Christians and Christianity, Vol. III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea 9789654062541

Citation preview

The Fi n ds

CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY

CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES IN SAMARIA AND NORTHERN JUDEA

[  I  ]

y. M ag e n

[ II ]

The Fi n ds

CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY VOLUME III

CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES IN SAMARIA AND NORTHERN JUDEA

15 Staff Officer of Archaeology — Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Israel Antiquities Authority Jerusalem 2012

23

[ III ]

y. M ag e n

15

23

Editor: Noga Carmin

English Translation: Edward Levin, Carl Ebert, and Michael Gugenheim English Style: Janet Barshalev and Shelley Sade Typesetting, Design and Production: A.S. Marzel and Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem Plates and Printing by Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem

ISBN 978-965-406-254-1

© 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

[  V  ]

y. M ag e n

[ VI ]

The Fi n ds

CONTENTS Preface

IX

Abbreviations

XI

Site Map

XIII

A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ḥ amad Ayal Aronshtam

A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan

Yitzhak Magen

A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa

Yitzhak Magen and Naftali Aizik

1 9 107

Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa Leah Di Segni  157

The Northern Churches at Shiloh Yitzhak Magen and Evgeny Aharonovich 161 Greek Inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery

Leah Di Segni

209

Greek Inscriptions from the Late Northern Church at Shiloh Leah Di Segni 219 The “Basilica Church” at Shiloh

223

Michael Dadon

A Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Zaqum

Yuval Peleg

A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya

Yitzhak Magen

235 261

The Crusader Church of St. Mary in el-Bira Yitzhak Magen 297 [ VII ]

y. M ag e n

A Byzantine Church and Monastery at Khirbet Huriya Benjamin Har-Even and Uzi Greenfeld 309 A Late Roman Tower and a Byzantine Church in Khirbet Faush, Maccabim

Benjamin Har-Even and Lior Shapira

Coins from Khirbet Faush, Maccabim

Gabriela Bijovsky 

327 345

A Byzantine Monastery and Church at Khirbet el-Maḥ ma Benjamin Har-Even 363 A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Beit Sila

Shahar Batz

Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Beit Sila Leah Di Segni

A Byzantine Church at Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin

Uzi Greenfeld

Greek inscription from the Northern Chapel at Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin Leah Di Segni

The Chancel Mosaic Floor of the Byzantine Church at Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin Karen C. Britt

Mosaic Floors in Judea and Southern Samaria

373 409 417 429 433

Roni Amir

445

Color Plates

489

[ VIII ]

y. M ag e n

Preface This volume summarizes most of the church and monastery excavations conducted in Samaria and northern Judea in the last three decades. In this volume (JSP 15), the sites have been published in geographical order, from north to south, up to and including the area of Byzantine Jerusalem. The second volume (JSP 16) focuses on the monasteries and churches in Judea. Three major archaeological discoveries emerged from the church and monastery excavations in Samaria and Judea, especially from the corpus of Christian sites published in JSP 13 and JSP 14. One discovery that contributed to our understanding of the proliferation of monasteries and the impact of their construction is that most of the monasteries built in Judea and Samaria were located in fourth century CE fortresses and forts that had been established by Theodosius I and his son Arcadius. In the late fifth and sixth centuries CE these military structures, along with funding, were given to monks for establishing monasteries, mainly upon the initiative of Justinian. These well-fortified monasteries constituted a boundary that blocked the southern expansion of the Samaritans following their revolts and the ensuing damage they inflicted upon churches and other Christian sites. In addition, the excavations and surveys in Samaria revealed that the Christians were unsuccessful in displacing the Samaritans in any of the areas damaged by the latter’s uprisings and in establishing settlements in their stead. Furthermore, no archaeological evidence was found in support of Procopius’ statement that Justinian succeeded in converting the Samaritans to Christianity. No churches were discovered in northern Samaria, where the Samaritans lived. Individual Samaritans might have adopted the Christian faith (some perhaps only ostensibly), but the Christians could not convert them as a people. Towards the end of the sixth century CE the Samaritans reestablished their villages, as can be seen by the description of Antoninus of Placentia in 570 CE. Another important discovery was the presence, in most of the northern monasteries around which olive trees could be cultivated, of industrial oil presses with a lever, screw, and cylindrical weight; as well as of oil presses with two large monoliths, which were erroneously called “nitzavei Yehudah.” Excavations indicated that the monks cultivated grapevines, extracted their juice in wine presses, and made wine, while the oil presses of that type belonged to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. In addition to the church and monastery reports, the volume includes two articles related to the excavations. The first article provides a detailed examination of the mosaic discovered at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin; the second discusses the mosaics uncovered in the various sites in Judea and Samaria. Preparation of these two volumes extended for about a decade. I wish to thank: the Israel Antiquities Authority for its valuable and daily assistance in maintaining the Judea and Samaria Publications unit; the archaeologists who contributed to the writing of this volume; Dr. Leah Di Segni, who undertook translation of the Greek inscriptions found at the various sites; Silvia Krapiwko of the Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, for her assistance in facilitating our use of the archives data; Yoav Tzionit, without whom these volumes could not have been published; and those who assisted in its editing—Dr. Roni Amir, Netta Mitki, and Hilit Krauze-Israel; Baruch Yuzefovsky, for his contribution to the pottery reports; surveyors Pavel Gertopsky and Felix Portnov; photographers Abraham Hai, Assaf Peretz, and Shlomi Ammami; sketch artists

[ IX ]

y. M ag e n

Miriam Manokian and Anna Tzipyn; graphic artist Alina Pikovsky-Yoffe, Ravit Nener-Suriano, and Jane Bar-Rashi. My special thanks to Noga Carmin, Chief Editor, who succeeded in bringing to fruition a project that had previously been doomed to failure due to unprofessional editing work that would have daunted others lacking her professional expertise and perseverance. 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

ATN

Archaeological Textiles News Letter

BAIAS

Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BAR Int. S.

British Archaeological Reports (International Series)

CCSL

Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout.

Christian Archaeology

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, 1990.

CIG A. Boeck, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1828–1877. CIJ J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, Rome, 1936–1952. CMGR La mosaique gréco-romaine CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna.

DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Kirchenväter. Kommission der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leipzig.

EI Eretz-Israel Epistulae

Saint Jérôme: Letters, J. Labourt (ed. Fr. Trans), Paris, 1949–1963.

ESI

Excavations and Surveys in Israel

A adashot Arkheologiyiot IAA

Israel Antiquities Authority

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IGLS

L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde et al. (eds.), Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Paris, 1927–.

IGLS XXI P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie XXI: Inscriptions de la Jordanie II: Région centrale, Paris, 1986. INJ Israel Numismatic Journal JGS Jer.

Journal of Glass Studies

Jeremiah

Josh.

Joshua

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology

[ XI ]

y. M ag e n

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

JSRF Judea and Samaria Record Files, in the archive of Stuff Officer of Archaeology in Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria (unpublished). JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSP

Judea and Samaria Publications

Judg.

Judges

LA Liber Annuus M Mishnah Matt.

Matthew

MT

Masoratic Text

NEAEHL E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (eds.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1993. Onomasticon

Eusebius, Onomasticon. The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Including the Latin Edition of Jerom, R.S. Notley and Z. Safari (transl.), Brill, 2005.

PEFQSt

Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PJ

Palästinajahrbuch des deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem

PG J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca, Paris, 1857–1886 J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, Paris, 1844 –1865. PL Ps.

Psalms

QDAP

Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine

RB Revue Biblique Sam.

Samuel

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum SHAJ

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

SWP II–III C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener, Survey of Western Palestine II: Samaria; III: Judea, London, 1882–1883. 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. Tos.

Tosefta

ZDPV

Zeitschrift des Deutschen Plestina-Vereins

[ XII ]

y. M( ag e n

}

Aphek (

 !  ! !

!



(



Lod (



 !

 ! !





(

Ramallah

! !



!

  

( (

 !

!

Jericho (

Jerusalem

Beth Lehem

 !

!



   !!! !

Hebron

!





(  !

!



Dead S ea

Beth Guvrin (

!



 

! ! !



0

5

10 Km

!

Christian Site Ancient Road

Site map

[ XIII ]

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET Ḥ AMAD AYAL ARONSHTAM

south of the site. This structure includes a courtyard surrounded by large halls, apparently storerooms, some of which have roofs supported by barrel vaults. Burial caves surveyed in the vicinity of the site contain cist tombs, vault tombs, and kokhim (loculi) tombs. Carved decorated stone pediments were found lying near the cist tombs, and may have been covering stones for these tombs (Fig. 1). Scattered on the northern slope of the hill are agricultural terraces, mounds of stones removed from the fields, field towers, threshing floors, winepresses and oil presses, as well as two large, rock-cut water pools and a subterranean cistern that received the overflow from the pools. The pottery finds at the site date to Iron Age I–II, as well as to the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods.

Kh. Ḥ amad is situated on a hill at the end of a spur (map ref. IOG 15960/16600; ITM 20960/66600), to the south of Wadi Susiya, a tributary of Naḥal Shiloh (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 The site has been surveyed a number of times.2

THE SITE Building remains were found at different areas of the site. On the northeastern side, well-built ashlar structures, constructed without cement, are preserved, while on the west, the tops of walls of residential structures with adjacent cisterns are visible. A large building complex, in which earlier walls were incorporated into a later structure, was discerned in the

0

20

40

Fig. 1. Carved decorated stone pediments found near the hewn cist tombs.

[1]

A . A R O N S H TA M

0

Fig. 2. Kh. Ḥ amad, detailed plan of the church.

[2]

3 m

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T Ḥ A M A D

THE CHURCH

The inner face is made of small fieldstones and coated with white plaster. The tiles found in the area were apparently laid on a roof consisting of wooden beams (Fig. 6). Remains of further construction were revealed to the west of the narthex, perhaps the ruins of the atrium. The narthex, internal dimensions 10.10×2.30 m, was paved with mosaic (see below). The western wall, preserved to the height of the foundation course, is built of stone and set within a foundation trench. The entrance to the narthex is through this wall and partially hewn in the bedrock. The entrances from the narthex into the nave could not be discerned in the foundations of the eastern wall. The prayer hall includes a nave that is divided from the aisles by two rows of columns, and at its eastern end stands the chancel. The nave, measuring 11.80×4.80 m, was paved with two quadrangular mosaic carpets (see below). The aisles, measuring 11.80×2.30 m, were also paved with mosaic, as were the intercolumnar spaces (see below). The two colonnades between the nave and the aisles, each contain four columns, 0.50 m in diameter, on bases measuring 0.57×0.57 m and 0.20 m high. A broken column was found in situ, and another one was found where it fell from its original location. In the nineteenth century, one intact column was still standing, 2.30 m high.4 Also found in the church was a capital, measuring 0.53×0.53 m and 0.40 m high, with a flat carved decoration (Fig. 7). The bema at the end of the nave measures 4.70×2.00 m and is elevated by 0.45 m. The apse, measuring 4.40 m in diameter, was built of a twofaced wall. The outer face, like the church walls, was composed of dressed fieldstones, while the inner face was made of ashlars. A channel for setting the chancel screen was found in the southwestern corner of the bema. An ashlar base, 1.50×0.75 m, with four holes for the colonnette of the altar, was found in the opening of the apse (Fig. 8). A depression measuring 0.28×0.26 m, set in the center of the base, functioned as a reliquary niche.5 A bed of small stones and plaster was the foundation for the chancel’s mosaic pavement, which is not preserved. Rooms that open onto the aisles were uncovered on both sides of the apse. The northern entrance, measuring 0.75 m, led to the northern pastophorium

A church was built in a rocky area above an oil press that was no longer in use, some 20 m from the outermost southern structures of the Byzantine settlement (Fig. 2). The crushing basin and a rockcut path for the operator are what remain of the oil press, which was of the unroofed type (Fig. 3).3 The basin was found cracked, and may possibly have fallen into disuse prior to construction of the church. The church, measuring 19.90×11.50 m, was of the basilica type, and included a narthex, a nave, two aisles, a chancel, as well as auxiliary rooms (Fig. 4). It was constructed during the course of the fifth century CE, and functioned during the fifth–sixth centuries. Preserved in the west of the church are the remains of later construction that destroyed the church structure and the mosaic floors in this area (Fig. 5). The meager pottery vessels related to this later construction indicated that it was built in the Early Islamic period (Pl. 1:5–6). The northwestern part of the church was founded on the bedrock. The ground below its southwestern part was partially leveled by quarrying and filled with a layer of earth, pottery sherds and building stones in secondary use, 0.60 m thick. The church walls, 0.65 m wide, are preserved to a height of two courses. The outer face is built of dressed fieldstones and a few ashlars in secondary use that are, in a few sections, laid directly on the bedrock.

Fig. 3. Crushing basin.

[3]

A . A R O N S H TA M

Fig. 4. Kh. Ḥ amad, view from the east.

Fig. 5. Kh. Ḥ amad, view from the west. Meager remains of walls dating to the Early Islamic period are visible to the west and east.

2.20×1.70 m, most of which has not survived. The southern entrance, about 1.00 m wide, led to the southern pastophorium, measuring 3.50×2.20 m. Fragments of a white mosaic pavement are preserved in both rooms.

Mosaic Floors The mosaic floors in the narthex and hall were finely made with tesserae of white, red, black, ocher, brown and gray, at a density of ca. 36 per sq. dm. They

[4]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T Ḥ A M A D

0

10

20

Fig. 7. Capital, illustration.

0

5

Fig. 6. Roof tiles.

were poorly preserved and have suffered additional damage since the excavations. A level of crushed limestone and small stones served as the bed for the mosaic floors. In the southern part of the narthex, traces of a mosaic carpet with a geometric pattern were uncovered. Its frame comprised two black and red lines. Small concentric rectangles adjoin the frame from the inner side and encompass the carpet field, which contains a pattern of alternating octagons and concentric rectangles. The nave was paved with two quadrangular mosaic carpets separated by a colorful mosaic band in which the tesserae are diagonally set. From the small segment of this band that has survived, it can be determined that it consisted of entwined strips made of red, black, ocher and white tesserae surrounding geometrical motifs. A small portion of a medallion framed by a wide band remained of the western carpet. This band contained an encircling five-strand guilloche pattern (B12*)6 bounded on both sides by rows of tesserae. The medallion was enclosed in a square.

Fig. 8. An ashlar base in the apse opening.

The broad square frame of the eastern carpet is composed of a dentil pattern, a wide band of interlacing diamonds, and another dentil pattern bounded by rows of tesserae. The carpet field

[5]

A . A R O N S H TA M

contains a round medallion, 1.50 m in diameter, encompassed by three concentric circles and two encircling bands, one containing a dentil pattern, the other a guilloche pattern (Fig. 9). In the center of the medallion is a star of two concave squares interlaced with the two circling bands. In the center of the star is a small octagon containing a six-pointed star. The aisles were paved with mosaic carpets within frames of two parallel black lines framing red tesserae. In the northern aisle, the pattern was a

network of diamonds (H1*; Fig. 10), while in the southern aisle the carpet field contained a network of squares with small diamonds at their meeting points. Diamonds appear also in the center of each square. Two carpets that partially survived in the intercolumnar spaces in the southeastern corner of the nave contained diamond patterns.

Finds The meager finds discovered on the church floor included pottery sherds from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Pl. 1), as well as two coins.7

Summary The basilica-type church on the outskirts of Kh. Ḥ amad served a wealthy rural community, as attested by the mosaic floors that decorated it. The finds reveal that the church was constructed during the course of the fifth century CE, and functioned during the fifth– sixth centuries. In the Early Islamic period, a shoddy structure was built within the western part of the church. Fig. 9. Medallion in the center of the nave’s eastern mosaic carpet.

Fig. 10. Mosaic floor of the northern aisle, view from the south.

[6]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T Ḥ A M A D

Plate 1. Pottery Vessels No.

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

LRC bowl

Red ware, well fired, red slip on coarse inner face. Dotted wheel decoration on rim.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:29

Mid–6th cent. CE

2

Jar

Gray ware, red core, white grits.

Caesarea (Peleg and Reich 1992: Fig. 14:10); Carmiʾel (Yeivin 1992: Fig. 24:2)

5th–mid–6th cent. CE

3

Pinkish ware, red core, small brown grits.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 227–230, Form 6)

6th–8th cent. CE

4

Light red ware.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 223–226, Form 4)

5th–6th cent. CE

5

Brown ware, gray core, white grits. Vessels with the same combing decoration were found in Caesarea (Boas 1992: Fig. 74:10) and Madaba (Harrison 1994: Fig. 1:13)

Early Islamic period

6

Cup

Light yellow ware, small brown grits. Fine combed decoration characteristic of the period.

7

Smoking Impressed decoration. pipe

Ottoman period

Plate 1. 

[7]

A . A R O N S H TA M

notes For the unroofed oil press, see Ayalon, Charvit and Qidron 1987–1989: 97, 101, note 17. 4 Guérin 1875: 157–158; SWP II: 333–334. 5 A similar location for the reliquary was discerned in the Church of Rihab (dated to 594 CE; Piccirillo 1980: Ph. 11); Tsafrir 1984: 255, note 256. 6 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 7 Bijovsky 1997: 181.

Kh. Ḥ amad was surveyed in the summer of 1992 on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Following the survey, a short exploratory excavation was conducted that same summer in the church at the site (Aronshtam 1997). The excavation (License No. 543) was carried out under the direction of A. Aronshtam, with the assistance of D. Amar. 2 See Guérin 1875: 157–158 (Kharbet el-Fekhakhir); SWP II: 333–334 (Khŭrbet el Fakhâkhîr); Dar 1986: 38–42.

3

1

references Guérin V. 1875. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, Seconde partie—Samarie II, Paris. Harrison T.P. 1994. “A Sixth–Seventh Century Ceramic Assemblage from Madaba, Jordan,” ADAJ 38: 429–446. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology. Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Peleg M. and Reich R. 1992. “Excavations of a Segment of the Byzantine City Wall of Caesarea Maritima,” Atiqot 21: 137–170. Piccirillo M. 1980. “Le antichità di Rihb dei Benē Hasan,” LA 30: 350–370. Tsafrir Y. 1984. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest II: Archaeology and Art, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Yeivin Z. 1992. “Excavations at Carmiel (Khirbet Bata),” Atiqot 21: 109–128.

Aronshtam A. 1997. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ḥ amad,” Atiqot 32: 177–181 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 49*– 50*). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Ayalon E., Charvit Y, and Qidron A. 1987–1989. “Grouped Installations from the Roman-Byzantine Period in the Fields of Zur Natan,” Israel—People and Land. Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook 5–6 (23–24): 93–120 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 15*–16*). Bijovsky G. 1997. “The Numismatic Find,” in A. Aronshtam, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ḥ amad,” Atiqot 32: 177–181 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 49*–50* ). Boas A. 1992. “Islamic and Crusader Pottery (c. 640–1265) from the Crusader City (Area TP/4),” in R.L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers. Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea (JRA 5), Ann Arbor, pp. 154–166. Dar S. 1986. Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E.–636 C.E. (BAR Int. S. 308 (i)), Oxford.

[8]

A ROMAN FORTRESS AND BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT KHIRBET DEIR SAMʿAN YITZHAK MAGEN southern branch led to Lydda (Diospolis), with two monasteries by the roadside that had been Roman fortresses (Deir Alla and Kh. el-Bira). These fortresses and monasteries defended the central routes between the Shephelah and Neapolis.1 Two roads reached the site: the one from the south ascended from the west through the road in Wadi el-Mir, which is prominent in the landscape to the present. The other came from the northeast, directly to the main entrance, on the east of the structure (Fig. 2). The site, whose name apparently alludes to the Greek name of the monastery, was surveyed several

The site is located on top of a rocky spur (map ref. IOG 15508/16390; ITM 20500/66890), some 1.6 km north of Deir Qalʿa. Khirbet Deir Samʿan was both a Roman fortress and a Byzantine monastery, and lies east of Deir Ballut, whose name indicates a monastery also stood there (see Site Map on p. XIII). It was built on the road between Neapolis and the Shephelah that passed south of the site at Wadi el-Mir, which joins Naḥ al Shiloh (Fig. 1). The road separated southwest of the site: the northern branch led to Antipatris, with two nearby monasteries that had been Late Roman fortresses (Deir Daqla and Kh. Zikhrin); while the

Fig. 1. Kh. Deir Samʿan, aerial photograph, view from the northwest. In the background: the road passing at the foot of the site to the south, in Wadi el-Mir. On the high hill beyond the road (r.): the Deir Qalʿa fortress.

[9]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 2. Kh. Deir Samʿan, aerial photograph, view from the southeast. In the background: the Samarian hills and Kafr Rafat. To the right: the road from the east.

The Site

times.2 Excavation of the site began in 1992, following preparation of a preliminary plan for the settlement of ʿAlei Zahav, and continued intermittently until 1994. It uncovered the central structure, cisterns and pools to the north and west, and industrial installations: winepresses, oil presses, and stone quarries. Four building phases were discovered at the site: Phase I—Late Roman period: In the late fourth to early fifth century CE a fortress was built by the emperors Theodosius I (379–395 CE) or Arcadius (395–408 CE), as part of a system of fortresses erected in Samaria. Phase II—Byzantine period: In the sixth century CE, a coenobium monastery was built. Phase III—Early Islamic period: In the Umayyad period (seventh to eighth centuries CE) oil presses of the lever, screw, and cylindrical weight type were installed. Phase IV—Late Islamic period: In the Mamluk period part of the structure was renovated, a second story was built with a number of rooms, and oil production might have continued on a limited scale.

The site is comprised of a number of parts (Figs. 3–6): the main building, with its different phases; the southern wing; the pools and cisterns; and the industrial installations: winepresses, oil presses, and quarries. The site underwent many changes from the Late Roman to Islamic periods (Figs. 7–9).

Main Building The main building surrounds a central courtyard and measures 39×36.5 m (Figs. 10–11). Its main entrance is in the east, in W1. An additional entrance in the north was most probably installed in the second building phase (Byzantine period). The 2.00 m-wide main entrance (Fig. 12) leads to a vestibule (L1), 6.00×3.70 m, built of large and finely fitted ashlars with marginal drafting and a smooth boss (Fig. 13). The vestibule walls are preserved to a height of 1.5 m. The entrance door probably had two wings, and at least two bolts closed it. The entrance lintel and southern

[10]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

0

Fig. 3. Kh. Deir Samʿan, general plan of the central structure, pools, and cisterns.

[11]

10 m

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 4. Kh. Deir Samʿan, aerial photograph, view from the west.

Fig. 5. Kh. Deir Samʿan, aerial photograph, view from the southeast.

[12]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 6. Reconstruction of the Byzantine Deir Samʿan monastery.

which predated construction of the structure and installation of the mosaic floor, were discerned. This room was apparently the guardroom. To the vestibule south is a large room, L33, with the dimensions of 10.50×5.80 m that was divided lengthwise by a wall built of ashlars in secondary use (Figs. 14–15). Two main building phases were discerned in this hall. In Phase I, fourth century CE, a large hall (L33) was built of finely worked ashlars with marginal drafting and a prominent boss. A row of square pillars in the center of the room supported arches, as at Deir Qalʿa and in the stables in the Martyrius Monastery.3 The soundings conducted in L33 after removal of the Mamluk paving stones revealed bedrock, but no floor from an earlier phase. This leads us to assume that in the first phase the large hall had apparently served as a stable; it had a beaten earth floor and was roofed with wooden beams placed over the arches built widthwise along the length of the hall. In Phase II (Byzantine period), the hall was divided by W8 into two parts (L33 and L4, L5), and four

doorpost were found in the debris. The vestibule was paved in a white mosaic of especially large tesserae, each measuring 4 cm, preserved almost in its entirety. This type of tesserae is characteristic of fourth century CE fortresses in Samaria and northern Judea. Three entrances lead from the vestibule into the structure. The central one is in the west, opposite the outside entrance, and opens to the eastern corridor (L8). The 1.40 m-wide northern entrance, in W5, leads to Room L2, and an additional 1.20 m-wide southern entrance leads to Room L33. The doorposts remained in situ; the lintels, of large and finely worked ashlars, were found in the debris near the entrances. Room L2, 6.00×4.00 m, is paved in a white mosaic of large, rough tesserae, each about 3–4 cm. The mosaic bedding fill contained tesserae drafting chips, attesting to tesserae production at the site. The mosaic did not cover the entire room, and was laid to correspond with and continue the leveled bedrock that served as the floor. This phenomenon is also known from additional fourth century CE Roman fortresses. Various hewn installations, possibly agricultural,

[13]

Y. M A G E N

0

Fig. 7. Estimated plan of the Late Roman fortress.

[14]

5

m

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

0

Fig. 8. Estimated plan of the Byzantine monastery.

[15]

5

m

Y. M A G E N

0

Fig. 9. Estimated plan of the Islamic structure.

[16]

5

m

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

L8B

355.53

354.68

352.21 351.39

L9B

351.17

354.85 354.73

354.77 355.54

354.33

L7B

355.35

352.24

L6B

355.38

355.44

1

W35

W34

W38

355.51

W37

356.28

356.56

357.95

W3 6

W30

357.16

356.87 356.09

L25

356.69

W40

354.55

W45

W41

W1 L33

L31

356.28

354.09 L24

L22

356.89

L5

W14

353.05

L4

356.72

356.79

W44

W47

353.03

W7

W9

L30

354.17

W43

353.47

357.87

356.78

L29 W42

L23

W10

L28

355.18

W17

357.23

W6

357.29 357.11

357.18

L1

357.26

356.81

W17

W15

355.39

L2

W5 357.13

L7a

L19

W39

L8

357.17

357.32

357.05 356.28

W16

L20

W31

W8

357.07

W12

W3

L18

L3

355.60

L7

W11

5

356.95

357.26

W29

356.77

L7b

W19

4

356.64

356.73 L11 357.02

W9

356.58

356.46

356.16 356.78

355.02

355.21

W23

L6

W32

356.06 354.69 354.72

L31A

L21 354.25

W47

W20

L17

L13a

356.20

W18

2

W24

L14a W22

356.76

356.23

L12

356.53

352.77

355.78

356.47

L15

W21

355.72

356.10

L14

354.91

4

L32

L26 W49 355.41 W50 W52 W52 354.32

W46

L1B

356.50

357.34

W28

W26

L16

L10

W9

355.48

354.93

W2 L13

W27

356.47

W25

355.86

355.18

L6a

366.56

355.47

5

356.09

W51

353.43

354.40

W33

352.82 353.46

354.90

3

352.06

L27

W4

354.72

3 1

Fig. 10. Kh. Deir Samʿan, detailed plan.

[17]

0

10

m

2

Y. M A G E N

1-1 358 357 356 355 354 353

00 00 00 00 00 00

358 357 356 355

00 00 00 00

2-2

3-3 357 356 355 354 353 352

00 00 00 00 00 00

358 357 356 355 354

00 00 00 00 00

4-4

5-5

358 357 356 355 354 353

00 00 00 00 00 00

Fig. 11. Kh. Deir Samʿan, sections.

[18]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 12. Main entrance to the main building.

Fig. 13. Vestibule L1, view from the east.

[19]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 14. Hall L33, and behind it, Hall L4, L5, view from the east.

arches built widthwise along the longitudinal walls bore a second story. The hall might have served as a storeroom or stable in this period. The second story was built above the entire hall, and was reached by a staircase constructed in Corridor L31. The staircase, 3.60 m long and 1.40 m wide, extended from north to south. At the upper end of the staircase, close to the southern wall of L5, an entrance with a threshold of building stone was opened, leading to the rooms on the second story. The construction of the rooms on the second story is characteristic of the site’s Byzantine phase. In Phase III (Early Islamic period) the hall was divided lengthwise into an eastern room, L33, and a western one, L4, L5, by a wall built of ashlars in secondary use. Two monoliths with grooves for receiving an oil press beam were placed at the southern end of Hall L33 (Figs. 16–17). Following this discovery we removed the paving stones and excavated beneath them, hoping to find an oil pressing installation; but we found no trace of one. Although there might have been an intention to place a pressing installation here and use the arches bearing the ceiling to stabilize the basin and the

Fig. 15. Hall L33, view from the south. Note the entrance near the bottom of the photograph that the excavation revealed to be an installation for holding a screw.

[20]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 16. Installation for stabilizing the oil press beam.

crushing stone, this was not implemented, and the oil press was established elsewhere. We found a similar phenomenon at Mount Gerizim, where two oil pressing installations were positioned but not completed; neither screw weights nor a crushing basin or crushing stone were found.4 The west of the hall (L4, L5) is divided into two by a wall, with a narrow opening connecting Rooms L4 and L5. It too was roofed with arches, of which four pillars remained, two in the southern room and two in the northern one. A 0.80 m-wide entrance in W7, apparently from the first phase, opened to the south of the continuation of the eastern corridor (L31). The floor of Rooms L4 and L5 consisted of bedrock, covered in the first two phases by a layer of beaten earth. These rooms continued in use in the Early Islamic period, the structure housing workers engaged in growing olives and pressing their oil. The vestibule opens to a corridor (L8, L31), 26.00×4.00 m, paved in a white mosaic floor of especially large tesserae (Fig. 18). The corridor is divided into two parts: the northern section (L8) is flat, the southern one (L31), graduated. At the northern end of the corridor a 0.90 m-wide finely

Fig. 17. Installation for stabilizing the oil press beam.

[21]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 18. Eastern corridor (L8, L31), view from the southwest.

Fig. 19. Continuation of the eastern corridor, L8 to L31. To the left: Rooms L4 and L5, view from the north.

[22]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

is another vestibule (L31a) measuring 4.20×4.00 m. A finely fashioned opening in the western wall led to the building’s southern wing (Fig. 20). Pillars in the four corners of the vestibule bore arches, apparently from the building’s second phase. The bedrock floor might have been paved in the first phase with a white mosaic of large tesserae. A channel in the southeastern corner of this room continued to Hall L27, carrying runoff water outside the building.

Courtyard The main structure’s courtyard (L7, L7a) measures 20.40×10.40 m (Fig. 21). In the Late Roman period the courtyard was encompassed by a peristyle that rested on a stylobate and columns set on bases; there was probably no peristyle on the north of the courtyard. Sweeping changes were instituted in the courtyard in the Byzantine and Early Islamic phases. The establishment of the northern chapel severely damaged the building’s northern wing and the courtyard, thus preventing us from reconstructing it as it was in the fourth century CE. When the oil press was established in the Early Islamic phase, the southern peristyle’s western corner was damaged. The courtyard was paved in a white mosaic of large tesserae measuring about 4 cm, which in some places adjusted to the bedrock. In the north of the courtyard the mosaic was replaced in the Byzantine period by a carelessly executed colorful mosaic, of smaller tesserae, partially inlaid with red and black stones. The early Roman mosaic is clearly distinguished from the Byzantine one by a line. The Byzantine mosaic is a rectangular carpet, 6.50×3.00 m, divided into two squares, in each of which two circles that form a frame decorated with lozenges. Remains of a black and red cross are visible in the center of the eastern circle (Fig. 22). The mosaic’s only partial preservation prevents our determining whether it extended the entire length of the northern wing of the courtyard. It was apparently installed opposite the entrance to the northern chapel. The execution of this mosaic is quite careless compared to the usual level of workmanship in Byzantine monasteries. A large, round, bell-shaped cistern coated in a thick layer of plaster is situated in the courtyard’s northwestern corner. The round capstone (0.9 m in

Fig. 20. Continuation of the eastern corridor, L8, southward, L31 and L31a. To the left: entrance to the southern wing; to the right: entrance to L26, view from the south.

worked raised entrance leads outside the structure. We assume this entrance was Byzantine, when the site became a monastery. The entrance level is higher than the corridor floor, because two drainage channels had been cut into the bedrock, carrying rainwater from the building to a cistern (L10), northeast of the structure. The southern section of the corridor (L31) underwent a few changes in later periods (Fig. 19). It was initially composed of three graduated surfaces paved in white mosaic, consisting of the large tesserae characteristic of the fourth century CE. There were partially preserved steps between the different levels. In the third phase, parts of the levels were paved in stone slabs, and entrances with thresholds that were built could prevent access from the southern wing to the central structure. At the southern end of the corridor

[23]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 21. Central courtyard of the structure, view from the east.

0

20

40

Fig. 22. Mosaic carpets discovered in the north of the second phase central courtyard of the Byzantine building, illustration.

[24]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

diameter) covering it belongs to the first phase of the building (Fig. 23). A rock-cut channel in the courtyard, covered in stone slabs incorporated into a mosaic from the first phase, supplied the cistern with water collected from the southeastern wing, the roof of the chapel on the second story, and the adjacent rooms. An additional channel reaching the cistern drained the courtyard’s northern wing and the chapel established alongside it. This channel is also rock cut and covered in stone slabs, and it, too, belongs to the first phase of the building. A third channel, from the west, drained the structure’s western wing (Fig. 24). This channel underwent many changes and apparently fell into disuse when the monastery was established in the second phase. All the channels are rock cut and coated with light plaster, and belong to the first phase of the building. This cistern, apparently the structure’s main one, drains all of the courtyard and the surrounding rooms. In the first phase the courtyard was encompassed by a peristyle, enabling protection from rain and sun when going to rooms surrounding the courtyard. It was built on the model of the inward-facing home, characteristic of the Roman period. The three rooms of the southern wing were entered

Fig. 23. Cistern capstone discovered in the north of the courtyard.

Fig. 24. Channel that carried rainwater from the structure’s western wing to the cistern in the central courtyard’s northwestern corner.

[25]

Y. M A G E N

the monolithic columns were added in the Byzantine period, while the Roman columns were of the usual sort, standing on bases, like those in the western wing. The corridor and the peristyle were rebuilt in the Byzantine period, when a church was established on the second story, along with the staircase leading to it. So far, six columns, some with square bases, with a distance of 2.5 m between the bases have been found in situ. Only two steps are preserved of the staircase, which had measured 3.65×1.40 m, was built in the Byzantine period over the mosaic floor, and had led to the church on the second story. Passage between the southern and western corridors (L7b) had been possible before the construction of the oil press in the Early Islamic period. The oil press damaged the western section of the southern corridor and part of the western corridor, which had fallen into disuse in the third building phase, upon the establishment of the oil press. The western corridor is some 11 m long and 2.40 m wide. Its north was altered following the change in the northern wing of the building, and its south was damaged by the construction of the oil press. The two corner rooms and the two rooms between them were entered through this corridor, which was bounded by a stylobate that incorporated four column bases, only three of which are preserved in situ. The columns and their bases differ from the monolithic columns discovered in the southern corridor, which were probably Byzantine. The corridor, as well, is paved in a white mosaic of large tesserae, underneath which is a hewn and plastered drainage channel that reached the main cistern in the courtyard’s northwestern corner. No corridor encompassing the building’s interior on the north has been revealed; this is puzzling, since there were rooms there that were entered from the courtyard. The erection of the chapel in the north of the courtyard apparently resulted in major changes in this part of the building.

Fig. 25. Corridor of the southern wing (L7a) with a mosaic floor. To the right: stylobate on which the peristyle columns were installed. In the center: staircase that ascended to the church on the second story, built over the mosaic.

through the 17.80 m-long and 2.30 m-wide corridor, discovered in the south of the courtyard (L7a). The east of the corridor is closely integrated with the courtyard floor and that of the eastern peristyle (L8). The corridor is bounded on the courtyard side by a stylobate that incorporated column bases (Fig. 25). Its mosaic floor was of the large tesserae characteristic of the first building phase. The corridor roof rested on columns and arches over which were wooden beams and a tile covering. A square pillar stood on the east, and further along were monolithic columns roughly hewn together with their bases and sunken into the earth. This afforded great strength and stability to the columns and to the peristyle as a whole. Monolithic columns hewn together with their bases and capitals reappear in the church structure. It therefore seems that

Southern Wing of the Main Building In the first phase (late fourth to early fifth century CE) three large rooms were built here: the eastern room (L29, L30), the central room (L28 and L20), and the western room (L19). These rooms, entered through the southern and western corridors, were paved in the large white tesserae typical of the first building phase

[26]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

The large eastern room (L29, L30) measures 8.90×6.30 m (Fig. 26). The 1.20 m-wide entrance in its northern wall has finely worked doorposts and a threshold, and could be closed by a wooden door. It belonged to the first phase of the building. Entrances to fourth century buildings were usually built near the end of a wall rather than in its middle, and this is characteristic of this room as well. On its east is a semicircular building remnant, a sort of apse, partly built and partly hewn. This is probably the foundation of the apse of the second story church (Fig. 27). Construction of the apse and the dome over it required a sturdy foundation, and they could not be erected over the arches on which the church stood. Consequently, the apse foundation already began being laid on the first story. In the third building phase (Early Islamic period), the semicircular foundation was used in the installation of the crushing basin there, the main support for the crushing device being directly under the eastern arch. The crushing basin was later moved

in the fourth century, and were roofed with wooden panels laid on arches. These rooms underwent sweeping changes in the Byzantine and Umayyad phases. Changes in the rooms were a consequence of the erection of the church on the second story in the Byzantine period, and of the construction of the oil press in the Early Islamic period. Many stones bearing carved crossed were discovered in the debris in the course of excavating this wing (see Pls. 5–6). A church was obviously established here, but it was difficult to determine its exact position. No architectural evidence of it was found on the first story, leading us to assume at an early stage of the excavation that it had been established on the second story. We also accepted the British surveyors’ view regarding its location in the southeast of the site, which architecturally seems most suitable for its construction. We assume that a monastery was established in the second phase, based on the numerous crosses carved on stones throughout the building.

Fig. 26. Eastern room in the southern wing (L29, L30), over which the second story church was erected in the second phase, and in which the crushing basin of the oil press was installed in the third phase. Note the semicircular foundation for the second story church apse.

[27]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 27. Lower apse built in Room L30 on the lower story, under the church. In the center: Early Islamic crushing basin. Note the stones trod on by the beast that turned the crushing device.

stones with rough rectangular depressions from the third building phase were discovered in the center of the room (Figs. 28–29). The stones forming the circle were inserted between the tesserae of the mosaic. The circles were planned so that the center of the crushing basin would be beneath one of the arches, its central axis anchored to the center of the arch. They are remnants of the path of the beast of burden, a donkey or a mule, that turned the olive crushing installation. The rough rectangular depressions of the stones gave the beast’s hooves a better grip on the floor and prevented its slipping on oil. The crushing installation was apparently moved to under the western arch because of the extreme weakening of the eastern one; this necessitated building a new circle, which partially overlapped the first. In the last phase, after the second story church floor completely collapsed, the crushing basin was moved to L28, a large room measuring 6.70×4.00 m (see below, “Oil Press”). The oil press was clearly built after the church was no longer in use. In summary: four building phases were evident in

to the center of the room, under the western arch, possibly due to the weakening of the former arch. The southern and eastern outer walls and the northern wall are original walls from the first phase, while the carelessly built wall on the west is Islamic. Two massive pillars, set 1.80 m apart in the center of the room and built of large stones, bore the broad arches on which the church was built on the second story. Massive walls built behind the pillars allowed decreasing the width of the arches and lowering their height, thereby also lowering the level of the second story housing the church. The western arch built over the plastered wall of Room L30 indicates that the arches were built in the second phase (Byzantine period). In this phase the building was plastered anew, including the pillars on which the arches rested. The narrow rooms’ ceilings were roofed in the first phase with wooden panels, as is typical of many fourth century CE sites. The first phase room was paved in a white mosaic of large, rough tesserae, similar to that in the courtyard. Two circles formed of square

[28]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 28. Circle of paving stones for beasts of burden that turned the crushing device. Note that the circle to the right (the western one) replaced the circle to the left (the eastern one).

Room L29 and L30. In the first phase, in the Late Roman period, a large hall was built, paved in rough white mosaic and apparently roofed with wooden panels. In the Byzantine period, the church was built on the second story, which rested on massive arches; and the apse was built on a semicircular foundation at the eastern end of the hall. In the Early Islamic period a crushing basin was installed under the eastern arch; and when it weakened, it was moved to beneath the western arch. In a later period the crushing basin was transferred to Room L28, which yielded a square stone basin for storing crushed olives. Room L29 was built after the crushing basin had been moved to Room L28.

Church on the Second Story Our supposition concerning the establishment of a church on the second story is based the following: 1. There was no space for the erection of a church in the courtyard of the main building. 2. There are no monasteries without a church. 3. In the Byzantine period, a wide staircase was installed for ascending to the second story. 4. Massive arches were built to bear a second story.

Fig. 29. Depressions in the paving stones around the crushing basin prevented the beast of burden from slipping.

[29]

Y. M A G E N

0

0

5

20

10

40

Fig. 30. Mosaic floor segments that fell from the church floor and were discovered on the lower story, both in the central structure and to its south.

[30]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

church floor apparently collapsed to the south and into rooms on the first story. The tesserae were set in a thick layer of mortar, beneath which were small fieldstones cast in plaster. It has not been determined whether the church narthex also had a colorful mosaic floor. It seems unlikely that a mosaic floor could have been installed in the narthex, above Room L28, because of the absence of arches. The narthex floor might have been wooden. Access to the church was provided by a built staircase installed over the first phase southern corridor mosaic floor. According to the stairs’ foundation size and height, the church entrance had to be above Room L28, where the narthex was located. The lower apse in locus L30 might have functioned as a foundation for the upper apse. Monolithic columns were discovered on the south of the building. Exceptionally, the relatively small columns, 40 to 44 cm in diameter (see Pls. 1–4), including their bases and capitals, were each hewn of a single stone. The column, including its base and capital, reached a height of 2.70 to 3.00 m, indicating the church’s small size. The columns were hewn monolithically because the upper story was insufficiently stable, and the stronger, monolithic columns were needed to reinforce the wooden ceiling and its tile construction. The columns were of poor quality local stone, and each capital is different; this phenomenon was common in Byzantine churches of the sixth and seventh centuries CE. The capitals’ drafting and carving was also of inferior quality, and at times there is only a trace of the capital design. The church length and the number of columns discovered led us to estimate that the aisles were each set apart by a row of three columns. The column bases were probably laid on the arches line, due to the load of the ceiling on them. Fragments of columns and small marble tablets that were part of the chancel screen and encompassed the bema were also found. These pieces, too, were of inferior workmanship, which would suit the Byzantine phase. Many tile fragments were found in the rooms under and south of the church.

5. A wealth of finds of a Christian nature (crosses) and colorful mosaic segments that fell from the second story were discovered in the debris of Rooms L24, L25, and L30. The finds included colorful mosaic pieces of small tesserae, column bases, capitals, and architectural elements like marble fragments, chancel screens, chancel columns, and tiles. The decision to establish the church on the second story resulted from a number of constraints. A church could not be built on the first story of the existing structure. To do so, the courtyard and surrounding rooms would have had to be destroyed. Construction of the church on the second story was much more suitable, engineering wise, and entailed less destruction and dismantling. The construction around the courtyard was incorporated in the fortress walls, and any dismantling could have undermined the entire fortress. Establishing a church on the second story was not rare; this was done, for example, at Kh. el-Kiliya,5 in the Euthymius Monastery,6 at Kh. Handoma,7 and at other sites. The church consisted of two parts: a hall with two rows of columns, and a narthex. The staircase built in the corridor apparently led to the narthex, built above Room L28. In the second phase, arches were installed in the corridor to bear the second story; and they were removed in the third phase. The church’s outer dimensions, including the apse, hall, and narthex, were 15.20×8.00 m, and its inner dimensions, 14.00×6.40 m. The narthex was relatively large, measuring 6.40×4.40 m. Despite the small size of the church, along with the chapel built in the northern wing it sufficed for the few monks who dwelled in the monastery. The church was paved in a mosaic of small colorful tesserae (Fig. 30). Many mosaic segments were found, all with known geometric designs. Despite the proliferation of mosaic segments, we were unable to reconstruct the church mosaic carpet. The quality of the workmanship was poor, as in other parts of the monastery. The tesserae vary in size, and the intervening spaces were filled with mortar. The mosaic’s quality matches the inferior artistic level of the other mosaics and Byzantine architectural elements found in the monastery. Most of the mosaic segments were discovered on the first story, under the church, in loci such as L21, L24, L25, L28, L29, and L30. The

Early Islamic Oil Press The site yielded an Umayyad oil press, built after the monastery had been abandoned. An additional oil press was discovered outside the site, installed in a Byzantine winepress (see below). All of the oil press

[31]

Y. M A G E N

pressing installations could have been set up. We therefore assume, based on stratigraphic evidence, the finds, and parallels to other sites, that the oil press was established after the monastery was abandoned and had fallen into disuse. L28 is paved in irregular stone slabs laid on the bedrock. The room’s floor was lowered one meter beneath its original level, which required the installation of a staircase that descended from the peristyle to this room through a narrow (1.00 m-wide) entrance. An additional entrance connected this room with the pressing installation (L20). The room’s floor was lowered: so that the heavy crushing basin could be laid on the bedrock; to raise the room’s low ceiling, enabling installation of the crushing basin pole and allowing room for beasts of burden, like mules or donkeys, to turn the crushing stone. Many finely worked arch stones were found in the room, but the locations of the arches were not determined. A relatively small crushing basin, 1.40 m in diameter, on a large, flat, square stone, stood in the center of

parts were uncovered: the crushing installation, the press, and a large storeroom for the oil (Figs. 31–32). This type of pressing installation is typical of the Early Islamic period.8

Oil Press Crushing Basin

In the first stage, the crushing basin was in Locus L30, and must have been installed after the church had fallen into disuse, as it is highly unlikely that an oil press would have been built under a stillfunctioning church. When one arch weakened, the crushing basin was moved under the second arch, which bore the church floor. The establishment of the oil press under the church structure clearly demonstrates that the oil press was built in the third phase, after the monastery had been abandoned. It is hardly plausible that the monastery’s few monks would have built two such advanced oil presses and managed to operate them. If they had wanted to establish an oil press, there were more than enough rooms far from the church in which crushing and

Fig. 31. Early Islamic oil press discovered in the southwestern corner of the main building, view from the north.

[32]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 32. Early Islamic oil press discovered in the southwestern corner of the mainbuilding, view from the west.

the room. An elevated ring of stones cast in cement was built around it to stabilize it and keep the beasts of burden that turned the crushing stone away from it (Fig. 33); this arrangement was discovered in numerous installations from this period. The crushing basin in use on the east, in Room L30, might originally have been larger, and for some reason was replaced in a later phase by a smaller one. Crushing basins on raised platforms surrounded by stones are characteristic of the Early Islamic period, and also of later periods. This crushing basin was possibly taken from a Hellenistic or Early Roman oil press. In the Early Islamic period, the secondary use of earlier crushing basins and their transferral from one site to another avoided complicated drafting and other stonework. This room (L28) yielded two hewn baths, one measuring 0.95×0.60×0.25 m, the other, 0.80×0.80×0.20 m. The olives were apparently placed in them before being crushed. A large stone with two holes found in the room was probably used to hitch the beast turning the crushing stone.

Fig. 33. Crushing basin of the Early Islamic oil press in Room L28.

Pressing Installation

Room L20, measuring 9.30×2.30 m, was an integral part of Hall L28 in the first and second building phases (Late Roman and Byzantine periods, respectively). The establishment of the pressing installation dictated

[33]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 34. Islamic pressing installation, plan and reconstruction.

[34]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

structural changes in the room and corridor. The room’s floor was dismantled to hew the installations into the bedrock. A section of the southern corridor that encompassed the building’s rooms had fallen into disuse, and part of the pressing installation was hewn there. Numerous arch stones were found in the excavation, indicating the installation of massive arches above the room. The room’s walls were of massive stones in secondary use, indicating that part of the structure was no longer in use when the oil press was established. The pressing installation is divided into three parts: a lever, a screw, and a cylindrical weight; a round pressing bed, on which the baskets of olive pulp were placed; and at the foot of the bed, a collection vat that received the oil and an additional large, hewn square clarification vat for storing the oil after its pressing (Fig. 34). The large cylindrical weight (1.30 m in diameter, 1.70 m high) at the northern end was placed in a round hewn pit (Fig. 35). A round depression in the center of the stone was flanked by two T-shaped

depressions that held the wooden beam in which the screw for raising the beam and the weight were incorporated. The weight was placed at an angle toward the beam, thus enabling the inclusion of the beam in a wooden frame, and allowing greater mobility for the worker, who periodically tightened the wooden screw installed on the weight. In the pressing installation, the screw did not directly exert pressure on the beam that pressed the baskets, but rather raised the cylindrical weight, which slowly pressed the beam against the baskets. The wooden beam, some 8 m long, was anchored in a depression in W14, the room’s southern wall. The wooden installation that supported the beam when the cylindrical weight was raised by the screw was inserted in the two hewn depressions south of the weight. At the center of the room is a round pressing platform, 1.45 m in diameter, surrounded by a raised frame and a deep channel. The square depression in its center received the wooden pole through which the baskets were threaded to prevent their shifting

Fig. 35. Cylindrical weight on which the screw weight was installed, sunken in a hewn round pit, flanked by T-shaped depressions for installing the frame that held the screw.

[35]

Y. M A G E N

when pressed (Fig. 36). Similar depressions were found only in this type of pressing installation, which had especially large, heavy cylindrical weights. The larger and heavier the weight, the greater the pressure it could exert; the greater height of the correspondingly larger number of baskets needed to be steadied by a central pole. Earlier, in oil presses from the Second Temple, Roman, and Byzantine periods, the baskets were stabilized by two monoliths placed on opposite sides of the pile of baskets. In later oil presses, including those in modern times that used an electric press, the baskets were threaded on a central pole, as at Kh. Deir Samʿan. The oil flowed to a collecting vat, 1.25×0.90×0.50 m, covered by a flat stone slab with a hole in its center for drawing the oil (Fig. 37). A round depression in the center of the vat floor was used for drawing the oil and collecting waste accumulated in the vat. After the vat filled up, the oil was transferred to a larger plastered pool covered by a stone slab, measuring 1.60×0.80 m and about 1.50 m deep, in the corner of the room. The oil

remained in this pool for a number of hours or days to separate the water and other waste pressed from the pure oil, which rose to the top. Jars filled from this pool were stored. West of the pressing installation is a large room (L19; 7.20×6.50 m) paved in irregular stone slabs that are characteristic of the Early Islamic period. The room functioned as an oil press storeroom (Fig. 38). Its ceiling consisted of crossed arches, and it contained pillars on its sides and a square pillar in its center. The room had two openings: one led to the pressing installation; and the other, apparently part of the original construction in the first phase, led to the western corridor. A square trough was located in the corner of the room. All of the archaeological evidence indicates that the oil press was built after the Byzantine period, when the monastery had fallen into disuse. The oil press is one of the dozens of presses established in the Early Islamic period, in the time of Khalif Muawiyah Abu ibn Sufyan, discovered in Samaria and Judea.

Fig. 36. Round pressing bed on which the baskets were placed and from which the oil flowed to the collecting vat.

[36]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Western and Northern Wings of the Main Building The western wing of the main building contains four rooms, two large corner rooms in the north- and southwest (L19 and L16), and two small ones between them, L18 and L17 (Fig. 39). Room L18, 3.70×3.70 m, had a bedrock floor and an opening to the western corridor (L7B). The room to the north, L17, 5.60×3.70 m, had a slightly raised floor of irregular stone slabs; and it, too, had a narrow entrance to the western corridor. A 0.80 m-wide opening in the northern wall (W38) led to Room L16. This room, 6.30×3.5 m, has a white mosaic floor, of large tesserae, and apparently belongs to the first phase of the structure. The rooms in the northern wing of the main building underwent major changes upon the establishment of the monastery and in the Early Islamic period, which poses great difficulties for identifying first phase remains. The building’s northern wall was partially damaged down to its foundation, and was rebuilt in the Byzantine period, together with the establishment of the northern chapel. We initially thought that the northern wing also possessed an inner corridor with

Fig. 37. Collecting vat to which the oil flowed from the pressing bed.

Fig. 38. Room L19, in the central building’s southwestern corner, paved with irregular stone slabs in the Early Islamic period, when it served as the oil press storeroom, view from the east.

[37]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 39. Main building’s western wing. In the center: corridor L7b; to the left: Rooms L17 and L18; view from the south.

between Rooms L11 and L12. The two crosses in this room and its elevated floor indicate that this was the chapel chancel. Entrance to this room was through a 0.80 m-wide opening from Room L12, which measured 5.60×3.00 m. Fragments of its colorful mosaic floor of geometric pattern remain, as well as its stone bedding. A narrow entrance from the south in W23 was opened in the building’s third phase, when the chapel was no longer in use. An additional entrance led from the west to Rooms L13 and L14. An examination conducted of this room’s threshold revealed that the wall and entrance were built over a colorful mosaic floor composed of medallions and geometrical patterns including crosses (Fig. 42). Consequently, this opening and the walls that cross and separate rooms L12, L13, and L14 are late, and were installed in the third phase. The chapel hall mosaic was mostly damaged, but the carelessly geometric designs are still evident. West of Room L12 is an additional room, 5.90×3.60 m, which was divided into two in the third phase (L13 and L13a). This room contained remains of a mosaic bedding and segments

a roof borne on columns. Massive construction in this wing in the Byzantine period and destruction of the remains in the Early Islamic period prevented our ascertaining this. In the Byzantine period, before the chapel was established, a narrow corridor, ca. 1.8 m wide was possibly built there as a portico or narthex. The existence of the corridor might be attested by the colorful mosaic, part of which depicts a cross, installed facing the chapel (see above). The walls separating these rooms from the courtyard also underwent changes in the second and third phases. In the Byzantine period a chapel was established in Rooms L11, L12, L13, and L13A, with access provided by an opening in Room L13. The chapel dimensions are estimated to be 12.50×5.50 m. The lack of evidence of arch-bearing pillars attests that the chapel had a gabled roof of wooden panels covered by tiles. A large room (L11), 5.70×4.20 m, discovered on the east of this wing, was paved in a white mosaic with a large cross in its center, with palm trees between its arms (Figs. 40–41). An additional cross is portrayed opposite the entrance

[38]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 40. Room L11, with two crosses depicted on its floor, view from the south.

