jerusalem and the coastal plain via Ras el-ʿAin-Antipatris. Surveys conducted at the site identified a church, the site being identified as a monastery or farmstead.1 Excavations conducted at the site in 2005 revealed late Second Temple to Early Islamic remains. These included a massive tower (14.4×14.4 m), with 1.1 m-thick ashlar-built walls from the fourth century CE, and a built vaulted lower story with a staircase leading to it.2
Southeast of the tower is a Byzantine church that was built in a public structure also dated to the fourth century CE. The church exhibits two building phases and continued in use until the beginning of the Early Islamic period. This is a basilica church with an external apse. The prayer hall (16.5×12 m) was entered directly from the atrium. In the first phase, dated to the beginning fifth century CE, the church had three entrances from the west, and an additional entrance from the south. The nave mosaic floor is ornamented with a carpet containing an octagon grid pattern, a section of which survived along the bema. The aisles were paved in mosaics decorated with carpets containing a square grid pattern, segments of
122.1. Kh. Faʿush, the church, view from the east.
[251]
Corpus of Christian sites
and was paved in white mosaic; a small segment on its south, adorned with a geometric pattern, enabled a possible reconstruction of the carpet. The apse was expanded (inner diameter of 4 m), its outer shape now trapezoidal. The nave and aisles were repaved with carpets having geometrical patterns. A few segments of the nave carpet survived; there was apparently a separate mosaic carpet in front of the chancel. The
which remain on the east. The church bema was made of architectural items in secondary use. The apse was semicircular in shape (inner diameter, 3 m). A number of changes were introduced in the second half of the fifth century CE, the second phase of the church. The central and northern entrances in the western wall were blocked, as was the entrance in the southern wall. The bema was expanded to the entire width of the church
0
122.2. Kh. Faʿush, general plan of the early phase of the church.
[252]
3
m
Corpus of Christian sites
southern aisle was embellished with a grid-patterned carpet, a section of which remains in its west. The northern aisle was embellished with a carpet in a pattern of square grids that was partly preserved. The intercolumnar spaces were decorated with various motifs. Benches along the aisles’ lengths were added. This church probably served pilgrims travelling between the Shephelah and Jerusalem.
The site was surveyed in 1930 by D.C. Baramki, and in 1933 by S.A.S. Husseini; see: SRF 148 (Kh. Numat el Hauadali [Kh. el Paʿush]); Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 32, no. 4. In the Antiquities Department list (DAGL: 107), the site, listed without a name, was surmised by the surveyors to be Kh. Ḥ amdallah. We opine that Kh. Faʿush was a hospice situated on the main road. 2 For the excavation, see Har-Even and Shapira 2012. See also Magen 2008e: 199–200. 1
0
122.3. Kh. Faʿush, general plan of the late phase of the church.
[253]
3
m
Corpus of Christian sites
122.4. Kh. Faʿush, entrance to a Second Temple dwelling cave and the church to its north, view from the south.
123. Khirbet Mannʿa (Kh. Abu Ṣ uqeir; Kh. Mannaʿ) Ref. IOG: 15580 14465 Ref. ITM: 20580 64465 Ref. UTM: 69476 53057 The site is a ruin on a rocky hillock ca. 1.5 km northeast of the village of Beit Sira. Remains of a church, only a few parts of which are preserved, were surveyed in the north of the site. The church was probably supported in the north by a retaining
wall. In the hall, bases of a row of columns, as well as a colorful grid-patterned mosaic, are discernible. A threshold in the north of the hall separates the hall and bema. The church might have had a crypt. Two winepresses were seen near the church.1
[254]
Corpus of Christian sites
Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 117–118, no. 129. The church plan was erroneously reversed in the survey report: the structure is entered from the west, not the east. In the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 136), a structure with a peristyle, a column base, and column fragments were noted; this structure might be the church.
1
0
3
m
123.3. Kh. Mannʿa.
123.1. Kh. Mannʿa, general plan of the church.
123.2. Kh. Mannʿa, church mosaic floor.
[255]
Corpus of Christian sites
124. Beit ʿUr et-Taḥ ta (Bēt ʿŪr at-taḥ tā; Beit ʿŪr et-Tahtā; Beit ʿŪr et-Taḥ ta; Beit ʿUr et-Taḥtā; Beit ʾÛr et-Tahta; Beth Ḥ oron Taḥ ton) Ref. IOG: 15825 14465 Ref. ITM: 20825 64465 Ref. UTM: 69721 53062 The site is located in the village of Beit ʿUr et-Taḥ ta in western Judea, along the ancient road between Jerusalem and Emmaus-Nicopolis. The site is identified with the settlement of Lower Beth-horon, first mentioned in the Book of Joshua (16:3), on the border of the territory of the tribes of Benjamin and Ephraim.1 Eusebius (On. 46:24–25) mentions two villages, Upper and Lower Beth-horon (Βηθωρών), 12 Roman miles from Jerusalem on the way to Nicopolis. The Madaba Map depicts steps on a red background, in an apparent reference to the Beth-horon ascent.2 Architectural items surveyed at and around the site include column fragments, capitals, and lintels decorated with acanthus leaves, some incorporated in secondary use in the mosque and in residents’ homes.3 Fr. Séjourné mentions, in addition to the architectural items, the remains of a church and of a mosaic in an agricultural area.4 B. Bagatti concluded from this that a basilica church stood there.5 A Byzantine chapel was surveyed less than half a mile (ca. 0.80 km) east of the site, close to the Roman road that passed there. Two medallion-ornamented lintels were found close to the chapel, the decorations on one having been destroyed.6 A large winepress was discovered north
124.1. Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta, chancel screen post found at the site.
of the chapel.7 A Second Temple period burial system was found as well, some of whose loculi were used in the Byzantine period as cisterns.8 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 42; Abel 1938: 275; Avi-Yonah 1976: 39; Wilkinson 1977: 151; Reeg 1989: 105–106; Tabula: 84–85. 2 Avi-Yonah 1954: 60, no. 56. 3 See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 I: 338–344; 1874–75 II: 397; SWP III: 86; Séjourné 1898: 122; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 43–46, no. 22. See also: SRF 33; Bagatti 2002: 129– 131, Pl. 41:1–3. 4 Séjourné 1898: 122; Horning 1909: 131; Avi-Yonah 1933: 149, no. 29. 5 Bagatti 2002: 129. 6 SWP III: 86; Ovadiah 1970: 27, no. 15. Fr. Séjourné called the site containing the chapel Er-Ras; see: Séjourné 1898: 122; Bagatti 2002: 130–131. The chapel is apparently the church that appears in the Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive; SRF 141) and in the Antiquities Department list (DAGL: 108) under the site name of Kh. er-Ras. For the survey conducted in the area of Benjamin under the name of Kh. Ras el-Sinaubar, see Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 90. On the Roman road that passed here, see Roll and Ayalon 1984: 61. 7 SWP III: 86. 8 Ḥ A1971c.
1
124.2. Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta, column base in secondary use as a cistern opening.
[256]
Corpus of Christian sites
125. Khirbet Meiyita (Kh. el-Meiṭa; Kh. Meita) Ref. IOG: 16215 14343 Ref. ITM: 21215 64343 Ref. UTM: 70113 52948 The ruin is located on a ridge, on a slope ca. 1.4 km northeast of Beth-horon, and ca. 1 km east of Beit ʿUr el-Fauqa. The Mandatory Archive (IAA Archive), and a later survey conducted at the site in the 1990s, reported the discovery of remains of a church, including an apse, over which were an agricultural tower, stylobate columns, and an Ionic capital.1 Proposals were advanced identifying the site with Crusader period Amieth or Barimeta,2 but these suggestions were rejected by I. Finkelstein, Z. Lederman, and S. Bunimovitz, since no pottery from this period was found at the site.3 In 2005 and 2008, excavations were conducted of a basilica church (13.3×12.4 m) with an external apse. Three western entrances led to the prayer hall, which was divided by two rows of columns into a nave and two aisles. Some of the columns and bases in the northern row were found in situ, and capitals were discovered in secondary use. The nave was paved in a mosaic carpet with an interlocked circles pattern. The northern aisle was paved in a mosaic carpet decorated with buds, and the southern aisle, with a mosaic carpet of diamond and square geometric patterns. Two building phases are
evident in the area of the bema and the apse. A plastered floor was discovered from the early phase. In a later phase, dated to the sixth century CE, the bema was elevated and expanded. A horseshoe-shaped stone with two hewn depressions was found in the center of the bema. The large, square eastern depression was most likely where the reliquary was placed. The bema and apse were paved in a mosaic of which white segments remain; and a remnant of a black frame, west of the horseshoe stone, might have contained an inscription. Limestone chancel screen posts were discovered, not in situ. The site remained active in the Umayyad period, but the church fell into disuse. An oil press from that period was discovered north of the church.4 See the surveys: SWP III: 121; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 58, no. 40; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 317–318. See also SRF 140. 2 For the identification of the site with Amieth, see: Röhricht 1887: 222, note 17; and for the identification with Barimeta, by Prawer and Benvenisti, see Peleg, Greenfeld and HarEven 2012: 175. 3 Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 318. 4 Peleg, Greenfeld and Har-Even 2012. 1
125. Kh. el-Meiyita, nave mosaic floor.
[257]
Corpus of Christian sites
126. Khirbet el-Maḥ ma (Kh. el-Maḥ me; Kh. el-Mahmeh) Ref. IOG: 16336 14325 Ref. ITM: 21336 64325 Ref. UTM: 70234 52932 This large site is located ca. 2.7 km west of Beituniya, on an elongated spur bounded on the north by Wadi Jeriut and on the south by Naḥ al Modi ʿim. The site contains remains from the Hellenistic to Early Islamic periods.1 The excavation conducted in 2005 uncovered a Second Temple period settlement, a massive fourth century CE tower, a Byzantine complex, and a large church. An Umayyad oil press was unearthed, as were Abbasid finds.2 The complex was apparently composed of three separate wings surrounded by an enclosure wall. A sophisticated winepress dated to the sixth century CE, into which an oil press was incorporated, was discovered in the northeastern wing of the complex.3 The excavator opined that the complex might be a monastery, although in our opinion there is no clear evidence that a monastery existed.4 A basilica church (19×11.2 m) was found beyond the complex walls, at the eastern end of the site, erected on a steep slope. In the south of the church, only the wall foundation courses survived. The church apse foundations remained, but nothing of the bema was preserved. The narthex was paved in white mosaic, and a cist tomb was discovered in its northwestern corner. Three openings led from the narthex to the prayer hall. The entrance in the south did not survive. The northern aisle was paved in white mosaic, and of the nave mosaic, only a narrow strip bearing a geometric pattern remained. Of the two pastophoria flanking the apse, the northern one is paved in white mosaic with a geometrical pattern in its center. See the surveys: SWP III: 119; Kochavi 1972: 180, no. 102; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 59–60, no. 44; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997 I: 322–323. 2 For the excavation, see Har-Even 2012. 3 Magen 2008d: 287–288. 4 Har-Even 2012. 1
0
126.1. Kh. el-Maḥ ma, general plan of the church.
[258]
3
m
Corpus of Christian sites
0
126.2. Kh. el-Maḥ ma, general plan of the site.
126.3. Kh. el-Maḥ ma, western wall of the Byzantine complex.
[259]
20 m
Corpus of Christian sites
126.4. Kh. el-Maḥ ma, the church, view from the west.
127. Khirbet Beit Sila Ref. IOG: 16483 14280 Ref. ITM: 21483 64280 Ref. UTM: 70382 52890 The site is located some 3 km southwest of Ramallah, on the northern slope of Naḥ al Modi ʿim, and covers an extensive area.1 Containing many structures, it was settled from the Second Temple to Early Islamic periods. A Second Temple period agricultural village was destroyed upon the fall of the Second Temple.2 In the Late Roman period a tower apparently defended the road along Naḥal Modi ʿim.3 A monastery was built in the Byzantine period, centering around a large church established in a Second Temple structure.4 A number of oil presses were built in the Early Islamic period.5
A basilica church (19.2×11.5 m) was excavated in 1997. It included an atrium, with a narthex, prayer hall, and baptistery to the north, and another room to the south. Three entrances led from the narthex to the prayer hall, which was divided by two rows of three columns each. The nave and aisles were paved in mosaics of simple geometric patterns. The chancel mosaic was paved with two panels. The bema panel was decorated with interlacing circles and squares with geometric and floral motifs, and the apse panel was embellished with interlacing medallions containing various birds, as well as floral
[260]
Corpus of Christian sites
motifs like pomegranates and grape clusters. One of the medallions in the center of the carpet contained an amphora, underneath which was a medallion containing a fish. In the center of the apse was a marble slab, at the bottom of which was a Greek inscription and a niche containing a marble reliquary. The excavation also yielded a bituminous chalk
ambo.6 In addition to the inscription on the stone slab, two additional inscriptions were found, one in a tabula ansata on the eastern edge of the nave in front of the bema, and the second on the ambo. All of the inscriptions mention individuals who contributed to the construction of the church, named the Church of St. Theodore, as the text denotes.7
Second Temple Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic and Ayyubid Period
0
127.1. Kh. Beit Sila, construction phases of the site.
[261]
6
m
Corpus of Christian sites
For the excavations, see: Batz 2002; 2003; 2004; 2012. See the surveys: Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 63, nos. 49, 50; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997I: 332, 334. 2 Batz 2002: 40–41; 2003. 3 Magen 2008e: 204. 1
Unlike the excavator, we opine that this was an agricultural village, based on the church finds and inscriptions. 5 Magen 2008d: 288–291. 6 Magen 2010: 202–209. 7 Batz 2004; Magen 2010: 205, 209; Di Segni 2012d. 4
0
127.2. Kh. Beit Sila, general plan of the church.
[262]
6
m
Corpus of Christian sites
127.3. Kh. Beit Sila, the church, view from the northwest.
127.4. Kh. Beit Sila, Greek inscription in a tabula ansata on the eastern edge of the nave.
[263]
Corpus of Christian sites
128. Khirbet Suweikeh (H. Šuweikeh; Kh. esh-Shuweikeh; Kh. es Suweika; Kh. Suweike) ̆ Ref. IOG: 17010 14370 Ref. ITM: 22010 64370 Ref. UTM: 70907 52991 The site, in the vicinity of Ramallah and northwest of Tell en-Nasbeh, contains a partially preserved church. B. Bagatti surveyed the site, described the remains, and drew a plan of the remaining church walls.1 This was most likely a basilica church (ca. 25×12 m). The eastern and northern church walls remain. In the northeastern corner, the walls of a room (2.26×2.22 m) are preserved. Column fragments and bases, and segments of a colorful mosaic floor were discovered. Parts of a Greek inscription engraved on marble bear the name of St. Varus. The church is dated to the seventh and eighth centuries CE.2 See the surveys: SWP III: 52, 126; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 160, no. 174; Bagatti 2002: 120–123, Fig. 39:2; SRF 180. See also: Milik 1960: 578–579, no. 68; Tabula: 237. 2 Ovadiah 1970: 125–126, no. 127; Bagatti 2002: 121–122.
1
0
4
m
128. Kh. Suweikeh, general plan of the church remains.
[264]
Corpus of Christian sites
129. Wadi el-ʿEin Ref. IOG: 17329 14404 Ref. ITM: 22329 64404 Ref. UTM: 71226 53031 The site is located in the upper part of Naḥ al Michmas. The survey revealed a monastery, consisting of a number of monastic cells built around a central courtyard. One of the structures is of elongated shape and has a western entrance built of stones with marginal drafting. The possible remains of an apse were found. This structure most likely functioned as a church or chapel. The site also yielded three plastered
cisterns, an additional cistern with a vaulted stone roof, a doorpost, parts of arches, white tesserae, and Byzantine sherds.1 Y. Hirschfeld maintains this was a coenobium.2 See the surveys: Ḥ anin 1985; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 173, no. 199. 2 Hirschfeld 1987: 54–55, no. 43; Tabula: 256.