0

Fig. 41. Medallion with a cross in its center in Room L11.

[39]

0.5

1

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 44. Stone slab cover of the pit in Room L15. Fig. 42. Section of a cross from the chapel, discovered underneath the entrance between Rooms L12 and L13.

served as the chapel narthex (Fig. 43). To the west is another large room (L15), 6.00×3.20 m. At the western end of this room is a round plastered pit, above which is a large stone slab with a round hole in a stone frame that could be covered with a lid (Fig. 44). The mosaic of Room L15 was damaged when the capstone of the cistern was laid; thus we assume that the cistern and stone were installed in the Early Islamic period and

of a colorful mosaic floor composed of medallions, leading us to assume that the chapel included this room. A 1.10 m-opening led to this room from the central courtyard. To its west is an additional large room, 6.00×3.50 m, which was also divided by a wall into two small rooms (L14 and L14a) and apparently

Fig. 43. Rooms L13, L13a (to the right), and L14, L14a, view from the southeast.

[40]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 45. Olive oil extraction installation discovered in L15.

served as a reservoir for oil produced in the oil press. A small domestic installation for pressing oil (bodeda) was discovered close to the pit (Figs. 45–46). It was operated with a wooden screw joined to a stone that exerted pressure on small baskets.

0

10

20

Fig. 46. Olive oil extraction installation discovered in L15, illustration.

Fig. 47. Northeastern wing L6, view from the east.

[41]

Y. M A G E N

Crypt

In the Early Islamic period the chapel was destroyed, along with the gabled tiled roof, and the area was divided into small rooms, above which a second story was erected over arches. A staircase, 4.20×1.40 m, which ascended to the second story was built south of Room L11, in the northeastern corner of the courtyard. These rooms were used to house oil press operators, olive harvesters, and farmers engaged in growing the many olive trees in the area. This phenomenon repeated itself in other parts of the building and in additional fortresses, such as Kh. el-Kiliya, etc. A large room (L6), 6.00×4.70 m, paved in white mosaic and divided by a wall, was built in the Byzantine period, outside the northeastern corner of the building (Fig. 47). A 1.20 m-wide entrance that could be closed with a wooden door provided access to the room from its south. The floor’s tesserae are relatively small, and the floor can be ascribed to the Byzantine period. North of the hall is a sort of square tower (L6a), 4.00×4.00 m, with a bedrock floor.

A large room (L3), 5.80×5.40 m, was found in the northeastern corner of the main building, with an arch-bearing pillar in the middle of W32, its northern wall and in W31, its southern wall (Fig. 48). The room had two floors: a late irregular one belonging to the Early Islamic period, over a bedrock floor, part of which is covered in a white mosaic of large tesserae. A broad,1.20 m-wide, raised entrance at the northern end of the eastern corridor led to the room, in whose center is a burial cave consisting of two Byzantine arcosolia (Fig. 49). The entrance to the cave was covered by stone slabs (Fig. 50). From this entrance one descended to a hewn room, measuring 3.40×3.10 m and 2.00 m deep, with three chambers. The deceased were interred in troughs. Crosses engraved in the tomb walls indicate that this was the monastery crypt. After the Byzantine period the skeletons were removed and the cave was used for storage, as a part of the Islamic structure. A similar tomb was uncovered north of the structure, between the settling pool and the cisterns.

Fig. 48. Room L3—the crypt, view from the east.

[42]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

2

1

1

Fig. 50. Crypt entrance, covered with stone slabs.

Wing South of the Main Building The wing south of the main building is described separately because it was built in a later phase. Architecturally, however, it is an integral part of the entire complex (Fig. 51). The eastern wall of the main building and the southern wall of the wing to its south form a corner of original and finely integrated construction (Fig. 52). First, the outer wall of the compound was constructed, the eastern and southern walls being joined together; then the structure’s interior was built in sections. This wing was built on a lower level than the main building because the structure was built on a slope and all sections could not be incorporated on one level in the building plan. It is bounded on its south by a retaining wall of fine ashlars with square prominent bosses drafted similarly to those of the fortress in Deir Qalʿa (Figs. 53–54). To the present no outer gate for this wing has been found, with the exception of a late narrow opening in the western wall (W39). This wing, entered from the main building through a monumental entrance, consisted of especially large rooms entered through the long courtyard, L25 and L24, which had been divided by a wall in a later phase. Major changes were introduced in this wing in the Early Islamic period, when it was converted into storerooms and a residential wing for the oil press operators. The wing was entered though Corridor L8, L31, which led to Room L31a, measuring 4.20×3.50 m. It had a hewn bedrock floor, with arch-bearing pillars in the corners. A magnificent 1.00 m-wide entrance in the western wall was preserved to its full height of 1.90 m, thus providing us with information for a possible reconstruction of the building’s other entrances. The

2 1-1

2-2

0

2

m

Fig. 49. Crypt, plan and sections.

[43]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 51. Wing to the south of the main building, view from the east.

Fig. 52. Southeastern corner, integrating the central building and the wing to its south, view from the southeast.

[44]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 53. Southern wall of the compound (W3).

Fig. 54. Southern wall of the fortress at Deir Qalʿa.

[45]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 55. Entrance leading to the southern wing, view from the east.

Fig. 56. Entrance leading to the southern wing, view from the west.

finely worked doorposts are topped by a monolithic lintel carved with a tabula ansata. Above the lintel is an additional large stone, the concave center of which forms a sort of relief arch (Fig. 55), indicating that the wall rose high above the entrance. The door was bolted from the outside, from the southern wing, which in itself is surprising (Fig. 56). The bolt was unusually made of wood or a combination of wood and metal, and moved along a deep channel hewn in the southern doorpost and continuing into the wall, thus blocking the door. A similar method was discerned in the tower at Beit ʿAnun and in fortresses and towers in Samaria and Judea, and is characteristic of the outer entrances of fourth century fortresses.9 This closure is puzzling since the southern wing was an integral part of the building and had no outside entrance; the person who bolted the entrance shut from outside the main building might have reentered the building by climbing a wooden ladder; or possibly there were watchmen in the southern wing as well. The massive structure of the walls and the special bolting of the

gate in this section clearly demonstrate these to be the remains of a fortress. In any event, the southern wing was totally separate from the central building, each apparently having its own closure and defense. A tall watchtower might have stood in the southern wing to monitor the southern road at the foot of the site. An additional 0.70 m-wide entrance led eastward from the vestibule (L31a) to Room L26, L32, measuring 5.70×2.90 m (Fig. 57). The floor of Room L26 was mostly bedrock and partly paved in irregular stones, and the floor of Room L32 was covered in irregular stone slabs. The walls were preserved to a height of 2.30 m. Two additional walls of flat stones casted in cement, each bearing a vault, were built adjoining the long walls. These vaults, were most likely built in the Mamluk period, similar to those in the late hall, north of the main structure. The vaults were based on the Early Islamic stone floor. A 0.90 m-wide entrance led from Room L26 (Fig. 58) to Hall L27, which measured 10.80×4.00 m (Fig. 59). The new walls attached to the lengthwise ones were of

[46]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 57. Room L26, L32, view from the west.

Fig. 59. Hall L27, view from the west. Note the double walls over which the Mamluk vault was installed.

flat stones and bore a vault of the type characteristic of Crusader and Mamluk construction (Fig. 60). The room was paved in irregular stone slabs. In its western end a plastered channel covered with stone slabs drained runoff water from the eastern corridor (L31 and L8) and from the courtyard of the central building, to outside the structure (Fig. 61). The protruding stones in the room’s northern wall belong to the first phase of the building. Additionally, small plastered hatches were found that provided light for the rooms; they are also known from Deir Qalʿa. The inner face of the Late Roman walls consisted of small and large fieldstones bonded in cement and coated with a layer of white plaster (Fig. 62). This method is typical of Kh. Deir Samʿan, Deir Qalʿa, and other Roman fortresses. The examination conducted in the east of Room L27 under the Early Islamic stone slab floor uncovered a sort of trough coated in white plaster, alongside which were small plastered vaults of undetermined function; this was possibly a trough grave, but no bones were found (Fig. 63). We also discovered a stone with four

Fig. 58. Entrance leading from Room L26 to Hall L27. Note the late walls adjoining the Roman entrance.

[47]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 60. Walls added to Hall L27 in the Mamluk period to bear the vault. Note the walls from the first phase.

Fig. 61. Channel in Hall L27 that drained runoff water from the eastern corridor to outside the structure.

[48]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 62. Inner face of the walls of the fourth century CE compound.

Fig. 63. Hewn and plastered rectangular trough.

[49]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 64. Square stone with four depressions, possibly used as an early extraction installation for oil or wine.

round depressions, surrounded by a channel hewn in the limestone. This might have been the base of a pressing mechanism with a metal or wooden screw, a kind of small domestic press (Fig. 64). The structure in the west of the southern wing differs from that in the east, the former wing’s walls being connected by the gate in W47. The west of the wing is divided into five large rooms, some of which underwent changes in the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. In the first building phase, Rooms L24 and L25 were a sort of long, open corridor through which the three other rooms were entered (Fig. 65). A hewn step runs along the length of Room L25. The southern wall’s main building was of smoothed, finely worked ashlars laid on the bedrock, which is also hewn and finely worked (Fig. 66). The corridor was divided in the second phase, when the monastery was established. On the east of Room L25 a staircase measuring 3.20×0.90 m was built, of which four steps survived; it led to the second story, added over Rooms L21, L22, and L23 (Fig. 67). Rainwater drained from the roof of the structure through a gutter flowed into a small sedimentation pool in the corner of Room L24, and from there through a hewn channel to the large cistern in the northwestern corner of this room. This channel was covered in stone slabs (see Fig. 65), while the cistern had a round capstone (Fig. 68). An additional gutter descended directly from the roof of the building’s southern rooms to the cistern. A similar cistern in

Fig. 65. Corridor on the west of the southern wing (L24, L25), view from the west. Note the channel that carried water from the upper story to the cistern.

the central courtyard’s main building was hewn and installed in the first building phase. A derssed 0.90 m-wide entrance in W44 led from Room L25 to Room L21, which measured 7.80×4.80 m. Its floor is partially hewn in the bedrock and partially paved in large stone slabs, apparently in secondary use (Fig. 69); underneath it are segments of a colorful mosaic that probably fell from the second story church floor. The outer wall of this room, only partially preserved, might have contained an entrance leading outside the building. An additional opening led from the room to Room L22, which measured 7.80×4.80 m and had a floor of irregular stone slabs of the late type (Fig. 70). Four pillars bore arches that supported the room’s second story. The room might have functioned as a storeroom or stable in the phase in which the late floor was installed.

[50]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 66. Southern wall of the main building, of ashlar construction.

Fig. 67. Staircase installed in Room L25 that led to the second story above Rooms L21 and L22.

[51]

Y. M A G E N

Room L23 measured 9.00×7.80 m and had a hewn floor; access was from the courtyard (L24), through a 1.70 m-wide entrance and two descending stairs. The pillars preserved in this room’s northern, southern, and western walls indicate that the room was roofed by crossed arches. Close to its eastern wall is a hewn and plastered channel. A narrow entrance in the western wall was probably opened in the Byzantine phase. The structure’s large rooms were used as the fortress’s and later as the monastery’s storerooms; and still later, to house the oil press.

Water System The site had a diverse and extensive water system that drained rainwater in and around the site. Our observations in rainy years taught that most of the cisterns and pools were filled with water, even though the rainwater collection system does not function today as it did in the past (Figs. 71–72). The system included bell-shaped hewn cisterns, built square cisterns covered with arches and stone

Fig. 68. Cistern capstone in the northwestern corner of Room L24.

Fig. 69. Room L21, partly bedrock and partly paved with stone slabs in secondary use, view from the south.

[52]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 70. Room L22, paved with irregular stone slabs (Early Islamic period), view from the south.

northern rooms. Two hewn channels that emanate from the eastern corridor are visible. The water collection system still functions at present. The cistern is actually a hewn and plastered square pool over which four finely built arches were installed to bear the stone slabs with mortar that covered the cistern. The cistern was built in the first phase of the structure (Late Roman period). It began as a quarry for stones used in the building’s construction, and was afterwards converted into a cistern. One of similar shape was found in the central tower of Deir Qalʿa. North of the structure is a sophisticated system consisting of a collection pool, a built cistern, and open pools (Fig. 74). One of the three pools, L9B, was covered with arches and stone slabs, some of which are not preserved (Figs. 75–76); in practice, it was converted into a cistern, similar to one described above (L10). The covered pool (L9B) measures 6.50×5.50×3.60 m. It was covered by four arches that reach the bedrock, and by stone slabs. This cistern was thickly coated with hydraulic plaster, and was probably built in the Late Roman first phase building. The cistern was fed from the round pool (L7B), which is 12.70 m in diameter and 1.10 m

slabs, and open pools. Both large bell-shaped cisterns, coated with light hydraulic plaster with gravel, are within the structure and were installed in the first building phase. One cistern is located in the northwestern corner of the central structure; an additional one is located in the southern wing, in the northwestern corner of the corridor. Both have round capstones and were fed from the structure’s roofs through gutters and plastered channels built under the courtyard floors. The cisterns are dated to the Late Roman period, based on their type of plaster and on the gutters and channels built under the mosaic floors that belong to the first phase. These cisterns, especially the one in the main building’s courtyard, provided drinking water for the site’s inhabitants, while the round cistern in the southern wing was probably intended for livestock. North and west of the main building a large system was uncovered of built cisterns and open pools fed from the central building and the settling pool north of the structure. Cistern L10, north of the structure and near the exit from the eastern corridor (Figs. 71, 73), was fed from Corridor L8, the central courtyard, and the structure’s

[53]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 71. Cistern L10, filled with water in the rainy season.

Fig. 72. Pools L9B and L8B, filled with water in the winter.

[54]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 73. Cistern L10, stone slab covering above the arches.

Fig. 74. Pools and cistern north of the structure, view from the west.

[55]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 75. Pools L8B and L6B; and the pool that became a cistern, L9B, and the arches over it.

Fig. 76. Cistern L9B, view from the south. Note the depressions in which the arches were installed.

[56]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Fig. 77. Round pool that drained water from the structure and brought it to cistern L9B.

deep. Two 2.10 m-wide stairs descended to the bottom of the pool (Fig. 77). From this round pool a hewn channel led to the covered square cistern (L9B), whose opening was covered with large stone slabs. Two open pools are located south and west of this cistern. The southern, trapezoidal pool (L6B) measures 12.00 m long in its north and south; 9.50 m in its east, and 7.00 m in its west; and is 4.30 m deep. It has a thick coating of two layers of hydraulic plaster. The square western pool (L8B) measures 10.70×7.40×4.30 m, and is thickly coated in two layers of hydraulic plaster: one, Late Roman, resembles the other plaster layers of the cisterns; this layer is covered by reddish plaster, typical of the Byzantine period. Water for both pools is supplied from the main building’s roof and is carried along an open channel. Based on the plaster, the channel was probably Byzantine. In addition to these pools, the site also contained an open pool west of the central structure (L1B), which dates to the first building phase and was not in use in later periods, as can be seen from the plaster. This large hewn pool measures 12.5×4.70×2.80 m. A narrow set of stairs on the south descended to the pool bottom (Fig. 78). The pool received water

Fig. 78. Pool L1P, northwest of the structure, view from the north.

[57]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 79. Sedimentation pool of Pool LP1, view from the south. The sedimentation pools were fed from a gutter descending from the structure’s roof. Drip marks remain visible on the wall.

Winepresses and Oil Press

from a gutter that drained rainwater from the roof of the main building’s western rooms to two sedimentation pools on its south (Fig. 79). It seems unlikely that the pool was covered, unless the covering was of wood. It was thickly coated with light hydraulic plaster with gravel, characteristic of the site’s first phase. Interestingly, it was not recoated with the reddish plaster typical of the other Byzantine pools. It had apparently fallen into disuse in the building’s first phase, possibly due cracks that led to water loss. The tremendous amount of water collected in the cisterns and pools at the site, and at Roman fortresses and Byzantine monasteries in general, compared with the small number of inhabitants who would consume this water (at least in its Roman and Byzantine phases) is surprising. In the Early Islamic period, many people lived at the site (possibly only during the olive harvest).

Winepresses were discovered in almost every Byzantine monastery where climatic conditions allowed for viticulture, and two were discovered here, northwest of the complex. The eastern winepress consists of a round treading floor, 2.00 m in diameter, with a narrow channel leading to a round collection vat (0.70 m in diameter), with an additional one of the same diameter to its south; to its north was a square collection vat measuring 1.00×0.60 m (Figs. 80–82). The three vats have exits through an aperture on their west to a lower level that initially appeared to be the press’s main treading floor. This lower level is actually a quarry, which raises a number of questions: did the winepress precede the quarry, and if we assume the quarry was installed in the fourth century CE, then either the winepress preceded the establishment

[58]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1 352.04

2

3

351.94

3

351.66

2

352.70

1 0

353 00

1-1

352 00 351 00

352 00

2-2

351 00 350 00 553 00

3-3

552 00 551 00 550 00

Fig. 80. Plan and sections of the eastern winepress.

[59]

3

m

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 81. Eastern winepress, view from the east.

Fig. 82. Eastern winepress, view from the west.

[60]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

the grape skins. On the north of the floor is an installation for anchoring the beam that was initially used in the winepress installation and later used as the oil press beam. At the northern end of the treading floor is a round depression, about 1.20 m in diameter and 0.45 m deep, and close to it, two rectangular depressions characteristic of an oil press installation. The survey we conducted on the north of the compound unearthed a cylindrical weight, operated by means of a screw, and a beam (Fig. 86), which was hewn later and exactly fit the depression in the winepress. Antiquity looters tried to steal the cylindrical weight, which was therefore not found in situ. In the Early Islamic period an extraction device of the lever, screw, and cylindrical weight type, similar to that found in the central structure, was installed in the winepress.

of the first phase structure, or the quarry dates from the Byzantine or Early Islamic period. The treading floor does not have a collection vat to receive the must, so the winepress is limited to the round collecting pool, filled via a channel from the treading floor. If this were a small winepress, what was the role of the square and round side pools? And why are there holes in the three pools leading to the quarry? The winepress floor might have been built over the quarry, but this still leaves us with the question of the location of the collection pool for the must. West of this winepress is an additional treading floor that initially functioned as a winepress, and in the second phase, as an oil press (Figs. 83–85). On the south of this floor, some 5 m in diameter, are two square collecting pits. In its center is a screw press mortise for the final extraction from

Fig. 83. Western winepress and oil press, view from the north.

[61]

Y. M A G E N

2

353.36

352.98 353.04

1 352.86

1

352.41

2

3

0

354 00

1-1

353 00

352 00

354 00

2-2

353 00

352 00

Fig. 84. Western winepress, plan and sections.

[62]

m

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

installations of unclear nature. There might have been a phase containing agricultural installations that preceded the construction of the structure in the Roman period. The winepress that predated the quarry might have been part of this phase, perhaps from the Hellenistic period. The presence of Hellenistic coins from the time of Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) possibly implied the existence of a Hellenistic site at this location.

Discussion Late Fourth to Early Fifth Century Fortress The first phase of the building consists of a Roman fortress, many examples of which have been found in northern Judea and southern Samaria. It is of fine quality ashlar construction, with the especially large stones typical of these fortresses. The walls were laid on the bedrock, which had been leveled and smoothed to receive the first course of stones. At times the bedrock was leveled by a fill of stones. In rooms with a bedrock floor, the bedrock was leveled and the floor completed with rough white mosaic segments of large tesserae, each up to 4 cm. The building stones used to construct the site were from stone quarries in the west and north that later became pools. An extensive quarry was discovered in the northeast of the site. Three types of ashlars were observed: smooth stones with or without marginal drafting around a stone center. These stones were used for the building’s interior walls; stones with marginal drafting and a shallow flat boss; stones with marginal drafting and a square prominent boss. Stones of this type were discovered in the building’s southern wall. Stones with a round prominent boss, typical of stones quarried from hard rock, were not discovered. The drafting method is identical to that in the Deir Qalʿa fortress. The construction of the inner walls at the site is of special interest. Walls were usually built of an outer and inner stone face, with mortar filling. Most of the walls at Kh. Deir Samʿan and Deir Qalʿa had an outer face of fine ashlars, and an inner one of Roman cement with variously sized stones. In a few places, the negative of the wooden molds used to cast the stones with cement can be discerned. This construction method lessened the quantity of building stones, but required a tremendous quantity of mortar, the main ingredient of

Fig. 85. Reconstruction of the western oil press.

Fig. 86. Cylindrical weight operated by the screw and beam method.

Construction Methods The site was settled from the late fourth century CE to the Mamluk period, undergoing numerous changes during this time span. Beneath the floors and walls of the first phase building are many diverse hewn

[63]

Y. M A G E N

which is lime. Since there was no shortage of stones, wood, or strong winds in Samaria, it was not difficult to install large kilns for burning lime.10 The inner face of the outer walls was coated in a thick layer of plaster, while the residential rooms were coated with fine white plaster. On the west and north, the outer wall foundations were covered in a thick layer of hydraulic plaster to prevent water seepage beneath the building foundations. In the first phase the ceilings were roofed with wooden beams over 4 m long, covered in a thick layer of mortar. There is no unequivocal testimony to the existence of vaults. Transporting long beams from Samaria might not have posed a problem. All of the staircases discovered at the site were built in the second and third phases. There might have been a second story in the first phase, but no staircase was found. Access to a second story might have been by wooden ladders that could be transported in time of exigency; this would point to the structure’s being a fortress, and not residential in nature. A high tower with a second story was built above Hall L26. Close to the entrance, a large hall served as a stable. The peristyle that encompassed the rooms of the southern and western wings had a tiled roof, which is characteristic of buildings from that period. The second phenomenon of interest is the tesserae size, up to 4 cm. It is usually thought that small tesserae were used in Roman mosaics and large ones in later periods. This characterization is correct only regarding colorful mosaics of high quality, such as the mosaic from the first phase at Deir Qalʿa. The courtyard and room mosaics in all the fortresses were of large, rough tesserae, approx. 9–11 per sq. dm. These large stones were imprecisely cut and carelessly laid, and the spaces between them were filled with mortar. The tesserae, produced and cut at the site, were laid on a thick layer of hard mortar. Tesserae waste chips were found in the mosaic bedding in L2. We observed is the phenomenon of the incorporation of mosaic sections into the rooms’ bedrock floors. Another phenomenon worthy of mention and common in many fortresses from this period are the monolithic doorposts and a relief arch above the lintel. Late Roman fortresses had an inwardfacing plan: a central courtyard surrounded by rooms, but there was no set model or plan for all the fortresses. Each fortress was seemingly adapted to local needs and its role in the defensive deployment of the Roman army.

Byzantine Monastery The structure apparently stood desolate for a lengthy period. In any event, its use was not continuous and protracted, as can be seen from the meager finds revealed in the fourth to early fifth century CE site. The paucity of finds indicates that the structure did not serve a residential function; and that Kh. Deir Samʿan was not a Roman villa, a view advanced by some scholars.11 Much effort was invested in the Byzantine period to convert the structure into a monastery. It is noteworthy, however, that most of the building stones were taken from the structure itself. First, it should be mentioned that some 150 years passed between the erection of the building in the fourth century CE and the establishment of the monastery, almost certainly during the reign of Justinian (mid-sixth century CE), after the Samaritan revolts.12 Justinian and the emperors preceding him transferred the fortresses, which were state property, to the Church and the monks, and aided them in establishing monasteries in place of those fortresses, which had most probably ceased to function and whose military importance had waned. In the second phase (Byzantine period), a church was established on the second story, which rested on vaults. Most of the structure’s wooden roofs had worn away during the years since their construction, and had to be replaced with stone roofs laid on stone arches. The establishment of a church on the second story followed by the construction of a staircase over the Roman mosaic floor typified the Byzantine phase. An additional striking feature of the Byzantine structure is the monolithic columns that include their bases and capitals. We believe that the column with a square base sunken in the floor is a Byzantine addition. In this period we find colorful mosaics, including those in the church, with smaller tesserae than those of the preceding period, but on a poorer artistic level. We assume that the inferior level of construction, especially of the mosaics, indicate that the marginal monastery, was built in a later phase of the Byzantine period, so that major efforts were not invested in it. One of the prominent phenomena at the site in the Byzantine phase is the multitude of crosses carved on lintels, the arch stones, and the mosaics, common

[64]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

in the late Byzantine period. In addition, the water system was expanded and renewed, and the pools were replastered in this period.

including a krater (Pl. 11:11), jars (Pl. 15:1–3), oil lamps (Pl. 16:1–2), and fragments of zoomorphic jugs (Pl. 19:1–3). Most of the vessels in the assemblage can be dated to the Early Islamic period (eighth to eleventh centuries CE). These vessels are presented in Pls. 11–17; most are of the sandy light clay characteristic of the Abbasid period. Special mention must be made of the decorative wealth of the oil lamps from this period, which were embellished with floral, geometrical, and even pseudo-writing patterns. The site continued to exist in the medieval period, as attested by the pottery vessels from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries, the time of the Fatimids, Ayyubids, and Mamluks, which are presented in Plate 18. The few Ottoman vessels, represented in Plate 10, are indicative of temporary visits to the area in that period. Pottery vessels uncovered at the site reveal the nature of the settlement and the chronological frame. Most are classified into different types of table and kitchen ware (bowls, jugs, cooking pots), which defines the assemblage as domestic. Settlement began in the Byzantine period and continued until the Ottoman period, reaching its peak in the Abbasid period.

The Building in the Islamic Period The Islamic period lasted for hundreds of years, and the building was inhabited in the Early and Late Islamic periods. A number of changes were instituted during this period. We assume that not all the changes were made in the Umayyad period, but over the course of time. In the Umayyad period two oil presses were built, and some rooms were paved in irregular stone slabs and became storerooms. In a number of places rooms were built on the second story to house workers engaged in the olive harvest and oil production. The oil press might have continued being active in the Abbasid period. In the Mamluk period a second story was established in the building’s southeastern wing. Vaults of flat stones were built, and oil production might have continued in this period on a much more limited scale. The mortar and plaster in this period differed from those used in earlier periods. The building continued in use until the Ottoman period, when it was abandoned.

Coins A total of 22 coins were uncovered,14 with 2 from the time of Antiochus III (223–187 BCE), and 6 from the fourth century CE that belong to the first phase of the site (the Roman fortress). Surprisingly, no coins were unearthed from the Byzantine period (sixth to seventh centuries), when the monastery existed. This might attest to the poverty of the monastery built at Kh. Deir Samʿan. There were 3 Ummayad coins, one dated to 713–714 CE; 2 Abbasid coins, from the ninth century CE; a single Crusader coin (1180–1215 CE); and 5 Ayyubid coins dated to 1218–1258 CE. The excavations also yielded 31 Ottoman coins.

FINDS

Architectural Elements Of the many architectural elements discovered at the site, most belong to the Byzantine monastery (Pls. 1–9). The monolithic columns found at Kh. Deir Samʿan combine base, column, and capital. Of small dimensions, they apparently were used for installing the church on the second story. The capitals are pseudo-Doric, and are decorated with crosses or various schematic designs.

Pottery Vessels The excavations at Kh. Deir Samʿan unearthed a large assemblage of pottery vessels from different periods. The vessels are presented by period, with an additional typological division.13 Few of the vessels represented in Pl. 10 are characteristic of the late Byzantine period (sixth to seventh centuries CE). A few items are dated to the Umayyad period (seventh to eighth centuries CE),

Glass and Metal During the excavation Umayyad and Abbasid glass vessels were discovered (Pls. 20–21), as well as numerous iron and bronze fragments, including fragments of pins and an iron door hinge. Some Mamluk and Ottoman metal artifacts are shown in Pl. 22.

[65]

Y. M A G E N

Plate 1. Monolithic Columns with Capitals No. 1

Locus Surface

2 3 4 5 6 7

L7 L25 L8 L25 L7 L23

Description Column fragment, 0.30 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.35 m in diameter, with a schematic leaf design on one side. Column fragment, 0.35 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.40 m in diameter, with a schematic leaf design. Column fragment, 0.30 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.36 m in diameter. Column fragment, 0.30 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.32 m in diameter, with a schematic leaf design. Column fragment, 0.30 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.38 m in diameter, with a cross in its center. Column fragment, 0.32 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.42 m in diameter, with a disc in its center. Column fragment, 0.31 m in diameter, with a capital, 0.37 m in diameter, with a cross encompassed by branches in its center.

Plate 2. Capitals No. 1

Locus L23

2 3

L7 L8

Description Capital (possibly a pedestal), 0.58×0.47 m and 0.50 m high. Ascribed to first phase. Dimensions correspond to column discovered in L8 (Pl. 3:4). Crude capital, 0.52 m in diameter, 0.51 m high. Crude capital, 0.52 m in diameter, 0.51 m high.

Plate 3. Monolithic Columns with Bases No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Locus L8 L7 L7 L16 L24 L25

Description Column fragment, 0.43 m in diameter and 0.97 m high, with cross engraving. Column fragment, 0.45 m in diameter. Square base fragment with a crude column, 0.50 m in diameter. Crude column with a dressed base, 2.04 m high. Diameter in lower end, 0.55m, in upper end, 0.45 m. Square base, 0.55×0.55, with grove in center. Column fragment, 0.45 m in diameter. Square base, 0.40×0.40 m, and column fragment, 0.35 in diameter.

Plate 4. Monolithic Columns and Bases No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Locus L25 L24 L23 L25 Surface Surface Surface

Description Square base, 0.45×0.45 m, and column fragment, 0.40 in diameter. Square base, 0.45×0.45 m, and column fragment, 0.40 in diameter. Base or capital, 0.45 m in diameter, and column fragment, 0.40 m in diameter. Crude marble chancel screen post from the church, 0.17 m in diameter. Rounded base with column fragment, 0.39 m in diameter. Square base, 0.50×0.50 m, and column fragment. Rounded, well-dressed pedestal, 0.60 m in diameter.

Plate 5. Stones Carved with Crosses No. 1 2 3 4

Locus Surface L26 L1B

Description Rectangular stone, 0.56×0.40 m, with cross carved in low relief. Rectangular stone, 6.60×0.38 m, with carved cross. Rectangular stone with carved cross with dots between arms. Rectangular stone fragment, 0.97×0.40×0.40 m. On narrow side is a carved cross with leaves between arms.

[66]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Plate 6. Lintels No. 1 2

Locus L26 L15

3

Surface

Description Rectangular stone fragment (possibly a lintel), 0.57×0.32 m, with engraved disc enclosing cross. Rectangular stone, with carved disc demarcated by two engraved lines enclosing a cross and decorated with triangles and an additional carved cross above it. Lintel fragment, 0.53×0.48 m, engraved with a tabula ansata. Ascribed to the first phase.

Plate 7. Lintels No. 1 2

Locus Surface L3

Description Construction stone or lintel, 0.43 high, with a cross with leaves between arms. Lintel, 1.10×0.66×0.55 m, with an engraved tabula ansata. In its center is a cross with dots between arms.

Plate 8. Miscellanea No. 1 2 3 4 5

Locus Surface L26 Surface L1 L26

6

Surface

Description Lintel, 0.75×0.35 m, with carved cross with dots between arms. Rectangular stone, 0.83×0.74 m, with carved cross. Relief arch laid over door lintel, estimated measurements, 0.60×0.30 m. Illegible Greek inscription fragment engraved on marble plate from church, possibly a chancel screen. Illegible Greek inscription fragment with a cross engraved on marble plate from church, possibly a chancel screen. Illegible Greek inscription fragment engraved on marble plate from church, possibly a chancel screen.

Plate 9. Keystones No. 1 2 3

Locus L26 L1B L1B

Description keystone, 0.46×0.46 m, with cross carved in low relief. keystone, 0.46×0.32 m, with cross carved in low relief. keystone, 0.46×0.40 m, with cross carved in low relief.

4

Surface

keystone, 0.46 × 0.46 m. with decorative lines.

[67]

Y. M A G E N

4

1

5 Plate 1.

3

2

7

6 0

10

[68]

20

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

2

3 0

10

Plate 2.

[69]

20

Y. M A G E N

2

1

4

5

3

6 0

10

Plate 3.

[70]

20

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

3

2

6

5

4 0

5

7

10

0

10

Plate 4.

[71]

20

Y. M A G E N

1

2

3

4 0

10

Plate 5.

[72]

20

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

2

3 0

10

Plate 6.

[73]

20

Y. M A G E N

1

2 0

10

Plate 7.

[74]

20

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

3

2

0

10

20

5

4 0

1

Plate 8.

[75]

6 2

Y. M A G E N

1

2

3

4 0

10

Plate 9.

[76]

20

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Plate 10. Byzantine Pottery No. 1

Locus L23

Type ARS 104C Bowl

2

L23

LRC 3E Bowl

Description Plate of red clay with red slip, rounded rim. Plate of red clay with red slip.

3

L18

LRC 3F Bowl

Plate of red clay with red slip.

4

L6

Cypriot RSW bowl

5

L27

Gaza jar

Plate of red clay with red slip and roulette decorations. Brown clay jar with outward rim.

6

L21

7 8 9 10

L21 L27 L2 L14

Jar with inward-rounded rim.

Caesarea jar

Outward rounded rim and short bulbous neck.

Candlestick lamp

Mold-made lamp of orange clay.

[77]

Parallels Hayes 1972: 160–166, Fig. 104:23; Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 62:14–16 Hayes 1972: 337–338, Fig. 68:14–16; Hayes 1985: 193, Figs. 63:13, 14; De Vincenz 2007: 242, Fig. 8:13, 23 Hayes 1972: 337–338, Fig. 69:17; Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 64:2 Hayes 1972: 377–379, Fig. 81 Ustinova and Nahchoni 1994: 161–162, Fig. 4:11, 12; Baumgarten 2000: 70*, Fig. 3:6; Magness 2003: 429, Pl. 18.2:18 Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7: 108; Baumgarten 2000: 70*, Fig. 4:9; Magness 2003: 426, Pl. 18.1:22; Mazar and Peleg 2003: 91, Pl. I.16: 26; De Vincenz 2007: 251, Pl. 23: 25 Riley 1975: 29, Fig. 6; Ustinova and Nahchoni 1994: 161, Fig. 4: 3–5; Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:104; Mazar and Peleg 2003: 90, Pl. I.16: 18 Rapuano 1999: 184, Fig. 10:139–137

Y. M A G E N

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

7

9

10 0

1

Plate 10.

[78]

2

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Plate 11. Early Islamic Pottery: Bowls No. 1 2 3 4 5

Locus L25 L23 L21 L6 L11

Type Fine Islamic Ware bowl

6

L23

7

L25

Cream Ware bowl

8 9 10

L14 L15 L8

11 12 13 14 15

Description Parallels Bowls with pointed rim, of well-fired Avissar 1996: 117–118, Fig. XIII.65:1; Shalem brown clay. 2002: 154, Fig. 5: 9, 10 Bowls with thickened rim, of brown clay.

Avissar 1996: 117, Fig. XIII.64: 1, 4

Small bowl with carinated profile, of brown clay. Bowl of orange-brown well fired clay; knife-carved outside, and black painted decorations inside. Plain bowl with inturned rim, of thin pale cream-buff ware.

Baramki 1944: 68–68, Fig. 8:4, 5; Whitcomb 1988: 54–56; Avissar 1996: 118, Fig. XIII.67:1–4 Avissar 1996: 120–121, Fig. XIII.71:2

Plain bowl Plain bowl

Bowl with inverted rim. Cream-buff ware, unglazed.

L23

Deep bowl

Kletter 2005: 69, Fig. 14:8 Stacey 2004: 111, Fig. 5.21:2; Kletter 2005: 68, Fig. 12:7 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 19*, Fig. 1:1

L22 L7 L7 L7

Deep bowl

Thumb-indented decoration on the rim. Deep bowl with inside thickened rim, Kletter 2005: 69, Fig. 13:1–6 decorated with combing. Avissar 1996: 126, Fig. XIII.79:1–2 Deep bowl with slightly incurved Avissar 1996: 126–127, Fig. XIII.80:2 walls and thickened rim.

Deep bowl

[79]

Stacey 2004: 92–93, Fig. 5.5:5

Y. M A G E N

1

4 3 5

2

7

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 Plate 11.

0

5

[80]

10

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Plate 12. Early Islamic Pottery: Glazed Ware No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Locus L31 L23 L15 L14 L33 L20 L3 L15

Type Late Matt Glazed Ware

Description Parallels Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 32*, Fig. 7: 17; Stacey Light brown buff clay, white slip 2004: 108–110, Fig. 5.19: 9–13, 15 inside and out. Internal surface coated with a matt glaze in yellow and green, with dark brown and black lines or designs; dribbles of glaze over the rim.

Local Polychrome Splash Ware

9

L7

Local imitation of Fayyumi ware

10

L23

Glazed jug

11

L26

Lead-glazed jar

Light brown buff clay, white slip. Green, yellow and brown glaze inside. Glaze on white slip outside. Flat-based, Cream-buff light brown clay and white slip. Yellow and green glaze with black lines. Yellow-buff clay, white slip, green glaze inside and on rim. White-buff clay. Inside and out covered with monochrome green glaze.

[81]

Avissar 1996: 78–81, Fig. XIII.6:5; Stacey 2004: 117, Fig. 5.25:11, Pl. 3:15 Stacey 2004: 121, Fig. 5.29: 2, Pl. 3:25 Kletter 2005: 67–68, Fig. 12:4 Stacey 2004: 122, Fig. 5.31:1

Y. M A G E N

1

3

2

5

Plate 12.

4

7

6

8

9

10

11

0

5

[82]

10

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Plate 13. Early Islamic Pottery: Cooking Pots No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Locus L23 L23 L7 L11 L23 L22

Type Open cooking pot

Description Cut rim, deep bowl.

Parallels Avissar 1996: 139, Fig. XIII.99: 6–8; 10–12; Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 32*, Fig. 7:17

Neckless cooking pot

Neckless pot with an outfolded rim.

Avissar 1996: 132, Fig. XIII.90:5, 6, 10; Stacey 2004: 125, Fig. 5.32:10, 12

Lid of brown clay, small handle.

L2

Cooking pot lid with handle Cooking pot lid

L32 L17

Cooking pot lid Jar lid

Brown clay. Gray clay, combed decoration.

Avissar 1996: 146–147, Fig. XIII.110:7, 8; Shalem 2002: 161, Fig. 9:8 Shalem 2002: 161, Fig. 9: 4; Stacey 2004: 125, Fig. 5.33:2 Avissar 1996: 147, Fig. XIII.110: 2 Avissar 1996: 146–147, Fig. XIII.110:4; Kletter 2005: 79, Fig. 18:2

7 8 9

Red clay.

1

3

2

5 4

6

7

8

9

Plate 13.

0

5

[83]

10

Y. M A G E N

Plate 14. Early Islamic Pottery: Jugs No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Locus L18 L30 L23 L24 L8 L11 L23 L24 L24 L7 L23 L17 L18

14 15

L24 L24

Type Description Barbotine ware jugs Jugs of buff ware with white slip; incised lines and plastic decoration.

Parallels Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 31*–32*, Fig. 7:5, 9; Shalem 2002: 161, Fig. 14:8–10; Stacey 2004: 136–137, Fig. 5:48

Molded or stamped cream ware

Jugs of white cream ware with molded or stamped designs.

Stacey 2004: 137, Fig. 5.49 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Fig. 5:7, 10, 11

“Kerbschnitt” ware Buff ware small jug

Deep-cut decorations. S-profiled walls.

Baramki 1944: 69, Fig. 6:20–25; Whitcomb 1988: 56 Kletter 2005: 77, Fig. 17:4–6

Jug with outflaring rim Flask

Outflaring rim with a gutter below.

Stacey 2004: 133, Fig. 5.43:4, 5

White buff clay.

Baramki 1944: 80, Fig. 5:10, 13; Whitcomb 1988: 62–63

[84]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

3 1

4

2

6 5

7

11

9

8

10

13

12

15

14

0

5

Plate 14.

[85]

10

Y. M A G E N

Plate 15. Early Islamic Pottery: Jars No. 1 2 3 4

Locus Type L23 Jar with pointed rim L1 L27 L20 Jar

5 6

L7 L10

Brown jar with red paint decoration

7 8 9

L19 L23 L25

Dark gray jar with white paint decoration

10 11 12 13

L12 L26 L11 L26

Jar with ridged rim

14 15

L25 L4

Neckless jar

Gray jar

Description Low neck with ridge, orange clay and gray core.

Parallels Avissar 1996: 147, Fig. XIII.111 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Fig. 5:2

Red-brown clay decorated with white paint. Inward beveled rim, reddish clay with white slip, decorated with red paint.

Shalem 2002: 161, Figs. 11, 12:1–2

Flattened and thickened inside rim, straight neck, well fired to metallic, dark gray clay decorated with white paint. Thickened rim, ridge on low neck.

Jar with high neck, of buff ware, incised decoration. Plain inward rim. Outward-rounded rim.

[86]

Avissar and Stern 2005: 100, Fig. 42:1; Avissar 1996: 149, Fig. XIII.115: 2, 3; Stacey 2004: 126– 127, Fig. 5.34:4, 5; Kletter 2005: 79, Fig. 19:10 Avissar 1996: 147–149, Fig. XIII.114:5, 6

Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Fig. 5:7–11 Magness 2003: 424, Fig. 18.1: 21 Kletter 2005: 79, Fig. 19: 7, 8 Shalem 2002: 161, Fig. 12 Shalem 2002: 161, Fig. 2, 3 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 31*, Fig. 6:1

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

3

2 1

5

7

6

4

9

8

10

11

13

12

15

14 0

5

Plate 15.

[87]

10

Y. M A G E N

Plate 16. Early Islamic Pottery: Lamps No. 1

Locus L30

Type “Late Samaritan” lamp

2

L8

Early channelnozzle lamp

3 4 5 6 7

L14 L30 L7 L7 L8

Channel-nozzle lamp

Description Horseshoe-shaped filling hole, vertical herring-bone pattern decoration. Ovoid lamp with a conical handle, radiating lines separated from the filler hole by a row of dots. Pear-shaped lamp with a tongue handle, gray clay, floral design.

[88]

Parallels Sussman 1976: 98, Pl. XXVII: 8–10; Hadad 2002: 74–78, nos. 320, 330, 332 Stacey 2004: 150, Fig. 6.1:2; Hadad 2002: 82–95, nos. 374–375; Haiman 1995: 8, Fig. 8:22 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 32*, Fig. 8: 5, 6; Hadad 2002: 95–106

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

2

1

3

5

4

7

6 0

1

2

Plate 16.

[89]

Y. M A G E N

Plate 17. Early Islamic Pottery: Lamps No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Locus L23 L7 L14 L18 L26 L30 L8

Type Channel-nozzle lamp

Description Pear-shaped lamp with a tongue handle, gray clay, floral design. Geometric design.

Pseudo-inscribed design.

[90]

Parallels Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 32*, Fig. 8:5, 6; Hadad 2002: 95–106

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

2

1

3

4

6

5

7 0

1

Plate 17.

[91]

2

Y. M A G E N

Plate 18. Ayyubid-Mamluk Pottery No. 1

Locus L21

Type Imitating luster ware with underglaze painting

2

L14

Bowl with double slip

3 4

L2 L31

Bowl with gritty glaze

5

L24

6 7

L33 L32

Soft-paste monochrome ware Cypriot monochrome sgraffito ware

8 9 10 11 12

L8 L2 L2 L11 L6

13

L2

14 15 16

L6 L20 L24

17

L6

18

L4

19

L12

Neckless cooking pot

Description Pinkish brown clay with white, red, and black inclusions; white slip inside. Glazed inside with black or brown decorations. Reddish brown clay, white slip on both surfaces. Yellow glaze inside and on the rim. Reddish brown clay with white inclusions, white wash and green glaze inside and on the rim. Transparent turquoise glaze bowl. Reddish brown clay, white slip on both surfaces. Incised lines and yellow glaze. Globular neckless pot with small outturned rim.

Glazed cooking pot Glazed pot with rounded rim. Cooking pot handle Small pushed-up ledge handle. Simple jug Inward beveled rim and wide flaring funnel-shaped neck of reddish-brown clay with white grits. Jug with swollen Reddish brown clay. neck Handmade jug Jug with strainer, red paint decoration Jar Pointed rim, a short straight neck; well-fired heavy brown clay with a dark self slip. Jar Triangular rim and high, slightly tapering neck, of well-fired orangebrown clay. Jar Thickened rim, of brown clay with gray wash. Jar Thick out-turned rim, high and wide cylinder neck with ribbing.

[92]

Parallels Avissar 1996: 103–104, Fig. XIII.45; Avissar and Stern 2005: 35, Fig. 13:4–9 Avissar 1996: 89, Fig. XIII.18: 1; Avissar and Stern 2005: 6, Fig. 1:11 Avissar and Stern 2005:8, Fig. 2:5 Avissar 1996: 90–93, Fig. XIII.22:3, 4 Avissar 1996: 115, Fig. XIII.61:1, 2; Avissar and Stern 2005: 25, Fig. 9:2 Pringle 1985: 190, Fig. 12:62, 63; Avissar 1996: 111–112, Fig. XIII.57; 2005: 61, Fig. 2.17:5–12; Avissar and Stern 2005: 60, Fig. 24: 2–7, Pl. XIX:1 Brosh 1986: 70, Fig. 4:2–3, 8; Avissar 1996: 135, Fig. XIII.94: 2–3 Avissar 1996: 135, Fig. XIII.93:1 Avissar and Stern 2005: 94, 98, Fig. 41:13 Avissar and Stern 2005: 108, Fig. 45:1 Avissar and Stern 2005: 108–110, Fig. 45:4–5 Avissar and Stern 2005: 113, Fig. 47 Avissar 1996: 151, Fig. XIII.118 Avissar 1996: 151, Fig. XIII.119; Avissar and Stern 2005: 100, Fig. 42:3 Avissar 1996: 153, Fig. XIII.120:3, 5; Avissar and Stern 2005: 102, Fig. 42: 5–6 Avissar and Stern 2005: 106, Fig. 44: 6–11

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

3

2

1

5

4

7

6

8

9 11

10

13

12

15

14

16

18 17 19 0

5

Plate 18.

[93]

10

Y. M A G E N

Plate 19. Miscellanea No. 1

Locus L24

2 3 4

Surface L24 L4

5 6 7

L3 L3 L1

Type Zoomorphic jug

Description

Open wheelmade lamp Tobacco pipe

Brown clay.

Parallels Shalem 2002: 168, Fig. 15: 6; Stacey 2004: 141, Fig. 5:56 Brosh 1986: Fig. 2:1–4 Avissar 2005: 82, Fig. 3.3:18

Reddish brown clay decorated by red slip.

Avissar 2005: 91, Fig. 4.4:87 Simpson 2002: 166, Fig. 3:19 Simpson 2000: 157, Fig. 13.4:89

[94]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

3

2

4

5

6

7 0

1

Plate 19.

[95]

2

Y. M A G E N

Plate 20. Glass Vessels No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Locus L23 L5 L5 Surface L2 L2 L11 Surface Surface L1 L11

Vessel Plain bowl Plain bowl Plain bowl Plain bowl Plain bowl Deep bowl Deep bowl Deep bowl Tonged bottle Mold-blown bottle Plain bottle

Color Light green Light green Light green Light green Light green Light green Light bluish green Light bluish green Green Light yellow Light bluish green

Parallel Hadad 2005: 21, Pl. 3:70–71 Hadad 2005: 21, Pl. 3:51–53 Hadad 2005: 21, Pl. 3:64 Hadad 2005: 21, Pl. 3:70–71 Hadad 2005: 21, Pl. 3:70–71 Hadad 2005: 35, PL. 25:500–502 Hadad 2005: 36–37, Pl. 30:588–589 Hadad 2005: 35, Pl. 26:503 Hadad 2005: 41–42, Pl. 30:846–847 Hadad 2005: 41–42, Pl. 40:837 Hadad 2005: 40–41, Pl. 36:715–716

[96]

Date Umayyad period Umayyad period Umayyad period Umayyad period Umayyad period Abbasid period Abbasid period Abbasid period Abbasid period Abbasid period Abbasid period

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

11

9

10 0

1

Plate 20.

[97]

2

Y. M A G E N

Plate 21. Glass Vessels No. 1 2

Locus L23 Surface

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Surface Surface Surface L2 Surface L1 L1 Surface Surface L7 L5 L13 Surface Surface L L1 Surface L5 L4

22

L4

Vessel Plain bottle Plain bottle

Color Light bluish green Light bluish green

Parallel Date Hadad 2005: 23, Pl. 7:127, 129 Umayyad period Hadad 2005: 23, 41, Pls. 9:180; 38:781 Umayyad –Abbasid period Jar Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 28, Pl. 20:371–374 Umayyad period Plain bottle Dark bluish green Hadad 2005: 40, Pl. 36:706 Abbasid period Plain bottle Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 40–41, Pl. 37:738 Abbasid period Plain bottle Light blue Hadad 2005: 40–41, Pl. 37:741 Abbasid period Plain bottle Light green Hadad 2005: 40–41, Pl. 37:750–753 Abbasid period Plain bottle Light green Hadad 2005: 40, Pl. 38:762–763 Abbasid period Rectangular bottle Green Hadad 2005: 39–40, Pl. 36:701 Abbasid period Miniature bottle Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 39, Pl. 35:690 Abbasid period Base Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 40–41, Pl. 39:805 Abbasid period Base Light purple Hadad 2005: 40–41, Pl. 39:806 Abbasid period Base Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 28, Pl. 21:407–409 Umayyad period Base Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 28, Pl. 21:402–403 Umayyad period Base Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 28, Pl. 21:410–411 Umayyad period Base Light yellow Hadad 2005: 36, Pl. 31:605–606 Abbasid period Base Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 40, Pl. 38:789 Abbasid period Handle Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 46, Pl. 45:954–957 Abbasid period Handle Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 46, Pl. 44:917 Abbasid period Handle Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 46, Pl. 44:918 Abbasid period Rod Light bluish green with Hadad 2005: 30, Pl. 24:464 Umayyad period blue thread Bracelet Light bluish green Hadad 2005: 48, Pl. 47:983 Abbasid period

[98]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

1

2

4

5

7

3

6

8

10 9

11

13

12

17

16

18

15

14

19

20 0

1

Plate 21.

[99]

21 2

22

Y. M A G E N

Pl. 22. Metal Finds from Mamluk and Ottoman Periods No. 1

Locus L32

Ware Iron dagger

2

L23

Iron knife

3

L23

4 5

L11 L2

6

Surface

Bronze lamp holder Bronze bell Bronze buckle Bronze pendant

7

L12

Bronze pin

8

L2

Bronze pin

9

L14

Bronze pin

10

L12

Bronze pin

11

L11

Bronze pin

Description Two-bladed dagger, rhomb-sectioned. The blade made of two razors. Length: 15.5 cm; width: 2.2 cm; handle length: 5 cm One-bladed knife, straight back. Length: 14 cm; width: 1.5 cm; handle length: 4 cm A long roll with a bowl. Length: 9 cm, diameter: 2 cm Upper part of small bell. Length: 1.5 cm Rectangular frame with connection to a belt. Length: 3 cm; width: 3.5 cm; thickness: 0.3 cm Rounded bronze pendant connected to iron ring. Diameter: 5.5 cm; thickness: 0.3 cm Pin with rounded ends. Length: 13 cm; diameter: 3 cm Pin with rounded ends, ornamented with 3 beads at the center. Length: 15 cm; diameter: 3 cm Pin with rounded ends, ornamented with 4 beads at the center. Length: 13 cm; diameter: 3 cm Pin with rounded ends, ornamented with 3 beads at the center. Length: 11 cm; diameter: 3 cm Pin with pointed ends, ornamented with 5 beads at the center. Length: 15 cm; diameter: 2 cm

[100]

Parallels

Khamis 1996: 221, Fig. 18.3:2; Grey 2000: 134, Fig. 11.2:35–36

Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 58–60, Fig. 22:3 Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 84–85, Fig. 32:6; Grey 2000: 131, Fig. 11.1:21

Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 64–66, Fig. 24:5–13 Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 64–66, Fig. 24:5–13 Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 64–66, Fig. 24: 5–13 Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 64–66, Fig. 24:5–13 Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: 64–66, Fig. 24:5–13

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

4

5

1

3

2

6 7

9

8

0

1

Plate 22.

[101]

2

10

11

Bas. No.

21

153

23

3

58

1

270 163

Cat. No.

1

2

3

[102]

4

5

6

7 8

D– Surf. B5 8

D11

7D

23

10D

Area Loc. No.

0.70 0.80

0.90

1.90

8.10

1.90

1.20

Weight (Gm.)

12 11

13

16

16

20

11

10

↑

↑

THE SELEUCIDS Antiochus III, the Great (BCE 223-187) Apollo stg. r. Legend effaced

Reverse

Date (CE)

Effaced Same

Same Same

– –

Effaced ROMAN PROVINCIAL Julia Domna Wife of Septimus Severus (193–211) IVL DOMNA AVG [COL PTOL] Bust of Julia r., draped Tyche seated on rock r., holding in r. ears of corn, below river god THE HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE Constantius Gallus (351–354) [DN C] ONSTANTIVS IVN NOBC] [FEL T] EMP REPARATIO] 351–354 Bust of Gallus bareheaded r. Virtus l. with shield on arm, spearing fallen horseman Same Same Same LATE ROMAN Unidentified End fourth century Head r. Effaced –

Same

Head r.

Diam. Axis Obverse (.Mm)

according to types.

– –

–

–

[Antioch]?

AkkoPtolemais

Same

Antioch?

Mint

All the coins are bronze unless otherwise mentioned. The coins are listed chronologically,

ARIEL BERMAN

Catalogue of tHe Coin Finds at Khirbet DeIr Samʿan

K No.