1
130. Mukhmas (Mukhmās; Moukhmas; Mŭkhmâs; Mikhmas) Ref. IOG: 17629 14241 Ref. ITM: 22629 64241 Ref. UTM: 71529 52874 The site is located northeast of Jerusalem, north of a hill on which the present-day village of Mukhmas is situated. The site is identified with Machmas
(Macm£j), which is mentioned by Eusebius as being a large village in his time that bordered on Jerusalem (On. 132:4).1
130.1. Mukhmas, church mosaic carpet adorned with interlacing designs and geometric patterns repaired in a later phase.
[265]
Corpus of Christian sites
A basilica church was discovered and excavated in 1930. Although the church walls are not preserved, the mosaic floors of the nave and northern aisle enable us to determine that the church was divided into a nave (7.14 m wide) and two aisles. The mosaics consist of geometric patterns and cross decorations, with noticeable repairs made in a later phase. The nave mosaic contains a Greek inscription. The architectural details discovered include columns, capitals, and chancel screen parts.2 The church was built in the sixth century CE. Surveys found architectural items incorporated in secondary use in the construction of the village, including two decorated lintels, one with three crosses.3
Concerning the site identification, see: Abel 1938: 386; Kochavi 1972: 158; Tabula: 173. Since Eusebius does not specify the Machmas inhabitants’ religion, we assume that it was pagan in the fourth century CE, for had it been Jewish or Christian he would have noted this, as he did in other instances. 2 For the excavations, see: Hamilton 1932a. About the inscription, see Mallon 1931. See the surveys: Guérin 1868– 69 III: 63–65; SWP III: 149; Kochavi 1972: 180–181, nos. 108–109. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 142–143, no. 144; Bagatti 2002: 22–25. 3 SWP III: 149. See also Bagatti 2002: 22–25. 1
130.2. Mukhmas, Greek inscription in the nave mosaic floor.
[266]
Corpus of Christian sites
131. Khallat ed-Danabiya (Khallat ed-Dinnabiya; Khallat ed-Danabîya) Ref. IOG: 18070 14470 Ref. ITM: 23070 64470 Ref. UTM: 71965 53112 This is a laura located on a long, narrow spur on the southern bank of Wadi el-Makkuk. The monastery caves are spread out on different levels of an 0.8 kmlong area. A spring is located ca. 0.6 km from the site. Remains of walls, apparently from the monastery living quarters, are visible in the upper level, along with thicker walls in the lower part of the level, possibly of a public structure. Storerooms and rockcut cisterns with vaulted roofs were discovered. The lower level contained caves; some, with built walls, niches, and etched crosses, were probably dwellings. The central cave functioned as a church. Hewn channels supplied cisterns with water.1
The central cave, located in a section of moderate cliffs, was excavated in 1983. Cave access was from the south and northeast, via rock-cut stairs and paths. The church (ca. 25×9 m) had smoothed and plastered hewn walls. The excavations unearthed a mostly damaged bedding of mosaic and segments of colorful mosaic; many tesserae were found scattered in the area. The apse, hewn as a niche, is elevated above the prayer hall floor. The northern wall contains three large niches, the eastern of which served as a small chapel. Cave niches were used by those serving the church. In the church center is a crypt containing human bones, with access from outside. An additional burial compound is located southwest of the church.2 See the surveys: Goldfus 1990; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 286–290, no. 327. See also Hirschfeld 1990: 58–59, no. 48. 2 For the excavation, see: Goldfus 1984; 1990: 232–240. See also Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 333, cave no. 57. 1
0
6 m
131.1. Khallat ed-Danabiya, general plan of the church cave.
131.2. Khallat ed-Danabiya, church cave.
[267]
Corpus of Christian sites
132. Deir el-QurunṬ ul—monastery OF Douka (Jebel Kŭrŭntŭl; Jebel Qarantal) Ref. IOG: 19090 14231 Ref. ITM: 24090 64231 Ref. UTM: 72990 52894 The monastery of Douka preserves the name of the Dok fortress, mentioned as standing above Jericho in the Second Temple period (I Macc. 16:15), and also called Dagon (War 1:56–57).1 The monastery was established on the cliff south of Naʿaran. At the foot of the cliff is a still active spring, ʿEin Duyuk, which preserves the name of the monastery and fortress. The monastery is also called Deir el-Qurunṭul, after Jebel Qurunṭul (Mount of the Forty), based on the narrative of Jesus and the Devil (Matt. 4:1–2). The monastery was founded in 340 CE by Chariton, one of the founders of Judean Desert monasticism. According to the narrative, he settled in a cave near Jericho, around which a laura would later be established.2
132.1. Deir el-Qurunṭul, general plan of the church cave.
The monastery exists to the present, and was rebuilt by the Greek Patriarchate at the end of the nineteenth century. Surveys conducted prior to the renovation revealed several chapels, some in the caves and in the remnants of the monastery.3 Concerning the site identification, see: Vailhé 1897–98a: 44–49; 1900: 17–18, no. 31; Leclercq 1929: 1968–1970; Abel 1938: 307; Hirschfeld 1990: 7–8, no. 2; Di Segni 2005: 50–52; Tabula: 112–113. 2 Hirschfeld 1990: 7. See also Palladius, HL 48, 13–14. 3 See the surveys: Tristram 1866: 212–217; Guérin 1874–75 I: 41–45; Marti 1880: 13–14; SWP III: 201–205. See also Meinardus 1969: 319–324. 1
132.2. Deir el-Qurunṭul, Byzantine capital adorned with a cross.
[268]
Corpus of Christian sites
132.3. Deir el-Qurunṭul.
133. Tell ʿEin Masaid (Tel ʿEin el-Masaid) Ref. IOG: 19590 14342 Ref. ITM: 24590 64342 Ref. UTM: 73488 53015 The site is located on a hill ca. 2.5 km north of Jericho.1 A compound (30×20 m) was discovered close to an aqueduct that brought water to the site from the ʿEin es-Sulṭan spring. J.L. Féderlin proposed identifying it with the St. Pantaleimon monastery.2 If the identification is correct, this was
one of the structures that Justinian restored in the vicinity of Jericho (Procopius, Justinian’s Buildings V, 9). 1 2
[269]
Hirschfeld 1990: 59–60, no. 51; Tabula: 242. Hirschfeld 1990: 60.
Corpus of Christian sites
134. ‛Nestorian Hermitage’ Ref. IOG: 19600 14100 Ref. ITM: 24600 64100 Ref. UTM: 73503 52773 The hermitage is situated south of the road between Jericho and the Allenby Bridge, and was excavated in 1933 as a result of road construction. Excavations uncovered a chapel and a nearby large monastic cell. The chapel, rectangular in shape, has a niche in its eastern wall. An altar probably stood close to and north of the niche that was paved in a mosaic containing square patterns that formed a cruciform shape. The rest of the chapel is paved in white mosaic decorated with squares patterns. In the center a large square carpet contains a Syriac inscription inside a medallion. An opening in the northern chapel wall led to a dwelling cell that apparently contained a bench or table on each side. A niche in the western wall contained pottery, glass vessels, and bronze objects. The monastic cell was paved in stone slabs laid in the shape of a cross, with stone pebbles between them. According to the excavators, the monastery was settled by Nestorian monks in the ninth century CE,1 while other scholars date the monastery to the Byzantine period.2 1 2
0
For the excavations, see Baramky and Stephan 1935. Hirschfeld 1983: 240 no. 26; 1990: 73; Tabula: 196.
6 m
134. ‛Nestorian Hermitage,’ general plan.
135. ʿEin Yunis (ʿEin Yūnis) Ref. IOG: 19970 14140 Ref. ITM: 24970 64140 Ref. UTM: 73872 52821 The site is located 1.5 km west of the Jordan River and 6 km from Jericho. It is close to a small spring, still active today, next to which are remains of walls, colorful tesserae, sherds, and glass vessel fragments.1 Y. Hirschfeld opines that a coenobium was established close to the spring.2
See the surveys: Kochavi 1972: 114, no. 65; Hirschfeld 1983: 240, no. 27. See also: SRF 52; Tabula: 117. 2 Hirschfeld 1990: 60, no. 53. 1
[270]
Corpus of Christian sites
136. Wadi Nuʿeima Ref. IOG: 20100 14240 Ref. ITM: 25100 64240 Ref. UTM: 74000 52924 Two monasteries were discovered near the banks of Wadi Nuʿeima, which passes north of Jericho. One is located on a hilltop above the wadi’s northern bank, ca. 8 km east of Jericho. A. Augustinović identified a monastery at the site that was encompassed by a wall and contained a baptismal font, along with mosaic segments and Byzantine sherds and glass vessel fragments.1 An additional site is located on a hill on the southern bank of the wadi, ca. 3 km northeast of Jericho (ITM: 24660/64250). The site was surveyed, with visible
remains of structures, dressed stones, burned bricks, tesserae, and glass vessel fragments. Sherds dated to the Byzantine period were also found.2 A later survey noted that an IDF outpost was built above the site. In the surveyor’s opinion, the finds described are characteristic of the monasteries in the vicinity of Jericho.3 See the surveys: Augustinović 1951: 160–159; Hirschfeld 1983: 241, no. 28. 2 Kochavi 1972: 114, no. 60b. 3 Hirschfeld 1983: 236, no. 7. 1
137. el-Jib (El-Jîb; El-Djib) Ref. IOG: 16764 13937 Ref. ITM: 21764 63937 Ref. UTM: 70670 52553 The village, located 10 km northwest of Jerusalem, is identified with biblical Gibeon (Josh. 9:3, 10:2–6; I Kings 3:4–5).1 Excavations conducted at the site in the 1950s revealed a settlement and finds from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages, and the Roman period. The finds included an Iron Age jar handle on which the name Gibeon was engraved.2 Nineteenth century surveys mention a church, which V. Guérin stated was called el-Keniseh by the Palestinians. The Survey of Western Palestine ascribed the church to the Crusader period.3 B. Bagatti, who surveyed the site in the 1970s, provided a complete description of the structure: a square structure with a central hall, west–east in orientation, flanked by rooms to the north and south.
To the west, a hall extends the length of the structure, with entrances to the central hall and northwestern room. An oculus tops the main entrance. The entire structure is supported by vaults, and the central hall, by three arches. Entrances led from the central hall to the northern and southern rooms. The floor of the structure was not visible, it was covered with debris. Bagatti maintains that the central hall is a chapel with a square apse, the hall to its south functioning as a narthex. He maintains that the church architecture is reminiscent of that of structures in Mesopotamia, possibly indicating that the church was built in the Byzantine period by Christians who came from that region.4 The village yielded structures that he dates to the fifth and sixth centuries CE, some of which bear cross ornamentations in relief, scattered
[271]
Corpus of Christian sites
architectural items in Roman-Byzantine style, and rock-cut cisterns.5 We doubt that the structure described by Bagatti is a Byzantine church; it might a Crusader or late Islamic structure. The extensive surrounding agricultural areas make it conceivable that a church serving the village stood here, but it is not the structure that he described. Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 46–47; Abel 1938: 335–336; Avi-Yonah 1976: 62; Wilkinson 1977: 158; Reeg 1989: 161–162; Tabula: 126–127. Eusebius erroneously identified (as shown by the excavations at the site) Gibeon (Γαβαών) with a settlement located 4 Roman miles east of Bethel (On. 66:11) and noted that the settlement of Beeroth (Βηρώθ) is below it (On. 48:9). For more on this subject, see Beyer 1930. 2 For the excavations, see: Pritchard 1956; 1959; 1960a; 1960b; 1961; 1962a; 1962b; 1963; 1964a; 1964b. See also: Schick 1890; Dajani 1953; Cross 1962; Eshel 1987. 3 Guérin 1868–69 I: 385–391; SWP III: 94–100. 4 Bagatti 1975; 2002: 108–110. See also Ovadiah and de Silva 1984: 134–135, no. 14. 5 Bagatti 2002: 109. 1
0
6 m
137. El-Jib, general plan of the structure called el-Keniseh.
138. er-Ram (er-Râm; er-Rām; ar-Ram) Ref. IOG: 17210 14020 Ref. ITM: 22210 64020 Ref. UTM: 71115 52645 The site is located in a village on a tell, ca. 10 km north of Jerusalem.1 It is identified with the biblical city of Ramah, in the territory of the Tribe of Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), and with the village of Ramah (` Pαμά), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 144:14), located 6 Roman miles north of Jerusalem.2 Remains of a church were surveyed in the courtyard of the Sheikh Husein mosque, in the old part of the village. Nineteenth century surveyors opined that the mosque
was built over a basilica church, which had traces of a northern aisle separated from the nave by four columns.3 The architectural church remains include a chancel screen with cross decorations, column bases, and an ornamented lintel.4 Additional items were seen in secondary use in the village houses. Remains of a fort and remains of additional structures, cisterns, and a burial cave dated to the second to fourth centuries CE are visible at the site.5
[272]
Corpus of Christian sites
1
See the surveys: Robinson 1841 II: 315–317; Guérin 1874–75 I: 199–204; SWP III: 155; Pringle 1983: 163–174; Kamaiski 1985; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 168–169, no. 188. See also: Wilkinson 1977: 168; Bagatti 2002: 22; Tabula: 211. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 26,
98; Abel 1938: 427; Avi-Yonah 1976: 90; Reeg 1989: 589. 3 Robinson 1841 II: 315; Guérin 1874–75 I: 199–204; SWP III: 155. 4 Pringle 1983: 163, 169, 173, Fig. 8. 5 Kamaiski 1985; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 168–169, no. 188.
138.1. Er-Ram, chancel screen fragment with cross decorations.
138.3. Er-Ram, ancient remains.
138.2. Er-Ram.
[273]
Corpus of Christian sites
139. el-ʿAleiliyat—Monastery of Firminus (El-ʾAleiliyât) Ref. IOG: 17700 14060 Ref. ITM: 22700 64060 Ref. UTM: 71604 52695 Firminus was one of the disciples of Sabas. Cyril (Life of Sabas 16, 99) relates that he established a laura monastery near the village of Machmas (current-day Mukhmas).1 The monastery was initially identified with the el-ʿAleiliyat group of caves discovered in the canyon of Wadi Suweinit.2 Surveys revealed additional remains in Wadi Suweinit and on the west bank of Wadi el-Habibi. The monastery ruins extend for a distance of 2.1 km, and include structures, caves that served as dwellings, anchorite cells, cisterns, and rock-cut installations.
In the center of the laura are three hanging caves with structures beneath them. To the east is the laura church (17×7 m), which might have had a second story containing a chapel. A lintel with three engraved
0
139.1. Wadi Suweinit, view from the southwest.
5 m
139.2. El-ʿAleiliyat—monastery of Firminus, general plan of the church complex.
[274]
Corpus of Christian sites
crosses, a column fragment, and colorful tesserae were discovered. In the westernmost part of the laura is the el-Maqṭara tower.3 Inscriptions discovered on the cell and cistern walls were written in Greek, Syrian, and Aramaic, the latter from the Second Temple period.4 Structures, caves, and remains of agricultural terraces extend for ca. 2.5 km along the southern bank of Wadi Suweinit (ITM: 22905/63945); they might be part of the laura on the northern bank or of an additional laura.5 ʿEin Suweinit, a spring emanating from the bedrock (ITM: 22855/63950), contains a small, well-preserved chapel (inner dimensions, 8.5×8 m). The chapel has a white mosaic floor with a Syrian inscription that mentions the priest Silas. Anchorite cells, monastic cells, and additional structures were discovered nearby.6 See also Di Segni 2005: 150. M.J. Lagrange was the first to identify the site with the laura of Firminus, an identification accepted by all scholars; see: Lagrange 1895: 94; Tabula: 60. 3 See the surveys: Dalman 1904: 166–168; 1905: 165–166; Marcoff and Chitty 1929: 167–171; Lombardi 1958–59: 275–279; Corbo 1960; Meinardus 1964–65: 225–226; Desreumaux, Humbert and Nodet 1978; Patrich 1983; 1984; Hirschfeld 1990: 44–45, no. 28; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 192–193, 415–416, nos. 232, 543. See also: Palmer 1881: 283; Ovadiah 1970: 60, no. 48; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 131, no. 16; Hirschfeld 1992: 117, 141, 169, 173. 4 Desreumaux, Humbert and Nodet 1978: 419; Patrich 1983: 108; 1985a; Patrich and Rubin 1984; Patrich, Arubas and Naor 1986; Bagatti 2002: 25.
Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 416–417, no. 544. Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 417–418, no. 544. For the inscription, see Halloun and Rubin 1981.
5 6
1 2
139.3. El-ʿAleiliyat—monastery of Firminus, caves on the cliff on the northern bank of Wadi Suweinit.
140. ez-Zakhaliq (ez-Zaḥ aliq; Kh. Râs et-Tawîl) Ref. IOG: 18060 14170 Ref. ITM: 23060 64170 Ref. UTM: 71961 52812 The site is located on the east of the summit of a lofty hill north of Wadi Qelt, above the road to Jericho known as Tariq Abu Hindi. Ez-Zakhaliq affords a good vista eastward toward Jericho and westward toward Jerusalem.1
The site contains remains of walls, of large and medium-sized ashlars and well-dressed stones, encompassed by remains of another wall. Within the complex (ca. 55×45 m), are remains of a tower, a cistern, a winepress, and segments of colorful mosaic
[275]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
140.1. Ez-Zakhaliq, general plan.
12 m
floors. Construction work led to unearthing a section of colorful mosaic with a geometric pattern of grids of squares containing flowers. There might be a remnant of a chapel at the center of the site.2 In light of the excavations at Kh. el-Kiliya, where a monastery was established in a Roman fortress,3 and taking into account the monastery’s location on a high hill that controlled its surroundings and the road, as well as the many ashlars, we may assume that the monastery was established in a fourth century CE Roman structure, as were others in Samaria and in this area. See the surveys: SWP II: 124 (Kh. Râs et-Tawîl); Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 283–284, no. 322. See also: Hirschfeld 1990: 59, no. 49; Tabula: 260. 2 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 284; Hirschfeld 1990: 62, Fig. 70. 3 See Kh. el-Kiliya (site no. 118) in this volume.