– –

–

–

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2626

Kadman 1961: 116, No. 125

Same

22753 22747

22759

22744

22757

22750

22740

Houghton 1983: 22746 4, Nos. 70–71

Referenced

Y. M A G E N

167

88

2

13

14

98

11

12

137/1 21

10

[103]

D– Surf.

D16

29

D7

27

160

9

Area Loc. No.

Bas. No.

Cat. No.

4.70

1.20

3.15

2.20

3.10

2.50

Weight (Gm.)

26

17

27

15

25

28

Reverse

Fals Within a circle: ‫ هللا‬/‫ رسول‬/ ‫محمد‬ Marginal legend: ‫[بسم هللا] ضرب هذا الفلس بالرملة‬ Palm branch r. In the field: ‫ بدمشق‬/ ‫ هذا الفلس‬/ ‫ضرب‬

Unidentified Governor 9th century CE, Fals Within double circles: Within a circle: ]...[ /‫ الشريك له‬/‫ هللا وحده‬/‫ال اله اال‬ ]...[ ‫ هللا‬/ ‫ رسول‬/ ‫محمد‬ Marginal legend obliterate THE RŪM SELJUQS Kay Kāwūs I ʿIzz ad-Dīn (AH 608–616 / 1211–1220 CE) Citing the Caliph an-Nāsir (AH 575–622 / 1180–1225 CE), Fals (pierced) Center: Center: / ‫ صر ادين هللا‬/ ‫االمام النا‬ /]‫ الغالب ك [يكاوس‬/ ‫السلطان‬ ‫بن كيخسرو‬ ‫امير المؤمنين‬

THE ʿABBĀSIDS Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Mahdī (AH 158–169 / 775–785 CE), Silver Dirham In the field: In the field: ‫ الشريك له‬/ ‫ هللا وحده‬/ ‫ال اله اال‬ / ‫ هللا صلئ هللا‬/ ‫محمد رسول‬ Marginal legend: ‫ الخليفة المهدي‬/ ‫عليه وسلم‬ ‫بسم هللا ضرب هذا الدرهم‬ Marginal legend: Qurʾan IX, 33 ‫بمدينة السالم سنة ستين ومئة‬

In the field: ‫ وحده‬/ ‫ اال هللا‬/ ‫ال اله‬

Within a double circle with striations: ‫ وحده‬/ ‫ اال هللا‬/ ‫ال اله‬

THE UMAYYADS Anonymous, Silver Dirham In the field: In the field: ‫ الشريك له‬/ ‫ هللا وحده‬/ ‫ال اله اال‬ ‫هللا احد هللا الصمد لم يلد و‬ Marginal legend: ‫لم يولد ولم يكن له كفوا احد‬ ‫بسم هللا ضرب هذا الدرهم بابرشهر‬ Marginal legend: Qurʾan IX, 33 ‫في [سنة] خمس وتسعين‬

Diam. Axis Obverse (.Mm)

Mint

–

–

AH. 160 (=776)

Same

Mid 8th Century

–

BMCO I: 124

Cf. Walker 1956:251, No. 829

Walker 1956: 255–56, Nos. 846–53

Walker 1956: 105, No. 256

Referenced

22743

22737

22749

22741

22738

K No.

Mint missing Cf. Artuk 1971: 22758 359, No. 1091

–

Madinat as-Salām

Dimashq

Ramla

AH. 95 Abrashahr (=713/14) (Naisabūr)

Date (CE)

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

11

57

224

21

22

159

18

20

35 99

16 17

266

162

15

19

Bas. No.

Cat. No.

[104]

2

2

D7

610

27

D11 18

D7

Area Loc. No.

0.53

0.24

0.40

3.40

1.70

2.10 3.20

2.80

Weight (Gm.)

16

14

15

24

17

20 21

21

Reverse

Same

Same, year: ۱٤

Mahmūd II (AH 1223–1255 / 1808–1839 CE), Silver Para (pierced) Tughrā of Mahmud II ١٢٢٣ / ‫ قسطنطينية‬/ ‫ في‬/ ‫ ضرب‬/ ٥

THE OTTOMANS ʿAbd ül-Hamīd I (AH 1187–1203 / 1774–1789 CE), Silver Para (pierced) ١١٨٧ / ‫ قسطنطينية‬/ ‫ في‬/ ‫ضرب‬ Tughrā of ʿAbd ül-Hamīd I

THE AYYŪBIDS Al-Kāmil Muhammad Abū-l-Maʿālī Nāsir ad-Dīn (AH 615–635 / 1218–1238 CE), Fals Within square-in circle: Within square-in circle: ‫ مل ناصر الدين‬/ ‫الملك الكا‬ ‫ بكر بن ايوب‬/ ‫محمد بن ابي‬ Same Same Negative impression of the Same reverse legend PRINCIPALITY OF HALAB Al-Nāsir II Yūsuf Salah ad-Dīn (AH 634–658 / 1236–1260 CE) Citing the Caliph Al-Musta ʿsim (AH 640–656 / 1242–1258 CE), Fals Center: Center: ‫ الناصر‬/ ‫الملك‬ ‫ المستعصم‬/ ‫االمام‬ Uncertain End 12th century, Fals Effaced Effaced

Diam. Axis Obverse (.Mm)

Year 5 AH 1228 (=1813) Year 14 AH 1236 (=1820)

AH 1187 (=1774)

–

1236– 1258

Same Same

Missing

Date (CE)

–

Pere 1968: 252, No. 843

22754

22755

22751

22736

Cf. Balog 1980: 22739 233, No. 759

Qustantiniyeh Pere 1968: 249, No. 807 Misr

K No.

Cf. Balog 1980: 22748 169, No. 465 Same 22745 Same 22742

Referenced

Qustantiniyeh Pere 1968: 225, No. 681

–

Halab

Same Same

Dimashq

Mint

Y. M A G E N

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T D E I R S A M ʿ A N

Notes Kh. Deir Damʿan was excavated several times during the years 1992–1993 and in 2007 on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen (License Nos. 550 , 567, and 1107). For previous publication of the site by the author see Magen 2008a: 184–189. 2 Guérin 1874–1875: 124–126; SWP II: 319–320; AviYonah 1933: 153, no. 61; Ovadiah 1970: 49, no. 36; Kochavi 1972: 231, no. 203; Dar 1986: 26–35; Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 261–262; Ovadiah and De Silva 1982: 130, no. 13; Hirschfeld 2002: 185, note 65; Tabula: 112; Bagatti 2002: 153. 3 See Magen and Aizik, “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume; see also on Martyrius Monastery, Magen, forthcoming. 4 See Magen 2008b: 267. 1

See Magen, “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya,” in this volume. 6 See Magen et al. in press, Site No. 194, and references there. 7 See Magen et al. in press, Site No. 195, and references there. 8 Magen 2008b: 257–329, especially 269–271. 9 See Magen 2012a: 124; 2012b: 259. 10 Magen 2008c: 91–92, notes 35–36. 11 Dar 1986: –3235; Applebaum 1987: 3. 12 See inscription in Deir Qalʿa mentioning Justinian I in Magen and Aizik, “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume. The two monasteries were built at the same time. 13 We would like to thank B. Yuzefovsky for preparing the pottery for publication. 14 We would like to thank G. Bijovsky for identifying the coins. 5

References Applebaum S. 1987. “The Problem of the Roman Villa in Eretz-Israel,” EI: 1–5 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 73*). Avi-Yonah M. 1933. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” QDAP 2: 136–181. Artuk I. and Artuk C. 1971. Istanbul Arkeoloji Muzelerri Teshirdeki Islam sikkeler katalogu I, Istanbul. Avissar M. 2005. Tel Yoqneʿam. Excavations on the Acropolis (IAA Reports 25), Jerusalem. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali, Yoqneʿam I: The Late Periods (Qedqm Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–201. Avissar M. and Stern J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 26), Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Samaria (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 39), Jerusalem. Balog P. 1980. The Coinage of the Ayyubids (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publications 12), London. Baramki D. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Baumgarten Y. 2000. “Evidence of a Pottery Workshop of the Byzantine Period at the Foot of Tel Ashdod (ʿAd Halom Site),” ʿAtiqot 39: 69*–74* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 201). BMCO I: Lane-Poole S. 1875. The coins of the Eastern Khaleefahs in the British Museum (Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum I ), London. Brosh N. 1986. “Pottery from the 8th–13th Centuries C.E. (strata 1–3),” in L.I. Levin and E. Netzer (eds.),

Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979, Final Report (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 66–89. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. 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. De Vincenz A. 2007. “The Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, En-Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2002), Jerusalem, pp. 234–427. Finkelstein I., Lederman Z., and Bunimovitz S. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures. The Southern Samaria Survey. The Sites I (Tel Aviv University, Monograph Series 14), Tel Aviv. Grey A. 2000. “The Metalwork,” in R. Harper and D. Pringle, Belmont Castle: The Excavaton of a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, pp. 131–138. Guérin V. 1874–1875. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine I–II, Samarie, Paris. Hadad S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Beth Shean (Qedem Reports 4), Jerusalem. Hadad S. 2005. Islamic Glass Vessels from the Hebrew University Excavations at Beth Shean (QEDEM Reports 8), Jerusalem. Haiman M. 1995. “An Early Islamic Period Farm at Nahal Mitnah in the Negev Highlands,” ʿAtiqot 26: 1–14. Hayes J. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes J. 1985. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Toronto, pp. 181–193.

[105]

Y. M A G E N

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. Houghton A. 1983. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, New York. Kadman L. 1961. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palestinensium IV), Jerusalem. Khamis E. 1996. “The Metal Objects,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali, Yoqneʿam I: The Late Periods (QEDEM Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 218–235 Kletter R. 2005. “Early Islamic Remains at ʿOpher Park, Ramla.” ʿAtiqot 49: 57–100. LRBC 2: Carson R.A.G. and Kent J.P.C. 1965. “Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346– 498,” in Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498), London, pp. 41–114. Magen Y. 2008a. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in the southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–216. Magen Y. 2008b. “Oil Production in the Land of Israel in the Early Islamic Period,” in Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 257–343. Magen Y. 2008c. Mount Gerizim Excavations II. A Temple City (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2012a. “The Central Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 121–168. Magen Y. 2012b. “A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 247–298. Magen Y. forthcoming. Christians and Christianity V: Martyrius Monastery (JSP 17), Jerusalem. Magen Y. et al. in press. Christians and Christianity II: Corpus of Christians Sites in Judea (JSP 14), Jerusalem. Magness J. 2003. “Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery,” in H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X–2, Jerusalem, pp. 423–432. Mazar E. and Peleg O. 2003. “The Pottery Assemblage from the Large Byzantine Structure in Area XV,” E. Mazar, The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 directed by Benjamin Mazar. Final Report II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43), Jerusalem, pp. 86–103.

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. 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. Pere N. 1968. Osmanlilarda Madenî Paralar, Istanbul Ploug G. and Oldenburg E. 1969. “Les objets en metal sauf les monnaies,” in G. Ploug et al., Hama IV.3: Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938, Copenhagen, pp. 13–88. Pringle D. 1985. “Medieval Pottery from Caesarea: the Crusader Period,” Levant 17: 171–202. Rapuano Y. 1999. The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zeʾev East A),” ʿAtiqot 38: 171–203. Riley J. 1975. “The Pottery from the First Session of Excavation in the Caesarea Hippodrome,” BASOR 218: 25–63. Robinson R. 1985. “Tobacco Pipes of Corinth and of the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 54: 149–203. Shalem D. 2002. “Nevé Ur—An Early Islamic Period Village in the Bet Sheʾan Valley,” ʿAtiqot 43: 149–176. Simpson J. 2000. “The Clay Pipes,” in R. Harper and D. Pringle, Belmont Castle: The Excavation of a Crusader Stronghold in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, pp. 147–172. Simpson J. 2002. “Ottoman Pipes from Zirʾin (Tell Jezreel),” Levant 34: 159–172. Stacey D. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods (IAA Reports 21), Jerusalem. Sussman V. 1976. “A Burial Cave at Kefar ʿAra,” ʿAtiqot 11: 92–101 (English Series). Ustinova Y. and Nahshoni P. 1994. “Salvage Excavations in Ramot Nof, Beʾer Sheva,” ʿAtiqot 25: 157–177. Walker J. 1956. A Catalogue of the Arab–Byzantine and PostReform Umaiyad Coins (Catalogue of the Muhammadan, Coins in the British Museum II), London. Whitcomb D. 1988. Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence,” BASOR 271: 51–67.

[106]

A LATE ROMAN FORTRESS AND A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT DEIR QALʿA YITZHAK MAGEN AND NAFTALI AIZIK

The Site The site of Deir Qalʿa is located in the west of a precipitous spur (map ref. IOG 15430/16270; ITM 20430/66270), 380 m above sea level.1 It lies on the northern bank of Naḥ al Shiloh, ca. 2 km east of the village of Deir Ballut in western Samaria (see Site Map on p. XIII). Surveyed several times, it was identified as a farmhouse or as a Byzantine monastery, due to the remains of a church and cross-engraved building stones.2 Recent excavations exposed remains dating to four building phases, representing four periods (Figs. 1–2). In Phase I, the Late Roman period (fourth century CE), a fortress with a tower was erected. In Phase II, the Byzantine period (sixth century CE), the site was converted into a monastery. In Phase III, the Early Islamic period (seventh to eighth centuries CE), an oil press was installed on the site. In Phase IV, the Mamluk period (thirteenth to fifteenth centuries CE), some of the site’s structures and rooms were reused sporadically. The fortress controlled the Neapolis–Diospolis road.3 The site overlooks several roads from a distance. A local twisting road with several short stretches of partially hewn, partially built steps descends from the site to the northwest.4 Deir Qalʿa, of massive construction, rises prominently over its surroundings (Fig. 3).5 It apparently formed part of the Late Roman well-planned fortification system that guarded over all of southwestern Samaria.6 The area adjoining Deir Qalʿa includes other sites with similar geographical, architectural, and historical features. These have been surveyed, some even excavated.7 The sites are all located in southwestern Samaria and along routes

crossing Naḥ al Shiloh; and are clearly linked with the local road system. Furthermore, the successive periods of construction and the architectural elements are parallel and nearly identical in all of them: Late Roman fortresses, Byzantine monasteries, and Early Islamic oil presses. These attest to their being state enterprises with common planning and purpose, e.g., the appropriation of wasteland and the imposition of imperial authority. Against this background, the complex of Deir Qalʿa is outstanding, especially in view of its state of preservation, dimensions, and massive construction. Apparently, the various attempts to identify it as a large Roman farmhouse or villa, or alternatively, as a fortified Byzantine monastery, are basically fallacious. There were several noteworthy finds in the immediate vicinity of Deir Qalʿa. East and north of the fortress, beyond the defensive wall, are several large plastered pools (Fig. 4). Linked by a system of hewn and built channels, they were used to conduct water to the cisterns and for irrigation. Another pool was located outside the fortress’s southwestern corner. A large natural cave with a spring had been adapted for residential use at the bottom of the cliff on which the fortress was established. It displayed vestiges of walls and partition into hermit cells. Some 50 m east of the complex were quarries, hewn cisterns, and agrarian installations. A fieldstone fence encircled the summit of the spur. Some 150 m northeast of the fortress was a watchtower, rectangular in plan and constructed of dressed stones; it contained a lime kiln introduced in the Middle Ages. It was approached by a hewn stairway, and its position allowed visibility of the main watchtower to its south and the fortress of Kh. Deir Samʿan to its north.

[107]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

W4005

W1003

F10 F11 W3005

W4008

W1032

L403

F30 W3004

F35

W4007

W4005

F34 W4009

F28

W4006 F36

F26

W1002

F29

W3003

W3007

W1026

W3002

F27

F12

F16

W1022

L60 F14

W1021

W2004 W1004

W1010

L39 F2

F21

W1006

W1008

F1

F24 W1000

W1009

W1012

W3001 W1014

L38

F25

F31 W1001 0

Fig. 1. Deir Qalʿa, detaild plan.

[108]

F19 W2000

W1018

W1019

W1016

F6

F20

W1007

F8

10

m

F18

W1005

W1035

W2002

W1023

F3

W1015

W2003 W1030

F5

W2001

W1020

F4

W1031

W1 01 7

F13

W1025

W1029

W1027

W3008

W1022

W3006

W1028 F32

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

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

8

W1001

5

Late Roman Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic Period Fig. 2. Deir Qalʿa, construction phases.

[109]

F31

384.0

W1001

0

10 m

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 3. Deir Qalʿa, the site before excavation, view from the northwest (courtesy of IAA).

Fig. 4. Deir Qalʿa, the eastern pool, view from the northeast (courtesy of IAA).

[110]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

PHASE I—THE LATE ROMAN FORTRESS The first phase fortress is military in character; apparently, it was a local command post comprising a tower and a complex surrounded by a defensive wall of ashlars, some with marginal drafting (Fig. 5).

The Tower The tower, of the first building phase (Figs. 6–7), was erected on a stone surface higher than the rest of the complex and projects eastwards from the defensive

wall. The tower rises to a height of two stories, and has an opening in its northern wall. A hewn, wellplastered cistern was discovered underneath the northern rooms’ floors. The tower’s outer dimensions are 9.25×8.70 m, and it was surrounded by four walls: W1004 in the north, W1005 in the east, W1006 in the south, and W1007 in the west. These walls, 0.85–0.90 m thick, had two faces. The outer face consisted of large ashlars, some with marginal drafting and a prominent boss, others with smooth drafting. The inner face consisted of

Fig. 5. Deir Qalʿa, the fortress and tower, view from the northwest (courtesy of IAA).

[111]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

W1015

3

F17

W2003

W2006

L60 F14

W1030

2

389.645

F15

W2004

L65 W1004 388.175

F19

W2002

W2005

4

L105

W1005

4

W1007

F20

W2000

1

F18 W2001

F21

1 W1006

2

W1000

3 0

Fig. 6. Tower, detailed plan.

[112]

3 m

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

1-1

392 00

390 00

W1005

W2001

391 00 W1007

W1007

389 00 388 00

F18

F21

F18

F21

387 00 2-2 392 00 W1005

391 00 390 00

W2004

389 00

W1015

388 00 387 00

3-3

393 00 392 00 391 00

W1000

390 00

W1004

W2000

389 00

L105

W1006

388 00

F20

F21

387 00 386 00 385 00 384 00 392 00

4-4 W1005

391 00

W2002

390 00

W1007

389 00 388 00

L105

F19

387 00 386 00 385 00 384 00

L110

383 00

Fig. 7. Tower, sections.

[113]

F20

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

small fieldstones bonded with Roman concrete and coated in grayish-white plaster. The well-preserved walls were established on the bedrock. Two square windows and two slits were fixed in each of its walls. The northern wall (W1004) was well preserved for its entire length, 9.25 m. Its exposed courses consisted of ashlars—medium sized, ca. 1.00×0.70 m, and smaller, 1.00×0.45 m—some with marginal drafting and a prominent or flat boss. This wall was apparently established on hewn bedrock shelves that sloped westward. The excavations fully exposed the tower’s well-built opening in this wall (W1004), 0.95 m wide, located near its northwestern corner (Fig. 8). Both doorposts and the threshold, carved of dressed building stones, were extant. The opening was based on the course of the threshold stones. The door opened into the tower from the west. The round socket for its hinge, 10 cm in diameter and 10 cm deep, was next to the threshold’s western corner. The massive

bolt mechanism included a groove, 0.20×0.20 m and 1.00 m deep, for sliding the wooden beam, and a slot for the metal pin, carved into a stone in the eastern doorpost. A square socket, 13×20×10 cm deep, designed to accommodate the beam, was fixed in the western doorpost. The opening had a massive ashlar-built lintel, later decorated with a tabula ansata containing an incised cross. It was surmounted by a supporting arch consisting of two large ashlars. This kind of arch is characteristic of fourth-century fortresses in Samaria and in the southern Hebron Hills; it diverted the weight of the courses overlying the lintel to the sturdier, solid sides. The eastern wall (W1005) was well preserved for its entire length, 8.70 m (Fig. 7: Sec. 2–2). It was established on a bedrock shelf, 0.60 m high, carefully hewn to accommodate the foundation course. Four courses, 2.75 m high, extant over bedrock, consisted

Fig. 8. Tower, opening in W1004, view from the north (courtesy of IAA).

[114]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

of 1.90–2.00 m-long ashlars, all with marginal drafting and a prominent boss (Fig. 9). There was a ventilation hole near its southern end. The southern wall (W1006) was well preserved for its entire length, 9.25 m (Fig. 10). Its lower courses were not exposed, for fear of collapse. Its upper courses consisted of medium-sized and large ashlars, all with marginal drafting and a prominent or flat boss. There was a ventilation hole near its eastern end. The western wall (W1007) was well preserved for its entire length, 8.70 m (Fig. 11), and was extant to a height of 10 to 14 courses. The two lower courses, resting on the bedrock, were constructed of ashlars measuring 0.50×0.40 m, smaller than the stones comprising the overlying courses. There is an explanation for this. Usually, large, heavy ashlars stabilize and reinforce walls that rise to a substantial height. The ashlar courses comprise the base and support the inner faces of the rooms, whose roofs are borne by arches embedded in the external walls, so that pressure from the weight above is deflected outwards. It was easier, however, to accommodate smaller stones to an insufficiently leveled bedrock surface. These smaller stones were first extracted

from the bedrock over which the tower was erected; they derived from the top layer of quarrying, before cuttings permitting the removal of larger stones were deepened. The latter stones, whose maximum length was 1.60–1.80 m, indeed appear in the fourth and sixth courses. Near the northern end of the sixth course, a window was installed. The lower story of the tower contained three rooms—in the north, southwest, and southeast; the upper story extended over the southern rooms, while there was a balcony, of wooden beams over the northern room. The tower’s northern room was rectangular in plan, and measured 8.00×3.70 m in this phase. There were traces of white plaster on its walls, and its floor (F20) was paved in a mosaic with a partially preserved round design in red and blue against a white background. The northern room was bordered in the south by a long wall (W2000) that traversed the tower’s interior from east to west. It was 0.80 m wide and extant to a maximum height of six courses, 3.20 m. The wall consisted of medium-sized roughly hewn stones coated in white plaster, and smaller fieldstones were embedded on both sides. Near its western end,

Fig. 9. Tower, W1005 (courtesy of IAA).

[115]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 10. Tower, southern wall (W1006), view from the south.

Fig. 11. Tower, western wall (W1007), view from the west (courtesy of IAA).

[116]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

directly opposite the tower opening, an opening led to the southwestern room (Fig. 12). It was 0.70 m wide, its doorposts extant to a height of two courses, 1.30 m. The threshold was carved from the top of the wall’s foundation course; it was higher than the room’s floor by 20 cm. Two rectangular sockets, 10×5×5 cm, were carved exclusively in the eastern doorpost. This entrance had no lockable door, as this room was probably a passageway inside the tower structure. A rectangular window, 0.80×0.70 m, was located in the room’s western wall (W1007; Fig. 13). It had an internal frame, 10 cm wide, which narrowed the opening. There were sockets for five lattice metal bars, three along its width at regular intervals of 20 cm, and two along its length at like intervals in the middle of the window. The metal bars themselves were not recovered. The room’s ceiling did not survive, but apparently consisted of wooden beams inserted into wall sockets in the north and south, and borne by wooden pillars standing in the center of the room. The southwestern room was rectangular in plan, 4.10×2.50 m. Near its southwestern corner was a built staircase, whose bottom step was still in situ (Fig. 14). It led to the second story, which, as stated, did not survive. The room was paved in a white mosaic of medium-sized tesserae (F21; 50–60 per sq. dm),

Fig. 13. Tower, window in the western wall (W1007), view from the east.

Fig. 12. Tower, opening in W2000, view from the west.

[117]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 14. Tower, staircase in the southwestern room, view from the east.

which was totally intact. The room was separated from the southeastern one by W2001, 0.80 m wide and 2.40 m long (Fig. 7: Sec. 1–1). This wall, of medium-sized ashlars, was preserved for its entire length to a height of about four courses, 2.10 m. The opening, in its middle was 0.70 m wide (Fig. 15). Its threshold, of a single stone, was higher than the southwestern room’s floor by 0.15 m; on its south was a shallow socket, 10 cm in diameter, for the door axis. Two rectangular sockets, 10×5×5 cm , located in the middle of the northern doorpost, formed part of the locking mechanism. The southeastern room was quadrangular in plan, 2.85×2.50 m. Paved in a white mosaic (F18; 50–60 tesserae per sq. dm), it was partially preserved, especially along the walls. There were two openings, 0.25×0.10 m, for ventilation and lighting. Shaped like loopholes, they were narrow on the outside, broadening towards the inside of the room, reaching a maximum width of 0.45 m. One was situated in the eastern wall (W1005; Fig. 16), the other in the southern wall (W1006). A cistern was discovered in the tower underneath the floor of the northern room (Fig. 7: Secs. 3–3, 4–4). Hewn and well plastered, its opening lay next to W2000. Above the opening was a capstone

Fig. 15. Tower, opening in W2001, view from the west.

[118]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

Fig. 16. Tower, loophole in W1005, view from the east.

(L105), 1.40×1.20 m, constructed of two welldressed stones (Fig. 17); it was 0.25 m higher than room level. Its round opening was narrow, 0.42 m in diameter and 0.30 m deep, and two hewn sockets accommodated the beam to which the pail for scooping out water was attached by a rope. A round collecting pit, 0.40 m in diameter and 0.18 m deep, was hewn in the cupstone’s southeastern corner. It was connected to the channel system that conducted water under the cupstone into the cistern. The latter was rectangular in plan, 7.30×3.30×3.65 m (Fig. 18). As stated above, it was totally intact, carefully hewn, and coated in a 1.5 cm-thick layer of pink plaster. Its ceiling consisted of five rows of slabs, each slab measuring 1.70×0.80×0.30 m, borne by three well-plastered, 0.50 m-wide arches (Fig. 19). In the south of the cistern the arch bases were set into hewn niches; in the north they were embedded in the lower courses of the wall. The cistern’s eastern side, concave, sustained the surmounting tower’s eastern wall. An opening for conducting rainwater from the outer drainage system was observed in the cistern’s upper northeastern corner. An identical cistern, hewn and roofed using built arches, was discovered at Kh. Deir Samʿan.8

Fig. 17. Tower, cistern opening’s cupstone.

[119]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 18. Tower, cistern opening, view from inside.

Fig. 19. Tower, cistern vault, view from the east.

North of the tower, opposite the entrance, was a step that measured 2.00×0.65×0.15 m, and consisted of two stones with a hewn drainage channel, 0.10 m wide and 1.85 m long, which conducted water to the cistern. The step itself was not set against the middle of the entrance, but rather towards the tower’s northwestern corner, probably due to a weakening of the foundation. North of the step was an outer courtyard, 6.00×4.00 m. It was 0.50 m lower than the threshold of the main opening, and consisted of two floor levels (F14, the lower level, and F15, to its east) that were of rough white mosaic, 30–40 tesserae per sq. dm. The height differential was separated by W1030, erected to reduce pressure over the staircase to its west, which did not survive. The courtyard was bordered in the east by a short wall (W2006) of small ashlars; it was extant to a height of one course and rested directly on the western rim of the hewn upper pool. In a later phase, this wall was integrated into another wall (W1015), raising the line of the rim. Another wall (W2003), partially extant, bordered the courtyard in the north. The courtyard was linked to the other sections of the site by two staircases. The western staircase, built in its upper portion, but of which only three hewn steps survived (L60), linked this courtyard to the one

[120]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

inside the fortified fortress. The northern staircase, no longer extant, was built in its entirety and linked the courtyard to a long narrow corridor, which measured 27.50×5.70 m and was hewn in its east, while its west was bordered by the fortress’s eastern defensive wall (W1032). A sounding dug 3.00 m deep at its southern end revealed a crude white tesserae mosaic (F17) similar to that of the aforementioned courtyard.

The Fortress The first phase fortress measured ca. 49×38 m, excluding the tower, and was surrounded by W1001 to the south, W1002 to the west, W1003 to the north, and W1032 and W1000 to the east (see Fig. 1). The rampart had two gates: a wide main gate in the north, and another, narrower one in the south. In the south and east of the complex, a row of large halls surrounded a courtyard paved in white mosaic. The southern wall (W1001), 0.80 m wide, was partially embedded in the bedrock (Fig. 20). The only such wall intact for its full length, ca. 38 m, it rose to a height of ca. 6 m. It was well built in a straight line, of ashlars with marginal drafting and a prominent boss. The courses were irregular in the eastern third of the wall, and medium and small stones were used to overcome the varied elevations of the surrounding bedrock shelves while maintaining exactitude in executing the work. In the west, the wall’s construction was precise and orderly. Its southern face was not exposed to the foundations, but the wall apparently rested on the bedrock, over which one or two courses of large ashlars were laid. These were surmounted by another course consisting entirely of small, rectangular stones whose outer dimensions were 1.00×0.50 m. Similar courses, comprising small stones, also appeared in the western third of the wall, but in a different context: above two or three courses of large or medium-sized stones was another course, of smaller stones. This apparently reflected the need to even out the upper surface of the lower courses, to achieve the stability and strength required of tall buildings. The second story walls were appointed with 14 small, square windows, 0.40×0.40 m, of which ten survived; their purpose was to admit light into the rooms. Some of these windows were narrowed by means of a small, square opening (0.15×0.15 m), in several of which were metal bars, no longer extant. Photographs in the

British Mandate Record Files show part of the wall built of seven additional courses and having four square windows (Fig. 21). Near the western end, in the eleventh course, was a stone bearing the relief of a cross, probably a later addition (Fig. 22). Further down, in the middle of the wall’s bottom third, was a narrow window, attesting to a lower story. One of the fortress’s two gates was fixed in this wall, adjoining the complex southwestern corner. Totally intact, it measured 1.90 m high and 1.00 m wide, and consisted of large ashlars with smooth outer faces (Figs. 23–24). The lintel, a monolith measuring 3.50×0.70×0.60 m, was engraved in the center of its facade with a cross, probably in the second phase, when the monastery was erected. Above the lintel a massive stone served as a relieving arch. Six bolt sockets, three on either side, were hewn into the inner facets of the doorposts. One can assume that this gate was usually locked; it served as an escape route in times of need. From the opening, a narrow built corridor, 2.00 m wide, led north to the fortress center. The unexcavated western wall (W1002), 51 m long, is similar in construction to the southern wall. The corner of these two walls was extant to a height of 14 courses, ca. 7 m. This corner survived due to its large ashlars being laid in a head-and-stretcher manner. The center of the wall had collapsed towards the west, probably at the end of the Late Roman period, before the site was transformed into a monastery. The wall was restored at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the fortress’s western wing was converted into an agricultural terrace. In photographs contained in the British Mandate Record Files, a projection jutting outwards from the line of the wall may be discerned near the complex southwestern corner. This was apparently the latrine, which did not survive. The wall rested on the bedrock for its entire length. In the middle of its outer face, at the base of the wall, there was a narrow natural shaft that declined vertically to the first-level cave ceiling at the bottom of the cliff. The northern wall (W1003) barely survived, save for a few vestiges; these, however, enabled us to reconstruct the wall’s original line in the Late Roman period. Its two ends were identical. The western one, ashlar built, was on the bedrock; it was extant to a height of four courses, ca. 2 m, and a length of ca. 2 m. The eastern one, of similar character, was extant

[121]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 20. Southern rampart wall (W1001), view from the southeast (courtesy of IAA).

Fig. 21. Southwestern corner of ramparts (W1001, W1002; courtesy of IAA).

[122]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

Fig. 22. Southern rampart wall (W1001), cross-engraved stone, view from the south (courtesy of IAA).

Fig. 23. Gate in W1001, view from the south (courtesy of IAA).

[123]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

0

1 m

Fig. 24. Gate in W1001, illustration.

to a height of two courses and a length of ca. 1.5 m; its ashlars exhibited prominent marginal drafting. This remnant, which represents the walls’ northeastern corner, was fully excavated, and a watchtower apparently occupied this spot. A sounding dug in the middle of the wall’s conjectured path exposed the fortress’s northern gate. Its discovery completes the overall picture, since one can infer that the defensive line was straight at this phase and ran from east to west. The gate, whose built threshold was intact, was 2.00 m wide, and opened onto the fortress’s northern courtyard, which was paved in a white mosaic of medium-sized tesserae (F11). The remains of a similar mosaic floor were uncovered outside the fortress (F10), north of the gate; it extended into what appears to be a hewn corridor, ca. 10 m long, which proceeds to the route connecting the site with the junction of secondary roads in the north leading east to the village of Deir Ballut. The northern wall was evidently dismantled in full, its stones put to secondary use in the construction of the chapel and the western and southern walls of the eastern pool. In the second phase, a plastered channel and water installation were built adjacent to the outer face of the W1003 foundations, which was reconstructed of ashlars with smooth faces (W4004). The eastern line of the rampart comprised two walls (W1032, W1000). A short wall (W1000) running from north to south adjoined the southwestern corner of the tower; it was 10.50 m long and 0.90 m thick, and its

ashlars have marginal drafting and a prominent boss, although they are relatively small and their inner face consists of mortar. This wall was completely exposed; it was extant to a height of seven courses, ca. 2.5 m, laid directly over the bedrock’s quarry line. This wall closes the gap between the tower and the southern wall, thus uniting the fortress components. The full extent of the eastern wall became clear in the course of excavations, and it probably continued in a straight line from the northeastern corner of the fortress to its junction with the northwestern corner of the tower courtyard, near the staircase. The excavations exposed the upper face and western side of an ashlar wall (W1032). This wall creates a corridor between the fortress and the eastern pool. It, too, was deliberately dismantled; a number of openings were breached, the stones put to secondary use in the Byzantine period. Nevertheless, the tower continued in use during and after the construction of the fortress walls. The tower and walls were a single unit, but were erected in two building phases: first the tower, then the adjoining fortress.

The Southern Wing This wing abuts the fortress’s southern wall (W1001), and includes three halls. Its western section consists of a large, square room. Its eastern section consists of two broad halls separated by a long, narrow room, measuring ca. 7.6×2.8 m. A row of built arches

[124]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

bearing the second-story floor traversed the halls and the narrow room from east to west. The halls were constructed using ashlars dressed on both sides and well plastered. Their openings, ca. 1.2 m wide, were located near the rooms’ corners (Fig. 25). Judging by archive photographs, the eastern hall, 10.00×7.60 m, had three square windows, which partially survived, in the northern wall (W1008). British surveyors surmised that an oil press was installed in this room (see below). Two trial squares were dug here. The northern square exposed the opening in full (L39) and part of the floor. Two occupation stages were discerned in this locus: a floor of smoothed fieldstones embedded in a fill of soil and plaster (F1; 20–30 cm thick), laid directly over a leveled bedrock floor, served the room in its first stage (F2). Small stone slabs and a fill of packed earth were used by the builders to even the natural cavities in the bedrock surface. The room contained two pilaster bases. The eastern one was actually a rectangular bedrock shelf, 0.90×0.70×0.60 m, jutting westward from the hall’s east. A 0.60 m-wide band of white plaster above this shelf attests to the contact point between arch and wall. The second pilaster base, 0.85×0.70×0.30 m, was discovered 2.15 m to its west.

The west of the hall was fully exposed. Three phases of use were discerned: At first, the hall was a large space, 10.80×7.60 m, paved in white mosaic (F25) and traversed by a row of arches running from east to west (Fig. 26). Two stone pillars, 1.70×0.60×0.55 m, 2.90 m part, were found in situ; they bore one of the arches. The wing’s western section consisted of a large room. Practically square, 8.00×7.60 m, this room was apparently originally a corner watchtower that overlooked the summit’s western and southern slopes. Another story was discerned beneath it, and, according to the photographic record, it also bore an upper story; so that the structure in the complex’s southwestern corner rose to a height of at least three stories. The collapse of the western wall did not damage it, and it continued in service during later phases. Its opening, 1.20 m wide, was located in its northern wall, near the northwestern corner. The ceiling rested on arches, which did not survive. A hewn pillar base, 0.65×0.45 m, was found near the eastern wall (W1014), and the segment of a stone column was observed near the middle of the western wall (W1002). The floor was paved in mosaic; a few traces of it were extant near the eastern pilaster base.

Fig. 25. Southern wing, southeastern hall, view from the northwest (courtesy of IAA).

[125]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

F25 384.06 385.96

F24

W3001

1

W1010

385.27

1 F23

W1001

L309

W1012

0

1-1

388 00 387 00

3 m

W1012

W1001

386 00 385 00 384 00

W1010

L309

F23 F25

W3001

F24

383 00

Fig. 26. The west of the western hall in the southern wing, plan and section.

The Courtyard

The Eastern Wing

The courtyard in the center of the fortress was paved in a mosaic of crude, medium-sized tesserae: F6, 20–30 tesserae per sq. dm; and F3, 50–60 tesserae per sq. dm. It was partially integrated into the bedrock floor. The courtyard’s dimensions are unclear; at this phase, however, it probably extended over the fortress’s entire center, ca. 30×15 m. It was bordered in the north and west by the building’s wings, which were partially exposed (see below). Hewn stairs joined the courtyard and tower opening.

The eastern wing adjoined the fortress’s eastern wall (W1032). Part of this wing was evidently built to sumptuous and exacting standards, and considerable portions were paved in mosaic. Two rooms were exposed in the northeast of the wing (Fig. 27). At this phase, the southern room was a washroom. Rectangular in plan, 10.30×5.00 m, it had five openings. Two were in the eastern wall (W1032): the northern one was 1.20 m wide, the southern one (not excavated), 1.00 m wide. They

[126]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

1

F30

W3005

W3004

L318

W1032

F26

L322

F26

W3002 F27 W1031

W3007

F29

0

1

387 00

3 m

1-1 386 00

W1032

385 00 384 00

F30

F26

F28

383 00

Fig. 27. Two northern rooms in the eastern wing, detailed plan and a section.

[127]

F27

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

joined the room with a corridor in the east. Another opening, in the south, was 1.20 m wide; it led to an unexcavated narrow corridor paved in white mosaic (F27). A 1.50 m-wide opening in the southern end of the western wall (W3004) led to the extension of the unexcavated residential wing in the west. A further opening, 1.40 m wide, in the north of the room (W3005), led to the watchtower in the north. At this phase, the room was paved in a white mosaic (F26) of medium-sized tesserae, 20–30 per sq. dm. The southern part of this floor, damaged by the later walls of the northern chapel (W3002), was repaired following their erection. A long, wide bench, 6.30×1.20 m, was built along the east of the room; it abutted a bedrock step jutting from the bottom of the eastern wall, and in which a rectangular basin was hewn, 1.00×0.45×0.40 m deep (L318). A narrow, plastered channel (L322), 2.90 m long, fed the basin with rainwater from the drainage system, probably built into the wall in the east (W1032). Another, shorter channel at the basin’s northeastern end conducted excess water out of the room. The northern room probably functioned as a watchtower. It measured 5.00×3.60 m, was poorly preserved, and its plan remains unclear. It was divided from the room in the south by a short wall (W3005), 5.00×0.70 m, extant to a height of one ashlar course. In its middle a wide threshold had been carved into the top of two stones of the wall’s foundation course. The room was paved in a white mosaic (F30) consisting of medium-sized tesserae, 30–40 per sq. dm. In the northeastern corner was a hewn cistern that was not excavated. This level apparently represents the ground floor of the tower, whose original function, guarding and controlling the approach to the northern gate, was rendered superfluous with the dismantling of the northern wall (W1003, see above). Its subsequent function is unclear.

dated to the site’s foundation, at the end of the Late Roman period (late fourth to early fifth century). The tower’s northern room floor was only extant fragmentarily, mainly along the walls (F20; see above, Fig. 6). Its carpet consisted of four colors: gray, two shades of red, and off-white. The mosaic margins consisted of horizontal rows of off-white tesserae, the carpet frame, of straight rows of alternating red and off-white tesserae. The carpet field was adorned with rosettes, each consisting of four oval petals (J4*), creating lozenges with concave sides between them. The artisans employed medium-sized tesserae (55–65 per sq. dm) in the carpet. The most impressive and colorful carpet from this phase, found in the eastern wing (F12), was adorned with geometric patterns (Fig. 28). It was cut in the north and south by the second phase chapel walls, continuing underneath the bottom course of the later eastern wall W1027 (F37) beneath a second phase mosaic floor (F16). The carpet margins in F12 consisted of white tesserae in horizontal rows.9 The frame comprised

Mosaic Floors The mosaic floors dating to this phase were discovered in the tower, in the rooms of the southern and eastern wings, and in the courtyards. They were of white tesserae laid in diagonal rows, with three horizontal rows along the walls. The tesserae were large and medium sized: 10–20, 30–40, and 50–60 per sq. dm. Based on the architecture, these white mosaics were

Fig. 28. Mosaic floor (F12) in situ.

[128]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

0

Fig. 29. Mosaic floor (F12).

[129]

20

40

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

two decorated bands bordered on either side by three rows of white tesserae between two rows of black. The outer band, 0.20 m wide, was adorned with a wave pattern (B8*) in red.10 The inner band, 0.10 m wide, was adorned with a guilloche (B2*). The field, 3.00×2.95 m, was decorated with a medallion enclosed by an octagon surrounded by geometric shapes, including squares, lozenges, and triangles (Fig. 29). The medallion, 1.50 m in diameter, was bordered by a single row of black tesserae, while its background was of red tesserae. It contained a design consisting of three bands11: the first is a guilloche in red, yellow, and black; the second is a row of lozenges in alternating yellow and red against a white background (A15*)12; the third consists of two strips (A2*) in yellow and black divided by a single row of white. In the middle of the design is a circle enclosing a ten-pointed star,13 which is of white tesserae against a red background. The geometric shapes around the central medallion contain eight square panels, each measuring 0.50×0.50 m, enclosed by a frame comprising three rows of white tesserae and a row of black. The squares are decorated with four patterns arrayed in opposite pairs around the octagon. The decorations consist of a circular guilloche band containing a cross,14 a guilloche pattern (B6*), rows of zigzags, and a design which replicates the one in the central medallion. Lozenges, 0.90×0.40 m, are located in the carpet corners. Two lozenges are adorned with a rosette whose lanceolate petals are double and single.15 The petals are of yellow tesserae, save for those at the ends, which are red. One lozenge is adorned with interlacing concentric circles. Its tesserae are yellow and red. On either side of the circle are three buds of red and black tesserae against a white background. Another lozenge is decorated with six volutes of red tesserae. The eight obtuse triangles, 0.85×0.45×0.45 m, have delicate floral decorations. The four acute triangles, 0.50×0.50×0.40 m, are adorned with an arch with a lanceolate petal at the top. One of the arches is adorned with a wine goblet. For most of this mosaic’s patterns, the craftsman used 110–120 tesserae per sq. dm; for the inner circle, 165 tesserae per sq. dm. Based on its concentric composition and decorative motifs, this mosaic carpet has been dated to the Late Roman period (fourth to fifth centuries CE).

Fig. 30. Mosaic floor (F37) under the second phase mosaic floor (F16).

The northwestern corner of the carpet was carelessly repaired with tesserae, 25–30 per sq. dm, in uneven shades of white and red. The repair was dated to the second phase of the site, from the sixth century CE. In the lower level of the eastern room of this wing, a mosaic carpet was partially exposed (F37) beneath the second-phase mosaic (Fig. 30). Its margins and frame have not yet been cleared. The field revealed overlapping octagons, each formed of a central square surrounded by four hexagons. The octagon grid consists of two rows of red tesserae bordering a single row of light orange. These mosaic floors (F12, F37) are the earliest of the decorated mosaics discovered so far at this site.

PHASE II—THE BYZANTINE MONASTERY In the second phase, substantial structural changes were introduced when the site was converted into a monastery (see Fig. 2). These mainly affected the central courtyard, where chapels were constructed

[130]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

(see below), as well as a western residential wing, of which a row of rooms was exposed south of the northern gate. As a result, the courtyard’s area was apparently divided into two separate courtyards: one in the south, the other in the north. The northern defensive wall was dismantled, its stones reused in building the chapels. The western defensive wall had apparently already collapsed at the end of the Late Roman period, and another was built slightly east of its original line, thus reducing the complex’s area. Another change affected the eastern corridor north of the tower, where square, arch-bearing pillars were placed (the arches are no longer extant), and square sockets were hewn into the corridor’s eastern wall.

The Tower In the Byzantine period, during the course of the seventh century CE, the tower was transformed into a residential structure.Alow wall (W2002), 3.60×0.60 m, built over the original mosaic floor and part of the capstone, traversed the northern room; a new opening, 0.70 m wide, afforded access to the tower’s northeastern room, 4.00×3.70 m (see above, Fig. 6). This wall (W2002) was preserved to a height of three courses, and all of its stones were in secondary use. Its erection enabled the completion of the upper story, which now extended over the rooms mentioned above. The first phase cistern, coated with another layer of whitish-gray plaster, continued in use (judging by the sherds of several storage jars found on its floor). A sounding undertaken along the outer face of the structure’s eastern wall revealed a perpendicular gutter. Made of plaster, it conducted water from the second-story roof to the drainage system (Fig. 31).

The Courtyard As stated above, the courtyard was divided at this phase into two internal courtyards. The southern one, 26×10 m, was partially exposed; it extended across the breadth of the southern wing to the southern chapel. Signs of cutting and repair of the original mosaic (F6, see above) were visible at the various points of contact between the floor and the chapel wall. Other sections of this floor (F3), having been damaged, were restored with mosaic patches of medium-sized white tesserae, 30–40 per sq. dm.

Fig. 31. Tower, eastern wall (W1005) with a perpendicular gutter.

In the east of the courtyard, two similar winepresses (Figs. 32–33) were hewn into the bedrock: the northern one was not excavated. In the eastern side of the southern winepress, two square basins, ca. 0.70×0.50×0.40 m had been hewn; they had drainage holes at their bottoms. To the west was a hewn, square treading floor, 4.90×4.50 m; in its middle was a hewn rectangular socket to accommodate the screw press mortise. Near the southwestern corner was a hewn rectangular hole, 0.60×0.10 m, which drained the pressed must to the hewn settling pit (L9), 0.80×0.70×0.50 m. A short, shallow duct conducted the refined must from here to the square collecting vat (L38), adjacent in the north. This well-plastered vat measured 1.85×1.85×0.90 m. The pit and vat were separated from the treading floor by a single course of ashlars (W1019).

[131]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 32. Winepresses, view from the west.

The northern courtyard, 12.00×8.00 m, was not excavated. It extended southwards from the northern gate, and was probably bordered in the south and east by the chapel complex, and in the west by the rooms erected in the Byzantine period.

1 W1021 F8

L38

W1016

W1018

W1019

W1024

F6

The Chapel Complex

L2 L6

W1007

W1023

F3

W1006

L9

L39

W1008

387 00

1-1

386 00

W1008

385 00 384 00

3

0

1

F8

383 00 382 00

W1016

W1019

L38

L9

Fig. 33. Southern winepress, plan and section. 394 00 W1007

2-2

m

The chapels in the middle of the compound differ in character from the other structures comprising the site. Judging by their mosaics and structural development, they underwent three building stages, all in the Byzantine period (Figs. 34–35). In the first stage, dating to the outset of the second half of the fifth century CE, the southern chapel was erected. In the second stage, dating to the end of the fifth century CE or beginning of the sixth, its apse and bema were shifted to the east and a narthex added in the west. In the third stage, dating to the first half of the sixth century CE, the northern chapel and two intermediate rooms were built. The southern chapel underwent two construction stages (Fig. 36). In the first, its dimensions were modest (ca. 18 m long), and it comprised a hall (F4) and an apse, both mosaic paved (see below). The apse

393 00 392 00 391 00 390 00 389 00 388 00

[132]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

W1032 2 F27

L60

W1033

W1034

F14

W1031

17

10

W 383.96

W3003

F29

383.97

F16

W1028

W3002

W3007

W1020

W1027

F5

W1023

F3

F12

1 W1026

W3008

W3006 F32

W1021

2

W1022

F4 383.35

W1025

F13 W1029 0

Fig. 34. Chapel complex, detailed plan.

[133]

5

m

1

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

1-1

385 00

W1027

W1028

F12

W1023

W1020

384 00 W1022

W1021

F3

F4

383 00

2-2

387 00 W1031 386 00 385 00

W1022

384 00

W1027 W1026

F16

W3008

F12

383 00

W3006

382 00

Fig. 35. Chapel complex, sections.

Fig. 36. Southern chapel, view from the west.

[134]

F32

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

Fig. 37. Southern chapel wall (W1021) and southern courtyard.

mosaic was adorned with a conch-like pattern (F5), and its remains were found beneath the bedding of the second stage apse floor. The chapel’s northern and southern walls and the hall mosaic continued in use in the second stage. In the second stage, as mentioned above, the apse wall was shifted eastwards (W1017), the prayer hall lengthened, and a narthex added (F13). The chapel, now 25.00×8.00 m, was constructed of high quality ashlars. Judging by the abundance of tile fragments in the debris, the entire chapel was apparently covered with a pent tiled roof. The chapel’s southern wall (W1021), 24.00×0.70 m, was entirely exposed. It was extant to a height of one course above the bedrock, and ca. 30 cm over the level of the prayer hall floor, which abutted it in the north. Signs of the two building stages are clearly visible here. The eastern section of the wall consisted of two faces of medium-sized ashlars, both coated in

white plaster. The western section, by contrast, 6.50 m long, and the same width as the narthex, was built of a single face of medium-sized ashlars with traces of white plaster, also visible on the inner side. Its outer side was abutted by one of the courtyard floors (F3; Fig. 37). In the second stage, two new openings were cut into this wall, traces of which show on the plaster and bonding material. The western wall (W1029), 8.00×0.80 m, showed signs of collapse and later restoration. Its opening, 1.50 m wide, was in the middle. The threshold still retained plaster remains, indicating that the original opening was blocked at a later stage, and access to the prayer hall was then provided by lateral entrances in the northern and southern walls. The extant eastern section of the northern wall (W1022) was 0.80 m wide and 25.2 m long, although only the foundation trench was discernible in the west. The wall consisted of medium-sized ashlars and bonding material coated with white plaster on both sides. The two well-built openings in the wall led to two rooms in the north. The chapel was bordered in the east by the apse wall (W1017), well built of ashlars. It was 8.10 m long on the outside, and its width from the threshold was 5.30 m. The wall, extant to a height of four courses, ca. 2 m, was plastered on the inside. Between the apse and the wall’s outer face was a fill of earth and small fieldstones. The narthex, 6.70×2.80 m, was paved in a colorful mosaic (F13) that was damaged in the north due to collapse. It was adorned with geometric designs, the lozenge being the most prominent motif. The room was bordered in the east by a stylobate consisting of dressed stones (W1025); it measured 5.20×0.60 m, and a well-carved stone column stood in its center. The column itself, 3.00 m long and 0.60 m in diameter, was found lying on its side with its top to the east, parallel and adjacent to the northern wall’s inner face. It was apparently toppled on purpose. The narthex floor abuts the stylobate wall in the west, indicating that both were built in the same stage. In the east, by contrast, this wall cuts into the edge of the first-stage prayer hall floor, causing slight damage to its frame. The prayer hall, 13.30×6.80 m, was paved in a large colorful mosaic (F4). Excavations recovered only small fragments of it, as it had been seriously damaged by later agricultural activity. Its carpet was

[135]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

cut by W1025, and part of its frame was missing. The hall was bordered in the east by a built step, 5.00 m long and 0.55 m wide; it had a round, shallow depression, 0.40 m in diameter, in its north, hewn to accommodate a stone colonnette. The wall bearing the chancel screen (W1020), 5.90×0.40 m, extant to a height of one course, divided the prayer hall from the raised bema. A 0.70 m-wide opening breached in the middle of this wall led to the bema, whose floor was no longer extant. Opposite the opening and beneath the second-stage bema floor bedding, a section of colorful mosaic bearing a conch-like decoration was exposed (F5). The carpet was cut and damaged by the erection of the chancel screen wall, which was also shifted to the east. In the third building stage, a wing was added north of the southern chapel; it comprised the northern chapel and two auxiliary rooms lying between the two chapels. The walls of this wing adjoined the southern chapel’s northern wall (W1022). The northern chapel was exposed in full (Fig. 38). It was rectangular, 12.00×5.00 m. Its southern wall (W1028), measured 12.00×0.90 m, and was extant to a height of one course. It consisted of ashlars coated on both sides with white plaster. Two entrances were installed in this wall. Their double-leafed doors afforded access to the two rooms in the south. The partially exposed eastern entrance was 0.90 m wide, the western entrance, 1.10 m wide. The western wall (W1026) was revealed, but not completely exposed. A built threshold of uncertain dimensions was discerned in its center. The northern wall was partially exposed in its east (W3002); it measured 12.00×0.80 m wide, and consisted of medium-sized ashlars dressed on both sides and bonding material. Traces of white plaster were visible on its inner face. The eastern wall (W1031) was only exposed on the inside. It was well preserved to a height of 2.00 m, and carefully coated in white plaster. Some of the plaster fragments in the debris featured a decoration of red circles. The room was paved in a white mosaic, in the middle of which was a colorful carpet and inscription (F29). This enabled us to date the completion of the room’s construction to the end of the first half of the sixth century CE (see below).16 Another wall (W3003) was built in the second stage. Partially exposed, it consisted of stones in secondary

use. It was erected over the mosaic carpet, delimiting the eastern third of the room. In the middle of the wall was an opening without a threshold, whose upper surface revealed short tracts of a hewn groove that accommodated the chancel screen. W3007 was added to this wall in the west. In the middle of the room’s east, overlying the floor and abutting the plaster coat of wall W1031, was a built, carefully plastered bench, which apparently served to exhibit icons. Opposite the bench were seven round depressions that damaged the room’s floor. Four of them formed the corners of a rectangle, possibly marking the four colonnettes of the altar table installed in the room in this stage, and of which white marble fragments were recovered in the excavations. The construction of the chancel screen and the placement of the altar table turned this room into a chapel. The monastery conceivably lodged monks of two different denominations at the same time, necessitating the establishment of separate chapels. Between the chapels were two rooms whose four openings led both north and south. These openings had built thresholds with provisions for narrow double-leafed doors. The walls were plastered, the floors, mosaic paved. The eastern room, one of the pastophoria, was rectangular in plan, 5.90×3.20 m, and well preserved. It had two openings. The first, in the southern wall, was 0.90 m wide, and its stone threshold had sockets for axes at either end, as well as a bolt socket in its middle; it linked the room with the bema level in the southern chapel. The second, partially exposed opening in the northern wall was 0.90 m wide; it led into the northern chapel. There was a built niche in the southern wall adjoining the southeastern corner, at a height of 1.30 m above floor level. Arch-shaped in plan, 0.50×0.30×0.40 m, it revealed traces of plaster. In the northeastern corner was a gutter opening. Built into the eastern wall (W1031), the gutter carried water drained from here via a shallow channel that ran westwards along the northern wall (W1028); it continued as a drain pipe beneath the mosaic floor, and its egress was observed in the room to the west. The pipe opening was plugged by a piece of white mosaic, shaped for this purpose. Two hewn depressions at the base of the room’s southern and northern walls at floor level were designed to accommodate a wooden partition that divided the room in two.

[136]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

Fig. 38. Northern chapel, view from the west.

The totally intact mosaic floor was a white carpet adorned with a grid of lozenges inlaid with squares in red, light gray, and black (F16). Its western section was dismantled for a sounding. Following the sounding, cut 0.40 m into the upper floor bedding, part of an earlier mosaic floor was discovered (F37). The level of this floor is identical to that of F12 to its west. In the northwestern corner of the sounding, a small section

(0.50 m long) of a drainage channel in the room was exposed (L401; 8 cm wide); its sides were of two rows of rectangular stones and plaster. The channel was laid directly over the earlier floor and covered by a single row of flat stone slabs. The western room was used as a passageway. Rectangular in plan, 4.30×3.20 m, it was well preserved. It had three openings. One, in the southern

[137]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

wall (W1022), was 1.10 m wide; its stone threshold had sockets for axes at either end, and another for the bolt in the middle. This opening connected the room with the prayer hall to its south. The opening in the northern wall (W1028) was 1.10 m wide. Fully exposed, it led to the northern chapel. The 0.80 m-wide opening in the western wall (W1026) led to the walled courtyard in the west. A probe beneath the first stage mosaic on the west of the wall dividing the auxiliary rooms (W1027) revealed that this wall was erected directly over the floor, which extended eastwards. Following this discovery, a sounding was dug along the eastern side of this wall. It emerged that the new wing made use of parts of an earlier structure.

Chapel Mosaics The southern chapel has three mosaic carpets that underwent two stages of construction and enlargement. In the first stage, its dimensions were modest, and it comprised a hall paved in a mosaic carpet (F4), and an apse, also mosaic paved (F5). In the second stage the chapel was enlarged and the narthex mosaic added (F13). The first stage mosaic carpet in the apse (F5), adorned with a conch-like pattern, was partially

preserved (Fig. 39). The mosaic margins consisted of white tesserae in diagonal rows. The frame, 0.25 m wide, was adorned with a four-strand guilloche (B4*). The strands, in brick-red, gray, and ocher, were bordered by rows of white, black, ocher, and red tesserae (A2*). The central field was adorned with long strips exhibiting a variation of the conch motif (I8*), divided by a single row of black tesserae.17 The strips consisted of two rows of white tesserae, one of black, and four of another color: gray, brick-red, ocher, and light red. In this mosaic there are 40–50 tesserae per sq. dm. Only few sections of the prayer hall mosaic survived, probably from the first stage (F4); nevertheless, these allow us to offer a conjectural reconstruction. The mosaic, 10.50×5.50 m, had a frame consisting of two bands (Fig. 40). The outer band, 0.85 m wide, had a swastika meander pattern of alternating swastikas and squares (A19*). The carpet field was apparently adorned with an orthogonal pattern consisting of tangentially interloped squares and circles (J2*). In this mosaic there are 100–110 tesserae per sq. dm. The second stage mosaic in the narthex, 5.36×2.25 m, was almost totally intact (Figs. 41–42). Its margins consisted of horizontal rows of white tesserae. The

Fig. 39. First stage apse mosaic floor.

[138]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

0

20

Fig. 40. Remains of prayer hall mosaic floor.

40

Fig. 41. Narthex mosaic floor, view from the south.

0

Fig. 42. Narthex mosaic floor, illustration.

[139]

20

40

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

margins in the west were adorned with a row of indented squares (E*) of black, ocher, and white tesserae. The carpet is enclosed by a frame, 0.54 m wide, comprising three decorative bands. The outer band, 0.12 m wide, consists of two rows of black tesserae separated by three of ocher (A2*), three of white, and one of black. The middle band, 0.30 m wide, is adorned with a double wave pattern (B8*).18 It consists of red tesserae against a white background. The inner band, 0.12 m wide, is adorned with a simple guilloche (B2*) of black, white, red, and ocher tesserae; it also extends into the mosaic field. The field is divided into three quadrangular panels. The northern and southern panels measure 1.24×1.13 m, while the central one is slightly wider, 1.34×1.13 m. Each of the panels is divided by a guilloche band into two main lozenges of identical decoration, with triangles between them and four right-angled triangles in the corners. The southern panel was totally intact. It comprises a pair of lozenges inside a frame of two rows of black tesserae enclosing three rows of white. In the middle, the lozenges are adorned with a pattern resembling a longitudinal rosette in white tesserae bordered by a row of black. The lilies form a white circle in the center surrounded by four leaves in ocher. The red background of the lozenges is inlaid with four circles in white. The four corner triangles, 0.36×0.34×0.14 m, were of red tesserae bordered by a row of black against a white background. The two equilateral triangles, 0.45×0.45×0.30 m, were of ocher outlined in black against a white background. The central panel was also adorned with lozenges, arrayed perpendicularly to those in the previous panel. Each lozenge measured 1.10×0.58 m. In the center of each was a variation of an elongated rosette with alternately double and single lanceolate petals.19 They were of red and white tesserae and outlined in black against a red background. The white circle in the middle of the rosette was surrounded by two rows of black tesserae bordering two rows of ocher. The lozenges’ background was similar to that of the southern panel. Here, too, the space between them was filled with six triangles similar in disposition, but with a color scheme the opposite of that of the previous panel. The northern panel was badly damaged. Based on its vestiges, however, one can infer that it was similar

Fig. 43. Northern chapel mosaic floor after restoration.

in arrangement and composition to the southern panel, described above. The northern chapel was paved with a wellpreserved colorful mosaic, 9.60×4.42 m (Fig. 43), damaged in its northwest. Its field was adorned with medallions formed of intertwining vines springing

[140]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

0

10

20

Fig. 44. Northern chapel mosaic floor inscription.

from an amphora. The spaces between the medallions were filled with grape clusters and vine leaves. A dedicatory inscription was set in the middle of the frame’s west, near the entrance (Fig. 44). The inscription, 1.04×0.58 m, is enclosed by a row black and red tesserae. It comprises nine lines:

[141]

† The Lord God be blessed. In the days of the pious reign of Justinian, 18th year, and of the most holy bishop Apollonius, and the most saintly archimandrite Paul, in the 40th year of his abbacy, this place was brought to completion, in the 8th indiction. Lord, have pity.

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

The final line designates the sixth indiction, which dates the inscription to 544–545 CE.20 Along the carpet margins in the north and south were horizontal rows of white tesserae. The eastern margins were adorned with lozenges in red and white, outlined in black. At the chapel entrance, the margins were adorned with a pattern of squares in diagonal rows in shades of black, ocher, gray, red, and white. The frame, 0.60 m wide, with 60–70 tesserae per sq. dm, was adorned with a guilloche consisting of three interbraided bands; the middle band ran in the opposite direction of those enclosing it.21 These bands were of tesserae in gray and white, red and white, and ocher and white, respectively. The frame was bordered by two strips, one on the outside, the other on the inside, consisting of two rows of black tesserae bordering two rows of white. The carpet field is adorned with vine medallions22 twirling out of an amphora and arrayed in five columns and thirteen rows. The central column is adorned with floral and geometric motifs that end in the tenth row, while the medallions in the four lateral columns are adorned with grape clusters, leaves, and tendrils. The amphora at the center of the first row of medallions consists of gray, red, ocher, and white tesserae (Fig. 45). The outline comprises a single row of black tesserae. To either side of the amphora are triangles. The grapevine stem springing from the amphora is of four rows of red tesserae, comprising the main axis; it divides into two branches that twirl to the sides, creating the medallions. The medallion adjoining the amphora in the south has a woven basket with a grape cluster. A similar basket was possibly also featured on the northern side. The central column has a number of medallions that enclose trees. In the middle of the second row, above the amphora, is a medallion adorned with a pomegranate tree. The medallion in the middle of the third row features a quince tree (Fig. 46). Its trunk divides into three branches, from which leaves and two large fruits hang. The medallion in the middle of the fourth row is adorned with a palm tree, below which are two grape leaves. The medallion in the middle of the fifth row has a citron tree (Fig. 47). The medallion in the middle of the sixth row is adorned with a geometric design that creates a kind of rosette; it consists of eight lozenges separated by

squares. The medallion in the middle of the seventh row has a geometric design consisting of three bands surrounded by a circle (Fig. 48). The medallion in the middle of the eighth row has the same geometric design as that in the sixth. The medallion in the middle of the ninth row is adorned with a tree similar to that in the third row, probably a quince (Fig. 49). The medallion in the middle of the tenth row is adorned with a geometric design consisting of three bands. There is a hexagon in the center of the design. The frame of the medallion in the tenth row is of exceptional color; in contrast to the other frames, which are of only red tesserae, its frame is of red and ocher. The medallions in the lateral columns are adorned with grape clusters, leaves, and tendrils, and display a wide range of colorful combinations. The grape clusters appear in ocher or red with outlines in black or gray, or they appear in white with a red or black tessera in the center and a black outline. Some of the medallions have two clusters, others have three (Fig. 50). The spaces between the medallions were also adorned with grape clusters, while those between the outer medallions and the carpet frame were adorned with indented squares (E*).23 In the carpet corners were rainbow-style patterns in red, black, and white. Several noteworthy features were observed in this mosaic. Adjoining the inscription, the frame guilloche ends in loops; and depictions of animals or humans, characteristic of this mosaic type, are altogether lacking. Two medallions in the eighth and ninth rows of the central axis were damaged by a bonfire in the center of the carpet at a later period. As a result, the tesserae changed color: tesserae that were originally yellow became red, others that were red turned reddish-gray, and the gray tesserae became darker. The room between the chapels displayed a geometric carpet (F16) overlying the first phase mosaic of F37 (Fig. 51). Along its margins were diagonal rows of white tesserae, 25–30 per sq. dm. The frame, 0.10 m wide, consisted of two rows of black tesserae enclosing three rows of white. The carpet field, 3.40×2.26 m, was adorned with a grid of diamonds (H1*) comprising two rows of black tesserae enclosing a row of white. In the center of the

[142]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

Fig. 45. Amphora from the northern chapel mosaic floor.

Fig. 46. Medallion with a quince tree surmounted by a medallion with a palm tree.

Fig. 47. Medallion with a citron tree surmounted by a medallion with a rosette.

[143]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 48. Medallion with an interlace design surmounted by a medallion with a rosette.

Fig. 49. Medallion with a quince tree surmounted by a medallion with interlace design.

Fig. 50. Grapevine medallions.

[144]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

Paved in a white mosaic floor (F35) of mediumsized tesserae, it had two openings. In the east was a massive wall (W4007), of which only the western face was exposed. A ca. 1 m-wide opening had been cut near the room’s northeastern corner, but was not excavated. The second opening was located in the western wall (W4005). Its 1 m-wide threshold was extant, and consisted of a single course of building stones in secondary use. Two parallel walls delimited the room: the one in the south (W4006) was 5.00 m long and 0.65 m wide, and traces of white plaster were visible on its northern face; the wall in the north (W4009) was extant for 2.80 m, and was 0.70 m thick. Although exposure of additional rooms to the north, south, and west of this room was initiated, the rooms’ functions remain unclear.

The Eastern Corridor The eastern corridor lies between the eastern pool and W1032, and north of the tower (see above, Fig. 1). Square pillars supported the arches (which were not extant), and square recesses, 2.60 m high, were hewn into the eastern wall (W1032), above Floor F17, to support the roof. Fig. 51. Eastern room, upper level mosaic floor (F16), view from the east.

diamonds were indented diamonds (E*) delimited by a row of black tesserae, the spaces filled alternately with red and black tesserae. The northern chapel mosaic, including its inscription, and the upper mosaic in the eastern room are dated to the end of the first half of the sixth century CE. A white mosaic floor was discovered north of the northern gate (F10); it was inlaid with crosslets of red tesserae, and enclosed by a frame of three rows (A2*) of red and blue tesserae. This floor covered a constructed channel dating to the Byzantine period.

The Western Wing A row of rooms erected in the Byzantine period was partially exposed in the northwest (Fig. 52). One of the rooms was fully excavated. In the first phase, its plan was nearly square, 6.20×4.70 m.

Water Installations The site’s water installations were exceptional in terms of both size and state of preservation. As stated above, in the Byzantine period, the quarries east of the site were converted into plastered pools to retain runoff rainwater. This involved maximal utilization of the topography and natural slope, which dipped to the west, to conduct water to the agricultural fields adjoining the site in the north and west. The eastern pool (Fig. 53), located north of the watchtower, was the largest water installation, draining run-off rainwater from the exposed bedrock surface in the east. It measured 33.50×10.50×5.00 m, and was coated with pinkish-red hydraulic plaster. Judging by traces of the water line in the plaster, it held approximately 1,000 cubic m. The northern and eastern walls were carefully hewn to their full height; the southern and western walls, by contrast, were of ashlars that rested on the gradation terrace hewn in the first phase in the Late Roman period. The

[145]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

F10 L53

W1003

W4005

F11

F34 W4009

W4008

W4007

F35

W4006 F36 0

Fig. 52. Northern gate of the compound and the western wing, detailed plan.

[146]

3 m

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

exposure of the junction between the pool’s southern and western walls (W2004 and W1015, respectively) near the tower’s northeastern corner dates the pool to the site’s second phase, in the Byzantine period (see above, Fig. 6). These walls clearly abutted the tower (Fig. 54). The pool floor was coated in white plaster laid directly over the bedrock. A trial square dug in the northwestern corner of the pool uncovered a stone frame consisting of small, well-plastered fieldstones. The hewn valve opening was hewn adjoining the northern end of the western wall (Fig. 55). The valve served to control the water flow to the pools in the north. Completely intact, the valve consisted of well-dressed stones on the west of the opening. Water flowed through a long, narrow aperture, 0.10 m wide and 0.25 m in its preserved length, into the installation’s built section, which measured 1.60×1.10 m, its height extant to 1.50 m. From there, water was diverted via a hewn channel, 1.00×0.12×0.20 m, to the complex’s northern and western wings. The

installation also fed the northern pools by equalizing the water level in the container with that of the channel running between these pools. The two carefully hewn northern pools, unexcavated, were identical in dimension: 11.50×5.00 m; their visible depth was 2.00, and their joint capacity, 250 cubic m. Divided by a hewn 1.00 m-wide wall a shallow channel, 10 cm wide and 10 cm deep, was hewn into its upper end; it was partially covered with stone slabs. The channel level was of equal height to the valve issuing from the eastern pool, and the channel led to the outer regulation installation, hewn in the north, which diverted the water to the agricultural plots. Adjoining the northern face of the northern gate, a built water channel was exposed. Measuring 4.30×0.20×0.15 m, it was paved in small stone slabs overlaid with a white mosaic floor of mediumsized tesserae. The well-plastered channel dipped gently into the installation responsible for settling, regulating, and conducting water in the west. It

Fig. 53. Eastern pool, view from the south.

[147]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 54. Eastern pool, western wall, and tower, view from the north.

measured 1.80×1.00×0.80 m, and was carefully coated in reddish-pink plaster. From here the water proceeded through an opening, 8 cm in diameter, in the installation’s western wall, to a similar installation ca. 13 m to its southwest. The unexcavated pool southwest of the complex appears to be detached from the system described above, and was evidently already in use in the Late Roman period. Mostly hewn and plastered, its internal dimensions were 10.00×8.50×4.00 m. Its estimated capacity was about 350 cubic m. Both faces of the western and part of the northern wall were of ashlars and bonding material. Descent into the pool was via ten hewn plaster-coated steps adjoining the eastern wall. Here, in the middle of the wall, were traces of an incised Maltese cross enclosed by a circle 30 cm in diameter. A hewn channel conducted water from the southern gate to the pool; it apparently drained water from the outer face of the southern wall. In the Byzantine period, two arcosolia tombs were carved into the channel, precluding its further use.24 About 7 m south of the wall’s southwestern corner, they were unexcavated. The hewn opening of the eastern tomb, 1.70×0.60 m, was surrounded by a shallow channel for rainwater drainage. The tomb

Fig. 55. Eastern side of valve, view from the east.

[148]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

itself had two arcosolia (in the north and south), each with a hewn burial pit. The western tomb was similar in plan, but its opening was narrower and longer, 2.00×0.50 m; it had a single arcosolium in its north. The stones blocking the openings were not recovered.

PHASE III—EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD Between the end of the Byzantine and beginning of the Islamic period, the monastery went out of use. As excavations produced no signs of conflagration or deliberate destruction, the complex apparently was transferred intact into the hands of the new Muslim rulers. A number of minor changes were introduced into the tower, courtyard, halls, and some of the rooms. The main change was an oil press that was integrated into the complex.

The Tower The tower was still in service in the Early Islamic period. The staircase in the southwestern room was dismantled, its stones put to secondary use in a new, broader staircase, 1.10 m wide, preserved to a height of five steps, 1.05 m. The space created underneath was well plastered, and served to store food, as a storage jar, cooking pot, and flask were discovered on its floor.25 In the southwestern corner of the northeastern room, a squarish pillar, 0.70×0.65 m, preserved to a height of 1.20 m, was erected on the floor (F19); it supported a built arch that did not survive, but which rested directly on the wall in the east. The tower’s continuous use ceased at the end of the ninth century CE.

Oil installations As mentioned above, other changes were undertaken at the site in the Early Islamic period. The winepresses in the southern courtyard went out of use. The collecting vat of the southern winepress (L38) was enlarged to a depth of 1.90 m and converted into a drainage pit. The settling pit was filled with earth and small fieldstones and covered with stone slabs. The northern winepress floor was paved in flagstones (F8), characteristic of the Early Islamic period. The hewn stairs leading to the watchtower were blocked when

the narrow space east of the chapel was filled with earth and rubble. Walls of stones in secondary use (W1023, W1024) were carelessly constructed over the floor of the southern courtyard. A retaining wall was built in the southeastern corner of the southern chapel (W1035), apparently due to the existent walls’ poor condition. A sounding in the central room of the southern wing revealed that renovations were undertaken at this phase, following the deterioration of the roof and the original floor. These included repaving the floor’s damaged sections with irregular stone slabs (F24) and constructing new arches in the room to replace the wooden beams, which had decayed. Pillars of dressed stones in secondary use were set against the bases of the original arches in the north and south, directly over the remains of the mosaic (Fig. 56). The northern wall (W1010) was dismantled to a height of one course and rebuilt; a new opening, 1.10 m wide, was breached 4.50 m west of the original one. It was carelessly built of doorposts and a lintel in secondary use, but was totally intact. To its west, inside the hall, a revetment (W3001), 4.00×0.85 m, was erected, as well as a step (L309), 2.10×0.70×0.40 m, which apparently belonged to a staircase leading to a second story. At this phase that room was evidently partitioned, creating two rooms for residential use. Oil production installations were found in a room south of the northern gate and in the southeastern room of the southern wing. A crushing installation was constructed in a room from the second phase, south of the northern gate. Stone slabs with grooved surfaces (L403), 1.00 m wide, set into the original mosaic, marked the circuit, 2.00 in its inner diameter, followed by the beasts of burden activating the device. The crushing basin was placed in the middle of the circuit, on the room’s original floor (F35). The northern wall (W4009) was dismantled to the floor level, probably to enable entry of the basin into the room. Four archbearing pillars for the roof were built over the floor against the eastern and western walls; three were discovered in the course of excavations. The crushing basin was not found. A pressing installation was affixed in the southeastern room of the southern wing (Figs. 57–58).

[149]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 56. Central room of the southern wing, eastern pilaster, view from the west.

North-south in orientation, it is of the lever-screwand-cylindrical-weight type. The device and its floor (F31) were hewn into the original floor, lowering its level by some 0.1 m. A rectangular depression (L304), 1.00×0.95×0.50 m, was hewn into the hall’s southern wall; it had two round sockets, 10–12 cm in diameter, for anchoring the beam. In the north of the room a cylindrical stone weight (L301), 1.15 m in diameter and 1.20 m high, was set in a depression, 1.45 m in diameter and 0.55 m deep, hewn into the bedrock floor (L306). In the center of the weight’s upper surface, a socket, 0.30 m in diameter and 0.22 m deep, had been carved, as well as two elongated sockets in its outer face, to accommodate the anchorage poles for the screw device. Between the southern wall and the weight was a round, plastered crushing bed (L302), 1.00×0.90 m, linked to the hewn collecting vat, 0.90 m in diameter and 0.45 m deep, at the bottom of which lay a round, shallow settling pit, 0.30 m in diameter. Due to deterioration and a crack in

Fig. 57. Pressing installation, view from the north.

the bedrock, the collecting vat was later narrowed, its volume reduced by half (Fig. 59). Between the weight and the vat two rectangular shallow sockets were hewn to receive poles stabilizing the beam. This pressing installation was in service during the eighth and ninth centuries CE. Possibly, its present position was not the original one, and it was nearer the crushing basin in the room south of the northern gate. Following extensive research devoted to the oil presses in the area of Benjamin and western Samaria, as well as a general reappraisal of such presses in the Early Islamic period, one can infer that an additional pressing device was installed in one of the complex’s other rooms, but has not yet been found.26 This phenomenon of oil presses being introduced into sites whose structures had survived until the period under discussion is recurrent in the regions of Benjamin and Samaria.27

[150]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

1

L39

W1008

L301 L306

W1000

W1009

384.37 384.87

L302 384.08

F31 L304

W1001

1 392 00 391 00

3

0

1-1 W1001 W1000

390 00 389 00 388 00

W1008

387 00 386 00 385 00

m

L301 L302

384 00 L306 383 00

Fig. 58. Pressing installation, plan and section.

[151]

F31

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Fig. 59. Pressing installation, collecting vat, view from the northeast.

PHASE IV—THE MAMLUK PERIOD As stated above, occupation of the compound during this period was seasonal rather than continuous, evinced in the division of the halls into dwelling rooms and the introduction of cooking ovens. In the tower, changes were introduced in the northeastern room (see above, Fig. 6). Its size reduced by the careless construction of short internal walls, it now measured 2.10×1.80 m. The southern wall (W2005), completely exposed, was 2.30 long and 0.75 m wide. Built directly over the room’s original floor, it consisted of fieldstones and small and medium ashlars, all in secondary use. The room was thickened in the west with a massive reinforcement, 1.20–1.35 m wide, with stones in secondary use. The opening was narrowed (it measured 0.55 m at this phase), and a flat, partially dressed fieldstone was laid over its original threshold. This stone led to a short staircase comprising three low steps that descended into the room. The room level was raised at this phase by 0.15 m, and a layer of packed earth served as its floor; it yielded a modern artifact, indicating that this was the only room in the fortress in use practically until the present. The level of the central room in the southern wing, which was divided into two rooms, was raised by the introduction of a packed-earth floor and small flagstones (F23). A round ceramic tabun, 0.60 m in diameter, was installed next to the room’s southwestern corner. Near the southern end of the western wall (W1012)

another opening, perhaps a window, 0.80 m wide, was breached to ventilate the room. It was carelessly constructed, but a stone doorpost in secondary use, one course high, was still extant on its north. The opening was later blocked by medium-sized fieldstones and ashlars, all in secondary use. The crushing installation in the room of the northern wing had ceased functioning before this phase. A short wall (W4008), 4.50 m long and 0.40 m wide, was carelessly built between the two northern pillars; it partially covered the circuit followed by the beasts of burden. The room’s dimensions were reduced to 5.70×4.70 m, its use, now apparently residential. A new structure was built in the east of the southern courtyard, raised over the winepress floor. In the east, this structure was supported by the foundations of the tower’s western wall (W1007); in the north, by the southern wall of the southern chapel (W1021); and in the south, by the northern wall of the eastern room of the southern wing (W1008). It was divided into three rooms, two in the south and one in the north. The structure’s entrance, in the west, consisted of two walls (W1023, W1024) erected over the southern courtyard’s earlier mosaic floor; in its careless construction, stones in secondary use were employed. Between the walls was an opening, 0.90 m wide, leading to a narrow, elongated courtyard (9.00×2.00 m), which afforded access to the southeastern room of the southern wing, evidently still in partial use in this phase. A short wall bordering the northern section of the courtyard in the east was built directly over the flagstone floor (F8) that covered the northern winepress. At the northern end of this wall, which consisted of small and medium-sized fieldstones extant to a height of one course, was the opening, 1.05 m wide, to the northern room. A threshold in secondary use was laid over the flagstone floor dating to the Early Islamic period. This room, 8.20×3.00 m, was separated from the southern rooms by a wall with two faces (W1016); its northern face was carelessly constructed of building stones in secondary use and its southern face consisted of small fieldstones and bonding material. A 1.30 m-wide opening was fixed in the wall; its broad threshold and one course of its eastern doorpost were extant, both in secondary use. A wall of similar construction was erected on the

[152]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

west of the southeastern room, while an additional face (W1018) was added to the ashlar winepress wall (W1019) in the east. The remains of four pilasters were set in the corners of this room, and it appears that the roof was sustained by four arches, no longer extant. Traces of plaster on the room’s walls indicate they were coated. The other two rooms were apparently unroofed. The southwestern room was evidently used to accommodate waste. A narrow opening, 0.80 m wide, was fixed in the low ashlar wall on the west of the drainage pit (L38), providing for its ongoing use in this late phase.

A Dwelling Cave and Hermit Cells The cave, unexcavated, is situated at the top of a cliff west of the complex and at a lower altitude—353 m above sea level (Fig. 60). A narrow footpath leads to it from the western pool. It was created naturally by karstic action, and adapted to residential use. It has two levels: the upper one, 15×12 m, is irregular in

plan, and its entrance, 11.00 m wide and 4.00 m high, is in the northwest. It was blocked by a partially extant fieldstone wall with a 1.50 m-wide opening, whose vestiges were discerned near the western corner of the cave. Amidst the debris in the cave were small mosaic fragments and plaster bedding, apparently indicating that the floor was mosaic paved, at least in part. In the cave’s southwestern wall, near the opening, was a small hewn hermit’s cell, 3.00×2.50 m. A wall of small fieldstones and plaster had been erected in front of it. The wall’s opening, 1.10 m wide, in the east, was partially extant. In the south was another hewn hermit’s cell, 5.50×3.50 m. It was unexcavated, but its plan was rectangular, and its hewn opening, 0.90 m wide, faced the north. Next to it, in the northeast, was a prayer niche, 2.00×1.50 m, hewn over a raised and leveled surface. In the east, next to the niche, was a spring. A baptismal font was set opposite its outlet, while excess water was drained from the cave by means of a shallow channel running parallel to the three steps leading to the cave’s opening in the west. To its south and adjoining the wall were three hewn

Fig. 60. Cave, niches hewn into cave interior, view from the west.

[153]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

steps that led over a gently sloping intermediate level to the lower one. The lower level, 9.00×8.00 m, was smaller, and its natural opening, 7.50 m wide, also faced northwest. Here, too, a wall was erected; it was built of fieldstones in secondary use, and its broad opening was 1.80 m wide. This debris-filled area was not excavated. Y. Hirshfeld believed that this level served as the burial chamber for the monastery’s priests.28 But excavation results in the complex make it is difficult to accept this suggestion, especially considering the paucity of Byzantine finds.

Pottery The ceramic assemblage is mainly Byzantine and Early Islamic; only a few sherds can be ascribed to the Late Roman period. The abundance of storage jars of various types (some 80% of the entire assemblage) indicates that the site’s main function was the production of wine during the Byzantine period, and the production of olive oil in the Early Islamic period. Domestic vessels, such as bowls, kraters, lamps, etc., were found in smaller amounts, implying that the number of residents was limited throughout the site’s span of occupation.

Summary The fortress at Deir Qalʿa probably belonged to the wide-ranging network of fortifications and permanent military posts extending across southwestern Samaria. Its purpose was to secure state territory and watch over secondary roads in the interior. The fortress, including the tower, walls, courtyard, and rooms in the wings, were all erected in this phase. Standardized principles were applied in its planning and technical execution, and the fortress’s construction can be dated to the Late Roman period, specifically to the fourth and first half of the fifth century CE. The secular mosaic floor of the first phase, dated to the same period, shows that the fortress was not originally built as a monastery, as scholars had surmised. The striking paucity of Late Roman finds raises questions about the operation of the fortress in this phase. Nevertheless, the impressive appearance of the

tower, the massive bolting devices in its entrance, the narrow windows, the walls and gates, and the internal cistern leave no doubt as to its military function. Furthermore, towers and structures of similar form and featuring the same modes of construction have been surveyed in Deir Qalʿa’s immediate vicinity. The profusion of like structures within the limited geographical reach of southwestern Samaria, combined with the scarcity of finds from these sites, demands an explanation. This can be derived from the character of the troops operating these towers and the purpose for which the towers were erected. Cavalry or infantry units patrolling the area would not carry pottery or glass vessels, owing to their weight and fragility. Other utensils, of leather or wood, would be more suitable under such conditions. But these are perishable, and thus rare among the finds. In addition, the short distances between the towers and fortresses facilitated daily movement between them, affording optimal control and surveillance over the entire district surrounding the passages over Naḥ al Shiloh and the secondary roads leading to the interior. Since the fortress tower rose over its environs and was seen from afar, its basic purpose was to proclaim the owner’s tenure of the land. This did not require permanently occupied strongholds, and the finds would accordingly be minimal. In the Byzantine period, when the site was transformed into a monastery, the land remained in the state’s possession, and the number of monks was small. The hallmark of this phase was the erection of chapels, undertaken by the government. The monks supervised the area to which they were assigned until the Muslim conquest, when their economic and administrative ties to the retreating Byzantine authorities were cut, and the monastery was abandoned. The chapels in the heart of the fortress and the large water installations were added in this phase, dated from the second half of the fifth to the first half of the seventh century CE. The character of the site changed and it was transformed into a monastery. In the third phase, beginning with the Muslim takeover towards the end of the first half of the seventh century and ending in the tenth century CE, the complex was entirely under the control of the new regime, and an oil press was installed there. The site was apparently only sparsely occupied during the

[154]

A L AT E R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT D E I R Q A L ʿ A

periods under discussion, as attested by the relatively modest total of artifacts produced by excavations. The main commercial activity following the conquest, centering on the installation of oil presses in already

existing sites, did not bypass the deserted monastery at Deir Qalʿa. In the fourth phase, the site’s sporadic and seasonal use is evinced in the division of the halls into dwelling rooms and the introduction of cooking ovens.

Notes Three seasons of excavations, in May–August 2004, March–April 2005, and September 2005, were conducted at the site on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Their purpose was to expose the tower structure and clarify the relationship between the fortified compound and the site’s Christian monastery. The excavations (License Nos. 1000, 1035, and 1074) were conducted under the direction of Y. Magen and N. Aizik. 2 Guérin 1875: 126–129; SWP II: 315–319; Gophna and Porat 1972: 232–233, Site No. 208; Hirschfeld 2002. 3 Roll and Ayalon 1983–1984. 4 This road continues east in the direction of Kafr ed-Dik. Another secondary road issues from the site and runs along the base of the spur to the northeast. Two short stretches of steps were hewn north of the fortified compound. The road passes an outer tower (which was not excavated) in approaching Kafr ed-Dik. It appears that the tower was designed to watch over Deir Qalʿa and the nearby site of Kh. Deir Samʿan. 5 Figs. 3–5, 8–9, 11, 20–23, 25, courtesy of the IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 46, Deir Qalʿa, Photos. 6 Magen 2008a: 189–195. 7 Deir Samʿan (Magen, “A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan,” in this volume); Kh. Deir Daqla (Guérin 1875: 122; Kochavi 1972: 231, Site No. 206; Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 241– 242); Kh. ʿAli (Kochavi 1972: 233, Site No. 213; Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 243–244); Kh. Banat Barr (Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 258–261); Deir el-Mir (Kochavi 1972: 232, Site No. 207). 8 Magen 2008a: 188. 1

The Patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 10 Prudhomme 1985: 156, Pl. 101:a. 11 Raynaud 2001: 91, Pl. 290:c. 12 Prudhomme 1985: 44–45, Pl. 15:a. 13 Raynaud 2001: 119, Pl. 314:a, c; Ovadia and Ovadia 1987: 248, no. H13. 14 Raynaud 2001: 87, Pl. 286:d, g. 15 Raynaud 2001: 54, Pl. 256:e. 16 Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume. 17 Apse mosaic floor decorated with a conch motif was found at Kh. Tinshemet (Dahari 1998: Pl. iii:6). 18 Prudhomme 1985: 156, Pl. 101:k. 19 Raynaud 2001: 54, Pl. 256:e. 20 Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume. 21 Prudhomme 1985: 125, Pl.75:c. 22 Talgam 1999: 79–80; Ovadia and Ovadia 1987. 23 Prudhomme 1985: 31, Pl. 5:a 24 Similar tombs were found east of Peduel (Aizik and Peleg 2009: 142–143, Tombs 1–2). 25 The pottery of this site will be published in the following JSP series. 26 Magen 2008b. 27 For comparison see sites in western Samaria: Kh. Deir Samʿan (Magen 2008b: 269–271; “A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan,” in this volume); Qedumim (Magen 2008b: 259–265); Kh. Kesfa (Magen 2008b: 275–278); Kh. Shihada (Magen 2008b: 274). 28 Hirschfeld 2002: 181. 9

Rererences Aizik N. and Peleg Y. 2009. “Roman and Byzantine Period Remains to the East of Peduel,” in I. Yezerski (ed.), Excavations and Discoveries in Samaria (JSP 9), Jerusalem, pp. 142–155 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 37*–38*). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem.

Dahari U. 1998. “Ḥ orbat Tinshemet, Church of St. Bacchus,” ESI 18: 67–68. Finkelstein I., Lederman Z., and Bunimovitz S. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures. The Southern Samaria Survey. The Sites (Tel-Aviv University Monograph Series 14), Jerusalem.

[155]

Y. M A G E N A N D N . A I Z I K

Guérin V. 1875. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Seconde partie—Samarie II, Paris. Gophna R. and Porat Y. 1972. “The Land of Ephraim and Manasseh,” in M. Kochavi (ed.), Judea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem, pp. 196–241 (Hebrew). 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, pp. 155–189. Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 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. 177–246. Magen Y. 2008b. “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. 257–344.

Ovadiah R. and Ovadiah A. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel (Bibliotheca Archaeologica 6), Rome. Prudhomme R. 1985. Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque Romaine. Répertoire graphique et descriptif des compositions linéaries et isotropes, Paris. Raynaud M.P. 2001. Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque Romaine II. Répertoire graphique et descriptif des décors centres, Paris. Roll I. and Ayalon E. 1983–1984. “Roman Roads in Western Samaria and Northern Judea,” Israel—People and Land. Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook 1 (19): 131–146 (Hebrew). Talgam R. 1999. “The Mosaic Pavements,” in Y. Hirschfeld, The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem, pp. 107–118.

[156]

GREEK INSCRIPTION FROM DEIR QALʿA LEAH DI SEGNI

+ EULOGI . . . KCOQEOC EPITHCEUCEBOUCBACILS IOUCTINIANOUETOUCIHS 4 KAIAPOLLOUN . . . AGIW TSEPICKSKAIPAU . OUTC OCIWTSARCIMANDRIT . ETOUCMEPITHCHGOUM . 8 AUTOUETELI . QHOTOPOC EPITHCHINDSKEELEHCON .

The inscription is framed within a rectangular panel, 1.04×0.58 m, inserted in the border of the mosaic carpet of the hall (refectory?) north of the church diaconicon.1 The panel frame consists of two rows of tesserae, one black and one pink. Eight rows of pink tesserae separate the nine lines of script. The letters, traced in black tesserae and 4–6 cm high, are a mixture of round and square characters. The abbreviated nomen sacrum in l. 1 is not marked, while that in l. 9 is marked with a horizontal stroke. Stigma is used both as an abbreviation mark and as a diacritical mark to indicate the numerical function of letters in l. 3. In l. 7, another letter functioning as a number is marked with a horizontal stroke, while over another figure, in l. 9, the stroke is reduced to a single black tessera. The text begins with a cross. The inscription reads:

0

4 8

10

[157]

+ Eulogi[tÕj] k(Úrio)j Ð qeÒj.

'Ep‹ tÁj eÙseboàj basil(e…aj) 'Ioustinianoà œtouj ih' kaˆ 'Apolloun[…ou] ¡giwt(£tou) ™pisk(Òpou) kaˆ PaÚ[l]ou t(oà) Ðsiwt(£tou) ¢rcimandr…t[(ou)] œtouj m' ™pˆ tÁj ¹goum[(en…aj)] aÙtoà, ™teli[è]qh Ð tÒpoj ™pˆ tÁj h' „nd(iktiînoj). K(Úri)e ™lšhson.

20

L. DI SEGNI

(cross) The Lord God be blessed. In the days of the pious reign of Justinian, 18th year, and of the most holy bishop Apollonius, and the most saintly archimandrite Paul, in the 40th year of his abbacy, this place was brought to completion, in the 8th indiction. Lord, have pity. The first line of the inscription contains a blessing, which often appears in similar form in the Scriptures. The phrase eÙloghtÕj Ð qeÒj (here spelled eÙlogitÒj with iotacism; another iotacism is ™telièqh for ™teleièqh in l. 8) appears several times in the Epistles, as well as in the Old Testament, and is often quoted in inscriptions.2 It was also an expression current on the lips of monks who, being forbidden to utter even the mildest of oaths, used it as an exclamation to express a wide range of feelings, from thankfulness to God and gladness to surprise and vexation.3 Also the last sentence, “Lord, have pity,” besides being the most common litany used in sacred services and supplications, and a mantra of monastic prayer, was also a spontaneous utterance of religious awe, inspired from the liturgy and the Scriptures (Ps. 51:3 [MT 50:1]; Matt. 9:27), and frequently quoted in inscriptions.4 “This place” must be taken here as meaning “this monastery,” the establishment of which was completed with the laying of the mosaic floor in the long hall, which probably served as a chapter house or refectory. The event is dated in three different ways: the regnal year of Emperor Justinian, the year of the indictional cycle, and the years of the superior’s abbacy. The reign of Justinian began on April 1, 527, when he was proclaimed Augustus, co-emperor with his uncle Justin I, or on August 1 of the same year, when Justin’s death left Justinian sole emperor; therefore the 18th year corresponds to 544/5. The eighth indiction corresponds to the period between September 1, 544 and August 31, 545. The inscription is therefore dated between September 1, 544 and the end of March 545, or rather the end of July if, as is more likely, Justinian’s regnal years were counted from his succession as sole emperor. The date of Paul’s accession to the abbacy was known, of course, to his monks, and we can easily calculate it: he assumed the office in 505/6. Abbots were usually elected from among the members of the community that they were chosen to lead and did not

move from one monastery to another5; it can therefore be surmised that the monastery at Deir Qalʿa could not have been established after 505/6, and might have been established earlier, if Paul was not its founder and first abbot. Paul is given the title of archimandrite. This title has two different meanings: it may be equivalent to hegumen and thus simply apply to the superior of a particular monastery, or it may indicate a higher hierarchical position, that of an abbot who also supervised the monasteries of a particular area.6 The monasteries of the desert of the Holy City were under the supervision of an archimandrite already in the first half of the fifth century; in the second half of the same century the charge was divided between Theodosius the Coenobiarch, as archimandrite of communal monasteries (coenobia), and Sabas, head of the Great Laura, as archimandrite of the lauras (monasteries of hermits) and hermitages all over Palestine. They had two deputies: the former was assisted by the abbot of the Monastery of Martyrius, the latter by the head of the Monastery of Gerasimus, near the Jordan River.7 The arrangement continued after the death of Theodosius (529) and Sabas (532). In 536, at the synod of Constantinople, the monk and priest Hesychius, representative of Sophronius “archimandrite of the Monastery of Theodosius and chief of all the desert of Jerusalem,” subscribed a petition to the emperor on behalf of all the monks and abbots of the desert of Jerusalem and of the three Palaestinae.8 On the same occasion Domitian, abbot of the Monastery of Martyrius, signed as archimandrite in several documents. It is not clear whether the supervising function was still attached to it but this seems likely, for his name comes immediately after that of Hesychius in the long list of Palestinian monks.9 In 553 the abbots of the Great Laura and of St. Theodosius went to the fifth ecumenical council in Constantinople to treat a solution of the Origenist crisis on behalf of all the monks of the desert.10 This arrangement was not unique in the desert of Jerusalem, for we know several regional groups of monasteries subject to archimandrites, .e.g., the monasteries of Constantinople, which were under the leadership of the successive archimandrites of the Monastery of Dalmatius; and in Palestine, those of the Pedias (coastal plain), or of Mount Sinai,

[158]

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N F R O M D E I R Q A LʿA

which were collectively represented in the capital by a single apocrisiarius, a clue of a single leadership.11 An inscription in the chapel of Wadi el-Keniseh on Mount Nebo (late sixth–early seventh century) mentions “the most holy Abraham, hegumen and archimandrite of the whole desert”; as the area belonged to the territory of Madaba, he was probably the superior not of the monasteries of the desert of Jerusalem, but of those of the bishopric of Madaba.12 It is therefore conceivable that Paul, in addition to being head of the monastery of Deir Qalʿa, was also charged with the supervision of other monasteries in the area, or perhaps in the entire bishopric. On the other hand, the title ajrcimandrivthj appears in several inscriptions outside the Judean area that give no grounds for surmising that the man so described

was more than a simple abbot,13 as Paul might also have been. Apollonius was the bishop of Lydda in 518, when he signed the acts of a synod of Palestinian bishops convened in Jerusalem in September. No bishop from Lydda attended the synod of Jerusalem in 536; in fact, Apollonius is the last known bishop of this city until the ninth century.14 The territory of Lydda extended to the northeast, at least up to Thamna15; therefore it is no surprise to find the name of a bishop of Lydda at Deir Qalʿa. The present inscription attests that Apollonius was still alive and in office in 544/5. It would be interesting to know why he was absent from the synod of 536, which was attended by 47 bishops, representing almost all the dioceses of the three Palestine.

Notes I would like to thank the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria for allowing me to publish the inscription from Y. Magen and N. Aizik excavation (License Nos. 1000, 1035, and 1074); see Magen and Aizik, “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume. 2 Felle 2006: 98, no. 129; 492. 3 See for instance John Moschus, Pratum 107, 118, 163, 173, 190, PG 87: cols. 2968, 2982, 3032, 3041, 3069; Vita Georgii Chozibitae 20, Houze 1888: 120. For the avoidance of oaths as a monastic virtue, see Vita Georgii Chozibitae 14, 19, ibid.: 110, 119. 4 Felle 2006: 65, no. 47; 73–74, no. 70; 489. 5 In a monastic network like the Sabaite monasteries, monks of the mother foundation could be chosen to lead a newly founded monastery: cf. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 27, 36, 37, 38, 39, 74; Schwartz 1939: 112, 124, 126, 128, 130, 179; transl. Di Segni 2005: 162, 171, 173–175, 208. However, only under exceptional circumstances would the abbot of a monastery be called to rule another: see Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 88, 196; transl. Di Segni 2005: 219. 6 Cf. Meimaris 1986: 239–240. 7 Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii 16; Vita Sabae 30; Vita Theodosii 4 (Schwartz 1939: 114–115, 239; transl. Di Segni 2005: 91, 165, 254). 8 Libellus monachorum ad Iustinianum, Schwartz 1940: 133–134. 9 Libellus monachorum ad Iustinianum; Libellus monachorum ad synodum; Libellus monachorum ad Agapetum, 1

Schwartz 1940: 36, 50, 145. In the latter, Domitian even appears first in the list, before Hesychius who, although the highest representative of the monks of the desert of Jerusalem, was not an abbot. The hegumen of the Martyrius’ Monastery kept the title of archimandrite throughout the sixth century: Paul, first successor of Martyrius, and a later successor, Genesius, are both called archimandrites in the inscriptions uncovered in the monastery (Di Segni 1990: 153–154, 158). 10 Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 90, Schwartz 1939: 198; transl. Di Segni 2005: 221. 11 Schwartz 1940: 130, 131, 145–146. 12 Di Segni 1998: 448–449. It is worth noting that at the Council of Constantinople of 553 the monks of Palestine were represented, by Conon, abbot of the Great Laura of Sabas, by Eulogius, abbot of the Monastery of Theodosius, and by two others: a stylite named Pancratius, of whom nothing is known, and Cyriac of the Laura, called “The Spring.” Hirschfeld (1990: 49–50, no. 32; 2002: 92–94) identified the latter with the remains of a small laura at ʿEin el-Fawwar in Wadi Qelt, near a once impressive spring, but I suggest that The Spring might have been the laura of Safsafa, founded near the spring where John the Baptist used to baptize (Ainon, across the Jordan), recently discovered in Wadi el-Kharrar, an area included in First Palestine in the Byzantine period (Hirschfeld 2002, 74–75; Di Segni 2005: 221, note 365). The abbot of this laura could have represented the monks of the desert east of the Jordan, or at least those of the region nearest the river, subject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

[159]

L. DI SEGNI

E.g.: in the floor of a church at Bahan, western Samaria (SEG XXXII: no. 1520); in burial inscriptions at Beerot Yizhaq (at the kibbutz’s old location near Gaza; SEG XVII: no. 783, dated 505 CE); at Beit Jann in Galilee (SEG VIII: no. 27); at Shaqqa (Maximianopolis) in the Hauran (Dunand 1932: 406, no. 25); and on stones in secondary use at Squfiyye in the Golan (Gregg and Urman 1996: 46, no. 47) and at Imtan (Mothana) in the Hauran (Dunand 1933: 247, no. 198). It 13

is also worth noting that an abbot might sign documents, sometimes calling himself hJgouvmenoj, sometimes ajrcimandrivthj: see, for instance, the signatures of Cyriac, abbot of the Laura of the Towers, at the synod of Constantinople in 536 (Schwartz 1940: 36, 50, 130, 145). 14 Fedalto 1988: 1026. 15 Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Klostermann 1904: 96.

References Sources Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii; Vita Sabae; Vita Theodosii. E. Schwartz (ed.), 1939. Kyrillos von Scythopolis, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49 ii, Leipzig, pp. 3–85; 85– 200; 235–241. Di Segni L (transl.). 2005. Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Eusebius, Onomasticon, E. Klostermann (ed.), 1904. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, GCS 11 i, Leipzig. John Moschus, Leimonarion seu Pratum spirituale, PG 87: cols. 2851–3112. Vita sancti Georgii Chozibitae auctore Antonio Chozibita, C. Houze (ed.), 1888, AB 7: 95–144, 336–359.

Studies Di Segni L. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Murassas): The Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology: 153–163. Di Segni L. 1998. “The Greek Inscriptions,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds.), Mount Nebo. New Archaeological

Excavations 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 425–467. Dunand M. 1932. “Nouvelles inscriptions du Djebel Druze et du Hauran,” RB 41: 397–416, 561–580. Dunand M. 1933. “Nouvelles inscriptions du Djebel Druze et du Hauran,” RB 42: 235–254. Fedalto G. 1988. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis II, Padova. Felle A.E. 2006. Biblia epigraphica. La Sacra Scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’Orbis christianus antiquus (III–VIII secolo), Bari. Gregg R.C. and Urman D. 1996. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Golan Heights, Atlanta. Hirschfeld Y. 1990. “List of Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology: 1–89. Hirschfeld Y. 2002. The Desert of the Holy City. The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Meimaris Y.E. 1986. Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Church of Palestine, Athens. Schwartz E. 1940. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum III, Berlin–Leipzig.

[160]

THE NORTHERN CHURCHES AT SHILOH YITZHAK MAGEN AND EVGENY AHARONOVICH

Shiloh (Kh. Seilun) is located on the northern end of a spur between Wadi ʿAli in the north and Wadi Musa in the south (see Site Map on p. XIII).* The biblical settlement was situated on a tell. Access to it was most likely from the south because the other sides slope sharply. Later remains, from the Hellenistic to Ottoman periods, cover the top of the tell and the nearby areas, including the southern slope and the plain south of the tell. The site was surveyed1 and excavated2 on numerous occasions. In the beginning of the fifth century CE a Christian village was established at Shiloh. As it was a village, the population continued living there after the Islamic conquest; unlike in the monasteries, which were often abandoned.3 Four churches were uncovered south of the tell, two at its foot, the others further south. The Northern Churches, built one above the other, discovered at the foot of the tell, are the subject of the article (map ref. IOG 17754/16239; ITM 22754/66239).4 The early church is one of the earliest churches excavated in Judea and Samaria, being established in the early fifth century. The other three were established in the sixth century and continued in use until the eighth century. Iron Age and Second Temple period remains were discovered under the churches. The early church has an irregular architectural plan, mandated by the existence of earlier structures (Figs. 1–2). A second church was built over the earlier one, its floor level being some 0.60 m higher. This later church is basilical in plan, with an atrium in the west and an apse in the east. Iconoclastic damage, done following the Islamic conquest, is apparent in the nave mosaic.5 The church was active during the Byzantine and Umayyad periods (sixth to eighth centuries). A baptistery was unearthed southwest of the church. It was established in an earlier Late Roman structure that was contemporary with the early church.

According to the inscriptions found in the baptistery and church floors, both were built by the same church officiaries, Eutonius and Germanus. The baptistery was active in the time of both churches. Remains of an Abbasid settlement were uncovered south and west of the church. The Jamia el-Yeteim maqam 6 was built over the remains of the churches in the Mamluk period.

HISTORY OF THE SETTLEMENT AT SHILOH Khirbet Seilun is identified with the biblical city of Shiloh, an important religious center in Iron Age I; it is related that the Tabernacle stood there, with the Ark of the Covenant (Josh. 18:1; Judg. 21:19; I Sam.1:3, 3:3). During renewed excavations in the early church, a Greek inscription was discovered that referred to the settlement as Shiloh, constituting definitive proof of its identification.7 The city of Shiloh and the Tabernacle were destroyed (Jer. 7:12–14), but Shiloh continued as a settlement until the destruction of the First Temple (Jer. 41:5). During the Second Temple period a rural Jewish settlement occupied the site, as can be learned from the discovery of stone vessels in excavations there.8 In the fifth century a Christian village was established, as attested by the above-mentioned inscription. In the Byzantine period, many sites connected with the life of Jesus and with biblical narratives were sanctified, and memorial churches were established at many of them. Eusebius mentions the presence of the Ark of the Covenant at Shiloh and the fact that Shiloh is 12 miles distant from Neapolis in Acrabattine (ʿAqraba, Onomasticon 156:28). Petrus Diaconus relied on three sources in his work. Sections of one of the sources that did

[161]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

Maqam

Roman period Early Byzantine period Late Byzantine period 0

Islamic period Fig. 1. Shiloh, Northern Churches, construction phases.

[162]

5

m

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 2. Shiloh, Northern Churches, view from the west.

not survive, the “Travels of Egeria,” are preserved in his writings.9 He mentions the ruined Tabernacle at Shiloh and the tomb of Eli the priest, but does not mention a church at the site.10 In the sixth century Shiloh is mentioned by Theodosius and appears in the Madaba Map.11 In his description of holy places, Theodosius mentions no church in Shiloh, only stating that Jerusalem and Shiloh, where the Ark of the Covenant is located, are 9 miles apart, and that Shiloh and Emmaus, in his time called Emmaus Nicopolis, are 9 miles apart.12 These distances are a clear indication that Theodosius confused Kiriath Jearim,13 where the Ark was temporarily placed after the war with the Philistines (I Sam. 1:21; 7:1–2), with Shiloh, the permanent residence of the Ark of the Covenant and of the Tabernacle.