140.2. Ez-Zakhaliq, mosaic floor segment adorned with a geometric pattern, view from the southwest.
1
140.3. Ez-Zakhaliq, stone adorned with a cross in relief.
[276]
Corpus of Christian sites
141. Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh (Nuṣeib ʿUweishîra; Nuṣeib el-ʾAweishîreh) Ref. IOG: 19050 14010 Ref. ITM: 24050 64010 Ref. UTM: 72955 52672 The site is located southwest of Jericho and north of Wadi Qelt, on a lofty peak overlooking the Jericho plain. The peak is separated from the ridge to the west by a deep moat (25×9 m).1 A coenobium monastery was built over the ruins of a structure, possibly a Second Temple period fortress.2 Remains of a monastery (ca. 50×30 m) were found, in which two courtyards paved with stone slabs were uncovered. In the northeast of the monastery are remains of a church with a longitudinal prayer hall (7–5.5 m wide and ca. 9.5 m long). The church is paved with a mosaic carpet decorated with a grid pattern and bound by a frame ornamented with a rosette pattern. At the church entrance is a dedicatory inscription in a tabula ansata.3 The inscription ascribes the monastery to Tobias, and relates that it was a coenobium built in the time of Auxentius. The inscription is dated to the early sixth century CE.4 For the excavations, see: Kelso and Baramki 1955: 3; Netzer 1983; Netzer and Birger 1990. See the surveys: Palmer 1881: 349; SWP III: 220; Hirschfeld 1983: 238, 17. 2 Netzer and Birger 1990: 195; Hirschfeld 1990: 59, no. 50; Tabula: 197. 3 Netzer 1983; Netzer and Birger 1990. 4 Di Segni 1990c. 1
0
6
m
141.2. Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh, general plan of the church remains.
141.1. Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh, dedicatory Greek inscription in a tabula ansata in the mosaic floor at the church entrance.
[277]
Corpus of Christian sites
142. Deir Mar Jiryis—Monastery of Choziba (Deir Mar Jariys; Deir Wadi el-Qilt) Ref. IOG: 19010 13960 Ref. ITM: 24010 63960 Ref. UTM: 72916 52621 The site is located on the northern bank of Wadi Qelt, close to its source in Jericho, and contains a still active monastery. Most scholars accept the identification of the monastery of Choziba with Deir Mar Jiryis.1 The establishment of the monastery in 450 CE is described by Anthony of Choziba in Vita sancti Georgii Chozibitae. It was established by five monks of Syrian origin, who initially settled in cells of partly built hewn caves in Wadi el-Qelt, some 1.5–2.5 km east of the monastery,2 and who
afterwards built a laura around the cells. According to Anthony (Miracula V. 366), a chapel, burial structure, and various service structures were erected.3 Around 480 CE, a coenobium monastery was established by John of Thebes on a long, narrow rock surface at the foot of the northern cliff of the wadi. Changes were introduced in the monastery in the medieval and modern periods. Remains from the early period included: the monastery gates; the entrance hall; a chapel with
142.1. Deir Mar Jiryis—monastery of Choziba, view from the southwest.
[278]
Corpus of Christian sites
a hewn burial chamber of the monk St. George of Choziba; a mosaic floor (part of the church of Sts. John and George of Choziba); the cave tomb attributed to the five monks; the hermit cells of the Syrian monks; capitals; and columns. Additional monastic cells and a cave that served as the monastery cemetery, with inscriptions on its walls, some in Greek, were also discovered. 4 Concerning the site identification, see: Vailhé 1897–98b; Thomsen 1907:116; Abel 1938: 300; Chitty 1966: 150–152;
1
0
Wilkinson 1977: 154; Tabula: 104. 2 Koikylides 1901: 80–82; Patrich, Arubas and Kali 1986– 87; Patrich 1990. 3 Patrich, Arubas and Kali 1986–87: 196. 4 See the surveys: Marti 1880: 12–13; SWP III: 192–198; Meinardus 1964–65: 232–246; 1966: 121–126; Meimaris 1978; Patrich 1987–88: 66; Agur, Arobes and Patrich 1988–89: 92–93. See also: Clermont-Ganneau 1874: 88–89; Avi-Yonah 1933: 153–154, no. 62; Ovadiah 1970: 50, no. 37; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 213–214, no. 14; 1982: 130, no. 14; Hirschfield 1990: 29–31, no. 15; 1992: 36–38, 165, 207–211; Di Segni 1993.
6 m
142.2. Deir Mar Jiryis—monastery of Choziba, general plan of the church of Sts. John and George of Choziba.
142.3. Deir Mar Jiryis—monastery of Choziba, view from the south.
[279]
Corpus of Christian sites
143. Tell ʿAqaba (Tell el-ʿAqabeh; Tell el-ʿAkaba; Tel ʿAqaba) Ref. IOG: 19042 13931 Ref. ITM: 24042 63931 Ref. UTM: 72948 52593 The site is located on a hill where Herod built a palace, which he named after his mother, Cypros (Κύπρος; Ant. 16:143; War 1:417). It lies above Wadi Qelt, on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, which is visible from the site.1 Trial excavations in 1974 revealed Byzantine remains, including a square structure (20×20 m), in the center of which is a partially exposed small squarish structure (ca. 6.5×6 m) and a cistern. The walls of the latter structure are west–east in orientation, which led the excavator to suggest that this structure is a
chapel, and the large square structure, a monastery.2 Y. Hirschfeld is of the opinion that the structure was not a monastery, but a hermitage for one or two monks.3 For the excavation, see: Ḥ A 1975; Netzer 1975; Netzer and Damati 2004. See the surveys, Meshel and Amit 1979. See also: Avi-Yonah 1954: 50; 1976: 50; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 211–212, no. 11; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 53, no. 70; Hirschfeld 1990: 71; Tabula: 106. 2 Netzer and Damati 2004: 238–239. 3 Hirschfeld 1990: 71; 2002: 150.
1
143.1. Tell ʿAqaba, early phase of excavations, view from the west.
[280]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
Herodian Period Hellenistic Period Byzantine Period 143.2. Tell ʿAqaba, construction phases of the site.
[281]
25 m
Corpus of Christian sites
143.3. Tell ʿAqaba, remains of the Byzantine structure in the early phase of excavations, view from the southeast.
144. Church of St. Andrew Ref. IOG: 19260 14020 Ref. ITM: 24260 64020 Ref. UTM: 73165 52687 The site is located about 1 km west of Jericho, on the northern bank of Wadi Qelt, and is currently part of the Coptic church there. A mosaic floor decorated with geometric patterns and containing two Greek inscriptions was revealed in the course of construction work. One is a dedicatory inscription that mentions Andrew, after whom the church is named, and the other is a burial inscription. The floor is dated to the sixth century CE. Nearby is a plastered water reservoir,
apparently part of the monastery that existed there at the time.1 A. Augustinović identifies the remains with the “Church of the Gentiles” mentioned by Joannes Moschus (Leimonarion CLIV.3021).2 See the surveys: Augustinović 1951: 77–83; Meinardus 1965–66a; Hirschfeld 1983: 239, no. 21; 1987: 65, no. 73. For a discussion of the inscription, see Bagatti 2002: 98–99. 2 Augustinović 1951: 83.
1
[282]
Corpus of Christian sites
144. Church of St. Andrew, two Greek inscriptions.
145. Tell el-Ḥ assan (Tell Ḥ assan) Ref. IOG: 19345 14080 Ref. ITM: 24345 64080 Ref. UTM: 73248 52748 Remains of a Byzantine church were uncovered at a site named Tell el-Ḥ assan, in the northeastern corner of the Coptic garden southeast of the center of Jericho, and were excavated in 1934.1 The excavations revealed a basilica church, most of whose walls had been completely destroyed, and whose structure was reconstructed on the basis of the extant wall foundation courses and mosaic edges. The church (37×18 m), contains a nave separated
from the aisles by two rows of square columns. The church had a single apse, and a row of columns and a stylobate divided the bema into two. The nave mosaic floor was almost entirely damaged, while the aisle mosaics, composed of geometric patterns, were discovered almost in their entirety. Between the columns are mosaic carpets with geometric patterns. Adjoining the church to the north are three rooms, described by the excavator as two rooms
[283]
Corpus of Christian sites
and a portico; the latter was paved in white mosaic, while the rooms’ floors consisted of colorful mosaics in geometric patterns. The mosaic floor of the room east of the portico is additionally embellished with a Maltese cross pattern. The church also contains marble and red stone fragments, apparently of the altar table, and glass window fragments, some colorful. The excavator identified the church with the Church of the Holy Virgin, mentioned by Procopius of Caesarea (Procopius, Justinian’s Buildings V, 9), who relates that Emperor Justinian (527–565 CE) established this church in Jericho. According to the excavator, this was an already existing church that Justinian rebuilt. It was damaged in the Islamic period and another structure was erected over it.2
145.1. Tell el-Ḥassan, mosaic floor segment adorned with geometric patterns in the southern aisle.
For the excavation, see Baramki 1936. See the survey, Augustinović 1951: 83–85. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 74–75, no. 64; Foerster 1993; Bagatti 2002: 97. 2 Baramki 1936: 87–88.
1
0
145.3. Tell el-Ḥassan, general plan of the church.
145.2. Tell el-Ḥassan, nave mosaic floor and bema, view from the west.
[284]
6
m
Corpus of Christian sites
146. Khirbet en-Nitle (Juljulieh) (T. Jaljūl; Tell Djeldjoul; Birket Jiljûlieh; Tel Ghalghala; Kh. en-Nitla) Ref. IOG: 19650 13790 Ref. ITM: 24650 63790 Ref. UTM: 73559 52464 The site is identified with biblical Gilgal, mentioned in the Book of Joshua (4:19–20). Eusebius (On. 64:24) mentions that the location, identified with Galgala (G£lgala), is situated 2 Roman miles east of Jericho, and is in ruins. He adds that the Gentiles (it is unclear what he meant by this term) worship it as a temple.1 Galgala is also mentioned in the Madaba Map, and M. Avi-Yonah identifies it with Kh. enNitle.2 The Bordeaux Pilgrim mentioned the place in 333 CE (Itinerarium Burdigalense 597, 4).3 A survey of the site uncovered remains of structures, a large reservoir, tesserae, glass fragments, and sherds.4 J.L. Féderlin identified a church and hermit cells.5
146.1. Kh. en-Nitle (Juljulieh), mosaic floor segment.
0
4
0
4
m m
146.2. Kh. en-Nitle (Juljulieh), general plan of the church.
[285]
Corpus of Christian sites
The site was excavated in 1950; the excavator described five building stages, with one church built over the other. According to the excavator, a monastery stood at the site. Y. Hirschfeld dates the monastery to the sixth century CE.6 The first church is dated to the fourth or fifth century CE, and the last, to the ninth century CE. The first church, basilical in plan, is of ashlar construction. Individual sections of the church were uncovered, including part of the southern aisle, the square apse, and segments of a colorful mosaic. A six-line Greek inscription was also revealed. D.C. Baramki maintains that the first church was destroyed in the Samaritan revolt, which is puzzling since it is doubtful that the uprising reached Jericho. In the second stage a church was built of ashlars, and consisted of a prayer hall and an apse. Built on a smaller scale than the first church, it was damaged in the Persian conquest in 614 CE. The third church, which also had a prayer hall and an apse, and in addition, a narthex, was established after the Persian conquest; it yielded the structure foundation, mosaic floors, and two Latin inscriptions, one in the narthex, the other in the prayer hall. It was destroyed in an earthquake in 747 CE. The fourth church resembled its predecessors, with rooms being
built south of it. The church structure was changed in the final stage. The church was converted into a storeroom, and a chapel was built on the second story. The chapel remains, found on the first story floor, included chancel screen fragments and tesserae. The chapel continued in use until the Early Islamic period (ninth century CE).7 A stratigraphic description of the churches and their stages is problematic. Concerning the site identification, see: Guérin 1874–75 I: 117–126; SWP III: 173, 183–184; Thomsen 1907: 48–49; Abel 1938: 336–337; Tabula: 128. Schneider identifies the site with Kh. el-Mefjer; see Schneider 1931b. 2 Avi-Yonah 1954: 36–37, no. 5. 3 See also Limor 1998: 34–35, no. 11, especially note 64. 4 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 117–126 (Tell Djeldjoul); SWP III: 191 (Birket Jiljûlieh); ClermontGanneau 1896–99 II: 37–39; Kochavi 1972: 114, no. 67 (Jaljūl). See also Hirschfeld 1990: 50–52, no. 33. 5 Hirschfeld 1990: 51. 6 For the excavation, see: Kelso 1951; Baramki 1955. See also Ovadiah 1970: 114–116, no. 112; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 216–217, no. 17; 1982: 149–150, no. 35; Hirschfeld 1990: 52. 7 Kelso 1951; Baramki 1955. See also: Lemaire 1950–51: 54; Bagatti 1952–53: 126–127, Fig. 1; 2002: 103. Concerning the two Latin inscriptions, see Jeffery and Albright 1955: 55–56. 1
147. Khirbet Mugheifir—Monasteries of Elias (Rujm el-Mogheifir; Kh. Mefjir) Ref. IOG: 19510 13881 Ref. ITM: 24510 63881 Ref. UTM: 73417 52553 Elias was one of the disciples of Euthymius, together with Martyrius. Cyril relates that Elias went to Jericho and built himself a monastic cell nearby. Two monasteries would later be erected around this cell (Life of Euthymius 32, 51), most probably before
473 CE, when Elias and Martyrius, were appointed as priests in the Anastasis church (Church of the Holy Sepulchre) in Jerusalem (Life of Euthymius 42, 62).1 The monasteries were identified as being in Kh. Mugheifir, due to its proximity to Jericho.2
[286]
Corpus of Christian sites
The northern site (120×100 m) is situated on the northern bank of Wadi Khaur Abu Dhaha. It yielded a church, cisterns, an aqueduct that brought water to the site from Jericho, architectural fragments, tesserae, and pottery vessels.3 The southern site (ITM: 24510/63861; 60×40 m), built around a central courtyard, was dubiously identified as a palace by P. Bar-Adon. Here, too, the site contained church tesserae, marble fragments, construction stones and bricks, and pottery vessels.4 One of the monasteries was named the monastery of Eunuchs; see Life of Sabas 69, 171. See also: Leimonarion CXXXVI.3000, CXXXVIII.3001, CLXV.3032; Di Segni 2005: 111–112, 122, 202. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Hirschfeld 1990: 22–23, no. 11; Tabula: 189. See also Vailhé 1900: 18–19, no. 32. See the surveys: Drake 1874; 73; SWP III: 221; Kochavi 1972: 115–116, nos. 69–70. See also Hirschfeld 1990: 23. 3 Kochavi 1972: 115, no. 69. See also Augustinović 1951: 184–189. 4 Kochavi 1972: 115–116, no. 70. See also: Drake 1874: 73; SWP III: 221. 1
0
12 m
147. Kh. Mugheifir—monasteries of Elias, general plan of the southern site.
148. Qaṣ r el-Yahud (Qasr el-Yehud; Qaṣ r el-Yahūd; Qaṣ r el-Yahûd; Ḳ aṣ r el-Jehūd; Kāsr el-Yehûd; Kasr el-Yehoudi) Ref. IOG: 20110 13842 Ref. ITM: 25110 63842 Ref. UTM: 74018 52526 The site is a monastery located on a hill ca. 0.8 km west of the Jordan River. It is identified with the church of St. John the Baptist (Prodromos), mentioned in a work by Theodosius, who tells of a church established by Emperor Anastasius near the baptism site (Theodosius, Terrae Sanctae 20).1 The Madaba Map depicts a church alongside the place of Jesus’s baptism.2
Surveys conducted at the site in the late nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century uncovered remains of a monastery encompassed by a wall; within the monastery was a church built over a vaulted chapel. In the west of the site was a large reservoir and remains of an aqueduct that probably brought water from the ʿEin es-Sultan (Elisha) spring.3 The Survey of Western Palestine ascribed the church to
[287]
Corpus of Christian sites
the Crusader period, but identified the site as the location of the early church of John the Baptist.4 A. Ovadiah and C.G. de Silva note that the early chapel was later used as a crypt. At present, a Greek Orthodox monastery stands on the site. Embellished capitals, marble columns bearing carved crosses, and tesserae were found next to the monastery.5 Christian sources date the Byzantine church and monastery to the first half of the sixth century CE. See also Limor 1998: 188, no. 20. Concerning the site identification, see: Marti 1880: 15; Lagrange 1892; Augustinović 1951: 110–111; Tabula: 152. 2 Avi-Yonah 1954: 38–39, no. 7. The name Bethabara, appearing on the Madaba Map as the place of Jesus’s baptism, is also mentioned by Eusebius (On. 58:18). 3 See the surveys: Guérin 1874–75 I: 111–116; SWP III: 217–219; Meinardus 1965–66b: 330–332; Kochavi 1972: 116, no. 72. See also: Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 249, no. 63; Hirschfeld 1990: 35–36, no. 20. 4 SWP III: 218. 5 Kochavi 1972: 116, no. 72. 1
148.2. Qaṣr el-Yahud, general plan of the church.
148.1. Qaṣr el-Yahud, view from the west.
[288]
Corpus of Christian sites
149. el-Quṣ ur (el-Quṣūr) Ref. IOG: 20130 13816 Ref. ITM: 25130 63816 Ref. UTM: 74039 52500 The site, located on a hillock ca. 200 m southeast of Qaṣr el-Yahud, yielded a plastered floor with mosaic segments in red and white. South of the hillock is a cave containing stone construction. Sherds from the
Byzantine and Islamic periods were discovered near the site.1 See the survey, Kochavi 1972: 116, no. 73. See also Tabula: 78–79 (Bethabara).