In his Latin translation of Eusebius’ Onomasticon, Hieronymus does not mention a church in Shiloh (Onomasticon 156:28). A letter written by him in 404 CE, sent to Eustochium, daughter of Paula, tells of a trip that he had taken with her mother in 386 CE. According to the letter, during the trip they found the ruined altar at Shiloh; however, there is no mention of the existence of a church there (Hieronymus, Epistle 108).14 Epistle 46, sent to Marcella in the name of Paula and her daughter, but in fact written by Hieronymus, allegedly contradicts Epistle 108. In Epistle 46 Hieronymus invites Marcella to visit the Holy Land and praises its sanctified sites. Among these he notes places of worship at Shiloh, Bethel, and additional sites.15 The Epistle, written in apologetic style, is clearly propaganda for encouraging pilgrimage to the Land

[163]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

of Israel. The Epistle is dated by L. Di Segni to 393 CE, while other scholars date it to 386 CE, close to Hieronymus’ travels with Paula.16 Di Segni treats the contents of Epistle 46 literally, and accordingly dates the erection of the early church to 393 CE. Bishop Eutonius, whose name appears in two inscriptions at the site, is identified by Di Segni with the bishop of Sebaste, who was present at the synod of Lydda in 415. This identification is used by her to argue both for the early date of the establishment of the church and to show that Shiloh was the southernmost village of Acrabattene, which belonged to the territory of Sebaste. The dating of the church to the late fourth century CE seems unlikely. The church’s mosaic floors, architecture, and the historical sources all corroborate the establishment of the church in the early fifth century CE. Though the name Eutonius is rare in the period, it does not necessarily follow that the Bishop of Sebaste and the one mentioned in the inscription are one and the same. In addition, Eutonius is not the highest ranking of the two bishops mentioned in the inscription, but rather Germanus, who it is stated is a country bishop. Furthermore, M. Avi-Yonah suggested that Shiloh was part of Acrabattine, which was part of the district of Neapolis (Onomasticon 4:7, 156:28). This interpretation is more likely, since in the Byzantine period, Sebaste, was a relatively small city and later a village, and farther from Shiloh than the larger Neapolis. Hieronymus’ Epistle 46 describes Shiloh as a place of worship, ostensibly dating the church to the late fourth century CE. Whether the Epistle’s exact date is 386 or 393 CE is still a matter of scholarly debate; however, the fact that Hieronymus does not mention a church in Shiloh in Epistle 108, dated to 404 CE, eleven years after the church was built, according to Di Segni. Hieronymus’ Epistle 46 has a clear agenda: to exalt Christian endeavors and to persuade Marcella to come to Bethlehem. Thus he chose two sacred sites from the Old Testament, Bethel and Shiloh, although in reality, at the time, no church had been established in Shiloh. The Epistle needs to be viewed as propaganda rather than as presenting historical reality. We believe that the church should be dated to the first half of the fifth century.

THE NORTHERN CHURCHES LATE ROMAN PERIOD Only few remains were discerned from this period. A colonnaded street was discovered, south–north in orientation and built prior to the erection of the church (Fig. 3). The remains of the street included a path paved with stone slabs, a portico to its west, and the probable remains of a parallel eastern portico. Also, a building was discovered west of the street. Pottery assemblages from the foundation trench (L592) of the building’s western wall (W418), from the fill under the paved passage (L590) and in Hall L404, under the inscription, attest to the establishment of the street and the building alongside it in the fourth century CE or even earlier. The colonnaded street, including the porticoes, was assumedly 13.7 m wide, and the path, 8.80 m wide. The path was uncovered for a length of 10.10 m and a width of 5.20 m. It was paved with large stone slabs, the longest of which is 2.90 m long. To the north, east, and south, this floor was cut by later construction. The western portico was 1.80 m wide, exposed for a length of some 11 m. It was paved with a mosaic floor of diagonally set rows of white tesserae (49 per sq. dm), bordered along the walls by three straight rows. The portico roofs were borne by columns that stood on stylobates. The columns were not discovered, but negatives of their bases are visible in the western stylobate (W423). A sounding (L216) conducted under the floor of the eastern portico yielded pottery finds dated from the Second Temple period to the second century CE. A building, measuring 11.30×8.30 m, which would later function as a baptistery (see below), was uncovered west of the colonnaded street. The building has three 7.30 m-long halls: the southernmost one is 2.90 m wide (L429), the central one (L404), 4.70 m, and the northernmost one, 2.60 m (L410). The remains of a pilaster integrated in W508 allude to the northward continuation of Hall L410; this part, however, was not preserved due to a later Abbasidperiod construction. Only the lower courses of the building’s walls are Late Roman. These courses are constructed of finely dressed ashlars, a construction style typical of the period. The building’s halls were

[164]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 3. Street ascending to the tell and adjacent structure, view from the south.

paved with diagonally set rows of white tesserae bordered by three straight rows (49–64 per sq. dm). The building was most probably open to the western portico, access to the halls being afforded directly from it. This is apparent in Room L404, where two pillars were discovered at the room’s eastern corners instead of an eastern closing wall. No entrance from the portico to Hall L410 was found. There was no direct passage between the halls in this phase. The opening between the central and southern halls belongs to a later construction phase. The eastern wall was preserved too low to find an entrance in it, but since no entrance from this phase was discovered in any of the other walls of this hall, here, too, it seems that access was from the east. Partial remains of the structure were discovered east of the street. An entrance with a threshold exposed in W39 might have led to a room located east of the street. Channel L152 and Cistern L241 drained

rainwater from the portico roof. This drainage system, together with W29, alongside which the channel was discovered, and F140/141, dated to this phase. These elements are part of a Late Roman structure, and were incorporated into the southern aisle of the early church.

BYZANTINE PERIOD

The Early Church Built east of the Late Roman structure, the church (19.00×18.50 m), is basilical, and consists of a nave, two aisles, and an apse (Fig. 4). Though essentially basilical in plan, it differs from other basilicas. A narthex-like room (L104) led into the church from the north. No atrium was found to the west of the church, as characteristic of churches of this period.

[165]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

W206 688.63

L239

W137

L138

688.28

L103

F238

L150 L151

F158

687.96

W28 688.12

687.75

W29

688.25

W204

W240

W48

W27

W17

688.26

F141

688.51

L128

687.92

L143 L104

687.79

687.76

688.61

L128

L164

W31

L183

688.02 688.08

L143 688.73

L123

L101

W205

688.52

W38

W47

688.09

L187

F140 687.78

W29

L152

688.15 688.30

L182

688.89

W208 W39

L81

W209 688.68

688.52

L76

688.42

W34

L149 0

Fig. 4. Early church, detailed plan.

[166]

5

m

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

The irregular architectural plan of the church was a result of architectural constraints dictated by the existence of a street that predated the church and was diagonal to it. The street limited the church on the west, and the presence of early remains in the area of the church, e.g., W29 and F140/141. The church’s lack of symmetry is apparent in the angulations between the nave and vestibule walls and the wall bounding the structure to the west. Additionally, the southern aisle is longer than the northern one, and the chancel, at the eastern end of the church, is irregular in shape. The early church was considerably damaged during construction at a later phase. Its walls were severely damaged by the construction of the later church. The structure was further damaged in the Mamluk period by the construction of the water cistern (L121) that cut the church’s floors and walls, and by the maqam, the foundations of which were laid over the church floors. However, most of the mosaic floors are well preserved. The church walls were of dressed stones and ashlars, some in secondary use. The walls’ inner faces are coated with white plaster over a bed of sherds. Some of the prayer hall walls were apparently ornamented with frescoes and stucco (see below). The church entrance was from the north (Fig. 5), from a street paved with crushed lime (F155). The 1.95 m-wide entrance set in W31 had a finely fashioned monolithic threshold of ashlar with a protruding boss, in secondary use. Several steps probably led from the elevated entrance to L104. L104, measuring 11.25×2.35 m, has three additional openings (Fig. 6). One, in W28, led to Room L150, east of L104. Two, in its southern wall (W47), provided access to the northern aisle of the prayer hall. Fashioned thresholds were installed in these entrances for doors that opened within into the prayer hall. There might have been an additional opening in the eastern end of W47 that led from L104 to the northern aisle of the prayer hall. This supposition seems reasonable since an entrance was found in the late church at this location, and its existence in the early church would have created a symmetric set of entrances to the prayer hall, as was common. The central entrance in W47 was aligned with the main church entrance, as were two dedicatory inscriptions that were discovered: one in the mosaic floor in

L104, and the other in the floor of the northern aisle (see below). The mosaic floor of L104 consists of a rectangular carpet, measuring 8.45×0.85, divided into three panels adorned with geometric patterns (Fig. 7). The inscription in L104, measuring 1.18×0.61 m, is framed in a tabula ansata enclosed by a 1.49×0.61 m rectangular frame (Fig. 8). The inscription comprises four lines, with letters 7.7–12.5 cm high. The tabula ansata handles are decorated with diagonal rows of red tesserae. Between the tabula ansata handles and the inscription are triangles in red, black, and white tesserae. The inscription reads17: Lord Jesus Christ, have pity on Shiloh and its inhabitants. Amen. Adjoining W47, on the floor of L104, is a depression, 30 cm in diameter and 16 cm deep. It was lined with white tesserae and was apparently made for collecting the dirt when the floor was washed. The prayer hall, whose estimated dimensions are 12.7×10.5 m, consisted of two aisles and a nave. The nave, measuring 10.50×6.65 m, was separated from the aisles by two rows of columns that ended with pilasters on the west. The columns and stylobate were removed during the construction of the late church, and only meager remains of the northern stylobate were unearthed. The nave was paved with a mosaic floor (F123) that contained a carpet divided into two panels decorated with complex geometric patterns (Figs. 9–10; see below). In the west, the floor abuts a bench (W208) built along W39, the nave’s western wall. The bench, 0.25 m high and 0.20–0.30 m wide, is ashlar built, its southern end cut into the bedrock; it is coated in its entirety with white plaster. A large ashlar protrudes in its center (Fig. 11). This is apparently one of the benches mentioned in the five-line inscription found in the northwestern corner of the nave mosaic carpet. The inscription measures 26.5×18 cm, with 2.4–3.4 cm tall letters of black tesserae; each line is separated by a row of red tesserae (Fig. 12). The inscription reads: I, Zosys the artist, have made the benches. Zosys is also mentioned in the inscription in the bema as a maker of mosaics (see below). The aisles are of identical width, 2.30 m, but of different lengths. The northern aisle floor, measuring

[167]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

Fig. 5. Early church, L104, main entrance, view from the north.

0

20

40

Fig. 7. Early church, L104, illustration.

Fig. 6. Early church, L104, view from the west.

[168]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

0

20

40

Fig. 8. Early church, L104, mosaic floor inscription.

Fig. 9. Early church, nave mosaic floor, view from the north.

[169]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

0

Fig. 10. Early church, nave mosaic floor, illustration.

[170]

40

80

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 11. Early church, bench in the nave, view from the northeast.

0

5

10

Fig. 12. Early church, nave, inscription in a corner of the mosaic carpet.

[171]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

10.85×2.30 m, is paved in mosaic (F101; Figs. 13–14); it bears evidence of many repairs in white tesserae, at times carelessly executed in a manner that harmed the design (see below). Next to W39 is a 0.50 m-wide white mosaic band, a repair possibly meant to replace a bench that had been dismantled. The aisle floor, opposite the central hall entrance, contains a fourline inscription set inside a medallion (Fig. 15). The medallion (0.55 m in diameter) has a white frame bounded inside and out by a row of black tesserae, and is enclosed in a square measuring 0.68×0.68 m, of white, ocher, and black tesserae. The inscription, in letters 8–9.5 cm high, reads: Lord Jesus Christ, help your servant. The southern aisle, measuring 13.20×2.30 m, incorporates elements that preceded the first phase of the church—the Late Roman F140/141, the channel (L152), and the water cistern (L241). F140/141 was decorated with a simple geometric pattern (Fig. 16).

0

Fig. 13. Early church, northern aisle, view from the west.

40

80

Fig. 14. Early church, northern aisle mosaic floor, illustration.

[172]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

0

Fig. 15. Early church, northern aisle, inscription in the mosaic floor.

Fig. 16. Early church, southern aisle floor discovered in the maqam, view from the northeast.

[173]

10

20

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

A white mosaic floor (F158) in the aisle’s eastern end was uncovered in the maqam. This might be the remnant of a southern pastophorium next to the apse that was later canceled, in the time of the early church. In the southwestern corner of the southern aisle is a drainage pipe, 12 cm in diameter, coated with a thick layer of decoratively fashioned plaster. Under the pipe is a depression from which the water passed through a shallow 12 cm-wide channel (L152) coated with white plaster, to a cistern under the southern aisle (L241). The channel might have been covered with stone slabs, but there is no evidence of this. The cistern (L241), at least 7.00 m deep, was dug before the establishment of the church; it was incorporated in the southern aisle and covered with a large, 17 cmthick stone slab. At the western end of the southern aisle is Bench W209, built in a manner similar to that in the nave, but here it was installed over the aisle mosaic floor. A mosaic floor (F103) was discovered in the chancel, whose level was 0.55 m higher than that of the hall floor. It is cut on its northern, western, and southern sides. To the east it continues below the later church floor, beyond the borders of the excavated area. The chancel outline has not been determined because the walls bounding it were not revealed. Depressions for the altar table feet were not discovered in this floor, and, as in other early churches, the altar table was probably portable.18 A mosaic carpet, measuring 3.65×3.50 m, was unearthed that contained a geometric pattern and a five-line dedicatory inscription set in a tabula ansata (Fig. 17). The tabula, including its handles, measures 1.22×0.53 m, with the inscription letters being 7–8.5 cm high. The handles are of black, red, and ocher tesserae, with an E* diamond in their center.19 The inscription reads: Lord Jesus Christ, preserve Eutonius the bishop and Germanus the priest and Zosys the mosaicworker who has set this up. The names of the church’s builders, Eutonius and Germanus, also appear in the inscription in the baptistery floor (see below). A mosaic floor of undefined context (F238) was discovered north of the chancel mosaic carpet, at a level some 27 cm below F103. It consisted of rows of white tesserae laid diagonally, with 144–169

0

20

40

Fig. 17. Early church, bema, inscription in the mosaic floor.

tesserae per sq. dm. This floor’s frame was of three straight rows of tesserae set along W240, which was dismantled during construction of the bema. Remains of adjacent rooms belonging to the church complex were discovered. Room L150 is located north of the nave and east of L104. As the south of the room is under the northern aisle of the late church, the room’s original dimensions could not be determined, and it was only partially excavated (3.70×2.25 m). Access to the room from L104 was provided by an opening in W28. The room has a finely leveled floor consisting of a layer of small stones bound with a fill of beaten yellowish lime. A sounding under the floor (L151) yielded a whole oil lamp dated to the fourth to fifth centuries CE (see below). Only a limited sounding was conducted inside the maqam. It revealed a room south of the church, of which only the mosaic floor (F128) was excavated. The floor consists of diagonally laid rows of white tesserae of varied hue, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm (Fig. 18). An additional room, access to which was provided by an opening in W29, might have been built south of the church.

[174]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 18. Early church, southern aisle, view from the north. Note the blocked entrance and the channel adjoining the wall.

Early Church Mosaic Floors

The early church at Shiloh contained mosaic floors decorated with geometric patterns in the nave, aisles, and narthex-like room (L104). White mosaic floors were uncovered in the rooms adjacent to the church. In the center of the mosaic floor of L104 is a rectangular carpet, measuring 8.45×0.85 m, with geometric patterns; it is divided into three panels (see Fig. 7). Between the mosaic carpet and the prayer hall entrance is an inscription in a tabula ansata (see above). Rows of white tesserae were laid diagonally in the carpet margins, with three horizontally laid rows of white tesserae adjoining the carpet frame. The panels are divided from one another by a row of dentils (A3*) between two rows of black tesserae. The eastern panel, measuring 2.60×0.85 m, is preserved in its entirety, while the western panel, measuring 4.00×0.85 m was only partially preserved.

These panels were embellished with an identical geometrical pattern consisting of interlacing black circles that form concave red diamonds (J4*). The diamonds in the eastern panel are embellished with a small black cross, while the diamonds of the western panel consist of four black tesserae with a single white tesserae in its center. The central panel, measuring 2.05×0.85 m, faces the entrance leading to the prayer hall. The pane field is decorated with a grid of concentric black, red, and white squares with a cross in their centers. The prayer hall mosaic floor was partially damaged by the maqam, by the foundations of the late church, and by the Mamluk period water cistern (L121). As a result, parts of the nave mosaic carpet were damaged, and only sections of the southern aisle were preserved. The quality of the nave mosaic carpet is exceptional (see Fig. 9). The carpet, which measures

[175]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

8.00×5.50 m, is embellished with geometric patterns of unique composition. It is divided into two panels: a square eastern panel (4.45×4.45 m), and a rectangular western one (4.45×2.45 m), both enclosed in a single frame. Diagonal rows of white tesserae were laid at the margins of the carpet, with two straight rows of white tesserae adjoining the frame. The frame, 0.55 m wide, is embellished with two rows of interlaced semicircles, their curved edges facing each other (Fig. 19). The western rectangular panel has an inner frame only in its north and south. The frame is composed of a row of squares, incorporating an interlaced circle (Fig. 20). The northern row of squares ends in the west with a rectangle containing a five-line inscription (see above). The panel field is decorated with densely interlaced circles, with an additional small circle in the center of each (Fig. 21). The eastern square panel contains a circle in a square. The spaces between the circle and the corners of the square are decorated with a rainbow pattern. The circle is of three concentric bands. The bands are composed of interlacing circles progressively decreasing in size towards the center. The outer band’s circles are embellished by a cross (Fig. 22). The center of the circle is marked by two interlaced squares that form an eight-pointed star. The interlaced squares encompass a smaller square that in turn encompasses a circle decorated with interlacing hexagons (Fig. 23).

Fig. 19. Early church, nave, mosaic carpet frame.

[176]

Fig. 20. Early church, nave, row of squares in the mosaic carpet’s western panel.

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 21. Early church, nave, section of the mosaic carpet’s western panel.

[177]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

1

2

This rare composition is known from the church at Massuh in Transjordan.20 The northern aisle contains a mosaic carpet that, like the L104 mosaic, is divided into three panels (see Fig. 14). The mosaic margins are of straight rows of white tesserae. The carpet frame consists of three rows of black tesserae, three rows of white, and a row of black. The carpet field consists of three panels, the two side panels containing a grid of diamonds (H1*). The grid is composed of a row of white tesserae between two rows of black. Each diamond is embellished with a smaller diamond, in the center of which is a cross, made of four white tesserae with a black one in its center. The central panel has with a four-line inscription in its center (see above). The medallion (0.55 m in diameter) has a white frame bounded by two rows of black tesserae, and is enclosed in a square, measuring 0.68×0.68 m, of white, ocher, and black tesserae. The southern aisle mosaic carpet sections, which were preserved, consist of diagonally set rows of white tesserae, decorated with rows of small squares (E*, see Figs. 16, 18). The bema mosaic floor contains a square carpet embellished with a geometric pattern (Fig. 24), in front of which is a five-line inscription in a tabula ansata (see above). Diagonal rows of white tesserae were laid at the margins of the carpet, with three horizontal rows of white tesserae adjoining the carpet frame. The frame is decorated with a guilloche. The

3

Fig. 22. Early church, nave, cruciform-like motifs in the mosaic carpet’s eastern panel.

Fig. 23. Early church, nave, interlacing bands in the center of the mosaic carpet’s eastern panel.

[178]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 24. Early church, bema, mosaic floor, view from the east.

carpet field measures 1.50×1.50 m and is decorated with interlaced circles made of bands that form a square at the center of each circle. Five colors were used in the early church at Shiloh: ocher, red and brick red, gray, white, and black. The tesserae size varies in different areas of the church: in L104, 49–64 tesserae per sq. dm; in the nave, 169–182 tesserae per sq. dm at the edges, and 121–225 tesserae per sq. dm in the geometric patterns; in the aisles, 49 tesserae per sq. dm; in the inscription, 56 tesserae per sq. dm; and in the bema, 144–169 tesserae per sq. dm.

The Late Church Remains of the late church were first uncovered by the Danish expedition.21 The church is dated to the sixth to eighth centuries, based on the ceramic assemblages found under the church floors and the decorative style of the mosaic floors.22 The church is basilical, with a single apse and an atrium (Figs. 25–27). It was mostly constructed some 0.60 m above the level of the early church, and is more to the east than its predecessor. Including the atrium, it measures 34.50×14.00 m.

Unlike the early church, the late church includes an atrium; and as was common in churches, its main entrance was moved from the north to the west, although no entrances were discovered in the western wall of the atrium (W34). These changes were made possible by the destruction of the colonnaded street, of which only a narrow path of beaten earth remained in this phase. This path led northward to the tell, and was one of the settlement’s main routes. In the course of church reconstruction, use was made of some of the early church walls. As in the early church, the walls of the late church attest to the secondary use of ashlars and various architectural elements from dismantled earlier structures. The atrium, which measures 11.60×11.60 m, was erected over the early church’s prayer hall, and was encompassed by four porticoes, each 2.30 m wide; the eastern portico functioned as a narthex (Fig. 28). While, as was noted, the floor of the atrium and the porticoes is elevated some 0.60 m above the level of the early church’s floor, the floor of the western portico was raised by only some 0.15 m. The early

[179]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

0

Fig. 25. Late church, general plan.

[180]

5

m

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

688.15

35

W36 W

L60

L75 W37

W40

688.23

W202

L35

688.43

W20

L34

L177 688.68

W8

W17

W16

W15

W18

W19

688.51

688.48 688.57

L49

L19

L27 688.36

W7

W48

W27 L94 L50

L126

688.56

689.35 688.74

688.41

W28

W14

L51

688.51

L12

W24

L134

W26 688.60

L52

W32 L59

688.32

L57

688.21

688.56

L54

W29

W30 W39

L184

L53

688.60

688.00

W38

L58

W47

688.48

W33

W31

688.55

L76 688.14

0 W34

688.76

Fig. 26. Late church, detailed plan.

[181]

688.58

5

m

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

Fig. 27. Late church, reconstruction.

Fig. 28. Late church, atrium, view from the north.

[182]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 29. Late church, atrium, stylobates and their foundations, view from the southwest.

walls W29, W34, and W47 served as foundations for the walls bounding the atrium, most of which is paved with variously sized stone slabs that were apparently dismantled from the colonnaded street. Although no columns or bases were discovered in the atrium area, it may be surmised that the portico arches were borne by four columns on each side—two corner columns and an additional two between them. The columns were placed on a stylobate, which survived almost in its entirety. The stones of the atrium stylobate were most likely taken from the early church’s stylobate (Fig. 29). The floors of the porticoes surrounding the atrium as well as the narthex were of white mosaic. They were uncovered in the southern portico (F54), and fragmentarily, in the western portico (F76) and the narthex (F12, F134). Access from the porticoes and narthex to the service rooms (see below) was provided by an opening in W29 and three openings in

Fig. 30. Late church, prayer hall, view from the west.

[183]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

W47 that were built over the early church entrances to the prayer hall, in the process becoming narrower and closing in the opposite direction. The prayer hall, 18.40×12.60 m, was divided by two rows of columns into two aisles and a nave, 10.70×6.50 m (Fig. 30). The hall roof was supported by six columns and by pilasters at the western and eastern end of each row. The columns stood 1.60– 1.75 m apart, and the floors of the intercolumnar spaces contained mosaics with geometric patterns. The wall (W14) separating the narthex and prayer hall had three entrances, of which only a broken

0

50

100

Fig. 32. Late church, northern aisle, illustration.

Fig. 31. Late church, northern aisle, view from the west.

[184]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

threshold stone of the central one remains. Additional entrances discovered in the prayer hall walls led to the service rooms adjoining the church. The aisles in the late church are 15.80 m long and 2.40 m wide, their mosaic floors some 5–10 cm higher than the nave floor level. The northern aisle mosaic floor (F27) is preserved in its entirety (Figs. 31–32); while in the southern aisle (F34) the mosaic floor bed remained whole, but only fragmentary remains of the floor itself, of white tesserae, survived.

0

Two adjoining inscriptions were discovered at the eastern end of the northern aisle (Fig. 33). The four- line lower inscription is set in a tabula ansata that measures 1.95×0.56 m, including the handles, and is bound by a rectangular frame measuring 1.43×0.56 m, with letters 11.6–13.3 cm high. The tabula frame and the rows separating the lines are of gray tesserae, while the letters themselves are of red tesserae. Ocher and red tesserae fill the inner part of the tabula handles, and ivy leaves adorn

10

Fig. 33. Late church, northern aisle, inscriptions.

[185]

20

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

the tabula handles from above and below. In the inscriptions there are 64 tesserae per sq. dm. The lower inscription reads23: † Under the most pious and honored by God priest, Dalmatius, this work was done.

The upper inscription is of two lines. Its location seems to indicate that it is the later of the two. The upper line of this inscription lies beyond the mosaic carpet in the floor, while the lower line is within the inner and outer carpet. There is a row of crosses at the beginning of each line. The inscription measures 2.12×0.26 m, and its letters, 10–12.5 cm high, are fashioned of red tesserae on a white background, with 81 tesserae per sq. dm. Tesserae from the original floor were included in the bed of the new inscription, which reads: † Lord, accept the offering of those who have offered in this consecrated place (which) the Lord [will protect.]

The inscription, which refers to church contributions, is located at the eastern end of the northern aisle, possibly together with an offering table or an alcove for the collection of donations, but these were not revealed in the excavations, where only meager remains of the walls in the area were found.24 Few remains survived in the chancel (Fig. 34). The bema was reached via low steps installed in the center of the wall that bounds it (W18). The channel for the chancel screen that separated the nave and the bema was discovered at the top of this wall. No remains of a chancel screen were found by the current excavations. Chancel screen columns discovered in Jamia el-Yeteim maqam, one in secondary use visible at the eastern end of the mihrab (prayer niche), the other lying on the chancel floor, were attributed by the Danish archaeologists to the chancel screen of the “Basilica Church.”25 The apse (6.10 m in diameter) protrudes from the church wall in trapezoidal shape; only the foundation bonding materials have survived. The chancel floor is not preserved, and two ashlars in the northern end of W36 are the only remnant of the apse wall. Service rooms north and south of the church were unearthed. The rooms were characterized by doors bolted from within. Many of these rooms

were constructed on walls and floors of the early church. The northern row consists of three rooms built over the narthex, e.g., Room L104 of the early church (Fig. 35). Division into three rooms was attained by the construction of W24 and W32. The room entrances were set over the earlier entrances in W47. They were narrowed, given new threshold stones, and their bolting direction was changed. The main entrance to the early church, in W31, was blocked. Room L58, 4.60×2.40 m, was entered from the south through a 0.80 m-wide opening in W47 (Fig. 36). The early floor continued in use in this phase. An upsidedown column base was laid in the west of the room next to W47, without disturbing the floor. Adjacent to the western wall (W39) an installation (L189), of unclear function, was built. The plaster band that protrudes from W39 is a remnant of the part that closed the installation from above. Room L52, 3.00×2.30 m, was entered from the south as well, through a 1.10 m-wide opening in W47. It is the only service room with a beaten earth floor. Two large stone slabs are incorporated in the floor in its southeastern corner. L51, 2.30×1.40 m, is a narrow room with a 0.70 m-wide opening from the atrium. Two steps descended from the entrance to the early mosaic floor. The original opening in W28 continued in use in this phase. Room L50, 3.70×2.30 m, is built over Room L150 of the early church. The room’s mosaic floor is some 20 cm higher than that of the early room. Only the floor’s bed, of small stones, remained. A 0.65 m-wide opening, in W17 led from this room to the prayer hall. The room’s walls, except W17, were poorly preserved. In the northeastern corner of the room, an installation (L94) was found that consisted of a depression containing an almost complete Beth Shean-type jar and apparently served for storing dry food. The walls of Room L49, 4.20×2.30 m, were almost entirely destroyed. The room’s entrance was not discovered, but may be surmised to have been from the prayer hall, through the southern wall which is not preserved. Only the bed of small stones remains of the mosaic floor. A sounding under the floor bed (L223, L224) revealed pottery vessels, the latest of which date to the fourth to fifth centuries CE.

[186]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 34. Late church, chancel, view from the north.

Fig. 35. Late church, rooms on the north of the church, view from the west.

Fig. 36. Late church, Room L58, view from the west.

[187]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

North of the church, mosaic floor beds, of small stones, with no clear architectural connection were unearthed; F35, located north of the prayer hall, and F75, located north of the apse, both abutted the church walls on the outside. No walls bounding the floors on their other sides were discovered. As mentioned above, a row of rooms was also discerned south of the church. Room L53 is 2.20 m wide and did not survive to its full length (Fig. 37). The room entrance was from the north, through the atrium’s southern portico. The room’s mosaic floor (64 tesserae per sq. dm), cut at its eastern end, is embellished with red and black flower buds on a background of diagonally laid white tesserae. The frame of the mosaic floor consists of rows of black tesserae with two intervening rows of white. In the maqam two sections (F126) of white tesserae floor, laid on the same bed, were found. Each section was of different tesserae size. The eastern section has 49 tesserae per sq. dm, while the western has 100 tesserae per sq. dm. The walls bounding the floor were not found.

The walls of Hall L177, 9.70×5.30 m, were damaged by the construction of the maqam. The threshold stone in W19, partially under the maqam wall, is a remnant of the entrance to the church’s southern aisle. The hall has a finely preserved mosaic floor, with 36 tesserae per sq. dm. In the southeastern corner of the hall is an early floor (F239) that is cut by W8. This floor, and the remnants of W203 and W206, belong to a building phase that preceded the late church. The nature and dating of these remains has yet to be determined.

Late Church Mosaic Floors

The mosaic floors in the late church contain geometric patterns that incorporated faunal and floral motifs. The floors of the nave (Fig. 38) and northern aisle are well preserved and include colorful carpets. Only a few sections of the other floors, generally of white tesserae, have survived. The floors of the porticoes surrounding the atrium were paved with diagonally laid rows of white tesserae, 49 tesserae per sq. dm, encompassed in a frame of three straight rows of tesserae along the walls.

Fig. 37. Late church, Room L53, view from the southwest.

[188]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 38. Late church, nave mosaic carpet, view from the west.

The preserved part of the nave mosaic carpet measures 10.35×6.60 m (Fig. 39). Its margins are of straight rows of white tesserae. The carpet field is encompassed by two frames, the broad outer frame, 0.59 m wide, composed of vine shoots emerging from amphorae in the carpet corners (Fig. 40). The vine shoots form medallions in a wavy line that is uncharacteristic for such medallions. Each medallion contains two grape clusters facing in opposite directions, and a leaf (Fig. 41). The inner frame is decorated with a band of running red wave pattern (B7*) bounded by two rows of white tesserae set between two rows of black. The carpet field is ornamented with an orthogonal pattern of swastika meanders formed by guilloche bands; the square spaces are decorated with various motifs. The squares, 0.78×0.78 m, are decorated mainly with faunal motifs, as well as with floral and concentric star-like decorations. The geometrical patterns and floral depictions were unharmed. Four

squares were completely intact. One bears a floral depiction (Fig. 42), while the other three, in the seventh row, contain stars (Fig. 43). Two of the stars are eight-pointed, and the third has ten points. Each star is enclosed in a circle, the corners between the circle and the square frame being decorated with lilies. An inverse Greek alpha (A) was apparently incorporated in the center of each star. Alpha symbolized beginning/ creation, since this is the first letter of the word arche, that means “beginning” (John 8:25).26 All of the squares containing zoomorphic depictions were defaced and then repaired with white tesserae, or in some instances, with a floral motif or a diamond (Fig. 44).27 Despite the defacement, parts of the depicted animals remained at the edges of the squares. From these we learn that the zoomorphic depictions included birds (Fig. 45:1), among them an eagle (Fig. 45:2), and also a lion (Fig. 45:3), a leopard (Fig. 45:4), a horse or mule (Fig. 45:5), and a horned animal (Fig. 45:6).

[189]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

0

Fig. 39. Late church, nave mosaic carpet, illustration.

[190]

50

100

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 40. Late church, nave, amphora in the corner of the mosaic carpet.

Fig. 41. Late church, nave, section of the mosaic carpet frame.

[191]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

1

Fig. 42. Late church, nave, floral depiction in the mosaic carpet.

The star pattern is widespread in Lebanese sites such as Qabr-Hiram28 and Beit Mery,29 and in northern Israel, as at Shiqmona, where it was discovered in two different floors.30 In southern Israel the star pattern is known from the church at Ḥ . Shemaʿ.31 H. Maguire argues that this pattern is of symbolic importance, and at times was seen to have magic significance.32 The appearance of stars together with figures in the area of the mosaic in the late church at Shiloh is exceptional. Each row of squares apparently contained a common subject: birds can be identified in the third row; mammals in the fifth; stars in the seventh; mammals in the eighth; and flora, occasionally with birds in ninth. The west of the carpet is not preserved. It might have contained thirteen rows of squares, if we assume that the row of stars, the decoration of the greatest symbolic import, marks the middle of the carpet. A nave carpet pattern that includes a swastika meander and square spaces ornamented with floral and faunal motifs is uncommon. A similar composition was discovered in the mosaic of the central church at Pella.33 The intercolumniations were decorated with rectangular carpets, the frame of which consists of two rows of red tesserae, enclosing a diamond (Fig. 46). Ivy leaves pattern (J6*) appear in the corners of the frame. Several buds, of red tesserae, are incorporated within the diamonds.

2

Fig. 43. Late church, nave, stars in the mosaic carpet.

Fig. 44. Late church, nave, iconoclastic defacement in the mosaic carpet.

[192]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 45. Late church, nave, iconoclastic defacement of zoomorphic depictions.

[193]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

Fig. 46. Late church, intercolumnar mosaic carpet.

The carpet margins in the northern aisle made of horizontally set white tesserae. The carpet frame consists of eleven rows of white tesserae bound by two rows of red (see Fig. 31). The mosaic is decorated with a variant of the scale pattern (J3*): the center of each scale bears an ivy leaf decoration (pattern J6*). A seam between the second and third row of scales was discerned. There might have been an inscription here that was removed to make place for the continuation of the pattern. A small square on a white background in the center of the aisle carpet is probably testimony of iconoclastic defacement of a faunal depiction. Two adjoining inscriptions were uncovered at the eastern end of the carpet (see above). The floor in the west of the southern aisle was destroyed during the construction of the maqam, while its east yielded sections of a diagonally set white mosaic floor with three horizontal rows of tesserae along the walls.

The mosaics in the late church are of five colors: ocher, gray, two shades of red, white, and black; with distinct differences in tesserae size in different parts of the church. The hall carpet was laid using some 81 tesserae per sq. dm, the intercolumnar carpets, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. The carpet in the southern aisle definitely made use of larger stones, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm.

The Baptistery In the Byzantine period, the Roman structure, of three halls, was converted into a baptistery (Fig. 47). Based on a dedicatory inscription set in the building’s floor (see below), the conversion can be dated to the time of the construction of the early church. The baptistery preserves the building’s first phase division into three halls, which suited its function (Fig. 48). Baptistery structures are sometimes divided into three rooms, the side rooms used to

[194]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

1 W589

F549

W569

W575

W533

W582

F430 688.52

688.56

688.48

F410 W445

W446

688.39

388.20

F429

W419

688.76 688.60

388.32

L402

688.30

688.27

F404

689.10

W540 W547 F539

W597

L437

W395

W409

W412

W508

W473

W557

F422

W456

W423

W436

689.30

L590

688.41

688.57

L546 W462

L592

688.24

W572

W418

W596 L580

1

0

1-1 W569 690 00 689 00

W418 F404

688 00 687 00

L592

L402

W423 W412 F422 F404 L437

Fig. 47. Early church baptistery building, detailed plan and section.

[195]

F430

F549

5

m

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

Fig. 48. Baptistery building, view from the north.

prepare the candidate for the baptism ceremony and for the continuation of the ceremony following the immersion.34 The central hall (L404), which in the Late Roman period was open to the portico, was closed by W412 when the baptismal font was added. This wall cut into F404 and F422, and incorporated a threshold in secondary use (Fig. 49). An opennig in W409 connected Hall L404 with Hall L429 to its south. The baptismal font (L402), in the middle of Hall L404, was first uncovered by the excavation of the Danish expedition and again in the current excavations (Fig. 50).35 The Danish expedition partially excavated Halls L404 and L410, and concluded that L402 was a washing installation. The square font, 2.00×2.00×0.45 m, is partially sunken in the hall floor. It is of ashlar construction, with benches on its west and east. Its sides were coated with gray plaster, its bottom paved

with white mosaic. In the northeastern corner of the upper part of the font is a depression for placing a vessel, alongside which is an additional, shallow depression with traces of plaster. The font, preserved almost in its entirety, is of an early baptismal type.36 The dating of an inscription uncovered in the floor of the central hall makes the baptistery at Shiloh the earliest baptistery discovered in the Land of Israel that can be given an absolute date.37 The inscription is inlaid in the immersion hall floor, near the entrance (Fig. 51). Its rectangular frame measures 1.25×0.60 m, with letters 7.5 to 9.5 cm high. The frame and letters are of black tesserae. The lines of the inscription text are separated by a line of red tesserae. The last line of the text does not fill the entire length of the rectangle, and four diamonds occupy the remaining space. The tesserae in the inscription are smaller than in the other baptistery floors, with

[196]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 50. Baptistery building, baptismal font, view from the north.

Fig. 49. Baptistery building, W412, entrance to the baptismal hall (L404), view from the north.

90 tesserae per sq. dm. The inscription relates to the hall’s new function, and reads: Lord Jesus Christ, deign to remember in your kingdom Eutonius the bishop and Germanus the country bishop. Come to Him and be enlightened. Eutonius and Germanus are also mentioned in the inscription in the bema of the early church, as the founders of the church at Shiloh (see above). During the construction of the late church, changes were also made in the baptistery (Fig. 52). W569 and W575 expanded its area at the expense of the portico, and the colonnaded street fell into disuse. The structure was now entered from the new street (L549) through an entrance in W569, measuring 2.20×0.70 m, that included an especially wide threshold (Fig. 53). West of the entrance is a rectangular courtyard (L430), measuring 11.30×5.50 m (Fig. 54). Over the course of time the building underwent further changes, the precise dating of which has not been determined. At some stage Room L539 was

added in the southwest of the building (Fig. 55). The entrance to this room included a threshold stone set in W473. The room’s floor consists of rows of diagonally laid white tesserae encompassed by a frame of three straight rows along the walls. The tesserae are of different sizes, laid at 36–42 tesserae per sq. dm. The debris on the floor of Room L539 yielded many colorful mosaic segments that bore faunal and floral depictions. Vine shoots and grape clusters are visible, along with the figures of two birds with spread wings (Fig. 56). The mosaic segments had been laid using 100–121 tesserae per sq. dm, and even 144 tesserae per sq. dm in the depiction of the wings. These mosaic segments were probably uprooted from the floor during iconoclastic defacement; the frame of this mosaic likely remained in situ, at some as yet unexposed place. In the south of the baptistery compound W424 was added to Hall L429, adjoining W409; and in Room L539, W547 was added next to W540. These walls, made of a single face, are built over the floors, and thickened the existing walls. They were apparently added during the Umayyad period, towards the end of the structure’s use. Considerable amounts of white mosaic fragments, whose origin is not clear, were discovered on the floor of Hall L429 and Room L539. Their lightweight bed,

[197]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

0

Fig. 51. Baptistery building, baptismal hall (L404), inscription in the mosaic floor.

Fig. 52. Baptistery building, view from the east.

[198]

20

40

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

Fig. 53. Baptistery building, threshold of the entrance to the courtyard, view from the west.

Fig. 55. Baptistery building, Room L539.

Fig. 54. Baptistery building, courtyard, view from the north.

[199]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

1

0

5

10

Fig. 56. Faunal and floral dipictions from the mosaic in Room L539.

3

2 0

of a plaster, lime, and ashes, is only 4 cm thick. The bed’s lower face was smooth, unlike that of beds laid on the ground. This kind of bed is typical of upper story mosaic floors. The segments were laid using 25–30 tesserae per sq. dm. The original locations of these segments were not identified. The baptistery was in use during the Byzantine period, and continued to function in the Umayyad period, as attested by the ceramic finds. The abandonment of the churches resulted in its disuse. In the Abbasid period Hall L410 and the north of the courtyard were included in a new building.

20

40

FINDS

Architectural Elements Two arch stones attributed to the Late Roman period were uncovered in secondary use in an Abbasid building (see, e.g., Fig. 57:1). The arch diameter is estimated to have been 3.20 m. An octagonal monolith was discovered on the surface (Fig. 57:2). Each side is 20 cm, the base diameter, 40 cm, and its height, including the base, is 70 cm. This might have been part of a Late Roman

5

4

Fig. 57. Architectural elements.

[200]

0

10

20

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

altar, the upper part of which was missing.38 A column base measuring 71×71 cm, with an overall height of 40 cm and a diameter of 57 cm in its round part, was found lying on the floor of the late church Room L58 (Fig. 57:3). The column base, broader than the stylobate in the prayer hall of the late and early church, apparently belonged to a structure that preceding it. A Corinthian capital, 40 cm high with a base diameter of 21 cm, was discovered among the stones of the ruins in the Abbasid building (L480; Fig. 57:4). It is decorated with acanthus leaf tips that form diamonds. The date of capitals of this type begins in the fifth century CE.39 A fragment of another capital was uncovered in the maqam (L158; Fig. 57:5). Two rows of triangles adorn the abacus, as is characteristic in the Byzantine period.40 Two reliefs containing defaced crosses were discovered on stones incorporated in secondary use in the walls of the maqam. On a stone in the southern wall of the maqam is a relief of a bud wreath, 40 cm

in diameter, enclosing a defaced cross (Fig. 58:1). The stone might have adorned an entrance of one of the churches. A stone in the western wall of the maqam bears a defaced relief of a medallion or wreath 25 cm in diameter, enclosing a cross (Fig. 58:2).

Liturgical Furniture A colonnette leg of a limestone altar table was discovered north of the prayer hall (L40; Fig. 59:1). The section of the upper part measures 11.5×10 cm, its height, 36 cm. It bears a stylized floral design on the two adjoining outward-facing sides of the leg, and patches of red paint remain on it.41 A medallion relief enclosing a cross is engraved on a slab, 36×33×6 cm, discovered on the surface (Fig. 59:2). The corners of the slab are embellished with triangles. In the center of the medallion is a cross with knobs between its arms. The back side of the slab is roughly dressed, and one of the edges contains a depression. The slab has remains of plaster on its back side as a result of secondary use.

Fresco and Stucco Fresco and stucco fragments were discovered in fills in the late church structure, some underneath the atrium floor and others under the chancel area. The fresco fragments are ornamented with red, green, brown, and black bands, with red being the dominant color. One fragment contains a decoration that possibly represents part of a figure (Fig. 60). It was impossible to determine whether the fresco fragments belong to the early church, or to a Roman construction preceding it.

Miscellaneous

1 1 1

2 2 0 0

20 2 20

40 40

0

20

40

Fig. 58. Stone reliefs.

Two fragments of a multiple wick hole Beit Nattif oil lamp were discovered under the floor of the late church (L139; Fig. 61).42 The oil lamp had seven or eight wick holes and a broad nozzle. Around the filling hole is a shelf with oval decorations. On the nozzle, within a perforated frame, of which the upper and lower bands have survived, is a depiction of a magnificent colonnaded structure that is to be regarded as the facade of a sacred structure.43 The monolithic columns depicted stand on tall square pedestals; additional pedestals between the columns

[201]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

1

2 0

5

Fig. 59. Liturgical elements.

[202]

10

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

0

1

2

Fig. 60. Plaster fragments with fresco decorations.

might describe an additional row of columns. The columns, with a round base and a Corinthian capital, bear a series of arches. Between the columns are pairs of doors. The oil lamp is dated to the fourth to fifth centuries CE. A complete oil lamp was uncovered under the floor of the early church (L151, see above; Fig. 62). The oil lamp is of the “Karm al-Shaikh” type, which is characterized by a large filling hole and no handle. The oil lamp is decorated with a radial mark pattern and is painted red. This type of oil lamp is dated to the fourth to fifth centuries CE.44 A cross measuring 16.5×15 cm, and 2–4 mm thick, was discovered on the surface over the eastern end of the northern aisle (L30; Fig. 63). The bronze cross has installation holes at the ends of its arms. A Greek inscription is engraved on it, with letters 8–9 cm high. Crosses of this type were generally installed on columns and walls, or on liturgical furniture in the church chancel.

Coins

0

1

2

Fig. 61. Fragments of a multiple-wickhole Beit Nattif oil lamp.

According to the report by G. Bijovsky, the excavation yielded more than 50 coins, only some of which were examined.45 Some were found in stratigraphically significant locations. The earliest coin uncovered by the excavation, in the fill between the floors of the early and late churches, is dated to the Hellenistic period, from the time of Antiochus III. A Roman procurator coin, from

[203]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

0

1

2

Fig. 62. “Karm al-Shaikh” oil lamp.

0

Fig. 63. Bronze cross bearing a Greek inscription.

[204]

1

2

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

the time of Nero (58–59 CE), was discovered beneath the apse floor of the late church. Three fourth century coins were discovered in the fill under the apse of the late church. Thirteen coins were found in the fills between the Early and late church floors, the latest dated to the time of Arcadius (395–408 CE). Four additional coins, dating to the fourth century CE, were found in various fill layers. A coin from the time of Justin II (574/575 CE) was discovered on the floor of the late church atrium (L59), and an additional coin from the sixth century was found in one of the fills. The foundation channel of the maqam contained a coin from the Ayyubid period, and a coin from the eighth century CE, was found in one of the fills.

Summary The settlement at Shiloh existed almost continuously, from the Middle Bronze Age to the Abbasid period. In the area of the Northern Churches, remains were

found mainly from the Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods. A section of a colonnaded street and additional remains are dated to the Roman period (third to fourth centuries CE). Two churches were erected near these remains during the Byzantine period. The early church is dated to the early fifth century and is one of the earliest churches to have been discovered in the Land of Israel. The late church was erected during the sixth century and continued in use in the Early Islamic period. At least four churches were constructed during the course of the Byzantine period at Shiloh, whose importance in Christianity ensues from its appearance in biblical narratives on the history of the Tabernacle and on the presence there of the tomb of Eli the priest. Three of these churches were active when the settlement flourished, in the sixth century, and they continued to function on the eve of the Islamic conquest. Apparently, the Christian population did not leave Shiloh upon this conquest. The iconoclastic activity that left its traces in the site’s mosaic floors indicates that these churches were also active in the Early Islamic period.

Notes * This article is dedicated to the late Rachel Ehrlich. Rachel ran the tourist center “Tell Shiloh,” from 2005 to 2009. During this period, she succeeded in renewing the center and instilling it with new life in many areas, for example: advertising and marketing the site, preparing it for receiving visitors, and conserving the archaeological remains. In the course of the excavations, she always accompanied us and offered us every possible kind of assistance. The Tell Shiloh project became her life’s work. While directing the center, she was also bravely and nobly fighting a tough battle with illness. May her memory be blessed. 1 Kh. Seilun was first identified with biblical Shiloh by E. Robinson and E. Smith in 1838 (Robinson and Smith 1841: 84–89). It was mentioned by V. Guérin (1875: 21–27), C. Wilson (1873), the PEF researchers C. Conder and H. Kitchener (SWP II: 367–370), and C. Clermont-Ganneau (1896: 299–302). 2 Numerous excavations were conducted at Shiloh. The first excavator of the site, A. Schmidt, also related to the area of the Northern Churches (IAA Archives, British Mandate

Record Files: File No. 171, Seilun, Kh.). For an initial report on Schmidt’s excavations at the site, see Albright 1923: 10–11. The Northern Churches were excavated by the Danish expedition (Andersen 1985). Excavations in different parts of Shiloh revealed finds from different periods: Kjaer 1931; Buhl and Holm-Nielsen 1969; Finkelstein, Bunimovitz, and Lederman 1993; Yeivin 1993; Dadon 1997. 3 See Magen “Christianity in the Byzantine Period in Judea and Samaria,” in press. 4 The Northern Churches at Shiloh were excavated in 1998 and 2006–2007 (License Nos. 818, 1094, and 1123) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen and E. Aharonovich, with the assistance of E. Cohen. 5 See Peleg 2012: 485. 6 A maqam is a sacred place marked by a mosque. The translation of the name is “Mosque of the Orphan”; C. Wilson (1873: 37) referred to the place as Jamia ed-Daim, which means “Mosque of the Eternal.” 7 See below inscription in L104 and also Di Segni, “Greek

[205]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in this volume. 8 Buhl and Holm-Nielsen 1969: 18, 21, 68, 70–71, 74–75; Pls. 2:16, 6:59–61, 10:131, II: 16, VII: 59–61; Andersen 1985: 41, 101; Pl. 18:331–337. Stone vessels were also found in the renewed excavations, and will be published in the JSP series. 9 Limor 1998: 44, 119. 10 Liber de locis sanctis V, 7. 11 Avi-Yonah 1954: 45. 12 De situ terra sancta 4. 13 Limor 1998: 178, note 29; Hieronymus, Onomasticon 106:8; 18:28; 114:23. 14 Hieronymus, Epist. 108:13 (= Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae); Limor 1998: 150. 15 Epistulae II:13.113–114, XLVI. 16 Bitton-Ashkelony 1995: 85–89, 121, note 27; Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in this volume. 17 For further reading on the inscriptions at the early church at Shiloh see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in this volume. 18 Habas 2005: 386. 19 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981), and are marked with an asterisk. 20 Piccirillo 2000: 495, Fig. 1. 21 A sounding had already uncovered a section of the nave mosaic floor, but the excavators did not ascribe it to any structure: Andersen 1985: 49, Fig. 13. 22 See Amir, “Mosaic Floors in Judea and Southern Samaria,” in this volume. 23 For further reading on the inscriptions at the late church at Shiloh see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Late Northern Church at Shiloh,” in this volume. 24 Offering tables were discovered in the churches at Umm er-Rasas, adjoining the bema chancel screen, in the Church of the Lions (Piccirillo 1992: 207, ph. 15), in the Church of the Priest Waʾil (Piccirillo 1993: 318, Fig. 15), in the Chapel of the Peacocks (Piccirillo 2002: 550, 553, Fig. 18); and in the church at Petra, at the eastern end of the northern aisle (Fiema 2001: 55, Fig. 70). 25 Andersen 1985: 48–49. 26 Bagatti 1971a: 176–179. 27 See Peleg 2012, and references therein.

Donceel-Voûte 1988: 419, Fig. 414. Donceel-Voûte 1988: 337–344, Figs. 321, 326. 30 Peleg 1988: 25–30, Pl. 7A; Elgavish 1994: 112–113, Fig. 86. 31 Gazit and Lender 1992: 36. 32 Maguire 1998: 266. 33 This composition was discovered in the crypt mosaic floor of the church at Pella (Smith and Day 1989: 127, Pl. 18). 34 Bagatti 1971b: 302–303. Byzantine baptistery structures with a tripartite division were discovered in the Church of St. Theodorus at Gerasa (Crowfoot 1938: 224–225; Pl. XLI:b) and in the ecclesiastical complex uncovered at Jabaliyah, in northern Gaza (Saliou 2000: 393, 399). 35 Gleuck 1934. The Danish expedition mentioned the font, but did not denote its exact location. A. Schmidt reconstructed a basilica church with a baptismal font in its center at Shiloh, and referred to it as the “Church of the Oak of Abraham” (IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 171, Seilun, Kh.). Although he did not denote the precise location of the church, we may assume, based on his suggested plan, that this was actually the baptistery building. 36 Ben-Pechat 1989: 173, Fig. 1, Type 1a. A similar baptistery was found in Kh. el- Maṣaniʿ (Mazor 2000: 19). 37 Ben-Pechat 1989: 172. 38 Part of a hexagonal altar came to light in the temple at Tell er-Ras (Magen 2009: 248, Fig. 6.21). 39 Acconci 1998: 513–515, Fig. 122. 40 A capital with similar decoration was found at Kh. Umm Deimine (see Magen, Batz, and Sharukh 2012: 458). 41 Similar altar table legs are common in sixth century CE sites in Transjordan and the Land of Israel (Acconci 1998: 477–481, Nos. 26, 29). 42 The pottery from the Nnorthern churches at Shiloh will be published in the JSP Series. The oil lamps published here are significant due to their decoration or indicative dating contribution. 43 I would like to thank S. Hadad for her contribution in identifying the lamp type. For parallels, see Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 108–110, Nos. 444, 446; Israel and Avida 1988: 118, No. 330; and Sussman 2001: 56–59. 44 Many oil lamps of this type were discovered at Shechem (Magen 2009: Pls. 5:17–19, 11:1–3, 34:8, 46:1, 57:4). See also Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 24–26, Type 15). 45 The coins were identified by G. Bijovsky. 28 29

[206]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H E S AT S H I L O H

References Acconci A. 1998. “Elements of the Liturgical Furniture,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 468–542. Albright W.F. 1923. “The Danish Excavations at Shiloh,” BASOR 9: 10–11. Andersen F.G. 1985. Shiloh. The Danish Excavations at Tall Sail´n, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963 II: The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Maml´k Periods, Copenhagen. Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1971a. The Church from the Circumcision. History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Smaller Series 2), Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1971b. The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. History and Archaeology (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Smaller Series 4), Jerusalem. Ben-Pechat M. 1989. “The Paleochristian Baptismal Fonts in the Holy Land: Formal and Functional Study,” LA 39: 165–188. 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). Buhl M.-L. and Holm-Nielsen S. 1969. Shiloh Danish Excavation at Tall Sailun, Palestine, in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963 I: The Pre-Hellenistic Remains, Copenhagen. Clermont-Ganneau C. 1896. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874 II, London. Crowfoot J.W. 1938. “The Christian Churches,” in C. Kraeling, Gerasa. City of the Decapolis, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 171–264. Dadon M. 1997. “The ‘Basilica Church’ in Shiloh,” ʿAtiqot 32: 167–175 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 49*). Donceel-Voûte P. 1988. Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban. Décor, archéologie et liturgie, Louvain-la-Neuve. Elgavish J. 1994. Shiqmona on the Seacoast of Mount Carmel, Tel Aviv. Fiema Z. 2001. “Reconstructing the History of the Petra Church: Data and Phasing,” in Z. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski, and R. Schick, The Petra Church, Amman, pp. 7–119. Finkelstein I., Bunimovitz S., and Ledermen Z. 1993. Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site, Tel Aviv. Gazit D. and Lender Y. 1993. “The Church of St. Stephen at Horvat Beʾer-shemʿa,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 273–276.

Glueck N. 1934. “Seilūn,” QDAP 3: 180. Guérin V. 1875. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, Seconde partie—Samarie II, Paris. Hadad S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean (Qedem Reports 4), Jerusalem. Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structure and their Relationship with the Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Floors, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–30*). Israeli Y. 1931. and Avida U. 1988. Oil Lamps from Eretz Israel. The Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kjaer H. 1931. “Shiloh. A Summary Report of the Second Danish Expedition, 1929,” PEFQ 63: 71–88. Limor O. 1998. Holy Land Travels: Christian Pilgrims in Late Antiquity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period II (JSP 11), Jerusalem. Magen Y. in press. “Christianity in the Byzantine Period in Judea and Samaria,” in Christians and Christianity I: Corpus of Christian Sites in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 13), Jerusalem. Magen Y., Batz S., and Sharukh I. 2012. “A 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. Maguire H. 1998. “Magic and Geometry in Early Christian Floor Mosaics and Textiles,” Rhetoric, Nature and Magic in Byzantine Art, Aldershot. Mazor G. 2000. “A Church at Khirbet el-Maṣaniʿ North of Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 40: 19*–23* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 159). Peleg M. 1988. “A Chapel with Mosaic Floor near Tel Shiqmona (Tell es-Samak),” IEJ 38: 25–30. Peleg Y. 2012. “Iconoclasm in Churches and Synagogues in Judea,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 483–494. Piccirillo M. 1992. “La chiesa dei Leoni a Umm al-Rasas— Kastron Mefaa,” LA 42: 199–225. Piccirillo M. 1993. “La chiesa del Prete Waʾil a Umm alRasas—Kastron Mefaa in Giordania,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 313–334. Piccirillo M. 2000. “Una nuova chiesa nel villaggio di Massuh—Madaba,” LA 50: 494–498. Piccirillo M. 2002. “The Ecclesiastical Complex of Saint Paul at Umm ar-Rasas—Kastron Mefaa,” ADAJ 46: 535–560.

[207]

Y. M A G E N A N D E . A H A R O N O V I C H

Robinson E. and Smith E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea III, London. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Saliou C. 2000. “Gaza dans l’Antiquité tardive: Nouveaux documents épigraphiques,” RB 107: 390–411. Smith R.H. and Day L.P. 1989. Pella of the Decapolis II: Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, The Civic Complex, 1979–1985, Wooster.

Sussman V. 2001. “Structures Depicted on Oil Lamps of Eretz-Israel,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Ariel, pp. 53–76 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XV–XVI). Wilson C. 1873: “Jerusalem,” PEFQSt: 37–39. Yeivin Z. 1993. “Shiloh—Excavation on the Northern Plateau,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceeding of the 3rd Annual Meeting—1992, Kedumim-Ariel, pp. 95–110 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. IX–X).

[208]

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE EARLY NORTHERN CHURCH AT SHILOH AND THE BAPTISTERY LEAH DI SEGNI

Excavations of the Early Northern Church at Shiloh unearthed four Greek inscriptions set in the mosaic floors in different parts of the building.1 A fifth inscription, contemporary with the others in the church, was found in the structure west of the church, which was transformed into a baptistery about the same time that Inscriptions 3 and 4 were embedded in the church floor. Inscription 1 is located in front of the doorway that leads into the northern aisle from the passage or narthex (L104) along the northern church wall. Inscription 2 is located in the northern aisle, directly in front of the former. Inscription 3 is located in the chancel, at the foot of the altar. Inscription 4 is enclosed in a small panel in the northwestern corner of the central carpet in the nave, near a built bench that skirts its western wall.

in stone from the necropolis of Ghor es-Safi (ancient Zoar) and dated to the mid- and late fourth century, where it is accompanied by a rhomboidal theta, as in the present inscription.4 The alpha with a horizontal middle stroke is no longer seen after the end of the fourth century or the very beginning of the fifth. The abbreviated nomina sacra marked with a horizontal stroke already appear in papyri of the third and fourth centuries,5 as well as in one of the inscriptions in the Megiddo prison.6 A horizontal line also marks the last two letters of l. 4, a qoppa and a theta. The two characters here have a numerical value, qoppa of the Greek alphabet representing 90 and theta, 9: together, 99. This is a well-known isopsephon, that is, a figure representing the numerical value of a word or a sequence of words: 99 corresponds to the numerical value of 'Am»n.7 The inscription reads:

Inscription 1 The inscription is framed in a tabula ansata enclosed in a rectangular panel (149×61 cm). The panel containing the inscription measures 118×61 cm. The frame and the characters are of black tesserae on a white background. The triangles flanking the handles of the tabula ansata are pink and enclose smaller white and black triangles. The letters, 7.5 to 12.5 cm high, belong to the square alphabet; they are well spaced, rather squat, and present two very early characteristics: the omicron is rhomboidal, and one of the two alphas has a horizontal middle stroke. Both characteristics appear in the mosaic inscriptions of the Christian prayer hall discovered in the Megiddo prison, dated to the first half of the third century2; there, however, the early date is proclaimed by the pronounced apices of the letters, absent in our inscription. The rhomboidal omicron, rarely seen in our region, appears in the Sheikh Zuweid mosaic, dated by most scholars to the fourth century,3 as well as in epitaphs engraved

0

20

40

KEIYXEELEHCO NCILOUNKAI TOUCAUTHC OIKHTORACqQ

K(Úri)e 'I(hso)à C(rist)š, ™lšhson Siloun kaˆ toÝj aÙtÁj o„k»torj. ('Am»n).

[209]

Lord Jesus Christ, have pity on Shiloh and its inhabitants. Amen.

L. DI SEGNI

The inscription preserves the ancient name of the village, which is reflected in its medieval name, Casale Seylon,8 and in the modern Arab name of the site, Kh. Seilun. The accepted forms of the toponym in the Septuagint are Shlw, Shlwm and, more rarely, Shlwn (pronounced Silo, Silom, Silon, according to the rule of iotacism),9 Silo in the Vulgate. Writers referring to the biblical text used the toponym in one of its scriptural forms. Silèm and Shlèm appear in Testamenta Patriarcharum, a Jewish pseudo-epigraphic work whose final recension probably dates from the second century CE,10 and in Vitae prophetarum,11 a collection of legendary traditions concerning the burial places of the prophets, believed by some scholars to have been compiled by Christians in the fourth century,12 by others to depend on a Jewish text of the Second Temple period.13 Eusebius in the Onomasticon and Jerome in its Latin translation use the scriptural form Shlè/Selo.14 The toponym is Silo in other writings by Jerome, which all deal with the site in a scriptural context, as the place, visited by Christian pilgrims, where the Ark of the Covenant was located.15 The Spanish pilgrim Egeria, who probably visited Shiloh in 383,16 also calls it by its scriptural name, Silo or Sylo.17 However Josephus, as a native well acquainted with local geography, follows this pattern only in part. In his summary of biblical events in Books V and VIII of Jewish Antiquities, he uses Silè, undeclined, in genitive and accusative several times (Ant. V, 170, 343, 357; VIII, 206, 267); but he also uses the accusatives Siloàn (Ant. V, 68, 70, 72, 150) and Siloànta (Ant. V, 79)—both attesting a form of the toponym that did not depend on one of the accepted forms in the Septuagint but probably reflected the contemporary name of the site.18 This is now confirmed by the inscription; additional confirmation is provided by the Latin pilgrim Theodosius, who in the early sixth century refers to the place as Silona (ablative).19 Jewish sources also attest to a name change in the time of the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud, from Shiloh, used especially in contexts involving the biblical past of the place, to Beth Shiloh or Beth Siloni, with reference to the contemporary village, home of scholars of the Tannaitic generations.20 The latter form apparently reflects the Greek Kèmh Siloàn. In fact, the expression toÝj aÙtàj o„k»toraj, “its inhabitants” (with a feminine pronoun in Greek) implies the attachment

of a feminine noun to the toponym, which cannot be but kèmh, “village.” Kèmh, the equivalent of Hebrew Kefar, is part of many village names in inscriptions.

Inscription 2 The inscription is enclosed in a round medallion encircled by two concentric frames of black tesserae enclosed in a square of white and black tesserae. The space between the round medallion and the square frame is filled with pink tesserae and encloses four white and black triangles pointing towards the corners of the square. The square frame measures 68.5 × 68.5 cm; the outer circular frame is 68.5 cm in diameter; the inner one, 55 cm. The letters, 8–9.5 cm high, belong to the oval alphabet. The abbreviated nomina sacra are marked with separate horizontal strokes. The inscription reads:

0

10

20

KE IU XEBOHQI TWDOU LWCOU K(Úri)e 'I(hso)à C(rist)š, bo»qi tù doÚlJ soà.

[210]

Lord Jesus Christ, help your servant.

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E E A R LY N O R T H E R N C H U R C H AT S H I L O H an d the b aptistery

This is a typical invocation dictated by a donor who, having contributed to the construction or the decoration of a church, wished to be remembered. Visitors entering the church through the northern doorway, marked by Inscription 1, would immediately come across Inscription 2; however, if this came unaccompanied by an additional text, the visitors would have been unable to identify the benefactor. We surmise, therefore, that there was another inscription, perhaps engraved on the lintel, embedded in the wall beside the entrance, or even painted on the door wings, which identified the man who had paid for this part of the building or for the mosaic floor.

Inscription 3 The inscription at the foot of the altar is framed within a tabula ansata enclosed in a rectangular panel (122×53.5 cm). The panel containing the inscription measures 71×53.5 cm. The handles of the tabula ansata are formed of white, black, and pink tesserae; the letters and the frame of the inner panel are of black tesserae on a white background. The letters, 7 to 8.5 cm high, present a mixture of oval and round forms. Several abbreviation marks are used: a horizontal stroke marks the abbreviated nomina sacra, and diagonal strokes of different sizes mark truncation of words. The inscription reads:

0

20

40

KE IU CECUNT HRHCONEUTONIN TONEPICKKEGER ' CB/KE MANONPRE ZWCUNYIF/TWNID/ K(Úri)e 'I(hso)à C(rist)š, sunt»rhson EÙtÒni(o)n tÕn ™p…sk(opon) k GermanÕn presb(Úteron) k Zîsun yif(wq»thn) tën „d(rÚsanta).

Lord Jesus Christ, preserve Eutonius the bishop and Germanus the priest and Zosys the mosaicworker who has set this up. The last line can be interpreted in two different ways. The most likely solution is seeing TWN as a misspelling of the masculine article in the accusative singular, referred to Zosys. Such an exchange of short and long vowels is quite common in the Byzantine period. A less likely solution would be taking TWN for a genitive plural and surmising that the article refers to the three men, with a sudden shift from the accusative, required by the verb and used in the articles and names above, to the genitive: tîn „d(rus£ntwn) for toÝj „d(rÚsantaj), “who have set this up” Such shifts of case are also known in the language of Byzantine inscriptions, but are much less common than the exchange of short and long vowels. Our choice of the singular rests also on the meaning of the verb „drÚw. 'IdrÚein means “to set up” in the sense of “to found” or “to dedicate” (for instance, a statue). If the inscription referred to the “founding” of the church, the mosaic layer would hardly have been associated in the act. Again, if the participle here means “who dedicated,” with reference to the chancel mosaic or to the altar, the artist would not have been associated with the bishop and priest who were responsible for the dedication. Only if the participle simply means “made (this mosaic)” or “set up (this inscription),” can it refer to the artist and be understood as singular. In other words, the bishop and the priest in charge of the church are mentioned because of their position and their responsibility for all that was done in the building, while the artist invokes Christ’s blessing in recompense for his work. Eutonius is a rare name. In the relevant period—the late fourth century, as indicated by the paleography of the inscriptions and by historical reasons we shall expound below—a bishop of this name is known from literary sources: he was the bishop of Sebaste who attended the synod of Lydda in December 415, and was present, together with John bishop of Jerusalem and Eleutherius bishop of Jericho, at the translation of the relics of Stephen the Protomartyr to Jerusalem on December 26.21 The mention of his name has two important consequences: first, it confirms the early date of the Church (which was probably built in the early 390s; see below), and second, it shows

[211]

L. DI SEGNI

that Shiloh, the southernmost village of Acrabattene (eastern Samaria), belonged to the territory of Sebaste, contrary to Avi-Yonah’s opinion that Acrabattene was included in the territory of Neapolis. Eusebius locates Shiloh “at the twelfth milestone from Neapolis, in the district of Acrabattene”.22 According to a method already advocated by Beyer 23 and accepted by Avi-Yonah, this statement implies that Shiloh was in the territory of Neapolis, for “if Eusebius states a certain village to be at such a distance from a city, there is a strong presumption that the village was within the territory of that city.”24 This in turn implies that an administrative change would have occurred between the end of the Second Temple period and the late third or early fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his Onomasticon, for Acrabattene is listed as one of the toparchies of Judaea by Pliny (Naturalis Historia V, 70) and Josephus (Jewish War III, 54–55). At that time it was settled by Jews, while the bordering highland was occupied by Samaritans (cf. Josephus, Jewish War II, 235, 567–568). By the late third century the old Judean toparchies had disappeared, having been absorbed in the urban territories of the neighbouring cities, and AviYonah’s hypothesis that Acrabattene was attached to Neapolis would seem reasonable: In founding the new city of Neapolis (Pliny, Naturalis Historia V, 69), Vespasian would have allotted it an urban territory in the surrounding area, without considering the ethnic composition of its inhabitants, which might also have changed as a result of the revolt against Rome. However, the mention of the bishop of Sebaste in our inscription makes Avi-Yonah’s hypothesis untenable. A number of villages are explicitly said to belong to the district of Acrabattene—from north to south: Sanim, Iano, Acraba, Eduma, Silo, all mentioned by Eusebius, and Galod (Jalud north of Shiloh), mentioned in a papyrus written in 124 CE, PMurabbaʿat 115.25 Eusebius locates four of them by their distance from Neapolis: Acrabim is 9 miles east of Neapolis (Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 14); Eduma is 12 miles to the east (Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 86); Iano, 12 miles to the east (Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 108); Silo is 12 miles from Neapolis (Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 156). According to the above-mentioned method, Avi-Yonah presumed that all belonged to

the urban territory of Neapolis and concluded that Vespasian, in founding this city in 73 CE, attached the former toparchy of Acraba to its territory, and that the same arrangement continued in the fourth century.26 Yet, the northernmost village of Acrabattene, Sanim (or Salem, today’s Salim, east of Nablus), is described by Eusebius as being within the boundaries of Sebaste. Avi-Yonah suggested solving the apparent contradiction by correcting the text from “within the boundaries of Sebaste” to “within the boundaries of Samaria”27; but a more likely conclusion is that the method adopted by Avi-Yonah, and by other scholars after him, is not always valid, and that Neapolis served as a caput viae because of its central location, but did not include Acrabattene in its territory.28 On the contrary, when the toparchy was abolished, the area was attached to Sebaste.

Inscription 4 Inscription 4 is enclosed in a small panel, 26.5×18 cm, in the northwestern corner of the nave mosaic carpet. The frame and letters are of black tesserae, rows of pink tesserae separating the lines of script. The letters are square, 2.4–3.4 cm high. A truncation is marked with a dot, formed of a single black tessera. The inscription reads:

0

ZWCUCTE CNIT:IRGA CAMHN TAZHL ARIA Zîsuj tecn…t(hj) rgas„mhn t¦ zhl¦ria.

[212]

5

10

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E E A R LY N O R T H E R N C H U R C H AT S H I L O H an d the b aptistery

I, Zosys the artist, have made the benches.

Tecn…thj is a general term for a skilled worker or

artist, and it can hardly be doubted that Zosys the artist was the same man as Zosys the mosaic-layer who set up the inscription on the bema. Most likely ºrgas£mhn does not mean that Zosys did the work with his own hands, but that he paid for it as an act of devotion, just as he dedicated the inscription on the bema.29 The mention of his name in both inscriptions and their similar motivation indicates that the two inscriptions are contemporary. The strange word t¦ zhl£ria is not found in any dictionary but is obviously a misspelling of sell£ria, from the Latin sella, “seat” or “saddle.” The exchange of zeta for sigma is known.30 Sella appears in several variants in Greek: from the simple transcription sšlla and the diminutive sell…on31 to less common terms with the same meaning, known from papyri or from Byzantine glossaries.32 Sell£rioj, an adjective meaning “having a seat” or “having a saddle,” appears in Late Antique Greek; specifically, the term t¦ sell£ria denotes a public privy (latrina), from the long benches that made this apartment serviceable.33 In fact, in spite of its late appearance in Greek, t¦ sell£ria reproduces a term of classical Latin: sellaria (singular feminine noun), “a room furnished with seats.” In the present inscription, however, t£ selliria undoubtedly refers to the bench that skirts the western wall of the nave, just beside the inscription.

Inscription 5 This inscription is located in front of the entrance of the baptistery (L404), and is framed in a rectangular panel of black tesserae, measuring 125×60.5 cm. The characters,

0

20

40

7.5–9.5 cm high, are also traced in black and the lines of script are separated by rows of red tesserae. The letters belong to the round alphabet. One of the two alphas has a horizontal middle stroke. The inscription reads:

KE IU CEMNHCQHNEKATAXI WCONENTHBACILEIACOU EUTONIOUTOUEPICKOPOU KAIGERMANOUTOUCWREPICKOPOU PROCELQATEPROCAUTON KAIFWTICQHTAI K(Úri)e 'I(hso)à C(rist)š, mnhsqÁn katax…wson ™n tÍ basile…v soà EÙton…ou to^ ™piskÒpou kaˆ Germanoà to^ cwrepiskÒpou. Prosšlqate prÕj aÙtÕn kaˆ fwt…sqht. Lord Jesus Christ, deign to remember in your kingdom Eutonius the bishop and Germanus the country bishop. Come to Him and be enlightened.

0

The text contains at least two quotations. Lines 1–2 paraphrase the words on one of the two thieves crucified with Jesus: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42), to which Jesus answered: “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43), a promise of salvation that made this verse particularly dear to the faithful and the most frequently cited of the Gospels in inscriptions: Felle counts 22 cases, 34 including three in Palaestina,35 to which we can add, besides the present case, also SEG XLIII: no. 1063, from the Armenian monastery near Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. The phrasing in our inscription is also reminiscent of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 1:5, e„j tÕ kataxiwqÁnai Ùm©j tÁj basile…aj toà qeoà, “that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God.” Lines 5–6 are a quotation from Ps. 33:6 in the Septuagint version (Ps. 34:5 of the Masoretic text, which is slightly different: “Look to Him, and be radiant”). The same quotation, in Latin, appears in a baptistery at Cuicul in Numidia (Jemila in Algeria)36; in Greek in the eighthcentury Church of the Courtyard at Umm er-Rasas in Jordan,37 and on stones found out of context in

0

[213]

0

L. DI SEGNI

Phrygia and Athens.38 In the Church of the Courtyard the inscription was painted on a slab seemingly belonging to the ceiling, so, at least in theory, the exhortation to “look up to God and be enlightened” may just point to the function of the slab, perhaps as a sill or lintel of a clerestory or a skylight, for the Church of the Courtyard, enclosed all around by other churches, could receive the daylight only from above. However, there is a baptistery about 15 m from the spot where the inscription was found.39 The baptismal connection of this verse is made obvious by the fact that one of the meanings of fwt… zein in patristic Greek is “to baptize,” fètisma means “baptism” and fwtist»rion “baptistery.”40 In most occurrences of the term “baptistery” in Greek inscriptions in our region, the Greek word is fwtist»rion, and rarely baptist»rion.41 Lines 3–4 contain the names of the men responsible for establishing the baptistery, Eutonius the bishop and Germanus the chorepiscopus or country bishop. Was the latter the same Germanus that bears the title of presbyter in the chancel mosaic? This cannot be taken for granted. The name Germanus was fairly common in Byzantine Palestine, and it is conceivable that the different titles identified two different men of the same name. The chorepiscopus assisted the bishop by visiting and supervising the rural communities. On occasion he probably helped them build or renovate their church by providing instruction, technical assistance, and perhaps financial support, for in several building inscriptions in fifth and sixth century churches his name is mentioned after the bishop’s name and before the name of the cleric in charge of the church.42 In the first centuries of Christianity, however, chorepiscopi were bishops in charge of rural districts, as opposed to city bishops; they lost their episcopal function in the course of the fourth century. Possibly, towards the end of this century, there were still rural communities that gave their priest the honorific title of chorepiscopus, especially if he served a number of surrounding villages that did not have a church and priest of their own. Considering that the complex under discussion is one of the earliest surviving ecclesiastical buildings in which inscriptions were found, it cannot be ruled out that Germanus the priest and Germanus the chorepiscopus were one and the same person,

the latter title being attached to his name in the monumental baptistery, where he probably baptized catechumens from the surrounding area.

The Date of the Church Bishop Eutonius occupied the seat in 415, but his accession date is unknown. At the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381, the bishop representing Sebaste was Saturninus; the next known bishop after Eutonius was Constantine, who attended the second Council of Ephesus (the so-called “Robbers’ Council”) in 449.43 Therefore, the Early Church and the baptistery may even have been inaugurated many years after 415. Seemingly there was no church at Shiloh when Egeria visited the place in 383 and saw a ruined temple and the tomb of Eli the priest,44 nor in 386, when Jerome and Paula passed through and were shown the ruined altar of the Children of Israel.45 In his Onomasticon, Eusebius gave the location of Shiloh but said nothing about its present state, and in his translation, made in ca. 389–391, Jerome makes no changes, though in other cases he adds updates of his own, including information about a church built on the spot.46 This does not prove that the church was not being built in those years, for Jerome, living in Bethlehem, might have been unaware of it. However, the inauguration of a church in such a well-known place would certainly have been spoken about, and indeed Jerome had heard of it, for he mentions a church at Shiloh in Epistula 46, written by Paula (or rather by Jerome in Paula’s name) to Marcella, a Roman matron, to invite her to visit the holy places.47 Epistula 46 was certainly written in Bethlehem, where Jerome and Paula settled in the second half of 386, coming between Epistula 45, written in August 385 when Jerome sailed from Rome, and Epistula 47, written in 393. As the epistles are arranged in chronological order, Epistula 46 can be dated after 386 and before 393, but not more precisely than that; and there is no reason to accept the traditional date of 386. Indeed, the church was quite likely not inaugurated before 391 (see note 44), and the Epistle to Marcella should perhaps be dated shortly before Epistula 47. The mention of Eutonius’

[214]

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E E A R LY N O R T H E R N C H U R C H AT S H I L O H an d the b aptistery

name proves that the Church was built in the late fourth or early fifth century. The paleography of the inscriptions confirms this early date, and therefore it is certainly to be identified with the

first church built in Shiloh, the church mentioned in Epistula 46. The identification in turn enables us to pinpoint the date of its erection, between 386 and 392.

Notes I would like to thank the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria for allowing me to publish the inscriptions from Y. Magen and E. Aharonovich excavation (License Nos. 818, 1094 and 1123), see Magen and Aharonovich, “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” in this volume. 2 Tepper and Di Segni 2006: 34–36, 41. 3 The date of the mosaic has been the object of much controversy. Clédat (1915: 22–28) dated it to the time of Trajan or Hadrian; Levi (1947: 73, note 32) judged it to be “not earlier than the time of Constantine,” on stylistic grounds; on the same grounds Török (1998: 24, 51–52) assigned it to the fourth century and A. Ovadiah (Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 51–53, no. 69; Ovadiah, Mucznik, and Gomez de Silva 1991: 125–126; Ovadiah 1997: 441) to between the mid-fourth and mid-fifth century. On the other hand, Talgam (2004: 219) preferred a date in the fifth or early sixth century; however, the paleography of the inscriptions that accompany the mosaic forbids a date beyond the midfifth century. 4 Meimaris 2005: 101, no. 8, Pl. II (346–347 CE); 146–147, no. 52, Pl. XI (386); 151–152, no. 57, Color Pl. III (387); 152–153, no. 58, Pl. XII (388); 160–161, no. 67, Pl. XIV (392); 163, no. 70, Color Pl. IV (394). In nos. 57, 58, 67 and 70 omicron and theta are consistently rhombus shaped, while in the two earlier inscriptions a mixture of rhomboidal, round, and oval forms appears. In the paleographic tables that sum up the shape of the different letters in the dated inscriptions of Ghor es-Safi (Meimaris 2005: 75–85) the rhomboidal omicron and theta appear also in nos. 135, 151, 163, 182, dated between 430 and 448, but always accompanied by round, oval, or square forms of the same letters; moreover, the letters are almond shaped rather than rhomboidal. 5 Avi-Yonah 1940: 28. 6 Tepper and Di Segni 2006: 36. 7 Avi-Yonah 1940: 114; on the phenomenon see, Perdrizet 1904 and Dornseiff 1922: 98–104, 181–182. 8 Röhricht 1887: 224–225; Beyer 1940: 177. 9 See, e.g., Judg. 21: 12, 19, 21, where Codex Alexandrinus has Shlw and Shlwm; alternatively, Origen’s text has Shlw and Codex Vaticanus (the oldest MS of the Septuagint, from the fourth century) has Shlwn. Also in the first chapters of I Sam. (I Kings according to the Septuagint) the two forms, Shlw and Shlwm, appear side by side (Septuaginta, Rahlfs 1

1935: 493–494, 502–509). For the existence of a secondary form of the toponym—Shiloh and Shilon—see also Aharoni 1966: 109. In Jer. 41:5 (LXX Jer. 48:5) Shiloh is mistakenly transformed into Salhm. 10 Testamentum Iudae VI, 2, de Jonge 1978: 56. The Testaments purport to represent the spiritual testaments of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes. The preserved Greek redaction was probably made ca. 100–63 BCE from a Hebrew or Aramaic original composed in the early second century BCE and revised by Christians in the second century CE. 11 Schermann 1907: 4–5, 7, 17, 54, 56, 81, 91, 99. 12 Satran 1995. 13 Van der Horst 2002. 14 Klostermann 1904: 156–157. 15 See: Epistulae 46 and 108, Hilberg 1996: 114, 322; In Sophoniam 1, 15–16, Adriaen 1970: 673. 16 Wilkinson 1981: 27–30. 17 This part of the Itinerarium Egeriae is lost, but a summary is preserved in Liber de locis sanctis, a guide to the Holy Land compiled by Deacon Peter (Petrus Diaconus), a monk at Montecassino, in 1137. The passage on Shiloh is in Petrus Diaconus (Fraipont and Weber 1965: 99). 18 Siloànta represents a hellenized form of the name as plural, a common form of geographical names in Greek and Latin. It follows the pattern of Heshbon, 'Esboàj in nominative and indirect cases, 'Esboàn in accusative, in Eusebius (Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 12, 18, 46, 76, 84, 132, 136), 'Isboàntwn, Isbundon, Sbontorum in the genitive plural, in the list of bishops who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325 (Gelzer, Hilgenfeld, and Cuntz 1898: 20–21, 64), attesting a prevailing plural form of the name: 'Esboànta, as it appears in Ptolemy (V, 16, 4) and in the mosaic floors of Umm er-Rasas (SEG XXXVII: no. 1572, and cf. no. 1552, the ethnic 'Esbount‹noj). Likewise, Jericho (`Iericè, `Iericoàj, `Iericoànta), Baʿal Maʿon (Beelmaouj, Belemoànta), etc. 19 Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 4, Geyer 1965: 116. 20 Press 1951: 94, 104; Press 1957: 905–906. 21 The discovery of the relics of the Protomartyr and their translation are narrated in the “Epistle of Priest Lucian,” which the village priest addressed to all the churches to announce his discovery. The epistle is preserved in Greek, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic: see Charbel 1978. Two Latin versions are in PL 41: cols. 807–817; for a critical edition see

[215]

L. DI SEGNI

Vanderlinden 1946. Fedalto (1988: 1030) mistakenly gives the name of the bishop of Sebaste in 415 as Eleutherius, following a corrupted recension that calls both bishops present at the translation Eleutherius; but in all the best recensions the bishop of Sebaste is called Eutonius (see PL 41, cols. 815–816; Nau 1906: 209; Devreesse 1938: 557; Vanderlinden 1946: 214–215). Eutonius is also included in Augustinus’ list of the bishops who attended the Council of Lydda (Contra Iulianum I, 5, 19; I, 6, 32, PL 44: cols. 652, 663). 22 Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 156. 23 Beyer 1931: 214–215; 1933: 222–224. 24 Avi-Yonah 1966a: 127–128. 25 Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 56–57, 115, 128, 150, 219, 232. 26 Avi-Yonah 1966a: 112. 27 Avi-Yonah 1966a: 154. However, the Greek phrase (™n Ðr…oij SebastÁj: Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 160), does not lend itself to this correction, for the term Ðr…oi is used by Eusebius for administrative, not geographical, entities. Another weighty argument against Avi-Yonah’s conclusion is that in PMurabbaʿat 115, dated 124 CE, Galod is described as belonging to the toparchy of Acrabattene: had it been absorbed by Neapolis, the village would probably have been described as “in the territory of Neapolis.” 28 For a similar case see Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 31, where Ecdippa (Achziv) is located “at the ninth milestone from Ptolemais,” which according to Frankel et al. 2001: 115 implies that Ecdippa was in the territory of Ptolemais. However, the border between Ptolemais and its northern neighbour, Tyre, most probably ran along the Gaʿaton River (Di Segni 1989), and Ecdippa was in the territory of Tyre, like the Jewish villages in its hinterland, mentioned in Tos. Shebiʿit 4, 9 and in the halakhic inscription of Rehov (Sussmann 1973–74; Levine 1981: 152–153). 29 This is usually the meaning of similar verbs (poie‹n, ʿBD in Aramaic) in building inscriptions, and cf. ¢nšqhken ka… ºrg£sato, a literal translation of the Latin formula fecit ac dedicavit, on an altar from Caesarea (Lehmann and Holum 2000: 121, no. 124). The verb ™rg£zomai, normally augmented e„rg- in the aorist, as well as in other past tenses, also appears with the augment ºrg-, especially in inscriptions. 30 E.g., Sartre 1982: 37, 349, no. 9424, from Bostra; Meimaris 2005: 63, 117–120, nos. 22–24, from Ghor es-Safi; SEG XXXVII: no. 1552, from Umm er-Rasas. 31 Liddell and Scott 1968: 1590. 32 sel…a, sell…j: Liddell and Scott Supplement 1968: 132. 33 Sophocles 1900: 983. 34 Felle 2006: 525. 35 (Nos. 185, 201 = SEG XL: nos. 1497, 1499, from Martyrius’ Monastery, and no. 243 = CIG 8947y from the “pilgrims’ road” in Wadi Mukateb, Sinai. 36 Felle 2006: 350, no. 742.

Felle 2006: 79, no. 82 = SEG XXXVII: no. 1616. Felle 2006: 229, no. 492; 250, no. 538. 39 See Piccirillo and Alliata 1994: Plan 1 in front of p. 72. 40 Lampe 1961: 1509–1510. 41 Fwtist»rion at ʿEvron (443 CE; SEG XXXVII: no. 1510), Kursi (585 CE; SEG XXXIII: no. 1270), Mount Nebo (597 CE; SEG VIII: no. 318), Madaba (early sixth century; SEG XXXI: no. 1476); baptist»rion at ʿEvron (415 CE; SEG XXXVII: no. 1516). In the baptistery at Hippos the word is broken, but most editors prefer the reading fwti]st»rion (591 CE; SEG XXXVII: no. 1490; 41: no. 1555). 42 Sometimes this role is assumed by the periodeuthj, a visiting priest, an office created in the mid-fourth century to replace the chorepiscopus, whose duties the periodeutes took over; but the two offices in fact coexisted for a long time (Meimaris 1986: 214–217, 254–255). At ʿEvron, near Acco, the earliest inscription in the church (415 CE; SEG XXXVII: no. 1516) mentions the bishop of Ptolemais, the chorepiscopus, and the priest; while of the two adjoining inscriptions in the nave, dated to 443 (SEG XXXVII: nos. 1514–1515), one mentions the bishop and priest, the other, a periodeutes. In the same area, at Shavei Zion, a fragmentary inscription of the first half of the fifth century probably mentioned the bishop (this part is lost), then the chorepiscopus, while a later inscription, of 485/6, mentions the bishop and a periodeutes (SEG XXXVII: no. 1509 A-B). At H�. Karkara in Upper Galilee an inscription dated to 478 mentions the archbishop (of Tyre, in whose territory the church was situated), a chorepiscopus, and no less than three periodeutai (Avi-Yonah 1966b). At Suhmata, in the same area, an inscription dated 555 mentions the archbishop (of Tyre), a chorepiscopus, and an archpriest and steward, the man in charge of the church (SEG VIII: no. 21). At Hazor Ashdod two inscriptions dated 511/2 mention the bishop (of Ascalon), a chorepiscopus, and two different priests, one, an abbot, while the title of the other is incomplete; the church was apparently attached to a monastery (SEG XXXVII: no. 1469). At H�. Gerarit, the building inscription of a church situated outside the village, dated 599, mentions Bishop Misael (probably of Gaza), a chorepiscopus, and a deacon and steward, the man in charge of the church (Di Segni 2004: 56–58). In the seventh century church of Kh. T�awas (Di Segni 2012), the inscription in the nave mentions the bishop of Eleutheropolis and a chorepiscopus, but no priest. At ʿEin Samiye in southern Samaria an inscription engraved on a column drum, probably from the local church, bears an inscription with the names of Patriarch Eustochius of Jerusalem, Emperor Justinian, and a periodeutes in charge of the building; the date is 557. The mention of the emperor’s name and his regnal year may be just a dating device, or may point to the village belonging to an imperial estate. As in the other cases in which no priest or other cleric in charge of the church appears in the building inscription, it 37 38

[216]

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E E A R LY N O R T H E R N C H U R C H AT S H I L O H an d the b aptistery

seems likely that the church had no residing clergy but was visited periodically by a chorepiscopus or a periodeutes, who celebrated the sacred service in it (cf. the case of the two earliest churches in the laura of Sabas: Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 16, 18, Schwartz 1939: 100, 102; Di Segni 2005: 152–154). 43 Fedalto 1988: 1030. 44 Templum dirutum in Sylo, ubi est et sepulchrum Heli sacerdotis: Egeria, reported by Petrus Diaconus, Liber de locis sanctis, Fraipont and Weber 1965: 99. 45 Altarem dirutum: Ep. 108, 13, Hilberg 1996: 322. An echo of this visit is also in Jerome’s commentary to the Lesser Prophets, written between 391 and his death in 419, where he describes the utter desolation of the glorious sites of the Old Testament: “We hardly discern insignificant traces of ruins

in cities once great. At Shiloh, where the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant were, now scarcely the foundation of an altar can be seen...” (Commentarius in Sophoniam, Adriaen 1970: 673). In this passage Jerome compares the desolation of Judea and the miserable state of the Jews with the splendor of the churches erected by the Christians in Jerusalem. It may be suggested that when he wrote these lines he was not yet aware of the erection of a church and baptistery at Shiloh: had he known of it, he would probably have added them to the list of Christian triumphs over the Jews in the places that were once the theater of their glory. 46 A church at the Oaks of Mambre (Jerome, Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 7), another at Gethsemane (ibid.: 75), a martyrium of St. John the Baptist at Sebaste (ibid.: 155). 47 Hilberg 1996: 114.

References Sources

Augustinus, Contra Iulianum libri VI, PL 44: cols. 641–874. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae, E. Schwartz (ed.), Kyrillos von Scythopolis, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49 ii, Leipzig, 1939, pp. 85–200. Di Segni L. (transl.), Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem, 2005 (Hebrew). Epistola Luciani presbyteri ad omnem ecclesiam de inventione corporis sancti Stephani martyris primi et aliorum, PL 41: cols. 805–815. Eusebius, Onomasticon, E. Klostermann (ed.), Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, GCS 11 i, Leipzig, 1904. Itinerarium Egeriae, E. Franceschini and R. Weber (eds.), in Itineraria et alia geographica, CCSL 175, Turnhout, 1965, pp. 35–90. Jerome, Epistulae. I. Hilberg (ed. 2nd edition.), CSEL 54, 55, 56, Vienna, 1996. Jerome, In Sophoniam, M. Adriaen (ed.), Commentarii in prophetas minores. In Sophoniam, CCSL 76A, Turnhout, 1970, pp. 655–711. Josephus Flavius, Antiquitates Iudaicae, H. St. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, and L. H. Feldman (eds.), London, 1930–1965. Petrus Diaconus, Liber de locis sanctis, I. Fraipont and R. Weber (eds.), in Itineraria et alia geographica, CCSL 175, Turnhout, 1965, pp. 37–47; 93–103; 252–278. Plinius, Historia Naturalis (Loeb Classical Library), H. Rackhman (transl.), London, 1960. Murabbaʿat, P. Benoit et al., Les grottes de Murabbaʿat (Discoveries of the Judean Desert II), Oxford, 1961. Ptolemy, Geographia, C. Müller (ed.), Paris, 1883. Septuaginta, A. Rahlfs (ed.), Stuttgart, 1935. Testamenta Patriarcharum, M. de Jonge (ed.), The

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Pseudoepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece I, 2), Leiden, 1978. Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae, E. P. Geyer (ed.), in Itineraria et alia geographica, CCSL 175, Turnhout, 1965, pp. 115–125. Vitae prophetarum, Th. Schermann (ed.), Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, Leipzig, 1907.

Studies Aharoni Y. 1966. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, London. Avi-Yonah M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (QDAP, Supplement to vol. 9), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1966a. The Holy Land. A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquests, 536 B.C. to A.D. 640, revised by A.F. Rainey, Grand Rapids and Mi. Reprinted Jerusalem, 2002, with an introduction by Y. Tsafrir. Avi-Yonah M. 1966b. “An Addendum to the Episcopal List of Tyre,” IEJ 16: 209–210. Beyer G. 1931. “Das Stadtgebiet von Eleutheropolis im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. und seine Grenznachbarn,” ZDPV 54: 209–271. Beyer G. 1933. “Das Stadtgebiet von Diospolis und Nikopolis im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. und ihre Grenznachbarn,” ZDPV 56: 218–246. Beyer G. 1940. “Neapolis (Nablus) und sein Gebiet in der Kreuzfahrerzeit,” ZDPV 63: 155–209. Charbel A. 1978. “Fonti e sussidi per lo studio della identificazione di Caphargamala con Beit-Jimal,” Salesianum 40: 911–944. Clédat J. 1915. “Fouilles à Cheikh Zouède (janvier–février 1913),” Annales de Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 15: 15–48.

[217]

L. DI SEGNI

Devreesse R. 1938. “Une collection hiérosolimitaine au Sinaï,” RB 47: 555–558. Di Segni L. 1989. “Greek Inscriptions in Western Galilee and the Question of the Border between Phoenicia and Palaestina,” Conference of Galilee Studies, (Haifa and Galilee Research Institute 4), Haifa, pp. 4–10 (Hebrew). Di Segni L. 2004. “The Territory of Gaza: Notes of Historical Geography,” in B. Bitton-Ashkeloni and A. Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, Leiden, pp. 41–59. Di Segni L. 2012. “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Ṭawas,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 241–246. Dornseiff F. 1922. Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magik, Leipzig. Fedalto G. 1988. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis II, Padova. Felle A.E. 2006. Biblia epigraphica. La Sacra Scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’Orbis christianus antiquus (III–VIII secolo), Bari. Frankel R., Getzov N., Aviam M., and Degani A. 2001. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee—Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, Jerusalem. Gelzer H., Hilgenfeld H., and Cuntz O. (eds.), 1898. Patrum Nicaenorum nomina Latine Graece Coptice Syriace Arabice Armeniace, Leipzig. Horst P.W. van der. 2002. “The Tombs of the Prophets in Early Judaism,” Japheth in the Tents of Shem, Leuven, pp. 119–137. Lampe G.W.H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford. Lehmann C.M. and Holum K.G. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima (The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, Excavation Reports V), Boston, Mass. Levi D. 1947. Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton. Levine L.I. (ed.), 1981. Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem. Liddel H.G. and Scott R. 1968. A Greek–English Lexicon, New edition revised by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie, Oxford. Liddel H.G., Scott R., and Stuart Jones H. 1968. GreekEnglish Lexicon. A Supplement, edited by E.A. Barber with the assistance of P. Maas, M. Scheller, and M.L. West, Oxford. Meimaris Y.E. 1986. Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Church of Palestine, Athens. Meimaris Y.E. 2005. Inscriptions from Palaestina Tertia. The Greek Inscriptions from Ghor es-Safi (Byzantine Zoora) Ia, Athens.

Nau P. 1906. “Sur les mots politikÒj et politeuÒmenoj et sur plusieurs textes grecs relatifs à saint Étienne,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 11: 198–216. Ovadiah A. 1997. “Allegorical Images in Greek Laudatory Inscriptions,” LA 47: 441–448. Ovadiah A., Mucznik S., and Gomez de Silva C. 1991. “A New Look at the Mosaic Floor from Sheikh Zuweid in the Ismailiya Museum,” Qadmoniot 24: 95–96; 122–126 (Hebrew). Ovadiah A. and Ovadiah R. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaics in Israel, Rome. Perdrizet P. 1904. “Isopséphie,” Revue des Études Grecques 17: 350–360. Piccirillo M. and Alliata E. (eds.), 1994. Umm al-Rasas — Mayfaʿah I. Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 28), Jerusalem. Press J. 1951. Eretz-Israel. Topographical-Historical Encyclopaedia I, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Press J. 1957. Eretz-Israel. Topographical-Historical Encyclopaedia IV, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Röhricht R. 1887. “Studien zur mittelalterlichen Geographie und Topographie Syriens,” ZDPV 10: 195–345. Sartre M. 1982. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie XIII:1, Paris. Satran D. 1995. Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine — Reassessing the “Lives of the Prophets” (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudoepigrapha 11), Leiden. Sophocles E.A. 1900. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, New York. Sussmann Y. 1973–74. “A Halakhic Inscription from the Beth Shean Valley,” Tarbiẓ 43: 88–158 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. V–VII). Talgam R. 2004. “The Ekphrasis Eikonos of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological Themes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, Leiden–Boston, pp. 209–234. Tepper Y., and Di Segni L. 2006. A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century CE at Kefar ʿOthnay (Legio). Excavations at the Megiddo Prison 2005, Jerusalem. Török L. 1998. The Hunting Centaurus, Budapest. Tsafrir Y. Di Segni L., and Green J. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani. Judaea-Palaestina. Maps and Gazetteer, Jerusalem. Vanderlinden, S. 1946. “Revelatio Sancti Stephani (BHL 7850–6),” Revue des Études Byzantines 4: 178–217. Wilkinson J. 1981. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, revised edition, Jerusalem.

[218]

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE LATE NORTHERN CHURCH AT SHILOH LEAH DI SEGNI

of the sixth. The grammar and spelling of the script are faulty, an indication that whoever dictated the inscription was not familiar with literary Greek. The text begins with a cross.

Four Greek inscriptions were discovered in the excavation of the church.1 Two were embedded in the mosaic floor, at the eastern end of the northern aisle; a third is incised on a bronze cross found in the debris. The fourth is a stamp on a mortar rim, which probably belonged to the occupation phase of the site prior to the erection of the church.

+ EPHTWEULABECTS 2 DELMATHWPRECBHTS SQEWTHMHTWEGEN 4 ETWTWERGWNTOUTO

Inscription 1 Four-line inscription framed in a tabula ansata 145 cm long (195 cm including the handles) and 56 cm wide. The tabula ansata is inserted in a space devoid of the scales and leaves decoration, at the end of the carpet, and is flanked by four leaves of the same pattern. The characters, 11–12 cm high, are traced in red tesserae on a white background; the frame is black, as are the rows of tesserae that separate the lines. The letters belong to the round alphabet. Notable are the narrow omicron and theta: the omicron is double pointed. Only an abbreviation mark, a stigma, is used, but its shape varies from the usual S-shape to an inverted S or a twisted one. Judging by the appearance of the characters, the inscription can be tentatively dated to the second half of the fifth century or the beginning

0

2 4

+ ’Ep¾ tî eÙlabest(£tJ)

Delmat»J presbht(šrJ) (kaˆ) qewthm»tw ™gšnetw të œrgwn toàto.

l. 1 ™p is mistakenly constructed with dative instead of the required genitive; l. 2 DlmatJ or rather, in the genitive, Dlmat presbt(šrou); l. 3 qetm»tJ; l. 4 W for O. (cross) Under the most pious and honored by God priest, Dalmatius, this work was done.

20

[219]

40

L. DI SEGNI

(cross) Lord, accept the offering of those who have offered in this consecrated place (which) the Lord [will protect.]

The work mentioned in the inscription is obviously the mosaic floor of the northern aisle, for this inscription, together with Inscription 2 that is part of the same message, faces the end wall. The fact that the dedicatory inscription was located here indicates that this floor was not laid at the same time as the one in the main hall; for in this case, the inscription would have been located in the nave. The church possibly began functioning before being entirely paved in mosaic, and the offerings of visitors paid for the mosaic of the northern aisle—and perhaps also for the addition of the rooms on the northern and southern sides of the building.

The second line can be interpreted in different ways, always keeping in mind that no more than two characters can be missing at the end. If we maintain the reading K(Úrio)j, there is no alternative but to end the first sentence after the abbreviation TS and to begin a new one, probably a blessing in abbreviated form, e.g., K(Úrio)j f(ul£xei), which may well be understood as being connected with the preceding sentence: “God will protect” the consecrated place, that is, the church.2 However, considering the poor quality of the Greek used in the two inscriptions, we may surmise that the abbreviation KC was written by mistake instead of KE or KU: if the former, the end of the line could contain a blessing formula unrelated to the preceding sentence, e.g. K(Úri)e b(o»n)q(ei), “Lord, help!” If the latter, the end of the line would be better restored: ™n toà k(a)q(wsiwmšnou) t(oà) K(ur…o)u [tÒ(pou)], “in this consecrated house of the Lord.” In favor of this interpretation is the fact that the abbreviation TS is common for the article, not so for the word tÒpoj.3 The abbreviation KQ is also far from obvious. The usual meaning (katacqon…oij qeoj, “To the gods of the Underworld”) is clearly inapplicable in this case. Two words more at home in a Byzantine context can be abbreviated in this way: kaqolokÒj and kaqwsiwmšnoj.4 The former is often used in connection with churches, either to emphasize their orthodoxy as opposed to other communities, or simply to designate the principal church of a diocese.5 The phrase kaqolik¾ ™kklhs…a even appears in dedicatory inscriptions of churches in Egypt, marking Meletian churches that claimed to represent orthodoxy against those of the Athanasians.6 However, in these examples ™kklhs…a strongly implies the community

Inscription 2 A two-line inscription: the first line is located beyond the end of the mosaic carpet, the second, in the carpet’s outer border. Both lines begin with a cross. The letters, as well as the carpet frame, are of red tesserae. The characters, 11–12 cm high, are very similar to those of Inscription 1, but the omicron alternates the narrow with the round shape. Two abbreviation marks are used: the stigma and a horizontal stroke on the nomen sacrum. The end of both lines is missing, but the available space allows for a loss of no more than two or three letters after the break. Again, both grammar and spelling are faulty. + KEPROCDEXETHNKARPWFWRIA - KARPOFWRICANTONENTOUKQTSKC - + K(Úri)e prÒsdexe t¾n karpwfwria[n t(în)]

karpofwris£nton ™n toà k(a)q(wsiwmšnou) t(Òpou) K(Úrio)j [f(ul£xei) ?] l. 1 prÒsdex; at the end of the line the missing letters may be NTS rather than NTWN; l. 2 karpofrs£ntn; after ™n, genitive instead of dative.

0

20

[220]

40

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E L AT E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H AT S H I L O H

or institution associated with the building, while the term tÒpoj does not have the same cogency. Even if we accept the reading ™n toà KQ t(oà) K(ur…o)u a - - o, there is not enough space for a more explicit term, e.g., naoà or o‡kou. It is preferable, therefore, to adopt the reading ™n toà k(a)q(wsiwmšnou) t(Òpou) or t(oà) K(ur…) [tÒpou], in which kaqwsiwmšnoj (often used in this period as an attribute of soldiers or officials, “faithful”) preserves its quality of participle, “consecrated.”

Inscription 4 Fragment of a mortar rim with a rectangular stamp, 4.7 cm long, and 2.8 cm wide. It belongs to the well-known class of Syrian mortaria, which widely circulated in the East during the third and early fourth century. The inscription reads:

Inscription 3

0

10

20

A bronze cross, 16.5×15 cm and 2–4 mm thick, with holes at the ends of its four arms, through which it could be nailed on a plaque. An inscription, beginning and ending with crosses, is incised on the stem and continues first on the left arm, and then on the right. The letters are 8–9 mm high.

0

2.5

5

ERMOG ENOUC̣ I ‛Ermogšnouj

+ ‛Ag…a Mar…(a), ¢n£pauson ’AnianÒn +

Of Hermogenes.

(cross) Saint Mary, give rest to Anianos (cross) Either the cross, or the whole object on which it was fixed, was clearly an offering to the Virgin for the rest of a man who bore the Semitic name Anianos.7

The impression is slightly disturbed at the end but it is possible to make out the curve of the sigma and the small, iota-like sign, which always appears in the stamp of Hermogenes’ workshop.8

[221]

L. DI SEGNI

Notes I would like to thank the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria for allowing me to publish the inscriptions from Y. Magen and E. Aharonovich excavation (License Nos. 818, 1094, and 1123), see Magen and Aharonovich, “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” in this volume. 2 The formula “the Lord will protect,” often as a blessing upon donors, is found in sacred buildings (churches as well as synagogues): examples from Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: 23), Kissufim (Cohen 1980: 19; SEG XXX, no. 1692; my correction, Di Segni 1997: 683), Mampsis (Negev 1981: 71, no. 85; SEG XXXI, no. 1415), Beth Shean (synagogue: Bahat 1972: 58; SEG XXVI, no. 1683), Tsil in Hauran (Ewing 1895: 43, nos. 3–4). For F or FL as abbreviation of 1

the future or imperative of ful£ttein, see Avi-Yonah 1940: 108, 110. 3 Avi-Yonah 1940: 104–105. Tau with an overhanging omicron is a known abbreviation of tÒpoj. 4 Though the shortest abbreviation registered by Avi-Yonah for both terms is KAQ: Avi-Yonah 1940: 74. 5 See Lampe 1961: 690–691, s.v. kaqolikÒj. 6 Lajtar and Wipszycka 1994; SEG XLIV: no. 1488. 7 Annianos or Anianus, also Aninas, are Greek transcriptions of the Hebrew HNN: Wuthnow 1930: 23. For some occurrences in Palestine, see Di Segni 1993: 233, 238, note 26. 8 For these mortaria, especially the Hermogenes type, see Hayes 1967, esp. p. 339, Fig. 2.

References Avi-Yonah M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (QDAP, Supplement to vol. 9), Jerusalem. Bahat D. 1972 . “The Synagogue at Beth-Shean—Preliminary Report,” Qadmoniot 5(18): 55–58 (Hebrew). Cohen R. 1980. “The Marvellous Mosaics of Kissufim,” BAR 6: 16–23. Corbo V.C. 1955. Gli scavi di Kh.Siyar el-Ghanam (Campo dei Pastori) e i monasteri dei dintorni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 11), Jerusalem. Di Segni L. 1993. “The Greek Inscriptions from the Samaritan Synagogue at El Khirbe, with Some Considerations on the Function of Samaritan Synagogues in the Late Roman Period,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 231–239. Di Segni L. 1997. Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ewing W. 1895. “Greek and Other Inscriptions Collected in the Hauran,” PEF: 42–60; 131–160; 265–280; 346–354. Hayes J.W. 1967. “North Syrian Mortaria,” Hesperia 36: 337–347. Lajtar A. and Wipszycka E. 1994. “Deux kaqolikaˆ ™kklhs…ai dans le Mons Porphyrites,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 24: 71–85. Lampe G.W.H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford. Negev A. 1981. The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 25), Jerusalem. Wuthnow H. 1930. Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des vorderen Orients, Leipzig.

[222]

THE “BASILICA CHURCH” AT SHILOH MICHAEL DADON

The site of Shiloh1 (map ref. IOG 17758/16239; ITM 22758/66231) extends over the southern spur of a hill some 3 km north of Shiloh Valley, between Wadi Eli in the north and Wadi Musa in the south (see Site Map on p. XIII). The biblical tell is located on the summit of the hill, while the later remains are spread over its slopes. The site was surveyed and excavated over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.2 The church discussed in this article is referred to as the “Basilica Church,” to distinguish it from three other churches at the site: the “Pilgrim Church” and the northern churches.3

SHILOH IN SOURCES FROM THE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE PERIODS In Eusebius’ Onomasticon (156:28), Shiloh (Σηλώ; Selo) is described as a small village in Ephraim, in the toparchy of Aqraba (Acrabbitena), twelve Roman miles from Shechem.4 In the literature of the period, its importance is mainly ascribed to its being a pilgrimage site. Its cultic vestiges are mentioned, e.g., by Peter the Deacon, quoting Egeria, who visited the area in the fourth century.5 At the beginning of the sixth century, Theodosius described it, apparently on the basis of earlier documents, as “Where the Ark of the Covenant of my Lord used to be” (Theodosius, 139).6 Shiloh also appears on the Madaba Mosaic Map.7

THE CHURCH The church, measuring 39.60×15.00 m, is of the basilica type (Fig. 1). Its eastern section was erected over the remains of an earlier structure dating from the first century BCE to the first century CE, while its western section overlies a layer of fill, laid directly upon bedrock, which slopes gently to the east.