1
150. en-Nebi Samwil (Neby Samwîl; Néby Samouîl; Neby Samouïl; Néby Samouil; Nabī Ṣ amwîl; Nebi Samwil; en-Nebi Samwīl; en-Nabī Ṣ amwil) Ref. IOG: 16720 13780 Ref. ITM: 21720 63780 Ref. UTM: 70629 52395 This large site covers some 60 dunams on a lofty hill that controls the route between the Shephelah and Jerusalem,1 which assumed especial importance in the
Hasmonean and Crusader periods. Excavations were conducted at the site in the 1990s and in 2000–2001. The site was settled from Iron Age II (eighth and
150.1. En-Nebi Samwil, view from the south.
[289]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
150.2. En-Nebi Samwil, general plan of the site.
[290]
15 m
Corpus of Christian sites
seventh centuries BCE). We believe that the Iron Age and Second Temple period site is to be identified with biblical Mizpah (I Sam. 7:6, 16; 10:17), as was first proposed by Raboisson. Others identify the site with the altar at Gibeon (I Kings 3:4), or with Beeroth, one of the Gibeonite cities (Josh. 9:17).2 In the Hellenistic period the site functioned as a fortress and as a Jewish sacred site (I Macc. 3:46–47) that was abandoned by John Hyrcanus I or Alexander Jannaeus. Dwellings with cisterns were discovered from this period. Based on the multitude of fourth century CE coins, a fortress or tower might have been established here in the time of Theodosius I, as is the case in other places in Benjamin. In the Byzantine period this became a Christian holy site. Hieronymus (Contra Vigilantium 5.357– 358) writes of the transfer of Samuel’s bones by Arcadius from Judea to Chalcedon in Thrace.3 Samuel was linked with the site at en-Nebi Samwil beginning in the Byzantine period. In the sixth century CE, Procopius of Caesarea (Procopius, Buildings V, 9, 15) relates that Justinian enclosed the monastery and built a cistern inside. This monastery was not found, probably as a result of massive Crusader construction. The Byzantine period yielded an improved winepress, large white tesserae, pottery vessels, and coins. The unequivocal testimony to the existence of a monastery here is provided by the seal impressions on the handles of Umayyad jars inscribed with “Deir Samwil” (the monastery of Samuel). The site is also mentioned by the Arab geographers el-Muqaddasi and Yaqut.4 For the excavations, see Magen and Dadon 1999; 2003. See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 I: 362–384, 395–402 (chaʾfath); SWP III: 149–151; Vincent 1922: 376–392; Kochavi 1972: 185–186, no. 142. See also: Lohmann 1918; Abel 1938: 446–447; Bagatti 2002: 106–108. 2 Concerning the site identification with Mizpah, see: Albright 1923; 1924; Avi-Yonah 1976: 81; Magen and 1
0
10 m
150.3. En-Nebi Samwil, general plan of the Crusader church. Dadon 1999: 62; 2003: 124. One view identifies Mizpah with Tell en-Nasbeh; see: Vincent 1922: 362, note 4; Zorn 1997; Tabula 181. Z. Kallai identifies the site with Beeroth; see Kochavi 1972: 157. 3 For the transfer of Samuel’s bones by Arcadius, see also Theodorus Lector, HE II, 63.213. 4 Le Strange 1890: 433.
[291]
Corpus of Christian sites
151. Ras eṭ-Ṭ awil (Ras et-Tawil; Kh. Râs et Tawîl; Rās et-̣ Ṭ awīl) Ref. IOG: 17290 13764 Ref. ITM: 22290 63764 Ref. UTM: 71200 52391 The site is located on a hill near Tell el-Ful, northeast of Jerusalem.1 The salvage excavation conducted in 1981 uncovered a monastery that covered an area of 24×18 m. Entered from the south, it was surrounded by a stone wall. On a hill in the center of the monastery area is a complex of structures that includes a chapel, rooms, and two courtyards.2 The chapel, in the north of the complex, is built over a partially hewn cave, entered from the east of the chapel. A hewn staircase led to the cave. The chapel apse barely survived, except for parts of the foundation. The walls are plastered, and the fragments of colored plaster discovered apparently decorated their upper part. Fragments of glass panes attest to the presence of windows in the chapel. The floor was embellished with a colorful mosaic, of which two panels with geometric designs survived.3 The rooms contained fragments of an offering table and a marble chancel screen fragment.
On the south of the monastery, stone fences functioned as animal pens. Rainwater collected from plastered pools drained into a cistern in the west of the monastery. Two winepresses were discovered in the northwest of the monastery,4 and on the northern slope, agricultural terraces were discovered that, in the opinion of the excavator, were for cultivating grapevines. The monastery was built in the late fifth or early sixth century CE. See the surveys: SWP III: 124; Gibson 1982a:156; Kloner 2001: 22, no. [102] 37. Some identify Ras eṭ-Ṭ awil with the settlement of Beit Thamar, mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 56:3). See: Abel 1938: 260 (Baʿal Tamar); Tabula: 86. 2 For the excavations, see: Gibson 1982b; 1985–86; Gibson and Kloner 1982. A lime kiln from the end of the Iron Age was unearthed at the western edge of the site. See Gibson 1984: 96–100. 3 Gibson 1985–86: 70–71, Fig. 2. 4 Gibson and Edelstein 1985: Fig. 3; Gibson 2009. 1
152. ʿEin Fara—Monastery of Pharan (Ain Pheretai; ʿAin Fara; Kh. Tell el-Farah) Ref. IOG: 17870 13790 Ref. ITM: 22870 63790 Ref. UTM: 71779 52428 The monastery of Pharan, of the laura type, was founded by Chariton ca. 330 CE.1 It was identified by the construction remains in the canyon section of Wadi Fara, near the ʿEin Fara spring.2 According to Cyril (Life of Euthymius 6, 14) this monastery, the earliest established in the Land of Israel, was located 6 Roman miles from Jerusalem.3 Surveys conducted
in the 1980s revealed some of the monastery complexes that extended over a total area of 30,000 sq. m. These complexes included monastic cells, a church, chapels, and a large water cistern,4 along with a cave that the excavators maintain functioned as the first church built by Chariton when he established the monastery.5
[292]
Corpus of Christian sites
Garitte 1953: 422. Concerning the site identification, see: Marti 1880: 6–11; Hirschfeld 1992: 21–23; Tabula: 202. See the surveys: Guérin 1868–69 III: 71–73; Meinardus 1964–65: 226–228, no. 2; Dinur and Feig 1986; Hirschfeld 1988–89b: 95–97; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 400–406, no. 527. In the nineteenth century the laura was partly excavated; see Hirschfeld 1990: 6–7, no. 1. See also: Leclercq 1929: 1966–1968; Bagatti 1969: 21; Ovadiah and de Silva 1981: 204, no. 1. 3 See also Di Segni 2005: 79. 4 Patrich 1984: 62; 1985b; Dinur and Feig 1986; Hirschfeld 1990: 6–7, no. 1. 5 Patrich 1984: 62; Hirschfeld 1992: 22. 1 2
0
10 m
152.1. ʿEin Fara—monastery of Pharan, general plan of the monastery remains.
152.2. ʿEin Fara—monastery of Pharan, caves in the monastery cliff.
[293]
Corpus of Christian sites
152.3. ʿEin Fara—monastery of Pharan, view from the northeast.
153. Qalʿat Musa (Jurat Musa) Ref. IOG: 17985 13795 Ref. ITM: 22985 63795 Ref. UTM: 71894 52436 The site is a monastery situated north of Jerusalem, at the junction of Wadi Fara and Wadi en-Nimr, ca. 1 km east of the monastery at Pharan (ʿEin Fara). In 1981 the site was surveyed and a trial excavation conducted, in which four structures were uncovered.1
One structure contained a segment of a colorful mosaic floor, with a pattern of interlaced squares and circles in its center; there are floral decorations in its corners, and a meander pattern along its edge.2 The structure (25×10 m), was identified as a church. The
[294]
Corpus of Christian sites
three other structures were most likely residential in nature. Cisterns, pools, and tombs were found in the vicinity of the site. A cross in a circle was carved on either side of the entrance to one of the tombs.3 Based on the pottery, the site was dated to the sixth to eighth centuries CE. For the excavation see, Dinur and Feig 1986. See the survey, Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 411–413, no. 539. 2 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 412, Fig. 1. 3 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 413, Fig. 2. 1
153.2. Qalʿat Musa, cross in a circle carved on a tomb.
153.1. Qalʿat Musa, segment of mosaic floor adorned with pattern of interlaced squares and circles.
[295]
Corpus of Christian sites
154. ʿEin el-Fawwar (ʿAin Fawwâr; ʿEin el-Fawwār; Ain Faouar) Ref. IOG: 18315 13860 Ref. ITM: 23315 63860 Ref. UTM: 72223 52507 The site is located at ʿEin el-Fawwar, the spring that issues from channel of Wadi Qelt. Two excavations were conducted at the site. The first, in 1931, excavated the area adjoining and west of the spring pool on the south bank of the wadi. It uncovered part of a monastery complex that included a small church (8.5×3.5 m) with an inner apse. The church was entered from the west, from a courtyard with a white mosaic floor. The prayer hall was paved in a mosaic adorned with buds. The bema, elevated above the prayer hall, was paved in white mosaic, which was partially preserved. South of the church were two rooms with a mosaic floor. Broad stairs, paved in white mosaic, led from the courtyard in the direction of the spring.1 In 2008–2009 additional parts of the complex were excavated. An additional step, with stone paving, was uncovered north of the church, and north of these steps, a system of rooms and water channels. Two monastic cells were discovered on the cliff south of the church, one built close to the Hasmonean aqueduct. On the northern bank of the wadi were two rooms with plastered walls that were part of a larger complex. Segments of a mosaic floor that collapsed on the second story were found on the rooms’ floors.2 Additional remains of the complex, including monastic cells and built and plastered cisterns, were also visible on this bank, scattered over an extensive area.3 Y. Hirschfeld suggested identifying the site with the “Laura of the Spring,” mentioned by Cyril (Life of Sabas 90, 198).4
For the church excavations, see Hamilton 1932b. See also Ovadiah 1970: 53–54, no. 43. 2 The excavations were undertaken under the direction of Y. Peleg (ref. nos. Judea and Samaria 1156, 1165), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. 3 See the surveys: Meinardus 1964–65: 229–230; Hirschfeld 1988–89b: 97. See also Germer-Durand 1897–98. 4 Hirschfeld 1990: 49–50, no. 32. See also Di Segni 2005: 221. 1
0
3 m
154.1. ʿEin el-Fawwar, general plan of the church.
[296]
Corpus of Christian sites
154.2. ʿEin el-Fawwar, church mosaic floor, view from the east.
154.3. ʿEin el-Fawwar, the church, view from the west.
[297]
Corpus of Christian sites
155. Khan Saliba – St. Adam (Khan Ṣ aliba; Khân Salîba; Han Ṣ aliba) ̆ Ref. IOG: 18660 13710 Ref. ITM: 23660 63710 Ref. UTM: 72571 52364 The site is located on the road descending from Jerusalem to Jericho. J.T. Milik suggested identifying it with the Church of St. Adam, a memorial church mentioned in the writings of Epiphanius Monachus.1 He writes that a church was built at a distance of 12 Roman miles east of the monastery of Euthymius at the place where Adam wept after being expelled from the Garden of Eden (Epiphanius Monachus: 89). The excavations conducted at the site in the 1960s uncovered remains of a monastery encompassed by a wall.2 Y. Hirschfeld surveyed the site in the late 1980s and presented a new plan of the compound (39×37 m).3 The southern entrance of the compound led to a central courtyard with a large cistern. The remains of a church were unearthed in the southwest of the site, revealing five rooms, four of which have mosaic floors. One of the rooms is paved in white mosaic, the others, in mosaics exhibiting geometrical patterns and cross ornamentations. The mosaic floor in one of the rooms contains a Greek inscription that mentions the priest and hegumen Paul, in whose time the construction work was completed.4 The compound is dated to the sixth century CE. Concerning the site identification, see: Milik 1960: 586; Wilkinson 1977: 163; Hirschfeld 1992: 56; Tabula: 167. 2 Prignaud 1963. 3 Hirschfeld 1990: 52–53, no. 34. 4 Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 91, no. 147. 1
0
3
m
155.1. Khan Saliba—St. Adam, general plan of the church remains.
[298]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
10 m
155.2. Khan Saliba—St. Adam, general plan of the monastery.
156. ʿEin Ḥ ajla—Monastery of Calamon Ref. IOG: 19850 13741 Ref. ITM: 24850 63741 Ref. UTM: 73760 52420 The monastery is situated in the north of the Dead Sea, close to the Jordan River, and is mentioned in the Life of Theognius, written by Paul, Bishop of Elusa.1 Paul relates that Theognius initially joined the monastery of Theodosius,2 then left and went to the laura of Calamon, in present-day Jordan, and settled in a cave (Vita Theognii 7). This probably occurred
in 465 CE.3 The laura’s name stems from the Greek word kalamon (καλαμών), meaning reeds (papyron), apparently because the monastery was located in an area having reeds, either in Jordan or around the spring in ʿEin Ḥ ajla.4 A less accepted identification proposes the location of current-day Deir Ḥ ajla (ITM: 24760/63643), identified with the monastery
[299]
Corpus of Christian sites
of Gerasimus.5 A more accepted identification is the monastery situated ca. 200 m east of ʿEin Ḥ ajla.6 In his survey of the area, J.L. Féderlin discerned a central structure surrounded by hermit cells, one rockcut, the others built above ground; and a church with rooms surrounding a courtyard.7 Most of the remains no longer exist; all that remains above ground are Byzantine—colorful tesserae, metal and glass vessels, and pottery.8 The laura of Calamon is also mentioned by Cyril; see: Life of Sabas 49, 138; Life of John 20, 216. See also: Di Segni 2005: 181, 232; Thomsen 1907: 76, 95.
1
See Life of Theognius 2, 242; see also Di Segni 2005: 257. The time of the establishment of the monastery of Calamon has not been determined. For the various scholarly proposals, see: Hirschfeld 1990: 24; Di Segni 2005: 58–59. 4 See also Di Segni 2005: 43, note 7. 5 Concerning the site identification with Deir Ḥ ajla, see: Marti 1880: 14–15; Vailhé 1900: 8–9, no. 16; Schneider 1938: 40; Augustinović 1951: 108–109. 6 Hirschfeld 1990: 24–26, no. 13; Tabula: 96. See additional identifications: Avi-Yonah 1937: 253–254; 1976: 85; Meinardus 1965–66b: 336–337. 7 For Féderlin’s description, see Hirschfeld 1990: 26. 8 Dinur 1986. 2 3
157. Unnamed Site—Laura of the Towers Ref. IOG: 19825 13705 Ref. ITM: 24825 63705 Ref. UTM: 73736 52383 The laura is located in the Jordan Valley region. According to Cyril (Life of Sabas 16, 99), the Laura of the Towers was established next to the Jordan River by James, one of Sabas’ disciples.1 Joannes Moschus (Leimonarion IX–X.2859) described the laura cells as being two stories high, similar to a tower. J.L. Féderlin identified the laura as being close to ʿEin Ḥ ajla, southeast of Jericho. He suggested that the laura was named after the towers that most likely stood in the corners of the central structure.2 Surveys conducted at the site revealed a built walled complex, identified as a monastery.3 The monastery (48×37 m) was excavated in 1994, following the building of the Jericho bypass road. The entrance to the monastery, on the north, led to a courtyard, beneath the center of which was a vaulted cistern (8.5×5 m). A narrow corridor from the courtyard led to rooms around another courtyard. Some of the rooms contain fresco fragments and mosaic segments on their dirt floors, indicating the existence of an additional story
with a mosaic floor and, according to the excavator, housed the church. Based on the finds in the area, the monastery existed in the sixth and seventh centuries CE, and was abandoned upon the Arab conquest.4 See also Di Segni 2005: 150. For Féderlin’s description, see Hirschfeld 1990: 46. Based on the testimony of Joannes Moschus, A. Augustinović (1951: 112) argued that the laura received its name because of the structure’s shape. See also Abel 1922: 421. L. Di Segni proposes that the laura was located in the Jordan Valley, east of Archelais, in the area where the Madaba Map depicts a tower over a vault with a ladder alongside it; see Di Segni 2005: 150–151, note 69. Avi-Yonah (1954: 36) identified the tower over a vault with Magdalsenna, mentioned by Eusebius (On. 154:16). 3 See the surveys: Kochavi 1972: 116–117, no. 74; Dinur 1986. See also Hirschfeld 1990: 45–46, no. 29. 4 The excavations were undertaken under the direction of Y. Zelinger (ref. no. Judea and Samaria 688), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria; the findings have not yet been published. 1 2
[300]
Corpus of Christian sites
157.1. Unnamed Site—Laura of the Towers, view from the southeast.
157.2. Unnamed Site—Laura of the Towers, vaulted cistern beneath the courtyard, view from the south.
[301]
Corpus of Christian sites
158. Deir Ḥ ajla—Monastery of Gerasimus (Deir Hadjlah) Ref. IOG: 19760 13643 Ref. ITM: 24760 63643 Ref. UTM: 73672 52320 Gerasimus was a disciple of Euthymius, and went into seclusion with him in the desert of Rouba. Under Euthymius’ influence, Gerasimus again supported the orthodox stream of the Council of Chalcedon regarding Jesus’s nature (Life of Euthymius 27, 44–45).1 The monastery of Gerasimus is usually identified with the Deir Ḥ ajla monastery, which had been rebuilt in the medieval period and apparently also in the nineteenth century, and exists until the present. The monastery is situated ca. 5.5 km southeast of Jericho. The remains of a Byzantine laura discovered east of the present monastery include a chapel, hermit cells, part hewn into the rock, sherds, and colorful tesserae.2 J.L. Féderlin maintained that the original monastery of Gerasimus was located about 350 m east of the extant Deir Ḥ ajla monastery, its stones used to build the latter.3 For the coenobium of Gerasimus, see Life of Cyriacus 4, 224. See also Di Segni 2005: 106, 239–240, note 24. 2 Concerning the site identification, see: Wilkinson 1977: 157; Hirschfeld 1992: 28–29; Tabula: 110. See the surveys:
Guérin 1874–75 I: 53–56; SWP III: 178; Schneider 1938; Augustinović 1951: 109–110; Kochavi 1972: 117, no. 76; Hirschfeld 1988–89b: 100–101; 1990: 18–19, no. 7. See also Hirschfeld 1991; 2002:108–110. 3 Hirschfeld argues that Féderlin described the coenobium of Gerasimus; see Hirschfeld 1990: 19–20.