The date of the church’s construction is unclear; however, the end of its first stage apparently corresponds with the Samaritan revolts,8 as can be inferred from a layer of ash covering the nave mosaic floor, as noted by the Danish expedition.9 The church includes an atrium, a narthex, and a prayer hall, all paved with mosaics that date to two Byzantine stages. The stone foundation unearthed east of the nave possibly served as the church apse base. The walls were constructed of large stones (0.70×0.70–1.00×0.50 m) that were smoothed only on the inner face; the outer face was coated with a thick layer of plaster. During the eighth century the church’s southern part was destroyed and the church went out of use. In the tenth century the church was apparently converted into a dwelling, as attested by the partition walls discovered in the aisles and nave. The atrium measures 13.90×10.00 m. Three openings afforded access to it from a paved street. Two of the entrances were preserved, the northern one, 1.60 m wide, and the central one, 2.20 m wide. The foundations of a stylobate were extant on three sides of the atrium. The stylobate partially rested on bedrock, but in certain sections it was set into a foundation trench, whose remains were exposed in the excavations. It enclosed a courtyard paved with stone slabs, each measuring ca. 0.6×0.4 m. The portico bordering the courtyard was paved with a simple mosaic, similar to the one in the street. Underneath the courtyard floor were the remains of a lime pit that had been utilized during the construction of the church. On the surface to the north of the atrium were the vestiges of W108 and W109, suggesting the existence of rooms adjoining the atrium from the north. The narthex, measuring 13.70×3.00 m, was excavated and reconstructed by the Danish expedition in the 1920s. Its northern section was exposed in the

[223]

m. dadon

686.96 686.58

686.93

687.28

W102 696.92

687.39

687.26 687.21

687.62

L314

L309

636.87

L313

687.76

L301

687.10 687.74

687.77

686.16 687.86

687.55

W103

W110

W104

687.77

687.26 687.77

686.30

L307

L312

W105

687.42 686.90

687.47

687.49

II

I 688.25

I

689.32

678.17

687.26

II 687.32 689.29 687.32

697.31

I

687.23 687.29

687.26

687.03

W114

687.03

687.02

W108

686.98

686.93

686.92

687.02

I

687.10

686.90

684.37

W109

687.02

686.94

686.89 686.47

686.77

687.17

687.19

686.98

686.78

687.16

687.13

687.16

W107 0

Fig. 1. Shiloh, the “Basilica Church,” detailed plan.

[224]

5 m

t h e “ b a s i l i c a c h u r c h ” at s h i l o h

present excavations. Three entrances led into the prayer hall: one into the nave and two into the aisles. Between the nave, which measured 20.50×6.60 m, and the aisles, measuring 20.50×3.00 m, were two stylobates, 0.60 m wide, which comprised platforms for six columns each. Fragments of the twelve columns that once stood upon the stylobates were found in the excavations, the longest fragment measuring ca. 4.5 m. Twelve Corinthian capitals and twelve bases were also recovered, one of the latter in situ. The bases measure 70×70 cm, thus projecting beyond the stylobates by 5 cm on either side.

MOSAIC FLOORS Most of the mosaic floors in the church were well preserved.10 Colorful carpets were discovered in the narthex, the nave, and the aisles, integrating floral motifs into their geometric patterns. Floors of diagonally set white tesserae, bordered along the walls by three horizontal rows of white tesserae, were laid in the porticos of the atrium and in the street. The nave and narthex floors were well made of small tesserae (ca. 130 per sq. dm), while the mosaic floors of the atrium porticos and the aisles were coarser (50–70 tesserae per sq. dm). Two interrelated stages were discerned in the mosaic floors. In the earlier stage (Fig. 1.I), the floors were adorned with entwined geometric and floral designs that formed spaces containing zoomorphic figures. The later stage is dated to the first half of the sixth century CE (Fig. 1.II). In this stage, possibly connected with repairs following the iconoclastic campaign, the floors were adorned with simple floral and geometric patterns. No indication of architectural alterations corresponding to these mosaic stages was discerned. The narthex carpet is bordered by a frame comprising two bands (Fig. 2). The outer band consists of schematic black buds, and the inner band displays a double guilloche in black, white, yellow, and reddishbrown, against a gray background (B12*).11 The carpet field was divided into five panels, described below from north to south. The first panel, is decorated with a network of

Fig. 2. Narthex mosaic floor, view from the south.

diamonds (H1*), each of which features a crosslet composed of four buds. In the north of this panel is a medallion, 0.95 m in diameter, surrounded by two concentric circles in reddish-brown and black tesserae, separated by a band with a red meander against a white background. In the middle of the medallion is the Star of David in red and black against a red background (Fig. 3). The second panel is decorated with a pattern of alternating round and square medallions of interlaced bands (J2*), in whose centers are various geometric motifs. The third panel, situated opposite the entrance to the prayer hall, is bordered by a frame of black tesserae separated by a band of stepped pattern (A5*) in red. In the northwestern and southeastern corners are two heraldically posed birds separated by a flower. In the opposing corners are diagonal lines in black, red, and white tesserae. In the middle of

[225]

m. dadon

Fig. 3. Northern carpet of the narthex mosaic floor, view from the west.

the panel is a geometric pattern consisting of four interlaced lozenges forming an eight-pointed star surrounded by a band of alternating, interlaced circles and squares. The fourth panel is decorated with a pattern of circles of interlacing strips (J1*) in brown, red, and black (Fig. 4).12 The fifth panel is poorly preserved, although its decoration clearly comprises a pattern of squares enclosing circles with interlacing lines in reddish-brown, yellow, and black. To the east, between the carpet and the main church entrance, is a dedicatory inscription (1.70×0.20 m) in Greek, consisting of two lines in reddish-brown lettering against a white background (Fig. 5). Its translation reads13: O Lord, remember Thy servant Zacharia and the writer with favor. The inscription is preceded and followed by crosses. The nave mosaic floor is ascribed to the initial stage

of the church’s erection, except for a rectangular section in the west, which is difficult to date (Fig. 6). It may represent the later stage, or be contemporaneous with the rest of the floor. The nave mosaic floor is bordered by a frame, 1.00 m wide, comprising a pattern of medallions formed by alternating black and reddish-brown entwining acanthus leaves (Fig. 7). In the center of the medallions on the northern side are zoomorphic figures, such as lions, horses, and cheetahs. In the middle of the frame’s eastern side are unfolding acanthus leaves; the lateral leaves are black, the inner leaf, reddish-brown (Fig. 8). To either side of the leaves are partially preserved deer in a heraldic composition. White Maltese crosses appear against a black background between the leaves. The carpet field, 13.10×4.00 m, comprises a colorful geometric pattern of pairs of interlocking, elongated hexagons with two concave ends, which produce geometric shapes of circles, octagons, and lozenges, with triangles and semicircles along the

[226]

t h e “ b a s i l i c a c h u r c h ” at s h i l o h

Fig. 4. The second–fourth panels of the narthex floor, view from the west.

Fig. 5. Inscription unearthed in front of the main church entrance.

[227]

m. dadon

Fig. 6. Nave mosaic floor, view from the west.

Fig. 7. Nave mosaic floor, acanthus leaves forming medallions.

[228]

t h e “ b a s i l i c a c h u r c h ” at s h i l o h

Fig. 9. Nave mosaic floor, a circle with entwining bands and a cross in its center.

Fig. 8. Nave mosaic floor, acanthus leaves.

frame. The circles and lozenges are adorned with colorful designs, including guilloche and floral motifs (Fig. 9). The octagons initially contained crosses and assorted figures, some human, which were replaced by geometric and floral motifs during the iconoclastic campaign (Fig. 10). In the west of the mosaic floor is a rectangular carpet framed by a thin band comprising dentils. This carpet, whose date is unclear, includes a network of interlacing bands forming a network of diamonds (H1*), enclosing circles. Only a section of the mosaic floor in the northern aisle, which measures 9.50×2.70 m, survived. In the center of the aisle a small section, 0.60×0.50 m, survived from the mosaic’s earlier stage (Fig. 1.I); the later stage mosaic surrounded it. The earlier mosaic floor is of high quality and made of small tesserae. It

Fig. 10. Nave mosaic floor, iconoclastic replacement of a human figure.

is divided into squares separated by a guilloche band of red and black tesserae. The carpet of the later stage is bordered by a frame (0.23 m wide) that includes a guilloche pattern (B3*) in reddish-brown and yellow against a black

[229]

m. dadon

Fig. 11. Northern aisle mosaic floor, view from the west.

Fig. 12. Southern aisle mosaic floor, view from the east.

background.14 To either side are four lines in brown, red, black, and white. The carpet field comprises rows of buds alternating with small diamonds with a dot in their centers (Fig. 11). In the west of the southern aisle, part of a mosaic carpet has survived from the earlier stage (Fig. 1.I), 2.65 m long and 1.25 m wide. It consists of squares bordered by a guilloche in black and red. The motifs within the squares include a four-petalled flower and an eight-pointed star. The later stage of the mosaic floor, of which a section measuring 9.00×2.70 m survived, includes a pattern of a main circle whose frame is intertwined with four pointed ovals that form an additional circle surrounding the main circle. These strips are designed so that the pattern of joined circles and ovals becomes intertwined

Maltese crosses and small circles in black, red, and yellow (Fig. 12).15

POTTERY The pottery recovered in the excavation can be divided into two assemblages located east of the nave. The earlier assemblage (L314) came from a sealed layer of fill between the two floors and is ascribed to the period from the second half of the second century BCE to the end of the first century CE (Pl. 1:1–11); it dates the earlier structure, over which the church was erected. The second assemblage, found in L313, L314, and L317, is dated to the fifth to sixth centuries CE (Pl. 1:12–19). This assemblage represents the two stages during which the church was in service.

[230]

t h e “ b a s i l i c a c h u r c h ” at s h i l o h

Summary Prior to the erection of the “Basilica Church,” the area was occupied by a structure in use from the second century BCE to the first century CE. Its scant remains do not enable us to reconstruct its plan or determine its function, and sections of it may have been removed when the ground was prepared for the erection of the church. While the date of the church’s construction is unclear, the end of its first stage apparently corresponds with the Samaritan revolts. Thus, this stage came to an end sometime between the uprising of 484 CE (the reign of Zeno) and that of 529 CE (the reign of Justinian I). The destruction caused to the church in the course of these revolts is attested by the repairs carried out in the aisles’ mosaics.

The church’s second stage can be dated to the first half of the sixth century CE. At this time, the settlement at Shiloh expanded. During this stage, changes reflecting the iconoclastic campaign were introduced in the “Basilica Church.” These included the removal of zoomorphic and possibly also human figures from the nave mosaic floor and their replacement by geometric and floral motifs. This stage apparently came to an end in the middle of the eighth century CE, perhaps as a result of the earthquake that struck the region in 749 CE, destroying the southern part of the church. Subsequent architectural changes suggest that the church was converted into a dwelling in the tenth century CE.

[231]

m. dadon

Plate 1. Pottery Vessels No.

Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L143

Bowl

Light brown ware, dark core

2

L314

LRC bowl

Reddish-brown ware

3

L143

Bowl

Reddish-brown ware

4

L314

5

L143

6

L143

7

L314

8

L143

9

L314

10

L314

11

L314

12

L317

Light brown ware

13

L317

Light brown ware. Impressed decoration of scales pattern

14

L317

Light brown ware

15

L317

16

L317

17

L317

Light brown ware, red slip on inner face, black slip on outer face

18

L317

Reddish-brown ware, black core

19

L317

Light brown ware, dark core

(Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:15)

Reddish-brown ware Cooking pot

Reddish-brown ware Reddish-brown ware

Jar

Juglet

Herodian lamp

Bowl

Light brown ware, dark core Brown ware, dark core Dark brown ware Dark brown ware Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 20:30); Jerusalem (Strange 1975: Fig. 16:10–11)

Dark brown ware

Light brown ware Light brown ware

[232]

(Hayes 1972: Fig. 58a)

t h e “ b a s i l i c a c h u r c h ” at s h i l o h

2

3

1

5

4

6

9 8

7

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Plate 1.

[233]

m. dadon

notes The “Basilica Church” at Shiloh was excavated in 1990 (License No. 470) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of M. Dadon, with the participation of A. Aronshtam. 2 The site was identified as biblical Shiloh by E. Robinson (Robinson and Smith 1841: 85–89), and mentioned in: Guérin 1875: 21–28, Siloun; SWP II: 367–370, Seilûn; and ClermontGanneau 1896: 299–302, Seîlûn. It was excavated by a Danish expedition (Kjaer 1930; 1931) and by I. Finkelstein (Finkelstein 1988: 205–234; 1993). 3 For the northern churches see Magen and Aharonovich, “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” in this volume. 4 For a broader historical review of the site see Magen and Aharonovich, “The Northern Churches at Shiloh”, in this volume. 5 Wilkinson 1981: 202. 6 Wilkinson 1977: 65. 7 Avi-Yonah 1954: Pl. 6. 1

Concerning these revolts, see: Avi-Yonah 1956; Dar 1988; Di Segni 2002. 9 Andersen 1985: 54. 10 Sections of the nave mosaic floor were published by the Danish expedition (Kjaer 1931: 85, Fig. 14; Andersen 1985: 52). Although the remainder of the mosaic carpets was not published, they too were possibly uncovered at that time. 11 The patterns are numbered according to M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 12 A mosaic floor with a similar pattern was found in a church at Kibbutz Magen (Tzaferis 1993: 284). 13 SEG VIII: no. 149; Starr 1935. 14 A similar mosaic floor was found in the church at Kh. Bureikut (Ḥ . Berachot; see Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1979: Pl. 16). 15 A similar pattern was found in mosaic floors at the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 101, Fig. 14) and in the church at Kh. Ṭawas, Peleg 2012: 234–235. 8

references Aharoni Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome. Andersen F.G. 1985. Shiloh. The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailūn, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963 II: The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Mamlūk Periods, Copenhagen. Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1956. “The Samaritan Revolts Against the Byzantine Empire,” EI 4: 127–132 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Clermont-Ganneau C. 1896. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874 II, London. 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). Di Segni L. 2002. “Samaritan Revolts in Byzantine Palestine,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 454–480 (Hebrew). Finkelstein I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem. Finkelstein I. (ed.), 1993. Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site, Tel Aviv. Guérin V. 1875. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Seconde Partie—Samarie II, Paris. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London.

Kjaer H. 1930. “The Excavation of Shiloh 1929,” JPOS 10: 87–174. Kjaer H. 1931. “Shiloh, Report of Second Danish Expedition,” PEQ 64: 71–88. Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ) and its Mosaics,” Christian Archaeology: 91–152. Peleg Y. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ṭawas”, in Christians and Chistianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 227–240. Robinson E. and Smith E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea III, London. Starr J. 1935. “A Christian Dedicatory Inscription at Shiloh,” BASOR 57: 26–27. Strange J.F. 1975. “Late Hellenistic and Herodian Ossuary Tombs at French Hill,” BASOR 219: 39–68. Tsafrir Y. and Hirschfeld Y. 1979. “The Church and Mosaics of Ḥ orvat Berachot, Israel,” DOP 33: 295–326. Tzaferis V. 1993. “Early Christian Churches at Magen,” Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 282–285. Wilkinson J. (trans.) 1977. “Theodosius, The Topography of the Holy Land,” in J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Jerusalem, pp. 63–72. Wilkinson J. (trans.) 1981. “Peter the Deacon,” Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, Jerusalem and Warminster, pp. 179–210.

[234]

A BYZANTINE monastery at KHIRBET umm zaqum YUVAL PELEG

Kh. Umm Zaqum, four dunams in area and 250 m below sea level, is located on a small hill overlooking the northern bank of Wadi el-ʿAuja (map ref. IOG 19498/14967; ITM 24498/64967).1 It is ca. 1.5 km south of Kafr el-ʿAuja et-Tahta and ca. 300 m east of the road connecting Jericho and Beth Shean (see Site Map on p. XIII).

THE SITE The site (Figs. 1–2) was excavated several times,2 and three phases of occupation were discerned: Phase I—the mausoleum, in use from the fourth to the beginning of the sixth century; Phase II—the monastery, built next to the mausoleum, was active in the sixth–seventh centuries; Phase III—the late use of the structures in the seventh–eighth centuries.

Phase I—Fourth to Beginning of Sixth Century The mausoleum is rectangular in plan (Fig. 3). Its outer dimensions are 5.85×4.15 m, and it is east–west in orientation. Its external walls (W143 in the north; W140 in the east; W139 in the south; and W121 in the west) all comprise two faces of large ashlars whose intervening space is filled with pebbles of various sizes and bonding material. The walls are 0.60 m thick. The interior walls, coated with white plaster, were extant to a maximum height of 2.00 m. Remains of the vault that roofed the structure can be distinguished on the upper portion of W139. The structure’s entrance, 0.75 m wide, was in the middle of W140. Two constructed steps led down to the burial chamber. Parallel to and further east of the eastern wall was another (W141) that bordered the 0.25 m-wide groove of the rolling stone that sealed the mausoleum (Fig. 4). The stone itself was not found.

The mausoleum’s interior was full of debris, including building stones and pebbles deriving from the vault. The debris at L1016 and L1017 contained a few fragments of pottery and glass. It was divided into six burial cells by means of partitions consisting of thin ashlars, 0.20 m wide and 0.65 m high. The cells contained human bones and abundant sepulchral offerings. L1019, a rectangular burial cell measuring 1.75×0.60 m and 0.65 m deep, adjoins the mausoleum’s western wall (W121), and contained the bones of at least two adults, a male and a female, and three children, as mentioned by Y. Nagar in his report.3 The skeletons were partially articulated, attesting to primary burial, and the bodies were disposed along a north-south axis with the heads in the north. This cell also yielded sherds of a lamp and crumbling fragments of an iron knife. L1020 is a rectangular burial cell measuring 2.25×0.90 m and 0.65 m deep. Located in the mausoleum’s southwestern corner, it contained the bones of at least nine individuals, including one male and four female adults. The skeletons were partially articulated, attesting to primary burial, and the bodies were disposed along an east-west axis, with the heads in the west. The cell also contained pottery, a kohl stick, a decorated bone tube, bone plaques and disks, beads, a bronze bell, and rings. L1021 is a rectangular burial cell measuring 1.50×0.65 m and 0.65 m deep. Located in the center of the mausoleum, it contained the bones of at least seven individuals, including a male and female adult. The skeletons were partially articulated, attesting to primary burial. The bodies were disposed along an east–west axis, the heads placed in the west. Apart from bones, the cell yielded no finds. L1022 is a rectangular burial cell measuring 1.50×0.95 m and 0.65 m deep. It adjoins W143 and

[235]

Y. P E L E G

W114 13 W1

-248.40

W109

W123 W121

W116

W122

W134

W135

W133

W141

W120

W14 4

W146

W117

W105

W111

W118

W119

W115

W108

W112

W107

-247.82

W103

W110

W150

-249.00

W104

W125

W12

4

W102

W106

W101

-248.74

-249.06 -249.48

-249.18

W1

27

W1

W131

6 12

W

W12

9

28

W13

0 2

W13

0

Fig. 1. Kh. Umm Zaqum, general plan.

[236]

10 m

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

2

W109

-250.35

W143 L1022

L1025

L1026

-250.26

-250.36

W135

L1000 F1003

-248.61

-248.93

L1023

1

W137

F1004 L1014 L1015

L1005

L1006

-248.18

L1012

-248.80 -248.94

W134

L1008

W136

W133

L1001

L1024

L1011

W122

W115

L1016

W139

W138

W116

L1021

L1020

-248.74

-248.65

-250.35

-249.66

W140

-248.90

W121

W120

W14 4

1

L1019

W123

F1009 L1018 -248.51

-247 00

1-1

-248 00 -249 00

L1010

W112 W145

5 m

0

W110

2

W142

W141 W140

W121 W123

W139

L1026

W147

L1025

-250 00 L1024

L1021

L1019

-247 00 -248 00

2-2 W115 L1006

W139 W121

-249 00 -250 00

L1011 L1020

Fig. 2. Kh. Umm Zaqum, detailed plan and sections.

[237]

L1019

W143

W120

W142

W141

W147

Y. P E L E G

Fig. 4. Mausoleum, the channel for the rolling stone, view from the north.

Phase II—Sixth to Seventh Centuries Fig. 3. Mausoleum, view from the west.

contained the bones of at least 14 individuals, including five female and six male adults. The skeletons were partially articulated, attesting to primary burial. The bodies were disposed along an east–west axis with the heads in the west. The west of the cell also yielded 37 coins, glass vessels (two containing kohl sticks), a glass bracelet, seven rings, beads, and a strip of cloth, perhaps the remains of a bag holding the coins. L1023 is a rectangular burial cell measuring 2.20×0.90 m and 0.65 m deep. Located in the mausoleum’s southeastern corner, it contained the bones of at least eleven individuals, including one male and four female adults. As the skeletons were dispersed, it was impossible to determine their original positions. The cell also yielded a glass tube with a kohl stick, a fragment of an iron bracelet, a bronze rod, rings, and beads. L1024 occupies the northeast of the mausoleum. There was apparently another burial cell in the north of this locus, although the partition dividing it from the rest of the room did not survive. L1024 measurements up to the hypostasized location of the partition are 2.20×0.90 m. This area yielded the bones of at least four individuals, including a single male adult. His partially articulated skeleton attests to primary burial along an east–west axis with the head in the west. A few pottery sherds were also found in this locus.

In the course of the sixth century, a small monastery was built adjacent to the mausoleum. Only part of its compound was exposed by the various excavations. The architectural remains can be divided into: a northern complex, including the chapel and its adjoining auxiliary room, two rooms south of the chapel, a cistern, a pool, and the vestiges of walls (Fig. 5); and a southeastern complex, including a square room, a cistern, and the vestiges of a wall that joined this complex to the northern one. The northern complex measured ca. 45×37 m. Bordered in the south by W101, in the east by W103, and in the west by W105, the wall bordering the complex in the north was not discerned. All the walls consisted of two faces of large pebbles and a fill of small stones. The walls, ca. 0.6 m thick, were extant to a height of one course of stones (0.30 m), which probably served as a foundation for mud brick walls. Here and there clay overlaid the stones, apparently the remains of the mud brick walls that did not survive, except for the chapel’s W120, which was surmounted by a course of mud bricks. In the north of the complex was a chapel measuring 10.70×4.90 m (Fig. 6). It was bordered in the north, west, and south by W109, W120, and W115, respectively. These walls, 0.90 m thick and comprised of variously sized pebbles, were preserved to the maximum height of 0.50 m. Traces of plaster are still visible on the inner faces. Plaster fragments in black, red, and white attest to the frescoes that adorned the

[238]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Fig. 5. Northern complex, view from the west.

Fig. 6. Chapel, view from the west (courtesy of IAA).

Fig. 7. Chapel, colorful plaster fragments.

chapel (Fig. 7). The chapel floor and apse were paved with a colorful mosaic, found entirely intact (see below). A stone step, 0.10 cm high, found in situ, divided the chapel hall from the bema and the apse, which was 3.70 m in diameter (Fig. 8). It featured the remains

of grooves for two chancel screens and sockets for the posts: the northern screen was 1.50 m long, the southern one, 1.20 m. The screens were spaced 0.85 m apart, facilitating access to the bema from the hall. Two hewn sockets on the step were found east of the southern screen. R. Reich suggested that they served

[239]

Y. P E L E G

Fig. 8. Chapel, view from the east (courtesy of IAA).

to support a small stand of some kind.4 A rectangular bitumen slab stone basin was found in the southwestern corner of the apse, abutting W115 and the step leading up to the bema. It measured 1.60×0.90 m, and 0.50 m deep, and was partially plastered on the inside (Fig. 9). A large stone measuring 0.80×0.45 m and 0.26 m high adjoined the basin in the west, apparently serving as a step to the basin. The basin contained fragments of a stone slab with a decorative margin—possibly its lid. The chapel’s 1.30 m-wide opening in the south was accessed via the auxiliary room. It was partially cleared by S.A.S. Husseini’s excavation. Located at the western end of W115, it featured two round sockets.5 The auxiliary room, 4.00×3.00 m, was bordered in the north by W115, in the west by the southern extension of W120 (designated as W133), and in the south by W134. In terms of thickness and character, these walls are similar to those of the chapel. Like the chapel, this room was paved with a colorful mosaic, found totally intact. At the northern end of W135 a built-in niche, 1.20×0.75 m and preserved to the height of 0.65 m, jutted eastwards (L1001). Its semicircular interior was 0.70 m in diameter. In its center were the remains of a column whose base measured 0.20×0.20 m (Fig. 10). The niche was entirely coated in white plaster. It is possible that these are the remains of a labrum, an installation for hand washing before entering the chapel.6 East of the chapel’s southeastern corner and south of the mausoleum was a long, narrow, rectangular room (L1011), 4.60×1.60 m. It was bordered in the north by the mausoleum’s

Fig. 9. Chapel, bitumen basin, view from the west.

Fig. 10. Auxiliary room, the installation, view from the west.

southern wall (W139); in the east by W110; in the south by W115; and in the west by W138. This room yielded few pottery sherds. The northern part of a trapezoidal hall was exposed east of the auxiliary room (Fig. 11). The excavated area measured 8.50×3.50 m. This hall was bordered in

[240]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Fig. 11. Trapezoidal hall, view from the west.

Fig. 12. Trapezoidal hall, the staircase, view from the south.

the north by W115, which divided it from the chapel; in the west by W135; and in the east by W136. The wall bordering it in the south was not discerned. In the northeastern corner of the hall, adjoining W136, a staircase led to the second story, which apparently surmounted the chapel and L1011. This staircase (L1006) was extant for a length of 2.60 m and a height of five steps, 1.20 m. It was partially constructed using ashlars in secondary use that had apparently been appropriated from the mausoleum (Fig. 12). The hall itself was found full of light brown soil (L1014, L1005) containing many fragments of pottery and glass vessels, as well as a piece of the bitumen chancel screen. Beneath this stratum was a thin conflagration layer (L1015) containing a few fragments of pottery and glass overlying a floor consisting of beaten earth and small pebbles (F1004). In the east, a 0.60 m-thick wall (W103) delimited the site in this direction. Also in the east were a number of additional walls that apparently formed part of a set of

rooms situated here: W108, 0.80 m wide, consisting of mud bricks over a stone foundation; and W110, 1.30 m wide. A rectangular room (L1008, L1018) measuring 9.10×3.30 m was exposed west of W110; it was bordered in the north by W115, in the west by W136, and in the south by W145. North of the southern wall and adjoining it, a plastered bench (W112) was found, covered by debris of mud bricks and plaster to a height of 0.80 m (Fig. 13). The bench, 0.40 m high and 3.00 m long, was exposed in B. Shantour’s excavations and apparently continued to the west. Abutting the bench in the north were the remains of the floor (F1009), consisting of earth and small stones. Adjoining the walls in the northeastern corner of the room were two long benches, 0.30 m high, topped with shallow elongated depressions; they were plastered, and had elongated cavities in their centers, 0.15 m deep, whose purpose is unclear (Fig. 14). The northern bench measured 1.80×0.50 m, the eastern

[241]

Y. P E L E G

Fig. 13. Section of Bench W112, view from the north.

one, 3.00×1.00 m. The room interior was filled with a layer of light brown soil, ca. 1.1 m deep, containing fragments of pottery and glass, a shell, and a piece of a terracotta tablet, perhaps a sundial. Underneath this layer was a floor consisting of light-colored beaten earth and small stones (F1009). A sounding underneath this floor (L1012) yielded fragments of pottery and glass. Some 1.55 m west of the auxiliary room was a cistern whose round opening had a diameter of 1.40 m. It was hewn into the bedrock, its walls lined with local fieldstones and covered in two coats of plaster over a layer of small, flat stones. The cistern, not excavated, appears to be at least 3.10 m deep, its diameter at the bottom reaching 5.00 m. On the surface, between the cistern and the auxiliary room, the remains of a round, ashlar-built wall (W116) can be distinguished. They represent the upper course of the cistern sides, and were surmounted by the cistern roof. The eastern side of the cistern collapsed, together with the southwest of the chapel hall and the north of the auxiliary room.

Some 2 m west of the chapel was a rectangular pool with inner dimensions of 4.10×3.20 m. Its walls consist of fieldstones and pebbles: W119 in the north, W146 in the east, W117 in the south, and W118 in the west. There were traces of plaster on the 0.30 m-thick walls. The pool was not excavated, and its depth is unknown. In the middle of W113, a channel proceeded northwest, reaching the pool’s northwest corner. This channel was 7.00×0.15 m, and 0.30 m deep. Its water source is unknown, since its extension beyond the site, as demarcated by W114, was not discerned. West of the pool were the remains of a wall (W111), 1.00 m wide and east–west in orientation. It proceeded from the wall demarcating the site in the west (W105), continuing for a length of ca. 6 m. Adjoining the center of the wall in the south was a kind of built basin, rectangular in shape and consisting of small stones; it measured 1.80×1.00 m and is 0.30–0.40 m deep (Fig. 15). The wall bordering the site in the south (W101), ca. 0.6 m thick, was exposed for its entire length. Its

[242]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Fig. 15. Built basin in the west of the northern complex, view from the south.

Fig. 14. Loci 1008 and 1018, view from the north. Note the elongated installations.

western section joins the southern end of W105, its eastern section joining the southern end of W103. W105, which borders the site in the west, was also exposed for its entire length; it was 0.70 m thick, and the remains of bricks consisting of red ware and straw were observed over its stone foundation. North of and parallel to W101 were the remnants of a brick wall (W104), 0.60 m thick. Its foundation was of stone and (together with the western extension of W107) in the north it bordered the row of rooms that comprised the southern wing of this complex. The remains of a number of lengthwise walls, north–south in orientation, were discovered in the course of the excavation, but not exposed in their entirety: W125, W124, and W102. They divided the southern wing into rooms. In the east of the southern wing was a channel, 6.00×0.15 m, which extended eastward, but its source and destination are unclear. In the middle of the site the excavations revealed the remains of a mud brick wall (W150), 0.80 m thick, covered in brick debris. Adjoining this wall

Fig. 16. Southeastern complex, cistern and channel, view from the east.

in the south were the remains of a plastered basin, 0.40 m deep, to which a 0.80 m-wide staircase of plastered bricks provided access; it reached a height of 1.00 m.

[243]

Y. P E L E G -249.63

0.85 m deep. The location of the structure’s entranceway was possibly in the east. The interior was not totally exposed in the excavation, but a sounding (L1007) produced a jug and various sherds, and the structure’s isolated position in the southeast of the site suggests it was a watchtower. South and northwest of the structure were the remnants of two walls whose purpose is unclear.

W131

W128

W129

L1007

1

1

-250.03

Phase III—Seventh to Eighth Centuries After the site ceased to function as a monastery, apparently at the beginning of the seventh century, a few changes were introduced. The main evidence of this was observed in the hall south of the chapel. The erection of W137, which borders a 0.65 m-wide channel running along the northern wall of the hall (W115), incorporated architectural elements of bitumen taken from the chapel; these included fragments of chancel screens and table legs (Fig. 18). The channel contained a variety of glass vessel fragments and a few sherds.

W130 3 m

0

-248 00 1-1 -249 00

W131

W130

W129

-250 00

-251 00

Fig. 17. Square structure, detailed plan and section.

Southeast of the northern complex were the remains of a partially extant smaller complex, surrounded by walls. In the middle was a cistern; and a square structure, perhaps a watchtower, was located in its southeastern corner. Of its original surrounding walls, only the one in the southwest (W126) survived; it was exposed intermittently for a length of ca. 52 m. It was 0.60 m thick, and comprised medium-sized fieldstones apparently surmounted by mud bricks. In the center of the area was a plastered channel, 0.85×0.20×0.20 m. It conducted water to a squarish collecting pit, 0.95×0.75 m and 0.80 m deep, whence it continued eastward for another 0.80 m; it then became a ceramic pipe, 2.90 m long, which led to the cistern. The cistern had a round opening, 1.10 m in diameter, and its present depth is apparently 1.50 m (Fig. 16). Some 8 m southeast of the cistern were the remains of a square structure, 5.50×5.50 m (Fig. 17). Its walls, W128 in the north, W131 in the east, W130 in the south, and W129 in the west, had stone foundations,

Fig. 18. Liturgical furniture in secondary use in later channel.

MOSAIC FLOORS The mosaics in the chapel hall, in the chancel, and in the west of the auxiliary room were exposed by Husseini’s excavations, and published, as noted, by Reich.7 The following description is based upon the earlier excavations and publications, as well as on findings of the recent excavation. The hall mosaic floor was found completely intact.

[244]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

The margins abut all the enclosing walls and are made of white mosaic set diagonally, decorated by a row of alternating buds (F3*)8 and squares. The carpet frame comprised a band of guilloche (B2), bounded by a row of small dentils (A12*). The carpet field was decorated with a geometric pattern comprising a grid of diamonds consisting of diagonal rows of oval leaves in black and red outlined by a row of white tesserae (Fig. 19). The row of diamonds adjoining the frame contained a stylized crosslet consisting of four buds (F23*) in red, black, and white. The squares inside had rosettes (or a kind of cross) consisting of a black tessera surrounded by red and white tesserae. The hall carpet was of six colors: red, black, white, grey, and two shades of cream, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm.

The chancel mosaic floor was decorated with a colorful carpet. The carpet margins are of white tesserae set in diagonal rows and decorated with a row of squares (E*, Indental Square). Opposite the opening leading from the hall to the bema is a large diamond adorned with a checkerboard pattern (G1*). The carpet frame consists of two rows of white tesserae bounded by rows in black and a row of dentils in black (A12*). The carpet field consists of white tesserae set in diagonal rows and adorned with scattered buds (F17*; Fig. 20). The chancel carpet was made of three colors: red, black, and white, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. The colorful mosaic floor of the auxiliary room is divided into two panels: one in the east, the other in the west (Fig. 21). The carpet margins consist of white tesserae set in diagonal rows. The carpet frame

Fig. 19. Mosaic carpet in chapel, northwestern corner.

[245]

Y. P E L E G

Fig. 20. Chancel, mosaic floor, view from the south.

consists of two rows of white tesserae between two rows of black. The carpet’s western panel exhibits eleven medallions arranged in four rows (Fig. 22). These medallions consist of grapevine tendrils sprouting from an amphora set in the middle of the southern row. The amphora is formed of black, white, pink,

brick-red, and ocher tesserae. At either side of its base are branches ending in a red pomegranate. The medallion above the amphora is adorned with a bunch of grapes consisting of red tesserae suspended from the medallion frame. The medallion above it has a bird facing west over two branches, while the northernmost medallion has a leaf. In the two lateral rows, the southern medallions on either side are decorated with a kind of crosslet consisting of four buds (F23*) in red and black, while the two northern medallions are decorated with red and black squares (E*, Indental Square). The eastern panel is decorated with alternating rows of buds (F23*) and diamonds (E*, Diamond) in red and black against a background of diagonal rows of white tesserae. The mosaics of the auxiliary room at Kh. Umm Zaqum exhibit six colors: black, white, cream, ocher, brick red, and pink, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaics were laid over a bedding of medium-sized pebbles spread directly over the ground.

Fig. 21. Mosaic carpet in auxiliary room, view from the south.

[246]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

The excavation produced a fragment of a round terracotta tablet (Fig. 24); it was found in L1008. One side is smooth, the other engraved with short, deep lines. The tablet’s function is unclear; it possibly formed part of a sundial.

Pottery The Mausoleum Assemblage

This assemblage includes a small number of vessels which, being found mostly above the graves, were evidently not intended as burial offerings (Pl. 1:1–5). Only two were found in the burial cells: a cosmetic jar in L1020 and a lamp in L1019 (Pl. 1:4–5).

The Monastery Assemblage

This assemblage derives mainly from the rooms excavated south of the chapel and mausoleum. Other vessels were found in the structure located at the site’s southeast. The vessels include domestic ware characteristic of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Pls. 1:6–14; 2).

Glass Fig. 22. Mosaic carpet in auxiliary room, western panel (courtesy of IAA).

FINDS

The glass vessels include four burial offerings from the mausoleum (Pl. 3:1–4). The remainders derive from rooms excavated south of the chapel (Pl. 3:5–14).

Metal Objects

Liturgical Furniture and Objects Most of the chapel’s liturgical objects were found in secondary use in the channel dating to the Early Islamic period in L1013, adjoining and south of W115. These included chancel screen posts and fragmentary panels, as well as broken colonnette table legs deriving from the apse. A few other such objects were recovered elsewhere in the excavation. All were of bitumen, and in a state of decomposition, suggesting that they were probably damaged by fire, perhaps at the time of the site’s destruction. One chancel screen panel fragment, from L1013, was adorned with a floral motif that was only partially preserved (Fig. 23:1). Another, from L1005, was apparently adorned with a cross inside a diadem (Fig. 23:2). The altar table legs are characteristic of the Byzantine period (Fig. 23:3–5).

All the metal objects yielded by the excavation were burial offerings from the mausoleum. They included kohl sticks, finger rings, a bell, a fragment of an earring, and another of a bracelet (Pl. 4:1–16). There were also pieces of an iron knife in L1019 (not drawn). The kohl sticks were found inside vessels: one inside a pottery cosmetic jar (Pl. 1:4), and two inside doubletubed glass flasks from L1022 and L1023 (Pl. 3:2–3).

Bone Tools Two burial cells contained bone tools left as offerings to the deceased (L1020 and L1023). The tools include at least three decorated tubes, a number of disks (apparently receptacle lids), a decorated pin, and several plaques that apparently comprised the sides of a rectangular box (Pl. 4:17–28).

[247]

Y. P E L E G

1

3

2

4

5

0

5

Fig. 23. Liturgical Furniture and Objects.

[248]

10

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Fig. 25. Kh. Umm Zaqum, beads found in mausoleum. Fig. 24. Tablet, possibly a sundial fragment.

Beads Three cells in the mausoleum yielded beads left as burial offerings (Fig. 25): L1020—48 beads; L1022—16 beads; and L1023—10 beads. They were made of a variety of materials (e.g., glass, stone, bone, and carnelian), in a number of shapes and sizes (e.g., round, elongated, and lozenge shaped).

Coins The excavation yielded 37 coins, all in the west of one of the burial cells (L1022) in the mausoleum. Only 12 can be identified, as noted by G. Bijovsky in her report.9 One is Hasmonean, one dates to the days of Agrippa I, six date to the fourth century CE, two to the reign of Anastasius I (498–512 CE), one to the reign of Justin I (518–527 CE), and another to the beginning of the sixth century. A strip of fabric was found near the coins, possibly part of a bag containing them.

Summary The beginning of the site at Kh. Umm Zaqum is represented by the ashlar-built mausoleum, which apparently served a family living in one of the nearby

settlements, el-ʿAuja or Archelais (Kh. el-Beiyudat). Erected during the fourth century, it remained in use until the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. The mausoleum contained the skeletons of at least 50 individuals, including men, women, and children. Burial offerings placed with the deceased included a small amount of pottery, as well as glass vessels, metal jewelry, bone tools, beads, and coins. Judging by a cross-adorned ring, it can be inferred that the structure served a Christian populace. In the sixth century, after the mausoleum had gone out of use, a chapel was raised next to it in the west. Its floor was mosaic paved, and an auxiliary room was added in the south. This chapel formed part of a modest monastery, a small part of which was cleared in the excavations. This monastery, not identified in the sources, joins the many others from the Byzantine period discovered in the Jericho region. Following the Islamic conquest of the Land of Israel at the beginning of the seventh century, the monastery was apparently abandoned. Shortly afterwards, probably in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, its liturgical objects were reused in the construction of a water channel, serving the site’s later inhabitants. It was finally abandoned in the eighth century, and never resettled.

[249]

Y. P E L E G

APPENDIX: A TEXTILE FROM KHIRBET UMM ZAQUM ORIT SHAMIR Two textiles were found at the excavations of Kh. Umm Zaqum. 1. A linen textile (L1023) was used as a stopper for a glass double-tubed vessel dated to the RomanByzantine periods. This piece was preserved due to the dry climate of the Judean Desert. The textile (4×1.4 cm) was folded, rolled, and then looped with a linen thread. Made of linen, a plain weaving technique was employed. The threads are S-spun (anti-clockwise), medium spun and undyed cream. Number of threads per cm is 13×8. The warp is slightly more crowded than the weft as is typical of linen textiles in the Land of Israel. The looping is of plied linen thread, broken into 6 pieces of ca. 1 cm each, and 1.2 cm in diameter. Plying produces thicker and stronger yarn. Z-spun threads are usually S-plied (Z2S), as is the case here. The textile has white material attached to it, possibly remains of the liquid in the double-tubed vessel. 2. Five fragments of linen textile (L1022), the largest one being 3×2 cm, were dated to the RomanByzantine periods. It is impossible to determine its use. A plain weave technique was employed. The threads are S-spun, (anti-clockwise) medium spun, undyed cream. Number of threads per cm is 17×12. The warp is slightly more crowded than the weft,

1

0

typical of linen textiles in the Land of Israel.

Discussion Linen became a major economic factor in the Land of Israel from the second half of the second century CE, especially in northern Israel. The most noteworthy location was Beth Shean. Second century sources describe flax, the raw material for linen, in terms of its agricultural importance as well as its industrial significance. It is also described as one of the main export crops of the Land of Israel. Pausanias (V, V, 2) implies that the flax of the Land of Israel was of rather high quality. The edict of Diocletian on maximum prices (Ch. XXVI)10 reveal that Beth Shean flax is the most expensive in the market. In the Land of Israel, from the Neolithic to medieval periods, linen was S-spun (anti-clockwise). In linen fabrics found in the Land of Israel, warp threads usually outnumber those of the weft, e.g., from the Cave of Letters, Dura-Europos, Qumran and Wadi Murabbaat.11 Textile No. 1 was probably in secondary use. In ancient times, textiles were highly expensive. When a garment or any other kind of textile was so damaged that even patching was no longer possible, it was cut into pieces that were either used in another garment or for patching, etc.12

1

2

[250]

0

1

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Plate 1. Pottery from the Mausoleum and Monastery Complex No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L1024

FBW Bowl

Light red ware, few small white grits. Incised wavy line on outer face, below the rim.

Pella (Watson 1992: Fig. 12:97); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 194, Form 1A:4)

6th–8th cent. CE

2

L1024

FBW cup

Light red ware, few small white grits.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 197, Form 1F:3)

7th–8th cent. CE

3

L1024

4

L1020

Cosmetic jar

Dark gray ware. Incised herringbone pattern and knobs on outer face.

5

L1019

Lamp

Light brown ware, vestiges of soot on nozzle.

Kefar Ara (Sussman 1976: Pl. XXVII:1)

4th–6th cent. CE

6

L1018

Bowl

Red ware, red slip, burnished.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 71:2 (Form 10)

Late 6th–early 7th cent. CE

7

L1010

Red ware, red slip, burnished.

8

L1016

Red ware, red slip, burnished.

9

L1002

Red ware, red slip, entire vessel burnished except for the outside of the rim, which is adorned with painted black band.

10

L1012

Red ware, red slip, burnished, few small white grits. A dolphin imprint in the center.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 76 (Motifs 45n–o)

470–580 cent. CE

11

L1011

Red ware, red slip, burnished, few small white grits. An animal imprint in the center.

12

L1005

Light red ware. Red paint on the rim and on outer face.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 185–186, Form 1:5)

Late 3rd–5th cent. CE

13

L1006

Light yellow ware, few black grits. Incised wavy line on outer face.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 209, Form 3:4–5)

6th–early 8th cent. CE

14

L1000

Light red ware, white slip, few small white grits.

Krater

Light yellow ware.

[251]

Y. P E L E G

Plate 1.

[252]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Plate 2. Pottery from the Monastery Complex No.

Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L1007

Cooking pot

Red ware, a lot of white and gray grits of various sizes.

Pella (Watson 1992: Fig. 2:12)

6th–7th cent. CE

2

L1000

3

L1007

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, Form 1)

3rd–4th to 9th–10th cent. CE

4

L1016

Yellowish ware, few tiny black grits.

5

L1012

Reddish-brown ware, a lot of white and black grits of various sizes.

6

L1012

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 215)

3rd–4th to 9th–10th cent. CE

7

L1008

Reddish-brown ware.

8

L1012

Yellowish ware, tiny small black grits.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 248)

6th–mid-8th cent. CE

9

L1007

Amphora

Yellowish ware, tiny small black grits.

Ramat ha-Nadiv (Calderon 2000: 133–135)

Byzantine

10

L1018

Storage jar

Reddish-brown ware, few tiny white grits.

Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 1:12)

11

L1008

Gray ware, few tiny white and black grits.

Ramat ha-Nadiv (Calderon 2000: Pl. VI:18)

12

L1012

Pouring vessel

Red ware, few tiny white grits. Spout designed as an animal.

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 32:23)

Late 6th– early 7th cent. CE

13

L1013

Candlestick lamp

Yellowish-brown ware.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252, Form 3A:1)

Mid-6th–early 8th cent. CE

14

L1016

Tile

Light red ware. An imprinted circle on outer face.

Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 2:1, 6–8); Deir Ghazali (Avner 2000: Fig. 24)

5th–6th cent. CE

Dark gray ware, few small white grits. Casserole

Lid

Red ware, a lot of white grits of various sizes. Traces of soot on outer face.

Reddish-brown ware, few tiny black grits.

[253]

Y. P E L E G

Plate 2.

[254]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Plate 3. Glass Artifacts from the Mausoleum and Monastery Complex No.

Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L1023

Double tube

Intact vessel. H 16.2 cm. Light greenish glass. One handle drawn upwards from the rim to the opposite side.

Kefar Ara (Sussman 1976: Pl. XXVIII:15); Dobkin Collection (Israeli 2003: Nos. 287–291)

4th–6th cent. CE

2

L1022

3

L1020

Bottle

Fragments of rim, body, and base. Rim diam. 3.2 cm; base diam. 4.2 cm. Light greenish glass. Rounded rim and concave base.

Dobkin Collection (Israeli 2003: No. 181)

4th–5th cent. CE

4

L1022

Ribbed bracelet

6.2 cm in diam. Covered with thick coat created by weathering. Horizontally ribbed bracelet.

Spaer 1988: 57, Fig. 6; Spear 2001: 199–200, No. 449

5th–7th cent.CE

5

L1013

Bowl-Lamp

Outfolded rim, 17.8 cm in diam. Light greenish glass.

Kh. Ṭ abalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: Fig. 3:31–32)

Byzantine to Umayyad

6

L1013

Handle. Bluish-greenish glass.

7

L1002

Outfolded rim, 10.1 cm in diam. Light greenish glass.

8

L1013

Cut, inverted rim, 7.2 cm in diam. Olive-green glass.

Kh. Ṭ abalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: Fig. 3:25)

5th–8th cent. CE

9

L1005

Rounded rim, 2.9 cm in diam. Light greenish glass. Ten thin glass trails encircling external neck below rim.

Kefar Ara (Sussman 1976: Fig. 4:6–7, 9, Pl. XXVIII:12–13); Dobkin Collection (Israeli 2003: Nos. 186–187)

5th–6th cent. CE

10

L1005

Rounded rim, 6.4 cm in diam. Light greenish glass. Five glass trails encircling external neck below rim.

11

L1013

Fire-rounded rim, 5.2 cm in diam. Light bluish glass. Eight glass trails encircling external neck below rim.

12

L1013

Juglet

Fire-rounded rim, 5.2 cm in diam. Light bluish glass.

Dobkin Collection (Israeli 2003: No. 219)

13

L1013

Goblet

Base, 5.2 cm in diam. Bluish-green glass.

Kh. Ṭ abalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: Fig. 2:15)

14

L1013

Window fragment

Bluish-green glass.

Almost complete vessel. H 13.1 cm. Light greenish glass.

Bottle

[255]

Byzantine

Y. P E L E G

Plate 3.

[256]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

Plate 4. Metal Objects from the Mausoleum No.

Locus

Type

Description

1

L1023

Kohl stick

Bronze Kohl stick, 14.8 cm long, round cross section, flat top (6×6 mm). Found in a glass double tube.

2

L1022

3

L1022

4

L1023

Bracelet

Broken iron bracelet.

5

L1022

Ring

Bronze ring, 1.8 cm in diam. Worn incised decoration on top.

6

L1022

Bronze ring, 1.5 cm in diam. Worn incision (possibly inscription) on top.

7

L1022

Bronze ring, 2 cm in diam. Four concentric circle motifs incised on top.

8

L1023

Bronze ring, 1.9 cm in diam. Maltese cross on top.

9

L1023

Bronze ring, 1.8 cm in diam. Bronze winding threads forming two circles decorating on top.

10

L1020

Bronze ring, 2.1 cm in diam.

11

L1020

Bronze ring, 2 cm in diam.

12

L1022

Bronze ring, 2.2 cm in diam.

13

L1022

Iron ring, 2.1 cm in diam.

14

L1023

Iron ring, 2.1 cm in diam.

15

L1020

Bell

Bronze bell, H 2.2 cm. Inside, a small stone serves as the clapper.

16

L1022

Earring

Broken bronze earring. Decorated with a small snail shell.

Bronze Kohl stick, 13.9 cm long, round cross section, flat top (4×5 mm). Found in a glass double tube. Silver kohl stick, 11.6 cm long, round cross section, flat top (5×8 mm).

Plate 4. Bone Tools from the Mausoleum No.

Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

17

L1023

Tube

H 11.3 cm; diam. 2.8 cm. Lines and a herringbone pattern along the outer surface.

5th–6th cent. CE

18

L1023

Rim and body fragments, diam. 3.2 cm. Incised lines along the outer surface.

19

L1020

Body fragment, H 9.5 cm; diam. 2.9 cm. Incised lines along the outer surface.

Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XXI:25); Caesarea (Ayalon 2005: Fig. 12:129–131)

20

L1020

21

L1020

Round plain disk, 2.3 cm in diam. 0.2 cm thick.

22

L1020

Round disk, 2.3 cm in diam. 0.2 cm thick. Concentric circles incised on one side.

23

L1020

Round disk, 2.4 cm in diam. 0.3 cm. A hole in the center. Concentric circles incised on one side.

24

L1020

25

L1020

Rectangular plain plaque. 6.9 cm long; 1.6 cm wide; 0.5 cm thick. Two sockets drilled into the wall (0.6 cm deep).

26

L1020

Rectangular plain plaque. 5.2 cm long; 1.1 cm wide; 0.4 cm thick.

27

L1020

Lid

Rectangular lid. 4.8 cm long; 2.3 cm wide; 0.2 cm thick. On either side are knobs, which apparently served as hinges. Pattern of concentric circles on one side.

Caesarea (Ayalon 2005: Fig. 14:148)

Early Roman to Early Islamic

28

L1023

Pin

Pin fragment, 7.6 cm long.

Caesarea (Ayalon 2005: Fig. 21:206)

Late Roman to Byzantine

Disk

Plaque

Round plain disk, 2.1 cm in diam. 0.3 cm thick.

Caesarea (Ayalon 2005: Fig. 12:133–134)

Rectangular plain plaque. 6.7 cm long; 1.5 cm wide; 0.5 cm Caesarea (Ayalon thick. Holes at top and bottom. Two sockets drilled into the 2005: Fig. 14:144) side of the wall (0.6 cm deep).

[257]

Byzantine

Y. P E L E G

Plate 4.

[258]

A B Y Z A N T I N E m o na s te r y at K H I R B E T u m m za q u m

notes Kh. Umm Zaqum (License Nos. 1054, 1097) was excavated in 2005–2006 on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Peleg, with the assistance of soldiers attached to the Jericho Liaison and Coordination Administration. 2 The site was first excavated in March 1948 by S.A.S. Husseini on behalf of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, which exposed a mosaic-paved chapel. Their results were published by R. Reich (1985) on the basis of the scant information held in the archives of the IAA. Salvage excavations were carried out under the direction of B. Shantour in April–May 1971 on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. They uncovered additional remains, including structures and cisterns, as well as exposing the chapel again. These excavations (License No. 44) were published in a preliminary report (Ḥ A 1971). The report documents the excavation results on the basis of the excavator’s daily journals, plans, and field photographs. The present report 1

also documents the finds of the excavations conducted in 2005–2006. 3 For a full anthropological report by Y. Nagar, see JSRF L-1097. 4 Reich 1985: 212. 5 Reich 1985: Fig. 4. 6 A labrum was found in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim, where it was revealed in the external wall of Hall L259, near the entrance to the church complex (Magen and Talgam 1990: 100, Fig. 13; Magen 1993: 16, 31). 7 Reich 1985. See also Ovadiah 1970: Pls. CVII­– CVIII. 8 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and are marked with an asterisk. 9 These coins were identified and dated by G. Bijovsky; see JSRF L-1054 and L-1097. 10 Graser 1940: 385–394; Wild 1970: 127–128. 11 See Yadin 1963: 252–254. 12 Mannering 2000: 15.

references Aharoni Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome. Avi-Yonah, M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Avner R. 2000. “Deir Ghazali: A Byzantine Monastery Northeast of Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 40: 25*–52* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Ayalon E. 2005. The Assemblage of Bone and Ivory Artifacts from Caesarea. Maritima, Israel 1st–13th Centuries CE (BAR Int. S. 1457), Oxford. Calderon R. 1999. “The Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem, pp. 135–148. Calderon R. 2000. “Roman and Byzantine Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, Jerusalem, pp. 91–165. Colt H.D. 1962. “Ivory and Bone,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 51–52. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2000. “The Glass Vessels from Khirbet Ṭ abaliya (Givʿat Hamaṭos),” ʿAtiqot 40: 81*–95* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 165–166). Graser E.R. (ed. and tr.) 1940. “Appendix: The Edict of Diocletian on Maximum Prices,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Baltimore, pp. 305–421.

Ḥ A 1971. “Kh. Umm-Zaquma,” Ḥ A 39: 23. Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Israeli Y. 2003. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum. The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts, Jerusalem. Magen Y. 1993. The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adumim. A Guide, Jerusalem. Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ) and Its Mosaics),” Christian Archaeology: 91–152. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Mannering U. 2000. “The Roman Tradition of Weaving and Sewing: A Guide to Function?,” ATN 30: 10–16. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, Bonn. Reich R. 1985. “Some Byzantine Remains: A Chapel at Khirbet Umm Zaquma,” ʿAtiqot 17: 212–213. Spaer M. 1988. “The Pre-Islamic Glass Bracelets of Palestine,” JGS 30: 51–61. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum. Beads and Other Small Objects, Jerusalem. Sussman V. 1976. “A Burial Cave at Kefar ʿAra,” ʿAtiqot 11: 92–101. Tushingham, A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I, Toronto.