0
1
1
m
158.2. Deir Ḥajla—monastery of Gerasimus, cross section of the chapel.
158.1. Deir Ḥajla—monastery of Gerasimus.
[302]
Corpus of Christian sites
158.3. Deir Ḥajla—monastery of Gerasimus, mosaic floor segments adorned with geometric motifs.
159. Deir Ghazali (H. Zimri; Deir Razʿeli; Deir Razāli; Deir Ghazala; Pisgat Zeʾev, Jerusalem) Ref. IOG: 17396 13637 Ref. ITM: 22396 63637 Ref. UTM: 71308 52266 The site is located ca. 4 km northeast of Jerusalem, on a spur that slopes eastward to ʿAnata, between Wadi Ibn ʿId to the east and Wadi el-Khalaf to the west. S. Gibson surveyed the site and proposed its identification as a monastery.1 The salvage excavation conducted in 1990 uncovered a well-built structure, partially of ashlar construction (35×25 m), the walls of which are preserved to a height of 2 m. The main entrance of
the structure in the east led through corridors to wings containing long halls and rooms. Two building stages were distinguished: the first stage—the establishment of the structure in the second half of the fifth or first half of the sixth century CE, and the second stage, dated to the Abbasid period (ninth century CE), when the site was also abandoned.2 The first stage of the site contains agricultural installations such as winepresses, one of which contains a
[303]
Corpus of Christian sites
0
9 m
159.1. Deir Ghazali, general plan of the site.
molded cross,3 thereby defining it as a Christian site. It yielded: construction stones and a capital with crosses; one fragment each of a reliquary lid, an alter table, and a marble chancel screen; and remains of a colorful mosaic above the debris that apparently indicated the existence of a chapel on the second story. In the second stage, walls were built dividing the rooms into small spaces, some built over agricultural installations. Outside the structure, additional winepresses, a rock-cut cistern, and an apparent watchtower were discovered as well. An oil press found at the site was dated by the excavator to the Byzantine period, while we deem it Early Islamic.4
The excavator presumes that the site was a coenobium monastery with a chapel on the second story, a phenomenon known from other monasteries, but notes the possibility of it having been a villa rustica.5 See the surveys: ESI 1982b: 60; Gibson 1982a:156; Gibson and Edelstein 1985: 150; Kloner 2001: 40, [102] 92. See also Tabula: 111. 2 For the excavation, see: Avner, Aẓmon and Sabariego 1991; Nadelman 1993; Avner 2000. 3 Avner 2000: 34*, Figs. 11–13. 4 For the discussion, see Magen 2008d: 292. 5 Avner 2000: 50*.
1
[304]
Corpus of Christian sites
159.2. Deir Ghazali, west wing, view from the west.
160. ʿAnata (ʾAnâta; Aʾnata; ʿAnātā) Ref. IOG: 17490 13560 Ref. ITM: 22490 63560 Ref. UTM: 71404 52191 The ancient core of the village of ʿAnata, northeast of Jerusalem, was built over the remains of the ancient settlement of Anathoth (Άναθώθ), mentioned in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (On. 26:27).1 In 530 CE Theodosius tells of a ceremony conducted at the site by Christians in honor of the prophet Jeremiah (Theodosius, Terrae sanctae 6), of Anathoth (Jer. 1:1).2 Some 50 m west of the mosque is the colonnaded
building, known as Deir Makub, with a mosaic floor. In the Survey of Western Palestine, the building was designated as a church.3 A salvage excavation conducted in 1936 revealed Late Iron Age finds.4 A sounding conducted in the 1980s uncovered a section of colorful mosaic floor containing medallions separated by geometrical decorations. At the edges of the carpet is a wave crest pattern. Stylized flowers appear close to
[305]
Corpus of Christian sites
the eastern stylobate. A number of columns were also discovered. East of the mosaic floor is an underground system consisting of five rooms used for burial, possibly the church crypt.5 This is probably a basilica church, which would be characteristic of a village, or a church on the main road that served passersby going to Jerusalem. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 II: 109–110; Guérin 1868–69 III: 76–79; SWP III: 82; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 359–360, no. 452. Concerning the site identification, see: Abel 1938: 243–244; Wilkinson 1977: 149–150; Reeg 1989: 496; Tabula: 62. For a different opinion in the research, see: Biran (Bergman) 1936a; 1936b. See also: Ovadiah 1970: 21, no. 8; Bagatti 2002: 18–19. 2 See also: Limor 1998: 181; Bagatti 2002: 18. 3 SWP III: 82; Avi-Yonah 1933: 137, no. 5. 4 Biran 1985: 211–213. 5 Dinur 1985. 1
0
6
m
160. ʿAnata, general plan of the church remains.
161. Khirbet Deir es-Sidd Ref. IOG: 17620 13535 Ref. ITM: 22620 63535 Ref. UTM: 71534 52168 The site is located ca. 1.5 km east of the village of ʿAnata.1 In 1983, a salvage excavation uncovered remains of structures and many finds from the Iron Age. The excavator, A. Biran, proposed identifying the site with biblical Anathoth, from the late First Temple period.2 Additional remains of walls, column fragments, cisterns, and caves were documented at the site.3 In the late nineteenth century E. Robinson mentioned remains of a monastery there, based on what he was told by Palestinians.4 Aside from some Byzantine pottery and
the site name, which alludes to a monastery, no finds confirming this were discovered at the site. See the surveys: Robinson and Smith 1841 II: 109; SWP III: 92; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 379, no. 493. See also Tabula: 111. 2 Biran 1985: 211–213. For an additional Iron Age find discovered near the site, see Reuben and Peleg 2009. 3 Press 1946–55 II: 298; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 379, no. 493. 4 Robinson and Smith 1841 II: 109. 1
[306]
Corpus of Christian sites
162. Qaṣr er-Rawabi—Monastery of Gabriel (Qasr er-Rawabe; Qaṣ r er-Rawābi; Wādi er-Rawābe; Wadi er-Rawabe; Wādi er-rawābī) Ref. IOG: 17760 13545 Ref. ITM: 22760 63545 Ref. UTM: 71674 52181 Gabriel began as a monk in the monastery of Euthymius. In 460 CE he was appointed Hegumen of the Church of St. Stephen in Jerusalem (Life of Euthymius 30, 49), and later established a monastery in the valley east of the Mount of Olives (Life of Euthymius 37, 56).1 The monastery of Gabriel, identified by V.C. Corbo with the remains in Kh. Qaṣr er-Rawabi, is built along the wadi on the ancient road between Jerusalem and Jericho.2 According to Y. Hirschfeld, a church was established, on the second story.3 Colorful mosaic segments were discovered, and possibly also a crypt, along with a lime kiln.4 The caves south of the monastery that preceded it,5 its location, and the construction using very large ashlars indicate that the site was built in the late fourth century CE, as part of the towers and fortifications erected by the Roman authorities.6 See also Di Segni 2005: 110, 116. Concerning the site identification, see: Corbo 1951; Tabula: 207. See the surveys: Van Kasteren 1890: 116–117; Schneider 1934a: 224–225; Corbo 1951; Kochavi 1972: 188, no. 157; Patrich 1984: 62; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 388–389, no. 507. See also Ovadia 1970: 181–182, no. 179. 3 Hirschfeld 1990: 23–24, no. 12; 1992: 45–46. 4 Kochavi 1972: 188, no. 157; Patrich 1984: 62. See also Hirschfeld 1992: 46. 5 Patrich 1984: 62. 6 Magen 2008e; 2008g. 1 2
0
5
m
162.1. Qaṣr er-Rawabi—monastery of Gabriel, general plan of the monastery.
[307]
Corpus of Christian sites
162.2. Qaṣr er-Rawabi—monastery of Gabriel, view from the west.
162.3. Qaṣr er-Rawabi—monastery of Gabriel, view from the southwest.
[308]
Corpus of Christian sites
162.4. Qaṣr er-Rawabi—monastery of Gabriel, caves south of the site.
163. Qaṣr ʿAli (Ḳ aṣ r ʿAlī; Qasr Alī; Qasr ʿAli) Ref. IOG: 17810 13491 Ref. ITM: 22810 63491 Ref. UTM: 71725 52128 The site is located on an ancient road between Jerusalem and Jericho, ca. 4 km northwest of the Khan el-Aḥ mar (monastery of Euthymius). J.P. Van Kasteren saw a structure there that he identified as a church (29×15 m) and a reservoir.1 In addition, a trial excavation conducted at the site in 1984 revealed a residential hall and a tower.2 A.M. Schneider first identified the site with the monastery of St. Peter, established in 459 CE by Eudocia, as mentioned by Cyril (Life of Euthymius 35, 53).3 A reexamination revealed no traces of a church, contrary to the view of most scholars; in
our opinion, the site contained a way station rather than a monastery.4 See the surveys: Van Kasteren 1890: 94–95; Kuhl and Meinhold 1929: 118; Schneider 1934a: 221–223. See also Avi-Yonah 1934: 37, no. 274. 2 Hirschfeld 1984: 81–82; 1990: 19–20, no. 8. 3 See also Di Segni 2005: 114. Concerning the site identification, see: Schneider 1934a: 221–223; Milik 1960: 580, no. 71; Wilkinson 1975: 22; Hirschfeld 1990: 19, no. 8; Tabula: 207. Beauvery (1957: 86–92) identified the site as a Roman way station. 4 JSRF 136/13. 1
[309]
Corpus of Christian sites
20 m
0
163.1. Qaṣr ʿAli, general plan of the site.
163.2. Qaṣr ʿAli, view from the south.
[310]
Corpus of Christian sites
164. Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan) (Talaʿat ed-Damm; Talʿat ed-Damm; Qalaʿat ed-Damm, Maledomni; Montée DʾAdommim; Kalʾaat ed-Demm) Ref. IOG: 18407 13597 Ref. ITM: 23407 63597 Ref. UTM: 72320 52246 The hospice lies between two hills, on the ancient road between Jericho and Jerusalem. The site is identified with the inn in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), and is mentioned by Hieronymus in his translation of the Onomasticon (Hieronymus, On. 25:9) and in his account of the journey of Paula (Ep. 108, 12).1 The site was excavated in 1999–2003, and yielded remains of structures, dwelling caves, and pits from the Second Temple period. Northwest of the site is a Herodian palace. The Byzantine period yielded a
hospice and a basilica church. In the Crusader period the hospice was converted into a khan, and a fortress was built on a hill to the northeast to defend the road.2 The hospice structure (26.6×24.4 m) consists of a church, an inner courtyard with a cistern in its center, residential rooms, a stable, and an additional courtyard to the east. The structure was entered from the south, to the inner courtyard. The church (21.3×11.6 m) is situated in the northwest of the compound. The prayer hall is entered through a narthex with a squarepatterned mosaic floor. It is divided into a nave and
0
164.1. Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan), general plan of the hospice.
[311]
10 m
Corpus of Christian sites
aisles by two rows of five square piers. The central carpet is embellished with a grid of octagons that form patterns of squares and hexagons. The carpet in the northern aisle is decorated with a grid of diamonds, while the carpet pattern in the southern aisle consists of squares. The apse is internal, and has a mosaic floor with a bud decoration. The rooms flanking the apse are entered through the aisles. The church is
dated to the late Byzantine period, the sixth to seventh centuries CE. Concerning the site identification, see: Thomsen 1907: 86–87; Avi-Yonah 1976: 78; Tabula: 176. 2 For the excavations, see: Magen 2008h; 2010. See the survey, Guérin 1874–75 I: 150–152, 155–159. See also: Abel 1938: 179; Beauvery 1957; Bagatti 2002: 90–94. 1
164.2. Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan), church after reconstruction, view from the west.
[312]
Corpus of Christian sites
List of sites by number No.
Site
No.
No.
Site
Site
1
Burqin, Kh.
35
El-Mehalhela, Kh.
69
Siya, Kh.
2
Jenin
36
Kafr ed-Dik
70
Burham
3
Beit Qad
37
Deir Qalʿa
71
Esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawani
4
Balʿame, Kh.
38
Deir Daqle, Kh.
72
Ṭarfein, Kh.
5
Firasin
39
Burraʿish, Kh.
73
El-Burj, Kh.
6
ʿArrabeh
40
ʿAli, Kh.
74
Kafr Malik
7
Ez-Zababide
41
Ed-Duweir, Kh.
75
El-Marjame, Kh.
8
Bardala
42
Deir Ghassane
76
Samiya, Kh.
9
ʿAttil
43
Ed-Deir, Kh.
77
El-Qaṣr
10
Baḥan
44
Shiloh, Tel
78
El-Beida, Kh.
11
Jabaris, Kh.
45
Sara, Kh.
79
Unnamed site
12
Belʿah
46
Duma
80
Jammala
13
Silet edh-Dhahr
47
Ḥani, Ḥ.
81
Deir ʿAmmar
14
Sebastiya
48
Deir ʿAlla
82
Kafr Fidiya, Kh.
15
ʿEin Harun
49
Rantis
83
Nilʿan, Kh.
16
Esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh, Kh.
50
St. Barbara (ʿAbud)
84
Deir el-ʿUqban, Kh.
17
Migdal, Ḥ.
51
ʿAbud
85
Bir Zeit
18
Nablus
52
Ras ʾAlam, Kh.
86
Jifna
19
Jacob’s Well
53
Jiljiliya
87
Shatta, Kh.
20
Gerizim, Mt.
54
ʿAlyata, Kh.
88
Yabrud
21
Khallat el-Fuleh
55
Masʿud, Kh.
89
Kafr ʿAna, Kh.
22
Yarḥiv
56
Batin, Kh.
90
ʿEin Yabrud
23
ʿIzzun ʿAtme
57
Et-Tell, Kh.
91
ʿAsur, Tell
24
Ed-Duweir, Kh.
58
Siyaʿ, Kh.
92
Et-Taiyiba
25
Qarawat Bani Ḥasan
59
Jabaʿit, Kh.
93
El-Khadr
26
Deir ʿIstiya
60
Faṣayil, Kh.
94
El-ʿAuja
27
ʿEin ʿAbus
61
El-Bira, Kh.
95
El-Beiyudat, Kh.
28
ʿAqraba
62
Deir el-ʿArab, Kh.
96
El-Haditha
29
ʿEin er-Rashash
63
Unnamed site
97
Ḥarmush, Kh.
30
Kesfa, Kh.
64
Tibne, Kh.
98
Deir Qaddis
31
El-Burak, Kh.
65
Deir Nidham
99
Kharbata
32
Umm el-Ḥammam, Kh.
66
Unnamed site
100
En-Nebi ʿAnnir, Kh.
33
Ḥamad, Kh.
67
Jibiya
101
Wadi el-ʿAuja
34
Deir Samʿan, Kh.
68
Kaubar
102
Umm Zaqum, Kh.
[313]
Corpus of Christian sites
No.
Site
No.
Site
No.
Site
103
Unnamed site
126
El-Maḥma, Kh.
147
104
Zakhariya, Kh.
127
Beit Sila, Kh.
105
Mevo Modi ʿim
128
Suweikeh, Kh.
148
Mugheifir, Kh.— monastery of Elias Qaṣr el-Yahud
106
Sher, Ḥ.
129
Wadi el-ʿEin
149
El-Quṣur
107
El-Midye, Kh.
130
Mukhmas
150
En-Nebi Samwil
108
El-Janiya
131
Khallat ed-Danabiya
151
Ras eṭ-Ṭawil
109
El-Wili Shabbuni Et-Tira, Kh.
111
Beitin
133
Deir el-Qurunṭul— monastery of Douka ʿEin Masaid, Tell
152
110
132
153
ʿEin Fara—monastery of Pharan Qalʿat Musa
112
134
‛Nestorian Hermitage’
154
ʿEin el-Fawwar
135
ʿEin Yunis
155
Khan Saliba—St. Adam
113
Deir Shabab eshShamaliyya, Kh. Burj Beitin El-Mukatir, Kh.
Wadi Nuʿeima
156
114
136
115
Ḥaiyan, Kh.
137
El-Jib
116
Khudria, Kh.
138
Er-Ram
117
Rammun
139
158
118
El-Kiliya, Kh.
140
El-ʿAleiliyat— monastery of Firminus Ez-Zakhaliq
119
ʿAlali el-Benat
141
Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh
159
ʿEin Ḥajla—monastery of Calamon Unnamed Site—Laura of the Towers Deir Ḥajla—monastery of Gerasimus Deir Ghazali
120
Qattar
142
160
ʿAnata
121
Huriya, Kh.
161
Deir es-Sidd, Kh.
122
Faʿush, Kh.
143
Deir Mar Jiryis— monastery of Choziba ʿAqaba, Tell
162
123
Mannʿa, Kh.
144
Church of St. Andrew
124
Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta
145
El-Ḥassan, Tell
Qaṣr er-Rawabi— monastery of Gabriel Qaṣr ʿAli
125
Meiyita, Kh.
146
En-Nitle, Kh. (Juljulieh)
[314]
157
163 164
Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan)
Corpus of Christian sites
List of sites by name Site ʿAbud ʿAlali el-Benat
No. 51 119
ʿAli, Kh.
40
ʿAlyata, Kh.
54
ʿAnata
160
ʿAqaba, Tell
143
ʿAqraba
28
ʿArrabeh
6
ʿAsur, Tell
91
ʿAttil
9
Baḥan
10
Balʿame, Kh.
4
Bardala
8
Batin, Kh. Beitin Beit Qad
56 111 3
Beit Sila, Kh.
127
Beit ʿUr et-Taḥta
124
Belʿah
12
Bir Zeit
85
Burham
70
Burj Beitin
113
Burqin, Kh.
1
Burraʿish, Kh. Church of St. Andrew
39 144
Site
No.
Site
Deir Ghazali
159
El-Haditha
No. 96
Deir Ḥajla—monastery 158 of Gerasimus 26 Deir ʿIstiya
El-Ḥassan, Tell
145
El-Janiya
108
Deir Mar Jiryis— monastery of Choziba Deir Nidham
El-Jib
137
El-Khadr
142 65
Deir Qaddis
98
Deir Qalʿa
37
Deir Samʿan, Kh.
34
Deir Shabab eshShamaliyya, Kh. Duma
112 46
Ed-Deir, Kh.
43
Ed-Duweir, Kh.
24
Ed-Duweir, Kh.
41
ʿEin ʿAbus
27
ʿEin el-Fawwar
154
ʿEin er-Rashash
29
ʿEin Fara—monastery 152 of Pharan ʿEin Ḥajla—monastery 156 of Calamon 15 ʿEin Harun ʿEin Masaid, Tell ʿEin Yabrud
93
El-Kiliya, Kh.
118
El-Maḥma, Kh.
126
El-Marjame, Kh.
75
El-Mehalhela, Kh.
35
El-Midye, Kh.
107
El-Mukatir, Kh.
114
El-Qaṣr
77
El-Quṣur
149
El-Wili Shabbuni
109
En-Nebi ʿAnnir, Kh.
100
En-Nebi Samwil
150
En-Nitle, Kh. (Juljulieh) 146 Er-Ram Esh-Sheikh Qaṭrawani
138 71
Esh-Sheikh Shaʿaleh, Kh. 16 Et-Taiyiba
92
Et-Tell, Kh.
57
Et-Tira, Kh.
110
133
Ez-Zababide
7
90
Ez-Zakhaliq
140
Deir ʿAlla
48
ʿEin Yunis
135
Faṣayil, Kh.
60
Deir ʿAmmar
81
Faʿush, Kh.
122
Deir Daqle, Kh.
38
Deir el-ʿArab, Kh.
62
139 El-ʿAleiliyat— monastery of Firminus 94 El-ʿAuja
Gerizim, Mt.
20
El-Beida, Kh.
78
Ḥaiyan, Kh.
115
El-Beiyudat, Kh.
95
Ḥamad, Kh.
33
El-Bira, Kh.
61
Ḥani, Kh.
47
El-Burak, Kh.
31
Ḥarmush, Kh.
97
El-Burj, Kh.
73
Huriya, Kh.
Deir el-Qaranṭal— monastery of Douka Deir el-ʿUqban, Kh.
132
Deir es-Sidd, Kh.
161
Deir Ghassane
84 42
[315]
Firasin
5
121
Corpus of Christian sites
Site
No.
Site
No.
Site
No. 106
ʿIzzun ʿAtme
23
Meiyita, Kh.
125
Sher, Ḥ.
Jabaʿit, Kh.
59
Mevo Modi ʿim
105
Shiloh, Tel
44
Jabaris, Kh.
11
Migdal, Ḥ.
Silet edh-Dhahr
13
Jacob’s Well
19
Siya, Kh.
69
Jammala
80
Mugheifir, Kh.— monastery of Elias Mukhmas
Siyaʿ, Kh.
58
St. Barbara (ʿAbud)
50
Jenin
2
Jibiya
67
Jifna
86
Jiljiliya
53
Kafr ʿAna, Kh.
89
Kafr ed-Dik
36
Kafr Fidiya, Kh.
82
Kafr Malik
74
Kaubar
68
Kesfa, Kh.
30
Khallat ed-Danabiya
131
Khallat el-Fuleh
21
Khan Saliba—St. Adam Kharbata
155
Khudria, Kh.
116
Maʿale Adummim (The Good Samaritan) Mannʿa, Kh. Masʿud, Kh.
99
17
Nablus
147 130 18
‛Nestorian Hermitage’
134 83
Nilʿan, Kh. Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh
141
Qalʿat Musa
153
Qarawat Bani Ḥasan
25
Qaṣr ʿAli
163
Qaṣr el-Yahud
148
Qaṣr er-Rawabi— monastery of Gabriel Qattar
162
Rammun
117
120
Rantis
49
Ras ʾAlam, Kh.
52
Ras eṭ-Ṭawil
151
164
Samiya, Kh.
76
Sara, Kh.
45
123
Sebastiya
14
Shatta, Kh.
87
55
[316]
Suweikeh, Kh.
128
Ṭarfein, Kh.
72
Tibne, Kh.
64
Umm el-Ḥammam, Kh.
32
Umm Zaqum, Kh.
102
Unnamed site
63
Unnamed site
66
Unnamed site
79
Unnamed site
103
Unnamed Site—Laura of the Towers Wadi el-ʿAuja
157
Wadi el-ʿEin
129
Wadi Nuʿeima
136
101
Yabrud
88
Yarḥiv
22
Zakhariya, Kh.
104
Corpus of Christian sites
Corpus Bibliography Abel F.M. 1907. “Document épigraphique sur le patriarche Eustochios,” RB 16: 275–276. Abel F.M. 1913. “Exploration de la vallée du Jourdain,” RB 22: 218–243. Abel F.M. 1922. “La Géographie sacrée chez S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” RB 31: 407–427. Abel F.M. 1923a. “Naplouse. Essai de Topographie,” RB 32: 120–132. Abel F.M. 1923b. “Une villa romaine a Djifna,” RB 32: 111–114. Abel F.M. 1924. “Ou en est la question de Caphargamala?,” RB 33: 235–245. Abel F.M. 1926. “Topographie des Campagnes Machabéennes,” RB 35: 206–222. Abel F.M. 1928. “Notes sur les environs de Bir-Zeit,” JPOS 8: 49–55. Abel F.M. 1933. “Le puits de Jacob et l’église SaintSauveur,” RB 42: 384–402. Abel F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II—Géographie politique. Les villes, Paris. Agur B., Arobes B. and Patrich J. 1988–89. “Judean Desert, Cave Survey—1986/1987,” ESI 7–8: 92–95. Aizik N. and Peleg Y. 2005. “H. Mahalhala—A Late Roman Site Near ʿAlei-Zahav,” in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies 14, Ariel, pp. 191–200 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XVIII). Albright W.F. 1923. “New Identification of Ancient Towns,” BASOR 9: 5–10. Albright W.F. 1924. Excavations and Results at Tell El-Fûl (Gibeah of Saul) (AASOR 4), New Haven, Conn. Albright W.F. 1925. “The Ephraim of the Old and New Testaments,” JPOS 3: 36–40. Albright W.F. 1933. “Archaeological and Topographical Explorations in Palestine and Syria,” BASOR 49: 23–31. Albright W.F. and Kelso J.L. 1968. The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39), Cambridge. Alt A. 1925. “Ein vergessenes Heiligtum des Propheten Elias,” ZDPV 48: 393–397. Alt A. 1927. “Das Institut im Jahre 1926,” PJ 23: 5–51. Alt A. 1931. “Das Institut in den Jahren 1929 und 1930,” PJ 27: 5–50. Andersen F.G. 1985. Shiloh: The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Mamluk Periods II, Copenhagen. Applebaum S., Isaac B. and Landau Y. 1981–82. “Varia epigraphica,” SCI 6: 98–118. Ariel D.T. 1998. “Coins from the Survey and Excavations at Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (1988–1990),” ʿAtiqot 34: 1*–4*. Aronshtam A. 1997. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ḥ amad,” ʿAtiqot 32: 177–182 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 49*).
Aronshtam A. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ḥ amad,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 1–8. Aronshtam A. and Peleg Y. 2009. “Byzantine Period Farmhouse and Agricultural Installations at Khirbet edDuweir,” in Excavations and Discoveries in Samaria (JSP 9), Jerusalem, pp. 124–141 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 36*–37*). Augustinović A. 1951. Gerico e dintorni. Guida, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1933. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” QDAP 2: 136–181. Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” QDAP 3: 26–47, 49–73. Avi-Yonah M. 1935. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine, Second Supplement,” QDAP 4: 187–193. Avi-Yonah M. 1937. “Two Notes on the Jordan Valley,” JPOS 17: 252–254. Avi-Yonah M. 1948. “Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine Periods, II,” QDAP 13: 128–165. Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map: with Introduction and Commentary, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1972. “The Haditha Mosaic Pavement,” IEJ 22 (2–3): 118–122. Avi-Yonah M. 1973. “The Haditha Mosaic Pavement,” EI 11: 45–47 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1984. Historical Geography of Palestine from the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avner R. 2000. “Deir Ghazali: A Byzantine Monastery Northeast of Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 40: 25*–52* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Avner R., Aẓ mon S. and Sabariego A. 1991. “Jerusalem, Pisgat Zeʾev (Deir Ghazala),” ESI 10: 128–130. Ayalon E. 2002. “Horbat Migdal (Tsur Natan)—An Ancient Samaritan Village,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 272–288 (Hebrew). Ayalon E., Neidinger W. and Matthews E. 1989–90. “Ḥ orvat Migdal,” ESI 9: 137–138. Ayalon E., Neidinger W. and Matthews E. 1991. “Ḥ orvat Migdal (Ẓ ur Natan)—1990,” ESI 10: 114–115. Ayalon E., Neidinger W. and Matthews E. 1993. “Ẓ ur Natan (Ḥ orvat Migdal),” ESI 13: 45–46. Ayalon E., Neidinger W. and Matthews E. 1997. “Ẓ ur Natan,” ESI 16: 82. Ayalon E., Qidron A. and Charvit Y. 1987–89. “Grouped
[317]
Corpus of Christian sites
Installations from the Roman-Byzantine Period in the Fields of Zur Natan,” Israel—People and Land 23–24: 93–120 (Hebrew). Ayalon E. and Yannai E. 1991. “Eṭ-Ṭ aiyiba Map, Survey,” ESI 10: 18–19. Bagatti B. 1952–53. “Espressioni bibliche nelle antiche iscrizioni cristiane della Palestina,” LA 3: 111–148. Bagatti B. 1959–60. “ʿAbûd. Le chiese,” LA 10: 185–196. Bagatti B. 1965–66. “Nuovi apporti archeologici sul pozzo di Giacobbe in Samaria,” LA 16: 127–164. Bagatti B. 1969. “Alla Laura di Fara,” La Terra Santa 45: 18–24. Bagatti B. 1970. “Il Villaggio di Zababde in Samaria,” La Terra Santa 46: 160–167. Bagatti B. 1971. “Gifna. villaggio cristiano di Giudea,” La Terra Santa 47: 247–256. Bagatti B. 1975. “L’Edificio Ecclesiastico di el-Gib (Gibeon),” LA 25: 54–72. Bagatti B. 2001. Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 37), Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Samaria (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 39), Jerusalem. Baramki D.C. 1936. “An Early Byzantine Basilica at Tell Ḥ assān, Jericho,” QDAP 5: 82–88. Baramki D.C 1955. “The Excavations at Khirbet en-Nitla,” in J.L. Kelso and D.C. Baramki, Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla (AASOR 29–30), New Haven, Conn., pp. 50–52. Baramki D.C. and Stephan S.H. 1935. “A Nestorian Hermitage between Jericho and the Jordan,” QDAP 4: 81–86. Barda L. 2000. “The Modi ʿin Industrial Area, Survey,” Ḥ A 111: 70–71 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 54*). Batz S. 2002. “The Church of St. Theodore at Khirbet Beit Sila,” Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 1: 39–54. Batz S. 2003. “A Second Temple Period Cemetery at Horvat Beit Sila,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 111–122. Batz S. 2004. “The Church of St. Theodore at Ḥ . Beit Sila,” Qadmoniot 37 (128): 113–119 (Hebrew). Batz S. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 378–408. Beauvery R. 1957. “La route romaine de Jérusalem a Jéricho,” RB 64: 72–101. Beyer G. 1930. “Eusebius über Gibeon und Beeroth,” ZDPV 53: 199–211. Biran (Bergman) A. 1936a. “Soundings at the Supposed Site of Old Testament Anathoth,” BASOR 62: 22–25. Biran (Bergman) A. 1936b. “Anathoth?,” BASOR 63: 22–23.
Biran A. 1969. “Archaeological Activities 1968,” CNI 20 (3–4): 33–55. Biran A. 1985. “On the Identification of Anathoth,” EI 18: 209–214 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 72*). Bliss F.J. 1894. “The Church at Jacob’s Well,” PEFQSt 27: 108–113. Callaway J.A. 1969a. “Khirbet Ḥ aiyan,” IEJ 19 (4): 239. Callaway J.A. 1969b. “The 1966 ʿAi (Et-Tell) Excavations,” BASOR 196: 2–16. Callaway J.A. 1970a. “Et-Tell (Aï),” RB 77: 390–394. Callaway J.A. 1970b. “The 1968–1969 ʿAi (Et-Tell) Excavations,” BASOR 198: 7–31. Callaway J.A. and Nicol M.B. 1966. “A Sounding at Khirbet Ḥ aiyân,” BASOR 183: 12–19. Canaan T. 1927. Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine (JPOS 7), Jerusalem. Chitty D.J. 1966. The Desert a City. An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire, Oxford. Clermont-Ganneau Ch. 1874. “Letters from M. ClermontGanneau,” PEFQSt 7: 80–111. Clermont-Ganneau Ch. 1888–1924. Recueil d’Archéologie Orientale I–VIII, Paris. Clermont-Ganneau Ch. 1896–99. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874 I–II, London. Clermont-Ganneau Ch. 1904. “Inscription at Janiah,” PEFQSt 37: 285–286. Conder C.R. 1889. “Notes by Major Conder, D.C.L., R.E.,” PEFQSt 22: 133–149. Conder C.R. 1894. “Greek Inscriptions in Western Palestine,” PEFQSt 27: 201–203. Corbo V.C. 1951. “Il romitorio dell’ egumeno Gabriele,” La Terra Santa 26: 202–207. Corbo V.C. 1960. “Ritrovati gli edifici della Laura di Firmino,” La Terra Santa 36: 137–141. Cross F.M. 1962. “The Inscribed Jar Handles from Gibeon,” BASOR 168: 18–23. Crowfoot J.W. 1937. Churches at Bosra and SamariaSebaste, London. Crowfoot J.W., Crowfoot G.M. and Kenyon K.M. 1957. The Objects from Samaria, London. Crowfoot J.W., Kenyon K.M. and Sukenik E.L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria, London. Dadon M. 1997. “The ‘Basilica Church’ at Shiloh,” ʿAtiqot 32: 167–175 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 49*). Dadon. M. 2012. “The ‘Basilica Church’ at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 223–234. Dahari U. 2003. “The Excavation at Ḥ orvat Ḥ ani,” Qadmoniot 36 (126): 102–106 (Hebrew). Dajani A. 1953. “An Iron Age Tomb at al-Jib,” ADAJ 2: 66–74.
[318]
Corpus of Christian sites
Dalman G.H. 1904. “Der Pass von Michmas,” ZDPV 27: 161–173. Dalman G.H. 1905. “Das Wādi eṣ -ṣ wēnīṭ,” ZDPV 28: 161–175. Dalman G.H. 1909. “Jahresbericht des Instituts für das Arbeitsjahr 1908/09,” PJ 5: 1–26. Dalman G.H. 1913. “Jahresbericht des Instituts für das Arbeitsjahr 1912/13,” PJ 9: 1–74. Dar S. 1984. “Khirbet el-Bireh—1983,” ESI 3: 11–13. Dar S. 1986. Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E.–636 C.E. (BAR International Series 308 (i–ii)), Oxford. Dar S. 1988. “Archaeological Evidence on the Samaritan Revolts of the Byzantine Period,” in D. Jacoby and Y. Tsafrir (eds.), Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine, Jerusalem, pp. 228–237 (Hebrew). Dauphine C.M. 1979. “A Roman Mosaic Pavement from Nablus,” IEJ 29 (1): 11–33. Demsky A. 1979. “The Permitted Villages of Sebaste in the Reḥ ov Mosaic,” IEJ 29 (3–4): 182–193. Desreumaux A., Humbert J.B. and Nodet É. 1978. “La Laure de Saint Firmin—1978,” RB 85: 417–419. Dinur U. 1985. “ʿAnata,” ESI 4: 3–5. Dinur U. 1986. “ʿEn Hogla,” ESI 5: 118. Dinur U. and Feig N. 1986. “Qalʿat Musa,” ESI 5: 86–88. Di Segni L. 1990a. “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim: The Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 343–350. Di Segni L. 1990b. “Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: the Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 265–273. Di Segni L. 1990c. “Nuṣ eib ʿUweishîra: the Inscription,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 201–204. Di Segni L. 1993. “Choziba, Le monastère de Marie, Mère de Dieu dans le Wâdi el-Kelt,” La Terre Sainte 4: 170–178. Di Segni L. (transl. and Intro.), 2005. Cyril of Scythopolis. Lives of the Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Di Segni L. 2012a. “Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 157–160. Di Segni L. 2012b. “Greek Inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 209–218. Di Segni L. 2012c. “Greek Inscriptions from the Late Northern Church at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity
III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 219–222. Di Segni L. 2012d. “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 409–416. Drake C.F.T. 1872a. “Letters from Mr. C.F. Tyrwhitt Drake,” PEFQSt 5: 7–11. Drake C.F.T. 1872b. “Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake’s Reports,” PEFQSt 5: 36–47, 77–92, 174–193. Drake C.F.T. 1874. “Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake’s Reports,” PEFQSt 7: 24–29, 64–79, 187–190. Eisenberg E. and Ovadiah R. 1998. “A Byzantine Monastery at Mevo Modi ʿim,” ʿAtiqot 36: 1*–19* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 123–124). Eshel H. 1987. “The Late Iron Age Cemetery at Gibeon,” IEJ 37 (1): 1–17. ESI 1982a. “Khirbet El-Burak,” ESI 1: 13–14. ESI 1982b. “Jerusalem,” ESI 1: 49–60. Farhi Y. and Gadot Y. 2006. “Ḥ orbat Sher,” Ḥ A 118 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id= 401 &mag_id=111). Farhi Y., Gadot Y., Ilan D., Pincus-Ben Avraham J., Taxel I., Tsfania L. and Bechar S. 2009. “The Givat Sher-Modiʾin Community-Based Excavation: Preliminary Report on 2004–6 Season,” BAIAS 27: 89–147. Finkelstein I., Bunimovitz S. and Lederman Z. 1993. Shiloh. The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 10), Tel Aviv. Finkelstein I., Lederman Z. and Bunimovitz S. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures. The Southern Samaria Survey. The Sites I–II (Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 14), Tel Aviv. Fischer M., Isaac B. and Roll I. 1996. Roman Roads in Judaea II. The Jaffa–Jerusalem Roads (BAR International Series 628), Oxford. FitzGerald G.M. 1929. “A Find of Stone Seats at Nablus,” PEFQSt 62: 104–110. Foerster G. 1993. “Tell el-Ḥ assan,” NEAEHL 2: 696. Frumkin A. 1982. “News from the Israel Cave Research Center (ICRC),” Teva va-Aretz 24 (4): 188–189 (Hebrew). Gadot Y. 2005. “Ḥ orbat Sher, Survey,” Ḥ A 117 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id= 152&mag_id=110). Garitte G. 1953. “Chariton,” in A. Baudrillart, A. de Meyer and R. Aubert (eds.), Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 12, Paris, pp. 422–423. Germer-Durand J. 1893. “Épigraphie chrétienne de Palestine,” RB 2: 203–215. Germer-Durand J. 1897–98. “Ain Faouar. La plus belle source de Palestine,” Échos d’Orient 1: 264–266. Gibson S. 1982a. “Jerusalem (North-East), Archaeological Survey,” IEJ 32 (2–3): 156–157.
[319]
Corpus of Christian sites
Gibson S. 1982b. “Ras et-Tawil,” IEJ 32 (2–3): 154–155. Gibson S. 1984. “Lime Kilns in North-East Jerusalem,” PEQ 116: 94–102. Gibson S. 1985–86. “Ras et-Tawil: A Byzantine Monastery North of Jerusalem,” BAIAS 5: 69–73. Gibson S. 2009. “Two Wine Presses at Ras et-Tawil (Pisgat Zeʾev) in North Jerusalem,” in E. Ayalon., R. Frankel and A. Kloner (eds.), Oil and Wine Presses in Israel from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (BAR International Series 1972), Oxford, pp. 271–276. Gibson S. and Edelstein G. 1985. “Investigating Jerusalem’s Rural Landscape,” Levant 17: 139–155. Gibson S. and Kloner A. 1982. “Ras et-Tawil,” ESI 1: 101–103. Glock A.E. 1979. “Tell Jenin,” RB 86: 110–112. Glueck N. 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Part II: Pottery Notes and Plates (AASOR 25–28), Jerusalem. Goldfus H. 1984. “Wadi el-Makkuk,” ESI 3: 106. Goldfus H. 1990. “Khallat ed-Danabîya: a Desert Monastery,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 227–244. Gophna R. and Beit-Arieh I. 1997. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Lod (80), Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Grant E. 1926. “Rāmallāh. Signs of the Early Occupation of this and other Sites,” PEFQSt 59: 186–195. Greenhut Z. 1988–89. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim),” ESI 7–8: 81–83. Greenhut Z. 1989–90. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim) —1989,” ESI 9: 141–143. Greenhut Z. 1998. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (1988–1990),” ʿAtiqot 34: 121–172 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 9*–10*). Greenhut Z. and Iron-Lubin M. 1991. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim)—1990,” ESI 10: 123–124. Gudovitch S. 1999. “Yarḥ iv,” ESI 19: 51–57 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 36*–39*). Guérin V. 1868–69. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine I–III, Judee, Paris. Guérin V. 1874–75. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine I–II, Samarie, Paris. Guérin V. 1897. La Terre Sainte. Jérusalem et le nord de la Judée, Paris. Guthe H. 1911. “Archelais,” MNDPV 17: 65–70. Ḥ A 1963. “Modi ʿin Survey,” Ḥ A 8: 18–19 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1965a. “Mosaic Floor Discoveries at Modi ʿin,” Ḥ A 13: 10–11 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1965b. “The Decorated Sarcophagi at Modi ʿin,” Ḥ A 14: 10–11 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1966. “Baptismal Font at Modi ʿin Area,” Ḥ A 18–19: 11 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1968. “ʿAi–1968,” Ḥ A 28–29: 38–39 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1971a. “ʿEin Sāmiyye,” Ḥ A 37: 23 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1971b. “ʿKh. Umm-Zaqum,” Ḥ A 39: 23 (Hebrew).
Ḥ A 1971c. “Lower Beth-horon,” Ḥ A 40: 24 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1972a. “Bardala,” Ḥ A 44: 11 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1972b. “Deir ed-Derb (Qarāwat Banī Ḥ asan),” Ḥ A 44: 12 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1973a. “Kh. Jabaris,” Ḥ A 47: 11–12 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1973b. “Phasael Region,” Ḥ A 46: 9–13 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1975. “Cypros, Tell ʿAqaba,” Ḥ A 54–55: 24–25 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1977. “Mevo Modi ʿim,” Ḥ A 61–62: 26–27 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1978. “Yabrud,” Ḥ A 67–68: 75 (Hebrew). Ḥ A 1980. “Ḥ . Kefar Ruth Region, Survey,” Ḥ A 74–75: 19–20 (Hebrew). Haiman M. 1999. “Mevo Modi ʿim, Survey,” Ḥ A 110: 117 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 94*). Haiman M. and Dagan Y. 1996. “Trans Israel Highway,” ESI 15: 121–122. Halloun M. and Rubin R. 1981. “Palestinian Syriac Inscription from ʿEn Suweinît,” LA 31: 291–298. Hamilton R.W. 1932a. “Byzantine Church at Mukhmās,” QDAP 1: 103–104. Hamilton R.W. 1932b. “Mosaic Pavements at ʿEin elFawwār,” QDAP 1: 151–152. Hamilton R.W. 1938. “The Domed Tomb at Sebasṭya,” QDAP 8: 64–71. Hamran A.R. and Sion O. 1994. “Duma,” ESI 14: 142. Ḥ anin N. 1985. “Wadi el-ʿEin, Byzantine Monastery,” ESI 4: 109–110. Harder G. 1962. “Herodes-Burgen und Herodes-Städte im Jordangraben,” ZDPV 78: 49–63. Har-Even B. 2012. “A Byzantine Monastery and Church at Khirbet el-Maḥ ma,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 363–372. Har-Even B. and Greenfeld U. 2012. “A Byzantine Church and Monastery at Khirbet Huriya,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 309 –326. Har-Even B. and Shapira L. 2012. “A Late Roman Tower and a Byzantine Church in Khirbet Faʿush, Maccabim,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 327–344. Hennessy J.B. 1970. “Excavations at Samaria-Sebaste, 1968,” Levant 2: 1–21. Hirschfeld Y. 1983. “A Survey of Tells and Sites in Jericho,” Qardom 28–30: 232–244 (Hebrew). Hirschfeld Y. 1984. “Monastery of St. Euthymius, Survey and Excavations,” ESI 3: 80–82. Hirschfeld Y. 1987. The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period. Their Development and Internal Organization in Light of Archaeological Research, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Hirschfeld Y. 1988–89a. “El-Qaṣr, Monastery,” ESI 7–8: 149–150.
[320]
Corpus of Christian sites
Hirschfeld Y. 1988–89b. “Judean Desert and Samaria, Survey of Monasteries—1987,” ESI 7–8: 95–104. Hirschfeld Y. 1989–90. “Judean Desert, Jericho Basin, Samaria: Survey of Monasteries—1987 (Part II),” ESI 9: 46–51. Hirschfeld Y. 1990. “List of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 1–90. Hirschfeld Y. 1991. “Gerasimus and His Laura in the Jordan Valley,” RB 98: 419–430. Hirschfeld Y. 1992. The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period, New Haven–London. Hirschfeld Y. 2002. “Deir Qalʿa and the Monasteries of Western Samaria,” in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East 3 (JRA Supplementary Series 49), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 155–189. Hizmi H. 1986. “Khirbet el-Beiyudat,” ESI 5: 10–12. Hizmi H. 1990. “The Byzantine Church at Khirbet elBeiyûdât: Preliminary Report,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 245–264. Hizmi H. 1992. “Archelais—The Village of Archelaus,” Qadmoniot 25 (1–2) (97–98): 27–33 (Hebrew). Hizmi H. 1993. “The Byzantine Church at Khirbet elBeiyûdât in the Lower Jordan Valley,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 155–163. Hizmi H. 2004. “New Discoveries at the Second Temple Period Site of Archelais,” Qadmoniot 37 (128): 95–101 (Hebrew). Hizmi H. 2008. “Beiyudat, Khirbet el-(Archelais),” NEAEHL 5: 1600–1602. Horning R. 1909. “Verzeichnis von Mosaiken aus Mesopotamien, Syrien, Palästina und dem Sinai,” ZDPV 32: 113–150. Husseini S.A.S. 1938. “A Rock-Cut Tomb-Chamber at ʿAin Yabrūd,” QDAP 6: 54–55. Hüttenmeister F. and Reeg G. 1977. Die Antiken Synagogen in Israel I–II, Wiesbaden. Ilan Z. 1976. “Khirbet Jabaris— The Finds of an Ancient Site in the Desert of Samaria,” Nofim 4: 20–27 (Hebrew). Ilan Z. 1977. “Riddles of Shomron’s Desert,” Teva va-Aretz 19 (4): 161–166 (Hebrew). Ilan Z. 1991. Ancient Synagogues in Israel, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Ilan Z. and Dinur E. 1982. “Jabaʿit,” ESI 1: 43–44. Ilan Z. and Dinur E. 1987. “Jabaʿit—An Ancient Settlement at the edge of the Samarian Desert,” in Z.H. Erlich (ed.), Samaria and Benjamin. A Collection of Research in Historical Geography, Ofra, pp. 114–130 (Hebrew). Jeffery A. and Albright W.F. 1955. “Inscriptional Material
from New Testament Jericho (Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq) and Khirbet en-Nitla,” in J.L. Kelso and D.C. Baramki, Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet enNitla (AASOR 29–30), pp. 53–56. Jeremias J. 1958. Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Mt. 23, 29; Lk. 11, 47). Eine Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesu, Göttingen. Kamaiski A. 1985. “Er-Ram,” ESI 4: 94–95. Kelso J.L. 1951. “Excavations at Khirbet en-Nitla near Jericho,” BASOR 121: 6–8. Kelso J.L. and Baramki D.C. 1955. “The Excavation of New Testament Jericho (Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq),” in J.L. Kelso, and D.C. Baramki, Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla (AASOR 29–30), pp. 1–19. Kitchener H.H. 1878. “Journal of the Survey,” PEFQSt 11: 62–67. Kjaer H. 1930. “The Excavation of Shilo 1929. Preliminary Report,” JPOS 10: 87–174. Klein S. 1929. “Βεμσελιϛ—Βαιομμιϛ, Βαιθομμη,” Tarbiẓ 1: 136–144 (Hebrew). Klein S. 1939. Eretz Yehuda, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Kloner A. 2001. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Survey of Jerusalem: the Northeastern Sector, Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kochavi M. and Beit-Arieh I. 1994. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Rosh ha-ʿAyin (78), Jerusalem (Hebrew and English). Koikylides K.M. 1901. Ta kata ten lauran kai ton cheimarron tou Chouziva: hoi vioi ton Hagion Georgiou kai Ioannou ton Choziviton, En Hierosolymois. Kuhl C. and Meinhold W. 1929. “Römische Strassen und Strassenstationen in der Umgebung von Jerusalem. II. Die Strassenstationen,” PJ 25: 95–124. Lagrange M.J. 1892. “Lettre de Jérusalem,” RB 1: 439–456. Lagrange M.J. 1895. “Chronique de Jérusalem,” RB 4: 88–96. Leclercq H. 1929. “Laures Palestiniennes,” DACL 8.2: 1961–1988. Lemaire P. 1950–51. “La Bible et les recherches récentes,” LA 1: 1–86. Le Strange G.1890. Palestine under the Moslems. A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500 (PEF), London. Limor O. 1998. Holy Land Travels. Christian Pilgrims in Late Antiquity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Lohmann P. 1918. “Archäologisches von en-nebi samwīl,” ZDPV 41: 117–157. Lombardi P.G. 1958–59. “Alcune questioni di Topografia in 1 Sam. 13–14, 1–15,” LA 9: 251–282. Lyon D.G. 1908. “The Necropolis of Samieh,” AJA 12: 66–67. Macalister R.A.S. 1907a. “Diary of a Visit to Ṣ afed,” PEFQSt 40: 91–130.
[321]
Corpus of Christian sites
Macalister R.A.S. 1907b. “Some New Inscriptions from Jerusalem and Its Neighbourhood,” PEFQSt 40: 234–239. Magen Y. 1983. “Shekhem (Nablus),” ESI 2: 90–92. Magen Y. 1984. “The Roman Theater in Shechem,” in E. Schiller (ed.), Zev Vilnay’s Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem, pp. 269–277 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1987. “The Western Mausoleum at Neapolis,” EI 19: 72–91 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1990a. “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 333–342. Magen Y. 1990b. “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kîliya,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 321–332. Magen Y. 1992. “Samaritan Synagogues,” Qadmoniot 25 (3–4) (99–100): 66–90 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1993. “Mount Gerizim and the Samaritans,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 91–148. Magen Y. 2005. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period (JSP 5), Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2008a. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 117–180. Magen Y. 2008b. “The Bounds of Samaritan Settlement in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 79–104. Magen Y. 2008c. Mount Gerizim Excavations II. A Temple City (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008d. “Oil Production in the Land of Israel in the Early Islamic Period,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 257–343. Magen Y. 2008e. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–216. Magen Y. 2008f. “Tombs Ornamented in Jerusalem Style in Samaria and the Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 141–164. Magen Y. 2008g. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246. Magen Y. 2008h. “The Inn of the Good Samaritan at Maʿale Adummim,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 281–314.
Magen Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period I–II (JSP 11), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2010. The Good Samaritan Museum (JSP 12), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2012a. “A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 9–106. Magen Y. 2012b. “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 261–296. Magen Y. and Aharonovich E. 2012. “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 161–208. Magen Y. and Aizik N. 2012. “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 107–156. Magen Y. and Dadon M. 1999. “Nebi Samwil (Shmuel Hanavi-Har Hasimha),” Qadmoniot 32 (118): 62–77 (Hebrew). Magen Y. and Dadon M. 2003. “Nebi Samwil (Montjoie),” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 123– 138. Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.) 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Maharian E. 2000. “Firasin,” Ḥ A 112: 57–59 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 46*–47*). Mallon A. 1931. “Nuntia Rerum et Personarum,” Biblica 12: 117–119. Mansur A. 1910. “Jacob’s Well,” PEFQSt 43: 131–137. Marcoff M. and Chitty D.J. 1929. “Notes on Monastic Research in the Judaean Wilderness, 1928–9,” PEFQSt 62: 167–178. Marti K. 1880. “Die alten Lauren und Klöster in der Wüste Juda,” ZDPV 3: 1–43. Mazar (Maisler) B. 1940–41. “Topographical Studies I,” BJPES 8 (1): 35–37 (Hebrew). Mazar B. 1975. Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Meimaris Y.E. 1978. “The Hermitage of St. John the Chozebite, Deir Wadi el-Qilt,” LA 28: 171–192. Meinardus O. 1964–65. “Notes on the Laurae and Monasteries of the Wilderness of Judaea,” LA 15: 220–250. Meinardus O. 1965–66a. “The Byzantine Church of St. Andrew in Jericho,” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 18: 181–195. Meinardus O. 1965–66b. “Notes on the Laurae and Monas-
[322]
Corpus of Christian sites
teries of the Wilderness of Judaea (II),” LA 16: 328–356. Meinardus O. 1966. “Anachorètes modernes en Palestine,” RB 73: 119–127. Meinardus O. 1969. “Notes on the Laurae and Monasteries of the Wilderness of Judaea (III),” LA 19: 305–327. Meshel Z. and Amit D. 1979. “The Water Supply of the Cypros Fortress,” Qadmoniot 12 (2–3) (46–47): 67–77 (Hebrew). Milik J.T. 1959–60. “Inscription araméenne christopalestinienne de ʿAbûd,” LA 10: 197–204. Milik J.T. 1960. “Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes,” RB 67: 550–591. Möller C. and Schmitt G. 1976. Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus, Wiesbaden. Nadelman Y. 1993. “Jerusalem, Pisgat Zeʾev D (Ḥ . Zimri),” ESI 12: 54–56. Neidinger W., Matthews E. and Ayalon E. 1990. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Zur Natan, 1989 and 1990 Seasons, Houston, Tex. Netzer E. 1975. “Cypros,” Qadmoniot 8 (2–3) (30–31): 54– 61 (Hebrew). Netzer E. 1983. “Nuseib el-ʿAweishireh,” Qardom 28–30: 118–119 (Hebrew). Netzer E. and Birger R. 1990. “A Byzantine Monastery at Nuṣeib ʿUweishîra, West of Jericho,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 191– 200. Netzer E. and Damati I. 2004. “Cypros,” in E. Netzer (ed.), Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations II, Jerusalem, pp. 233–280. Notley R.S. and Safrai Z. (transl. and com.), 2005. Eusebius, Onomasticon. The Place Names of Divine Scripture, Including the Latin Edition of Jerome (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series IX), Boston. Orr-Ewing H.J. 1927. “Tell ʿAzūr,” PEFQSt 60: 14–17. Ory J. 1955. “Édifice chrétien près de Khirbet Kafr Sibb,” RB 62: 83–84. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Theophaneia, Beitraege zur Religions-und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums 22), Bonn. Ovadiah A. and de Silva C.G. 1981. “Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land. Part I: Newly Discovered Churches,” Levant 13: 200–261. Ovadiah A. and de Silva C.G. 1982. “Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land. Part II: Updated Material on Churches Discussed in the Corpus,” Levant 14: 122–170. Ovadiah A. and de Silva C.G. 1984. “Supplementum to the Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land. Part III: Appendices,” Levant 16: 129–165.
Ovadiah R. and Ovadiah A. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel, Roma. Palmer E.H. 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine. Arabic and English Name Lists, London. Patrich J. 1983. “Wadi Ṣ uweinit,” ESI 2: 107–109. Patrich J. 1984. “Judean Desert, Secret Passages and Caves,” ESI 3: 61–62. Patrich J. 1985a. “Inscriptions araméennes juives dans les grottes d’El-ʿAleiliyât, Wadi Suweinit (Naḥ al Michmas),” RB 92: 265–273. Patrich J. 1985b. “Dissidents in the Desert. The Cave Encampment of Simon Son of Gioras,” Eretz 1: 51–61. Patrich J. 1987–88. “Judean Desert, Survey of Caves— 1985/1986,” ESI 6: 66–70. Patrich J. 1990. “The Cells (ta Kellia) of Choziba, Wadi elQilṭ,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 205–226. Patrich J., Arubas B. and Kali H. 1986–87. “The Monastic Cells (Kellia) of St. George’s Monastery in Wadi Qelt,” Israel—People and Land 4 (22): 179–196 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 16*). Patrich J., Arubas B. and Naor E. 1986. “Jewish Caves of Refuge in the Cliffs of Naḥ al Mikhmas,” Qadmoniot 19 (73–74): 45–50 (Hebrew). Patrich J. and Rubin R. 1984. “Les grottes de el-ʾAleiliyât et la Laure de Saint Firmin. Des refuges juifs et byzantins,” RB 91: 381–387. Peleg Y. 2012. “A Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Zaqum,” in Christians and Christianity III. Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 235–260. Peleg Y., Greenfeld U. and Har-Even B. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Meiyita,” in L.D. Chrupcala (ed.), Christ is Here! Studies in Biblical and Christian Archaeology in Memory of Michele Piccirillo ofm (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 52), Milano, pp. 175–183. Piccirillo M. and Alliata E. (eds.), 1999. The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997. Travelling Through the Byzantine Umayyad Period. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Amman, 7–9 April 1997, Jerusalem. Porath Y. 1983. “Faṣaʾel Area,” ESI 2: 31–32. Porath Y. 1985. Ancient Irrigation Agriculture in the Arid Zones of Eretz Isarael, Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Porath Y. 1989. “The Development of the Arid Regions of Judea during Herod’s Reign,” Cathedra 53: 13–23 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 198). Porath Y., Dar S. and Applebaum S. (eds.), 1985. The History and Archaeology of Emek-Hefer, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Press I. 1946–55. A Topographical-Historical Encyclopaedia of Palestine I–IV, Jerusalem (Hebrew).
[323]
Corpus of Christian sites
Prignaud J. 1963. “Une installation monastique byzantine au Khan Ṣ aliba,” RB 70: 243–254. Pringle D. 1983. “Two Medieval Villages North of Jerusalem: Archaeological Investigations in al-Jib and ar-Ram,” Levant 15: 141–177. Pringle D. and Leach P. 1983. “A Byzantine Building at Burham near Ramallah,” LA 33: 319–326. Pritchard J.B. 1956. “The Water System at Gibeon,” BA 19 (4): 66–75. Pritchard J.B. 1959. Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon, Philadelphia. Pritchard J.B. 1960a. “Industry and Trade at Biblical Gibeon,” BA 23 (1): 23–29. Pritchard J.B. 1960b. “More Inscribed Jar Handles from elJîb,” BASOR 160: 2–5. Pritchard J.B. 1961. “A Bronze Age Necropolis at Gibeon,” BA 24 (1): 19–24. Pritchard J.B. 1962a. Gibeon. Where the Sun Stood Still, Princeton, NJ. Pritchard J.B. 1962b. “Excavations at el-Jib, 1960,” ADAJ 7–8: 121–122. Pritchard J.B. 1963. The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, Philadelphia. Pritchard J.B. 1964a. Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon, Philadelphia. Pritchard J.B. 1964b. “El-Jib Excavations 1962,” ADAJ 8–9: 86–87. Pummer R. 2002. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism. Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 92), Tübingen. Rahmani L.Y. 1987. “More Lead Coffins from Israel,” IEJ 37 (2–3): 123–146. Reeg G. 1989. Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur, Wiesbaden. Reich R. 1985. “A Chapel at Khirbet Umm Zaquma,” ʿAtiqot 17: 212–213. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910 I–II, Cambridge, Mass. Reuben A. and Peleg Y. 2009. “Caves, Winepresses, and a Three-Room Structure to the East of Anʾata,” in Excavations and Discoveries in Benjamin and Judea (JSP 10), Jerusalem, pp. 57–64 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 7*). Robinson E. and Smith E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea. A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838 I–III, London. Robinson E. and Smith E. 1857. Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions. A Journal of Travels in the Year 1852, Boston. Röhricht R. 1887. “Studien zur mittelalterlichen Geographie und Topographie Syriens,” ZDPV 10: 195–320. Roll I. and Ayalon E. 1984. “Judea and Samaria, Roman Roads and Milestones,” ESI 3: 60–61.
Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Safrai Z. 1980. Borders and Rule in Eretz-Israel in the Mishna and Talmud Period, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1993. “Samaria—from the Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods, in Light of Numismatic-Quantitative Finds,” in Z. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting—1992, Kedumim-Ariel, pp. 167–183 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XIV). Safrai Z. and Dar S. 1982. “Khirbet el-Bireh,” ESI 1: 11– 13. Safrai Z. and Dar S. 1997. “The Estate at Horbat Bira in the Shephelah of Lod Region,” in Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai and J. Schwartz (eds.), Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat Gan, pp. 57–107 (Hebrew). Schenke H.M. 1968. “Jakobsbrunnen-Josephsgrab-Sychar. Topographische Untersuchungen und Erwägungen in der Perspektive von Joh. 4, 5, 6,” ZDPV 84: 159–184. Schick C. 1880. “Der Frankenberg,” ZDPV 3: 88–99. Schneider A.M. 1931a. “Die Kirche von Eṭ-Ṭ aijibe,” OC 6: 15–22. Schneider A.M. 1931b. “Das byzantinische Gilgal (chirbet Mefdschir),” ZDPV 54: 50–59. Schneider A.M. 1933. “Zu einigen Kirchenruinen Palästinas,” OC 30: 152–160. Schneider A.M. 1934a. “Zu einigen Kirchenruinen Palästinas (4–6),” OC 31: 219–225. Schneider A.M. 1934b. “Bethel und seine altchristlichen Heiligtümer,” ZDPV 57: 186–190. Schneider A.M. 1938. “Das Kalamon-Kloster in der Jerichoebene,” OC 35: 39–43. Schneider A.M. 1951. “Römische und byzantinische Bauten auf dem Garizim,” ZDPV 68: 211–234. Schoonover K. 1968. “Et-Tell (Ai),” RB 75: 243–247. Schoonover K. 1969. “Et-Tell (Ai),” RB 76: 423–426. Schumacher G. 1910. “The Great Water Passage of Khirbet Belʿameh,” PEFQSt 43: 107–112. Schürer E. 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) I, Edinburgh. Schwabe M. 1954. “A Greek Epigram from Gofna,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 1: 99–119. Séjourné P.M. 1892. “La Palestine Chrétienne. Découvertes récentes et explorations,” RB 1: 118–125. Séjourné P.M. 1898. “Chronique de Jérusalem,” RB 7: 122–128. Sellers O.R. and Baramki D.C. 1953. A Roman-Byzantine Burial Cave in Northern Palestine (BASOR Supplementary Studies 15–16), New Haven, Conn. Spyridonidis C.K. 1908. “The Church over Jacob’s Well,” PEFQSt 41: 248–253. Sternberg G. 1915. “Bethel,” ZDPV 38: 1–40. Sukenik I.L. 1933–34. “An Ancient Jewish Cave on the Jerusalem–Shechem Road,” BJPES 1 (1): 7–9 (Hebrew).
[324]
Corpus of Christian sites
Taha H. 1997. “A Salvage excavation at the ʿAbudiyah church in Abud – Samaria,” LA 47: 359–374. Tepper Y. 1986. “The Sun Dial from Deir Saman,” in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), Shomron Studies, Tel Aviv, pp. 207–217. Thomsen P. 1907. Loca Sancta. Verzeichnis der im 1. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. erwäehnten Ortschaften Palästinas, Halle. Thomsen P. 1912. “Zur Lage von Archelais,” MNDPV 18: 71–73. Thomson W.M. 1882. The Land and the Book. Central Palestine and Phoenicia. Popular Edition, New York. Tristram H.B. 1866. The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine, London. Ullmann L., Shatzman I. and Price J. 2009. History of the Jewish War against the Romans, Yosef Ben Matityahu (Titus) Flavius Josephus, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Vailhé S. 1897–98a. “Les premiers monastères de la Palestine,” Bessarione 3: 39–58. Vailhé S. 1897–98b. “Les saints Kozibites,” Échos d’Orient 1: 228–233. Vailhé S. 1900. “Répertoire alphabétique des monastères de Palestine,” ROC 5: 1–81. Van Kasteren J.P. 1890. “Aus der Umgegend von Jerusalem,” ZDPV 13: 76–122. Vaux R. de. 1946. “Notes archéologiques et topographiques,” RB 53: 260–274. Vincent L.H. 1913. “Un hypogée juif a Djifneh,” RB 22: 103–106. Vincent L.H. 1922. “Néby Samoüil,” RB 31: 360–402. Vincent L.H. 1926. “A la recherche de Caphargamala,” RB 35: 127–132. Vincent L.H. 1958. “Puits de Jacob ou de la samaritaine,” RB 65: 547–567. Weinblatt D.1999. “Ḥ orbat Ha-Ṭ arsi,” Ḥ A 110: 118 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 94*–95*). Wibbing S. 1962. “Zur Topographie einzelner Schlachten des Judas Makkabäus,” ZDPV 78: 159–170. Wilkinson J. 1975. “The Way from Jerusalem to Jericho,” BA 38 (1): 10–24. Wilkinson J. 1977. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Jerusalem. Wilkinson J. 1981. “Architectural Procedures in Byzantine Palestine,” Levant 13: 156–172. Wilson C. 1869. “On the Site of Ai and the Position of the Altar which Abraham Built between Bethel and Ai,” PEFQSt 1: 123–126. Winter T. 1998. “The Glass Vessels from Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (1988–1990),” ʿAtiqot 34: 173–177 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 10*).
Wood B.G. 2000a. “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1995–1998,” IEJ 50 (1–2): 123–130. Wood B.G. 2000b. “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1999,” IEJ 50 (1–2): 249–254. Wood B.G. 2001. “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 2000,” IEJ 51 (1): 246–252. Wood B.G. 2008. “The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” in R.S. Hess, G.A. Klingbeil and P.J. Ray (eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 3), Winona Lake, Ind., pp. 205–240. Wright T.F. 1904. “Inscription at Janiah,” PEFQSt 37: 180–181. Yeivin Z. 1971. “ʿAin Samiyeh,” RB 78: 424. Yeivin Z. 1973. “Archaeological Activities in Samaria,” in J. Aviram (ed.), Eretz Shomron. The Thirtieth Archaeological Convention September 1972, Jerusalem, pp. 147–162 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. xix–xx). Yitah M. 2001. “Khirbet Deir ʿArab,” Ḥ A 113: 92–93 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 64*–65*). Yitah M. and Baruch Y. 2001. “Christian Remains in the Benjamin Region,” in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies 10, Ariel, pp. 159–170 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XXII). Yron-Lubin M. 1994. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim),” ESI 14: 83–85. Yron-Lubin M. 1996. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim) —1993,” ESI 15: 66–68. Yron-Lubin M. 1999. “Ḥ orvat Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim) —1995,” ESI 19: 68–74 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 46*–49*). Yron-Lubin M. and Sebah A. 1998. “Ḥ . Ḥ ermeshit (Neʾot Qedumim)—Preservation,” Ḥ A 108: 87–88 (Hebrew). Zertal A. 1992. The Menasseh Hill Country Survey I. The Shechem Syncline, Haifa (Hebrew). Zertal A. 1996. The Menasseh Hill Country Survey II. The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal A. 2005. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey IV. From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal A. and Mirkam N. 2000. The Menasseh Hill Country Survey III. From Nahal ʿIron to Nahal Shechem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zissu B. 2001. “The Identification of the Copper Scroll’s Kaḥ elet at ʿEin Samiya in the Samarian Desert,” PEQ 133: 145–158. Zori N. 1977. The Land of Issachar. Archaeological Survey, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Zorn J.R. 1997. “Mizpah. Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital,” BAR 23 (5): 28–38, 66.
[325]
Deir Mar Jiryis, the monastery of Choziba, view from the south.
Aerial photograph of the church of St. Mary Theotokos at Mt. Gerizim.
ʿEin Fara, the monastery of Pharan, view from the north.
Aerial photograph of en-Nebi Samwil, view from the south.