[259]

Y. P E L E G

Watson B. 1992. “Change in Foreign and Regional Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century A.D.: The Ceramic Evidence,” in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam; VIIe–VIIIe siècles, Damascus, pp. 233–248.

Wild J.P. 1970. “Notes on Clothing,” in K. Erim and J. Reynolds, “The Copy of Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices from Aphrodisias in Caria,” JRS 60: 120–141. Yadin Y. 1963. The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, Jerusalem.

[260]

A ROMAN FORTRESS AND A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT KHIRBET EL-KILIYA YITZHAK MAGEN

Kh. el-Kiliya,1 located above Wadi el-Wahitah (IOG 18265/14875; ITM 23265/64875), about 5 km east of Kafr Rammun, was identified with the Byzantine period village of Rimmon (see Site Map on p. XIII).2 The site comprises two adjoining quadrangular buildings (Figs. 1–3), east of which, on the eastern slopes of the wadi, are several caves that possibly provided dwellings for hermits,3 as well as a large cistern, hewn stairways, and agricultural terraces. Round structures found southwest and northwest of the site, evidently sheep pens, should be ascribed to the Early Islamic period. Four occupation phases were discerned at the site: Late Roman period (late fourth to the early fifth century CE)—the fortress (Building I); Byzantine period— the monastery (Building I); Early Islamic period —Building II and the sheep pens; Late Islamic period—the establishment of a tower in Room L3 (Fig. 4).

Building I Building I, established in the late fourth century CE, is square in plan, each side measuring 20.50 m. Stone walls, dating to the Byzantine or Early Islamic period, bounded it from the east and north, thus creating a second defensive wall in the second construction phase. The building entrance was located in the south. In the third phase, Building II was built south of and adjacent to Building I, and entrance to the latter was only through the former. The rooms of the fortress are arranged around a central courtyard paved with flagstones (Fig. 5). All room entrances face this courtyard, and there are no passageways between the rooms except two on the north (L8 and L4). The straight walls consist of large, unusually hard limestone ashlars that were roughly hewn owing to the obduracy of the stone and its liability to fracture. In the middle of each was

Fig. 1. Kh. el-Kiliya, view from northwest.

[261]

Y. M A G E N

2 668.36

669.13

667.00

666.49 668.38

670.00

1

L4

1

666.98

666.45

5

L8

667.77

668.01 665.68

L1

2 3

1

668.03

4

667.07 665.96 667.56

668.23

667.46

L9

667.03

L2

667.68

L30

668.01 667.42

L5

L10

Building I 668.29 668.08

L3

666.75

L6

668.90 668.86

L7

667.57

L11

668.05

667.49

L31 667.84 668.01

L32

L12a

668.86

666.24

2

666.62

666.25 665.81

666.88

666.83

L13

667.26 669.42

666.72

666.72

L17

669.39 667.50

669.99

668.56

L28

W105

L14

667.89

L34

L29

666.56

667.44

L12

667.77 668.06

L33

W104

666.85

666.40

667.11

668.04

W106

666.84

4

666.41

667.75

L14a

667.96

Building II

W102 4

L21 666.84 665.88

L24

L22

666.34

667.22

667.36

665.12

666.14

666.58 667.09

L25

L22a

666.31

L15

664.70

L19

667.60

666.18

L26 L16

3 668.94

666.93 667.53

L16a

L18a

666.98

667.86

666.92

666.97

L18

666.33 667.32

665.76

L23

666.61

L20

666.38

666.31

666.04

664.95

666.36

L27

667.10 667.26

W101

667.35

0

Fig. 2. Kh. el-Kiliya, detailed plan.

[262]

3 665.06

5 m

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

1-1 373 00 372 00 371 00

L1

370 00 369 00

L4

666.49

L8

2-2 366 00 365 00 364 00

L7

L5

L4

363 00 362 00 361 00

3-3

L18a 668 00

L16a

667 00 666 00

L20

L18

L28

L27

L23

665 00 664 00

4-4

667 00 666 00 665 00 664 00

L24

L22

L17

L28

Fig. 3. Kh. el-Kiliya, sections.

[263]

L13

L33

Y. M A G E N

Building I

Building II

0

Late Roman Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic Period Late Islamic Period Fig. 4. Kh. el-Kiliya, construction phases.

[264]

5

m

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 5. Building I, central courtyard, view from southwest.

a crudely dressed boss (Fig. 6). Only a few of the stones, notably those of the arches, were of chalk. The external walls, some 1.10 m thick, consist of two faces, the intervening space filled with small stones. The fill was not reinforced with mortar, as known from other late fourth to early fifth century sites, which were normally constructed with a single face and required a thick layer of plaster. It appears that only the spaces between the stones were sealed with bonding material. The rooms’ internal walls were coated with layers of white plaster, which was partially extant. The central courtyard (L5), 9.40×8.20 m, was paved in the late fourth to the early fifth century with two types of flagstone. Its west was paved with irregular hard limestone slabs. The courtyard’s east was paved with carefully positioned rectangular slabs bordered by a row of stones—a kind of stylobate consisting of dressed stones (Fig. 7). Here, possibly, there was a peristyle bearing a tiled roof. In the Byzantine period, pillars and pilasters of stones in secondary use were constructed in the central courtyard to bear arches supporting

Fig. 6. Hard limestone ashlars with crudely dressed bosses.

[265]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 7. Building I, central courtyard floor, view from south.

a second story, where a chapel was established (Figs. 8–10). Four pilasters, 1.05×0.58 m, adjoin the northern and southern walls, and in the middle are two square pillars, 0.58×0.58 m. Both pilasters and pillars are of hard limestone. They were built over the floor and thus postdate it. With their introduction, the late fourth and early fifth century peristyle in the east of the courtyard was dismantled. Numerous well-dressed chalk arch stones were found in the courtyard. In the northeastern corner of the courtyard was a staircase which led to the second-story chapel. The staircase was 3.00 m long and 0.98 m wide. Its stones, dressed but of poor masonry, were laid over the late fourth and early fifth century floor (Fig. 11), thus clearly postdating it. North of the courtyard’s center is an opening to a large bell-shaped cistern that is over 10.00 m deep and coated with a thick layer of pinkish-white plaster, differing in hue from the reddish plaster common in the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Fig. 12).

This plaster appears to have survived for hundreds of years, from the fourth to the seventh and eighth centuries CE, without needing further coats. In the late fourth and early fifth century, rainwater falling on the open courtyard flowed freely into the cistern. In the Byzantine period, however, as a second story was built over the courtyard and its surrounding rooms, it became necessary to drain rainwater from the roof of this story and direct it to the central cistern. Rainwater was conducted in gutters from the roof to small settling pits, one in the west and two in the south, and thence along channels to the cistern. The channels were hewn into the bedrock between the flagstones paving the courtyard, coated with a thick layer of hydraulic plaster, and covered with irregular stone slabs. One can see where the floor was dismantled to enable their construction (Fig. 13). Two additional channels proceeded from the cistern to the east, draining excess water and averting flooding the courtyard. The entrance to the building, as mentioned above, was from the south. A corridor (L7) was introduced

[266]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Building I

Building II

0

Byzantine Period Islamic Period Fig. 8. Kh. el-Kiliya, general plan in the Byzantine period.

[267]

5

m

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 9. Kh. el-Kiliya, reconstruction of Building I in the Byzantine period.

Fig. 10. Building I, central courtyard, Byzantine pillars and pilasters, view from the south.

[268]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

during the Byzantine period, due to the construction of a square room, L6, in the west. This room, whose walls were 2.30 m long, was designed to buttress the pilasters and pillars supporting the second story and narrow the building’s entranceway. The corridor, 3.55×1.50 m, like most of the courtyard, was paved with irregular flagstones (Fig. 14) and ended at a gate, which was 1.10 m wide, preserved to a height of 1.20 m. The main gate had two closing devices. On the outside was a wooden door consisting of two narrow leaves, judging by the socket position. On the inside was a 0.32 m-wide track for a soft limestone rolling stone (Figs. 15–16). The placement of the rolling stone brought with it changes in the southern wall, and the walls to either side of the opening were reinforced with exceptionally large stones. The rolling stone was apparently introduced in the building’s second phase, after it had been transformed into a monastery. While rolling stones are typical of burial caves in the Second Temple period, in the Byzantine period they secured the gateways of monasteries along the desert fringe.4 Kh. el-Kiliya provides the northernmost example so far of a rolling stone in a monastery, and the only one in Samaria. Its installation here indicates that the monastery was subject to recurrent attacks by the Saracens living in its vicinity along the desert fringe. In the west is a row of three rooms that were roofed in the late fourth and early fifth century with plastered wooden beams (Fig. 17). Room L1, 6.10×4.10 m, is in the structure’s northwest. Its outer walls were preserved to a height of 2.50 m. Its floor was coated with a layer of white plaster laid over a bedding of

small stones. Two arch-supporting pilasters were affixed in the east and west of the longer walls. Both were apparently installed in the Byzantine period, like those in the courtyard. Adjacent to the room’s western wall a small settling pit was discovered that received water from the second story drainpipe. In the

Fig. 11. Building I, central courtyard, Byzantine staircase.

Fig. 13. Building I, drainage channel.

Fig. 12. Building I, central courtyard, cistern.

[269]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 14. Building I, entrance corridor (L7) and Room L6, view from north.

second phase, during the Byzantine period, a channel covered with stone slabs carried excess water to the courtyard cistern. The room’s entrance was well preserved; it was set near the corner, like the building’s other, original openings. This phenomenon recurs in other fortresses, but its rationale has not yet been determined. In the middle of the room was a chalk lintel perforated by a slot meant to accommodate a wooden door. Bolt sockets can be distinguished in the doorposts (Figs. 18–19). Room L2 is nearly square, measuring 4.40 m long and 4.00 m wide. Here, too, the entrance is situated near the corner, and one can distinguish bolt sockets in the doorposts. Two arch-supporting pilasters were affixed in the eastern and western walls. The floor consisted of a layer of plaster. A hewn, plastered channel covered with stone slabs leads from this room to the courtyard cistern. Room L3 measures 5.60×3.80 m. It was rebuilt as a tower in the Late Islamic period, judging by the ceiling vault and pottery (Fig. 20). The eastern

Fig. 15. Building I, a rolling stone track.

[270]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 16. Building I, fragments of a rolling stone.

Fig. 17. Building I, Rooms L1 and L2, view from the west.

[271]

Y. M A G E N

wall had two entrances, in the north and south. The southern one was blocked in the building’s second phase, when Room L6 was built. The structure was apparently totally in ruins when Room L3 was rebuilt in the Mamluk or Ottoman period. The northern row includes two rooms, L4 and L8. Room L4, 8.40×4.40 m, served as the monastery crypt (Fig. 21). It was elongated and paved with a mosaic of large tesserae comprising rectangles in red and black with a white background. An entrance was discerned at the center of the room’s southern wall, as well as a blocked entrance in its west. The blocked entrance was 0.90 m wide, preserved to a height of 1.80 m and approached by a single step. Here, too, one can distinguish bolt sockets (Figs. 22–23). This is the room’s original entrance and dates to the late fourth and early fifth century. Like the other entrances of the phase, it was set in the room’s western end. In the Byzantine period this opening was blocked, while another was breached in the center of the southern

Fig. 19. Building I, northern doorpost of Room L1. Note bolt sockets, view from the southwest.

Fig. 18. Building I, lintel of entrance to Room L1, view from the east.

[272]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 20. Building I, the Late Islamic Tower, view from the north.

wall. The new entrance afforded access to the crypt from the courtyard. It was 1.25 m wide, but lacked dressed doorposts or a threshold, and could not be shut by a door. Four pilasters were affixed to the northern and southern walls to bear the arches supporting the second-story chapel. Underneath the mosaic floor were five tombs, four of which were sarcophagus shaped and sunken into the floor. The latter were covered with stone slabs, over which the mosaic was laid. Tomb 1, 2.00×0.70 m, adjoins the northern wall of the room at its center (Fig. 24). Carved of stone, in the late fourth and early fifth century it possibly served as a drinking trough for cattle. At the end of this tomb was a square depression to help raise the lid. In one of the tomb’s walls was a ventilation hole. East of Tomb 1, Tombs 2–3 were exposed (Fig. 25). Tomb 2, also carved of stone, was 1.90×0.65 m. It was covered with a sarcophagus cover whose inner side bore a cross carved in relief. In the middle of the cross was an aperture, probably serving as a ventilation hole (Fig. 26). Tomb 3 also measured 1.90×0.65 m. It was constructed of flat plastered stones, covered with

Fig. 21. Building I, the crypt, view from the west.

[273]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 22. Building I, the original opening of the crypt (L4), sealed at a later stage, view from the courtyard.

Fig. 23. Building I, the original opening of the crypt (L4), sealed at a later stage, view of L4.

[274]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

flat slabs, and had an aperture. Tomb 4 adjoined the opening leading to Room L8 (Fig. 27). It was made of flat plastered stones and covered with slabs. In the middle of one of the slabs was an aperture.

Tomb 5 was unearthed underneath the floor, in the middle of the room. It is an arcosolia tomb, both hewn and constructed, with two steps leading to it (Figs. 28–29). The tomb’s upper opening was closed

Fig. 24. Tomb 1, adjoining the northern wall of the crypt.

Fig. 25. Tombs 2 and 3, in crypt’s east.

Fig. 26. Interior of lid of Tomb 2.

[275]

Y. M A G E N

by a rectangular slab, in the middle of which was an aperture. The tomb was 3.86×2.15 m, and 1.60 m high. Its lower section was hewn out of the bedrock, its upper section built in the shape of a barrel vault. Two low partitions divided the burial chamber into two troughs, each 2.15×0.60 m. Together they yielded 15 skeletons and numerous artifacts, including ceramic lamps, vessels of glass and a few of bronze (Figs. 30–31). Adjoining the tomb was a stone carved in relief with a cross inside a diadem (Fig. 32). All the sarcophagus-shaped tombs were sealed by the mosaic floor and never reopened, while the trough tomb was opened on occasion for additional interments. Room L8, in the northeastern corner of the building, was 4.40×4.00 m (Fig. 33). Entered from Room L4, it was the only room whose entrance was not from the courtyard. Its floor, like the crypt, was paved in white mosaic, but with larger tesserae. This kind of floor is characteristic of the late fourth and early fifth century, and was possibly laid at this phase. A probe beneath

2

1

1

2 1-1

2-2

0

1

m

Fig. 28. Tomb 5, detailed plan and sections.

Fig. 27. Tomb 4, adjacent to opening to Room L8.

the room’s floor did not reveal tombs, as in Room L4. The walls of the room, like those of the crypt, were coated with a thick layer of plaster, apparently from the Byzantine period. There are three additional rooms, L9, L10, and L11, on the east (Fig. 34). Room L9 measures 4.40×4.00 m. Its entrance, at the southern end of its western wall (Fig. 35), is carefully constructed and dressed, and its doorposts exhibit three square bolt sockets (Fig. 36). These details are characteristic of fortresses dating to the fourth century CE. The room’s floor, lower than the courtyard, was covered in a thick layer of white plaster. The northern wall was preserved to a height of 2.20 m. A hewn and plastered channel running along its base was covered with stone slabs. It issues from the cistern in the central courtyard, and being lower than courtyard level, clearly was not intended to feed into the cistern, but rather to drain its excess water and prevent the building from being flooded.

[276]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 29. Entrance to Tomb 5.

Possibly, the excess water was conducted to another cistern lying outside. Room L10 in the south was 4.40×4.00 m. Like other rooms in the building, its entrance, which could be closed by a bolt, was located at the end of the wall rather than at its center. A hewn and plastered channel running along its southern wall conducted excess water from the central courtyard to the fortress exterior (Fig. 37). It apparently went out of use in the

building’s second phase. In the Late Islamic period an opening was breached in the eastern wall of the room, leading outside. Room L11 was 7.50×2.60 m. Its entrance, also located at the end of its northern wall, was preserved to a height of 1.70 m. Here, too, there were bolt sockets. The floor was covered in a layer of white plaster. A partition was erected in its middle in the Early Islamic period. The wall section adjoining the entrance in the south was rebuilt with exceptionally large stones to reinforce the rolling stone. The construction method of the walls of Kh. elKiliya differs from that of other fortresses dating to this period, e.g., Kh. Deir Saman and Deir Qala. In terms of strength, it is closer to the compound surrounding the Church of Mary on Mt. Gerizim. This isolated, powerfully built, massive structure was apparently meant not only to serve as an outpost or garrison for soldiers, but to withstand a serious siege, probably by Saracens. This idea is further supported by the installation of a rolling stone to enhance the entranceway’s defense during the Byzantine period. In this respect, Kh. el-Kiliya resembles the fortresses and towers erected along the desert fringe in the Hebron Hills more closely than the fortresses in central southern Samaria. While the walls of other fortresses in the region are constructed of well-dressed ashlars, those of Kh. el-Kiliya are roughly hewn. As the limestone bedrock around the site is hard and liable to fracture, the carving of smooth, well-dressed ashlars observed at other sites was not possible.

Fig. 30. Lamps from Tomb 5.

[277]

Y. M A G E N

1

4

7

3

2

6

5

8

Fig. 31. Artifacts discovered in Tomb 5, illustration.

[278]

9

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

0

10

20

Fig. 32. Quadrangular stone bearing a cross encircled by a diadem; the stone sealed the entrance to Tomb 5.

Fig. 33. Building I, Room L8, view from the west.

[279]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 34. Building I, eastern wing, view from the south.

Fig. 35. Building I, Room L9, view from the southwest.

[280]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Paved Courtyard South of Building I

Fig. 36. Building I, doorposts of entrance to Room L9.

South of Building I another building (Building II) was excavated, dated to the Early Islamic period (see below). It is arranged around a courtyard paved with irregular flagstones, similar to those on the west of the courtyard in Building I. The courtyard was originally thought to be contemporary with Building II, and both were dated to the Byzantine period. However, further examination revealed that Building II dates to the Early Islamic period, while the courtyard should in fact be ascribed to the first construction phase of the site, contemporary with the late fourth and early fifth century fortress. This was, evident, as some of the rooms in the eastern and western wings of the building were built over the courtyard floor (L21, L22, L14, L17, L15 and L19).5 Furthermore, the floor was cut in a straight line along W106. This indicates that prior to the construction of Building II, the courtyard was bordered by a wall. In the late fourth and early fifth century, the area in front of the fortress was apparently already paved and enclosed by some kind of wall to accommodate cavalry units that patrolled the district and stopped here from time to time.

Building II

Fig. 37. Building I, channel for excess rainwater.

Building II, measuring 39.30×26.70 m, is arranged around a central courtyard whose floor belongs to the earlier phase of construction, as explained above (Fig. 38). Its eastern wall continues to the north, creating another courtyard and an outer wall in the east and north of the complex. Building II was entered from the south through a broad gate, 2.20 m wide, with two doors (Fig. 39). Construction of additional rooms from the Late Islamic period is visible outside the gate. The threshold consists of two stones, one of chalk, the other of hard limestone, apparently in secondary use. The doorposts are integral to the building’s southern wall. It follows that the gate was installed when Building II was built, i.e., phase three —the Early Islamic period. Although the floor abuts the threshold, it is clearly the result of renovation done in this phase. Furthermore, the doorposts lack the bolt sockets characteristic of rooms in Building I.

[281]

Y. M A G E N

A corridor, 10.00×4.60 m, led from the entrance to the central courtyard, whence one entered the rooms of Building II (Figs. 40–41). The eastern wing consists of a corridor and seven rooms arranged in two rows and divided into two units (Figs. 42–43). The rooms at the wing’s west were built over part of the earlier courtyard’s floor. The entrance to this wing was 0.90 m wide, located in Room L23’s western wall, near the main gate. Room L23 is a large room measuring 7.50×4.50 m. The room afforded access to Rooms L27, 5.50×3.20 m, L26, 5.50×3.70 m, and to a narrow corridor (L22a). Openings led from this corridor to Rooms L22, 5.80×4.20 m, and L25 to its east, 5.30×3.00 m. The floor at the northern end of Room L22 was elevated, forming what seems like a manger. Room L25 also has a quadrangular installation in its center—apparently another manger. Room L26 has stone receptacles that served as animal water troughs (Fig. 44). The room’s floor consists of bedrock or of fragmentary pieces of flagstone from the central courtyard in secondary use. There was no evidence in any of these rooms of a mosaic or other floor that would be suitable for dwellings. This structure was apparently a sheep and

goat pen. Some of the rooms were possibly roofed with stone arches. Room L26 had a pillar found in situ. The northern unit of the wing, comprising rooms L21 and L24, was entered from the north via a narrow opening, 0.70 m wide, which led to Room L21. Room L21, 4.00×2.90 m, has a quadrangular installation in its corner that served as a trough. An opening led from this room to Room L24, 7.70×5.40 m. The latter was traversed by a constructed channel not designed as a water conduit but rather as a water or feed trough for domestic animals. The eastern wall of Building II continued to the north, forming a square corridor (L29) from which an opening led to a courtyard in the north (L30). The southwestern wing of the building includes five rooms that also housed animals (Fig. 45). This unit was entered from the north via a narrow opening into Corridor L18a, at whose end the floor was raised by a row of stones to form a manger. The corridor has two additional openings, a narrow one in the east leading to Room L18, and a wide one in the west leading to Room L16. Room L18, 5.20×2.70 m, has a constructed manger in its center. East of this room was Room

Fig. 38. Building II, view from the northwest.

[282]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 39. Building II, entrance gateway. Note threshold comprising two types of stone.

Fig. 40. Building II, corridor leading to gateway, view from the north.

Fig. 41. Building II, corridor leading to gateway, view from the south.

[283]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 42. Building II, eastern wing, view from the south.

L20, 6.60×5.00, but no opening was discerned. In its middle was a kind of platform for a tower or some other raised structure, and a small room lay to its west (Fig. 46). To its north was Room L19, 4.70×3.70 m, whose opening was in the north. The walls of this room were built over the courtyard floor, which was raised along its western side by a row of stones, creating a manger (Fig. 47). Room L16, 5.10×4.70 m, was divided into Room 16 and 16a by a wall built in its middle. This room apparently had a vaulted roof, as the walls in the east and west show remnants of pillars. The western wing of Building II includes ten rooms, six of which open onto the courtyard (Fig. 48). The remaining four were evidently added later and open to the outside (see Fig. 38). As stated above, the eastern walls of Rooms L14, L14a, and L15 were built over the stone floor of the late fourth and early fifth century courtyard. All three rooms adjoin the courtyard through narrow openings and were apparently used to stable animals. All of these rooms have sections of elevated floors raised by a row of stones that served as mangers.

Fig. 43. Building II, eastern wing, Rooms L24, L25, L26, L27, view from the south.

[284]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 44. Building II, Room L26, with stone containers serving as animal drinking troughs, view from the east.

Fig. 45. Building II, southern wing, view from the northwest.

[285]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 46. Building II, Room L20, view from the northeast.

Fig. 47. Building II, Room L19, view from northeast. Note trough in west of room.

[286]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Fig. 48. Building II, western wing, view from the east.

Room L15 measures 5.30×3.80 m. L14 and L14a have the same dimensions: 5.80×2.10 m. To their north are two additional rooms, L13 and L12, which also face the courtyard. Room L13, 6.50×3.50 m, also has an elevation achieved by a row of stones. A wall divides Room L12, 6.80×4.70 m, into two: L12 and L12a. Another small room, L17, adjoins Room L13 in the east. As stated above, four rooms were added to the building in the west: L31 (5.70×5.00 m), L32 (4.60×2.40 m), L33 (5.30×3.00 m), and L34 (5.10×3.50 m). They were entered from outside the building. One of the main questions concerning Kh. el-Kiliya is Building II’s date of erection and purpose. It is unlikely that such a small monastery would require a large courtyard and so many rooms. Archaeological evidence strongly affirms that Building II was erected in the Early Islamic rather than Byzantine period. Its construction differs from the late fourth and early fifth century and Byzantine construction of Building I in wall thickness, stone laying, its lack of mortar, and its plaster type. It was carelessly constructed despite extensive secondary use of ashlars taken from late fourth and early fifth century Building I

(with Byzantine additions). The Byzantine period is characterized by mosaic floors in all kinds of structures, and its absence in Building II as well as the above-mentioned differences in construction implies that it is of later date, i.e., the Early Islamic period. Following the Arab conquest in 638 CE many monasteries in Judea and Samaria were abandoned, and oil presses and dwellings for laborers who tended the orchards, harvested the crop, and produced oil were installed in the buildings. However, the site and its immediate vicinity are unsuitable for growing olive trees and grapevines. Indeed, no winepresses, typical of Byzantine monasteries, were discovered at this site. Building II was a center for raising flocks and served to shelter the workers and their animals. This is attested by the many mangers found in the building and the eight round pens to the northwest and south of it, whose average diameters exceeded 14 m. Its inhabitants were employed in raising flocks that yielded cheese, meat, and wool. Kh. el-Kiliya can be added to the list of sites classifiable as farmsteads in the Early Islamic period. Its function was not oil production but pasturage, the wide-ranging areas to its west providing herbage in the spring.

[287]

Y. M A G E N

Finds The finds at the site are few, since its prolonged use resulted in the destruction of anything of value that was not robbed. Four periods are represented in the pottery assemblage: Late Roman (late fourth and early fifth century), Byzantine (six to early eight century), Early and Late Islamic periods. A few pieces of Late Roman and Byzantine pottery were found. Most of the Byzantine pottery was recovered from the main tomb in the crypt (Tomb 5). The late fourth to early fifth century ware includes rouletted bowls, which along with the architectural and stratigraphic evidence, definitely indicate there was a phase preceding the Byzantine period. The Early Islamic pottery constituting the majority of the pottery assemblage comprises a wide range of vessels, including Kh. el-Mafjar ware. In addition, a complete glass vessel, as well as bronze vessels, keys, a needle, a bronze arrowhead, and basalt grinding tools were found in the crypt. The coins helped date the building phases.6 They include, among others: a coin dating to the days of Pontius Pilatus (31 CE); an imperial coin of Ascalon from the end of the second or beginning of the third century CE; a coin dating to the reign of Theodosius I (383–395 CE); a Late Roman coin; a coin dating to the reign of Arcadius (395–408 CE); and another to the reign of Honorius (395–423 CE). The other coins cannot be identified, but apparently date to the fifth century CE. The find of a coin dating to the days of Pontius Pilate is surprising. We have no means of knowing how it reached Kh. el-Kiliya or whether it was linked to the structure standing there. One cannot preclude the possibility that some kind of structure occupied the site during the Second Temple period. However, not only the artifacts imply that the present structure dates to the late fourth and the early fifth century; it is, above all, its plan and construction mode. Architectural elements are relatively rare at the site. Two capitals dated to the Byzantine period, column bases, arch stones, and three marble chancel screen posts were found, proving that a church was located here. It can be assumed that most architectural elements from the second story were looted (Fig. 49).

1

2

3

0

20

40

Fig. 49. Architectural elements.

Discussion and Summary At the beginning of the excavations we believed that Building I had been a laura monastery. The various finds, e.g., the crypt, crosses, and chancel screen posts, which would derive from a church, confirm this assumption for the Byzantine period. The question remained, however, whether it was initially erected as a monastery, or was first a Roman structure serving some other function. The pottery and coins predating the Byzantine period indicate that the site was occupied during the late fourth and the early fifth century CE. Comparison of the plans of Kh. el-Kiliya and of Byzantine monasteries in the Judean Desert and elsewhere reveals substantial differences. In fact, Kh. el-Kiliya is unlike any monastery. Moreover, both buildings in the complex lack elements characteristic of Byzantine monasteries, such as a church and a refectory. The plan resembles those of Roman fringe fortresses: a fortified structure with services rooms. The difference between Kh. el-Kiliya and other Byzantine monasteries is not only in the plan but also in the construction mode, which is especially evident in Building I. There is much evidence to support the hypothesis that the structure is in fact a fortress—ashlars with marginal drafting, the size and arrangement of the stones, the identical dimensions of many of the rooms, the thickness of the walls, as well

[288]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

as their right angles and straight lines, the openings at the corners of the rooms, the numerous bolt sockets, and the plaster-coated cisterns (unlike those of the Byzantine period). These further indicate that the present structure was erected by a governmental agency with expertise in high level construction according to a meticulous plan. The basic plan of Building I was retained in the Byzantine period, but various changes were introduced to accommodate the monks’ religious requirements, e.g., the construction of a church and crypt. When the latter was installed, Room L4 underwent alterations that included relocating the entrance and the addition of a mosaic floor. The construction of the church was more complex. As churches have definite plans, it proved impossible to integrate it into Building I without dismantling the latter almost in its entirety. The solution was to add a story and erect the church on it. Upper-story churches have been observed at other sites once serving as fortresses. The erection of the church on the second story changed the character of the lower level. The central courtyard and the rooms were covered with stone roofing. This necessitated supporting arches and the installation of gutters to drain rainwater from above, as well as channels to conduct it to the cistern. It was at this phase that the staircase leading to the upper story was built. Although we cannot ascertain the exact position of the church from the remains of the lower story, we can surmise that it was built over the northern unit of rooms and the central courtyard. Nothing has survived except for the chancel screen posts, two capitals, and a base. The round, cross-adorned stone found in the crypt possibly belonged to the church or simply served as a cover for the tomb. The conversion of a Roman fortress into a monastery was by no means exceptional in the Byzantine period and is known from many other sites. As a rule, monks settled in isolated or fringe areas, and thus it was natural that several of the monasteries were built over

the ruins of earlier fortresses. The phenomenon of monasteries occupying strongholds and palaces from the Second Temple period is familiar from such sites as Masada, Hyrcania, Herodium, Doq, Cypros, and Nuseib Uweishira. Monasteries also occupied Roman fortresses dating to the fourth century CE along the transportation routes and fringe areas.7 It was common in various districts in the Land of Israel, and is also known in Syria. The attitude of the central Byzantine government to the erection of monasteries is unclear. The authorities conceivably approved of monks settling in remote and fringe areas, since their presence would secure sensitive lines of transportation leading to the center of the country. One can assume that the emperors, especially Justinian I, encouraged the foundation of monasteries and even helped fund them. The importance of the structure at Kh. el-Kiliya in the late fourth–early fifth century CE period will not be deliberated here.8 It should be noted, however, that a similar but smaller structure was discovered on the opposite side of Wadi el-Wahitah. It is called Kh. el-Qaṣr, that is, “The Fortress.” Built of large ashlars similar to those in the structure at Kh. el-Kiliya, it too consists of a fortified tower with thick walls adjoined by a central courtyard. The site overlooks the Roman Jericho–Taiyiba road, as well as having visual contact with the fortress at Kh. el-Kiliya. Therefore, we possibly have here a chain of Roman fortresses designed to oversee traffic from the Jordan Valley to Jerusalem and the center of the country. Building II was built during the Early Islamic period and served as a center for raising flocks and to shelter the workers and their animals. This is attested by the many mangers found in the building and the eight round pens to the northwest and south of it. During the final phase of occupation in the complex, in the Late Islamic period, the tower was erected in Room L3, but one can assume that the site was mostly ruinous by then. We have no means of knowing who the occupants were—perhaps shepherds.

[289]

Y. M A G E N

Plate 1. Pottery: Open Vessels No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L3

Local imitation of LRC bowl

Reddish yellow ware 5YR 7/8, light brown core 7.5YR:6/3, red slip 2.5YR:5/8, white grits. Inturned rim, incised decorations on outer face.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 65:6 (Form 1C); En Gedi (De Vincenz 2007: Pl. 14: 2)

5th cent. CE

2

L1

3

L1

LRJ bowl

Reddish yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6, light brown core 7.5YR:6/3, white slip, white grits. Bulbous rim with a ridge underneath, wavy incised decoration on outer face.

En Gedi (De Vincenz 2007: 5th cent. CE Pl. 12: 10)

4

L16

FWB cup

Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8. Burnished on outer face.

Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: Fig. 5:9, 10); Kh. Deiran (Avissar 2007: Fig. 1: 1)

8th cent. CE

5

L13

Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, pink slip 5YR:7/4.

Ramla (Barbé 2006: Fig. 5:5)

9th–10th cent. CE

6

L3

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, white grits. Incurved rim.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 2:3)

Mid 7th–mid 8th cent. CE

7

L13

8

L13

9

Surface

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/6, gray core 5YR:6/1, Ras Abu Maaruf (Rapuano 6th–8th cent. CE pink slip 5YR:8/4. 1999: Fig. 5:69–72). Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, pink slip 7.5YR:7/4.

10

L22

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1.

11

L28

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4; gray core 7.5YR:6/1.

12

L28

Red ware 10R:5/6, pinkish gray core 5YR:6/2, pink slip 5YR:8/3. Incised decoration on the rim.

13

L3

14

L1

Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, reddish gray core 2.5YR:6/1, reddish yellow slip 7.5YR:7/6. Combed decoration on the rim.

15

L30

16

L24

Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3. Inturned rim, incised decorations on outer face.

Bowl

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6, gray core 5YR:5/1, Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2. Triangular Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 2:6) incurved rim. Arched-Rim Basin

Basin

Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: Fig. 6:7)

8th cent. CE

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3. Incised decoration.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:4)

Mid 7th–mid 8th cent. CE

Light red core 2.5YR:7/6, light brown core 7.5YR:6/4, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

Jerusalem (Magness 2003: Fig. 18.1:13)

6th–8th cent. CE

Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, gray core 5YR:6/1, pink slip 5YR:8/3. Combed decoration on the rim.

[290]

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

1

2

3

5

4

7

6

8

9

10

11

12

14

13

16

15 0

5

Plate 1.

[291]

10

Y. M A G E N

Plate 2. Pottery: Closed Vessels No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L25

Casserole

Red ware 2.5YR:4/8.

Kh. Deiran (Avissar 2007: Fig. 3:11–12)

2

L30

Cooking Pot

Red 2.5YR:5/6 ware, blackened on the outer face.

Pella (McNicoll, Smith and Early 8th cent. Hennessy 1982: 153, Pl. CE 138:1)

3

L13

Lid

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6.

Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: Fig. 9:8)

8th cent. CE

4

Surface

Jug

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 4:1–7)

Mid 7th–mid 8th cent. CE

5

L13

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3, pinkish white slip 7.5YR:8/2, white grits. Decorated with red paint.

Pella (Walmsley 1995: Fig. 6:1–2)

Mid 8th cent. CE

6

L13

Brown ware 7.5YR:5/4.

Kh. Deiran (Avissar 2007: Fig. 1:5)

7

L16

Mold-made Jug

Light gray ware 10YR:7/2, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/3. Molded decorations.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 9th–10th cent. 1944: Fig. 14:2–3; Whitcomb CE 1988: Fig. 1:3)

8

L13

Barbotine ware Jug

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2. Incised and combed decorations.

Tiberias (Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.48:3)

Mid 9th cent. CE

9

L27

Jug

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2. Incised decorations.

Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: Fig. 14:8)

8th cent. CE

10

L16

Mold-made Juglet

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/8, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2. Molded decoration.

11

L13

Glazed Jug

Sandy pale yellow ware 5Y:8/2. Green glaze on inner and outer face. Combed decoration.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: 9th–10th cent. CE Fig. 14: 2–3; Whitcomb 1988: Fig. 1:3)

12

L16

Juglet

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen 8th cent. CE Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 4:13); Kh. Deiran (Avissar 2007: Fig. 2:9)

13

L13

Yellowish red ware 5YR:5/6, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 5:2)

14

L30

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, light brownish gray core 10YR:6/2, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2.

Tiberias (Tzaferis 1983: Fig. 8:26)

7th cent. CE

15

L31

Light reddish brown ware 2.5YR:7/4, gray core 5YR:6/1, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

Amman (Northedge 1992: Fig. 132:4)

Early 8th cent. CE

16

L23

Light reddish brown ware 2.5YR:7/4, pink slip 5YR:8/3.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 15:7; Whitcomb 1988: 62)

8th cent. CE

17

L19

Light brownish gray ware 10YR:6/2, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 9th–10th cent. 1944: Fig. 15: 5; Whitcomb CE 1988: 62)

Flask

[292]

Date

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Plate 2. cont. 18

L25

19

Jar

Yellowish red ware 5YR:5/8, brown core 7.5YR:5/3, light brown slip 7.5YR:6/4.

Shechem (Magen 2009: Pl. 10:11)

3rd–4th cent. CE

L28

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/6.

Ras Abu Maaruf (Rapuano 7th cent. CE 1999: Fig. 7:107); Jerusalem (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:5–16)

20

L19

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3, gray core 7.5:YR 6/1,white grits.

21

L15

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

22

L26

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

23

L23

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

24

L26

25

L23

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 33:8)

Mid 7th–mid 8th cent. CE

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, light red self-slip 2.5YR:6/6, Kellia (Egloff 1977: Pl. mica grits. 61:4); Pella (Walmsley 1995: Fig. 5:1)

Mid 7th–mid 8th cent. CE

Pink ware 5YR:7/4, light brown core 7.5YR:6/4. Red-Brown Jar

[293]

Y. M A G E N

1

3

2

5

4

6

9 7

8 11 10

13

12

15

14

19

18

21

20

23

22 0

5

Plate 2.

[294]

17

16

24 10

25

A R O M A N F O R T R E S S A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L- K I L I YA

Notes Kh. el-Kiliya was excavated several times during the last two decades of the twentieth century on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen (License Nos. 280, 839), and O. Sion (License Nos. 535, 561). For previous publication of the site by the author see Magen 1990. 2 V. Guérin, who examined the site in the nineteenth century, reported that a menorah was engraved on one of the stones (Guérin 1874: 216); SWP II: 395; Hüttenmeister and Reeg 1977: 270; Ilan 1977: 165; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 307–309 1

(no. 369); Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 722. 3 Sion 1998. 4 For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Magen 2008a: 242, note 8. 5 The rooms built over the courtyard floor are later than those surrounding it, but belong to the same phase. 6 For a full numismatic report by G. Bijovsky, see JSRF L-561. 7 For examples, see Magen 2008b. 8 Magen 2008b: 178–183.

References Avissar M. 2007. “The Pottery from Stratum 2 at Khirbet Deiran, Reḥ ovot,” Atiqot 57: 91*–104* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 173–175). Baramki D.C. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Barbé H. 2006. “Remains of Structures from the Early Islamic Period on Ha-Gedud Ha-Ivri Street, Ramla,” Atiqot 51: 39*–47* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 237–238). Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” Atiqot 32: 19*–34*. Egloff M. 1977. Kellia III: La poterie copte, Genève. Finkelstein I., Lederman Z., and Bunimovitz S. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures. The Southern Samaria Survey: The Sites, Tel Aviv. Guérin V. 1874. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Seconde Partie–Samarie I, Paris. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hüttenmeister F. and Reeg G. 1977. Die Antiken Synagogen in Israel I, Wiesbaden. Ilan Z. 1977. “Jabit in the Samarian Desert,” Teva va-Aretz 19 (4): 161–166 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1990. “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya,” Christian Archaeology: 321–332. Magen Y. 2008a. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246. Magen Y. 2008b. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–216. Magen Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period II (JSP 11), Jerusalem.

Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstracts). Magness J. 2003. “Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery,” in H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report, Jerusalem, pp. 423–432. Mazar E. and Peleg O. 2003. “The Pottery Assemblage from the Large Byzantine Structure in Area XV,” in E. Mazar, The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar. Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43), Jerusalem, pp. 86–103. McNicoll A., Smith R.H., and Hennessy B. 1982. Pella in Jordan I, Canberra. Northedge A. 1992. Studies on Roman and Islamic Ammān, Oxford. Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maaruf (Pisgat Zeev East A),” Atiqot 38: 171–203. Shalem D. 2002. “Nevé Ur—An Early Islamic Period Village in the Bet Shean Valley,” Atiqot 43: 149–176. Sion O. 1998. “Excavations at Khirbet el-Khillia (Building II),” Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting—1997, Kedumim-Ariel, pp. 191– 205 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XIX). Stacey D. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974. The Early Islamic Periods (IAA Reports 21), Jerusalem. Tzaferis V. 1983. The Excavations of Kursi—Gergesa (Atiqot 16), Jerusalem. Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I, Toronto.

[295]

Y. M A G E N

Vincenz A. de. 2007. “The Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, En-Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2002), Jerusalem, pp. 234–427. Walmsley A. 1995. “Tradition, Innovation and Imitation

in the Material Culture of Islamic Jordan: the First Four Centuries,” SHAJ 5: 657–668. Whitcomb D. 1988. “Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence,” BASOR 271: 51–67.

[296]

the crusader CHURCH of st. mary in EL-bira yitzhak magen

The church of el-Bira (map ref. IOG 17051/14588; ITM 22051/64588) is located in the center of the Arab village of el-Bira, to the east of the Jerusalem– Shechem road, some 15 km north of Jerusalem (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 The church was constructed in the Crusader village of Birra, also known as Magna Mahomeria (“the great Mohammedan shrine”), a reference to the Muslim religious structure located there. Near the church are a large caravansary and a hospital that apparently were also erected in the Crusader period.2 Written sources relate that next to

the church stood a stone cross built on seven steps, from which the Crusaders could see the Tower of David that dominated the Jerusalem skyline.3 To the south of the church is a mosque. Some scholars have sought to identify el-Bira, and especially Ras et-Tahune, the site to the west of the Jerusalem–Shechem road, with biblical Beʾeroth, one of the four Gibeonite cities (Josh. 9:17).4 In the nineteenth century, the church of el-Bira was still standing almost in its entirety, including part of the roof (Fig. 1), as is attested by travelers of the period.5

Fig. 1. El-Bira, remains of the church, ca. 1880 (Wilson 1880: 215).

[297]

y. m a g e n

Part of the church apparently was dismantled during the First World War, in order to build a bridge on the road to Ramallah. Photographs from the archives of the Mandatory Antiquities Department show that a few of the church’s walls still stood in 1937 (Figs. 2–3).6 The church continued to disintegrate, and today only its lower courses remain.

THE VILLAGE OF BIRRA IN CRUSADER TIMES The Crusader conquest of the Land of Israel was followed by an intensification of settlement in the central cities and fortresses. In addition, vigorous efforts were expended to establish rural Christian settlements that were generally located along the main roads and in proximity to the major cities and fortresses and whose occupants were engaged in agriculture and crafts. The area between Bethlehem and Ramallah was densely settled with many such villages, and also contained two fortresses, one in Ramallah and the other in Birra, which guarded local Church property and Crusader villages.

Despite the dearth of springs and irrigation works, the harvests were plentiful, and Crusader agriculture in the Land of Israel aroused the wonder of pilgrims. The military orders, churches and monasteries competed with each other in the purchase of land for raising various crops, such as grapes, olives, wheat and barley. The settlers in the Crusader villages were very few in number, and a small nucleus of families held title to much fertile land. At times a village would be inhabited by only twenty families. The Frankish burghers were the source of manpower for populating the Muslim villages that had been abandoned in the wake of the Crusader conquest. These Franks were neither nobles and knights nor slaves, but belonged to a lowly soldier class. They were free men who had arrived during the Crusades either of their own free choice or under compulsion, settled in the villages, and engaged in the occupations they had practiced in their land of origin. Birra was one of the large Crusader villages established at the time along the main Jerusalem– Shechem road, with the large Church of St. Mary in its center.7 Late Christian tradition attributes its

Fig. 2. El-Bira, chevet of the church (photograph from 1937), view from the west (courtesy of IAA).

[298]

t h e c r u s a d e r CHURCH o f s t . m a r y i n E L- b i r a

Fig. 3. El-Bira, northern wall and apse of the church (photograph from 1937), view from the west (courtesy of IAA).

establishment to St. Helen, mother of Constantine, in the Early Byzantine period. According to this tradition, the church was built at the place where Jesus’ parents sensed his absence as they were on their way to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover (Luke 2:43–46). However, the excavations conducted at the site do not support this tradition, as no remains were found of a church predating the Crusader period, nor any other finds dating from the Byzantine period. The Crusader settlement of Birra is first mentioned in the list of twenty-one estates awarded to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Godfrey of Bouillon, the commander of the French and German forces in the First Crusade, an allocation that was confirmed by Baldwin I in 1114 CE. The village was established in the first half of the twelfth century by the heads of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and was settled mainly by Frankish burghers. In 1129 CE, the prior of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre planted a vineyard to the north of the village. In 1156 CE it was inhabited by only 22 families, which later increased to 90 families, finally numbering about 500 souls. The population

of Birra was of diverse origin: from different cities in France, and from the local Christian population in Jerusalem, Shechem and other localities. The Knights Hospitaller also owned lands in the area. The residents earned their livelihood primarily from agriculture, especially viniculture and the production of wine. Holy Land wine was in great demand in Europe, resulting in the relatively accelerated development of this branch of agriculture. The lands belonged to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which received a portion of the tenants’ income. These local inhabitants took an oath professing loyalty to the estate owner and accepting his authority, and thus were loyal to the monastery of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In fact, they were subordinate to the monastery to such a degree that they could not sell their vineyards without the approval of the abbot, who would receive half of the proceeds. They were similarly forbidden to sell to the Knights Templar, to institutions affiliated with hospitals, to other churches, or to the army. The Frankish villagers took part in the battles in the Land of Israel waged by the Crusaders against the Muslims, in addition to guard duty imposed upon them for the security of their settlements. In 1170 CE, most of the 65 soldiers from the village of Birra who participated in a fierce battle fell during the fighting.8 During the siege of Tyre in 1124 CE, in the reign of Baldwin II, the Muslim army of Ascalon advanced toward Jerusalem twice. In its second campaign this army succeeded almost completely in razing the Christian settlement of Birra, with few survivors fleeing to the local tower. This episode graphically illustrates the severe problems faced by the rural Crusader settlement. The villagers, who were few in number and unprotected, were incapable of defending themselves and their property. When superior armies marched through the area, the villagers were forced to flee to the forts or the fortified cities. If they did not manage to flee, they could expect to be slaughtered at the hands of the Muslims, as happened at Birra. 9 According to the sources that mention the Crusader church in 1128 CE,10 it was one of the first structures erected in Birra. A fortress, a hostel for pilgrims, and a hospital would later be built in the village.

[299]

y. m a g e n

The Crusaders were noted for their ardor in building public structures, mainly those of a religiousecclesiastical nature. In Crusader society, there was a great demand for public prayer by the fundamentally religious population. The military orders also built churches in their fortresses for use by the knights and their attendants. These churches were modest in comparison with their counterparts in Europe. In 1187 CE, Saladin conquered Birra and converted the church into a mosque. In 1229 CE, at the time of Frederick II, Birra was under Muslim control.

THE CHURCH The Crusader Period The basilical church has external measurements of 38×22 m (Figs. 4–7). The width of the nave is 4.80 m and that of the aisles is 3.80 m. The diameter of the flanking apses is 3.80 m, and that of the central apse is 5.00 m. The unusually thick church walls, 2.70 m, were built of two faces of medium-sized chalk ashlars that were finely smoothed on their interior face, while the outer face was more coarsely dressed. Between the blocks is a fill of small stones and whitish cement. The walls are preserved to a height of five–six courses, in marked contrast to the nearly complete structure that stood here in the early twentieth century. It is noteworthy that the building stones in the western part of the structure are larger than those in the eastern section. Masons’ marks are visible on some of the stones.11 The area where the church was built was leveled prior to construction. In some places the excavations uncovered rock-cut foundation trenches in which the walls were set. The level of the nave is lower than that of the chancel. Based on the lowest course of the walls and the level of the steps, it may be assumed that the pavement of the church, which has not been preserved, was made of paving stones. It is also possible, however, that the floor was of plaster, applied directly onto the bedrock without a layer of fill. There was a single, 2.00 m-wide entrance in the middle of the western wall, from which three steps descended to the church floor (Fig. 8). Two rows of three bases carrying compound columns divide the interior of the church into a nave

and two aisles. Each compound column comprises an integrated unit of four round semicolumns constructed of drums. The compound columns rest on a square base, 0.40 m-high and 2.10 m to a side or on a cruciform base, for example, the two compound columns closest to the church entrance (Figs. 9–10). The compound columns were topped by foliate Corinthian capitals. Above these were arches and an additional row of columns and capitals that supported the roof. The two easternmost compound columns penetrate the western part of the chancel and are therefore some 0.40 m above the nave floor (Fig. 11). The chevet is a relatively common feature in contemporaneous Crusader churches. The central apse is larger than those on either side (Fig. 12). The apse floors are some 0.40 m higher than the chancel floor. Each apse had an upper window and two rectangular alcoves, 0.75 m high, 0.45 m wide and 0.55 m deep, surrounded by a hewn frame that apparently held the wooden frame of the alcove door. The alcoves are presently preserved only in the southern apse (Fig. 13), while those in the middle and northern apses are visible in photographs taken before the dismantling of the church.12 The side apses were roofed with semidomes of well-dressed ashlars that extended from a running cornice. The central apse was almost twice as high as the others and ended in two pilasters consisting of semicircular columns attached to the wall and resting on raised semi-bases (Fig. 14). The shafts were topped by foliated Corinthian capitals, above which was a protruding cornice that bore pointed arches.13 Over the lower pilasters additional ones were built, above which, in turn, was a running cornice. At the foot of the apses was a 7.00 m-wide chancel that extended the width of the church and ended at a screen or wall that separated it from the nave. There were probably two stairs on the northern side that ascended from the nave to the chancel. Protruding pilasters along the northern and southern walls form four bays in the aisle walls. Above each bay was a pointed arch, and in its center, a window. These pilasters differ from those adjoining the apse, as they are flat in front and rest on a 1.35 m-wide base (Fig. 15), topped by foliated Corinthian capitals (Fig. 16). This is an economical method of

[300]

t h e c r u s a d e r CHURCH o f s t . m a r y i n E L- b i r a

0

Fig. 4. El-Bira, general plan of the church.

[301]

5 m

y. m a g e n

0

Fig. 5. El-Bira, section of the church.

0

Fig. 6. El-Bira, reconstruction of the church.

[302]

5 m

5 m

t h e c r u s a d e r CHURCH o f s t . m a r y i n E L- b i r a

Fig. 7. El-Bira, the church, view from the west.

Fig. 8. Steps descending from the entrance to the church floor, view from the southeast.

construction, since only the upper part of the column and capital were designed, and is characteristic of Crusader construction in the Land of Israel. The western part of the southern wall, as opposed to the rest of the church, was built of large undressed stones. The interior of the church walls was thickly coated with several layers of plaster, the lowest layer bearing a semicircular pattern of slits to aid in the application of the second layer. The interior walls were decorated with stucco ornamentation and blue and red frescoes.

Fig. 9. Southern row of bases that carried compound columns, view from the west.

[303]

y. m a g e n

Fig. 10. Cruciform base on which a compound column stood.

Fig. 11. Chevet of the church, view from the west.

The prayer hall contained a stone bench that apparently went all around it (see Fig. 7). In the middle of the southern wall was a semicircular alcove, 1.35 m wide, above which were a round arch and a sort of raised shelf. A triangular window was positioned in the upper part of the alcove (Fig. 17).

A cruciform limestone baptismal font of one piece, 1.20 m to a side, was discovered close to the center of the nave. In its center is a square depression that encompasses a round hole, probably for the collection of the refuse (Fig. 18).

[304]

t h e c r u s a d e r CHURCH o f s t . m a r y i n E L- b i r a

Fig. 12. Central apse, view from the northwest.

Fig. 13. Southern apse flanked by two rectangular alcoves, view from the west.

[305]

y. m a g e n

Fig. 16. Foliate Corinthian capital.

Fig. 14. Pilaster of the central apse.

Fig. 15. Row of pilasters in the northern wall, view from the east; note the difference between the eastern pilaster and the others.

[306]

t h e c r u s a d e r CHURCH o f s t . m a r y i n E L- b i r a

The Late Islamic Periods The church fell into disuse after the Crusaders left the Land of Israel, and the village was destroyed. In the Mamluk period, the structure functioned as a stable and barn, and possibly also housed Muslims who had settled in the Crusader village of Birra. It should be stressed that many of el-Bira’s houses were built over the remains of the Crusader village, with secondary use of its stones. In the Late Mamluk period, the roof over the center of the church collapsed, leaving a few vaults and the outer walls. A number of coins and a few pottery vessels from the Mamluk period were discovered. The building was apparently used as a stable during the Ottoman period.

Summary The church of St. Mary in el-Bira was built during the Crusader period. However, the extremely meager finds from this period indicate that the church, albeit not destroyed, was looted immediately following the Islamic conquest. During the Mamluk period the structure served as a stable, a barn, and possibly as a dwelling, and in the Ottoman period, as a stable again. As stated above, the structure’s destruction began during the First World War. Sometime prior to 1967 the apse and outer wall were totally destroyed, their stones re-used in other constructions.

Fig. 17. Alcove in the southern wall.

Fig. 18. Cruciform baptismal font found in the center of the church nave.

[307]

y. m a g e n

notes The excavations (License No. 432) were conducted intermittently during the years 1987–1991 on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen; see Magen 2001. 2 De Vogüé 1860: 338–339; Guérin 1869: 7–13; 1874: 205; 1897: 322–323; SWP III: 88–89; Abel 1924: 383, Fig. 4; 1926: 272–275; Enlart 1928: 274–277; Benvenisti 1970: 223–224; Pringle 1993: 161–165; IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 38, el Bīra. 3 Pringle 1993: 162. 4 Pringle 1993: 161–165; Tabula: 75, and see bibliography there. 5 See note 2, above. 1

IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 38, el Bīra, Photos. 7 Boas 1999: 62–67. 8 Prawer 1963a: 347–348. 9 Prawer 1963a: 216, 446; 1963b: 187, 246. 10 Pringle 1993: 161. 11 Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 26. 12 Rectangular alcoves similar to those at el-Bira, of undetermined purpose, were discovered in a church in Jerusalem (Bahat and Solar 1978: Pl. III:a, and additional parallels, pp. 75–76). 13 H.B. Tristram notes that all the church capitals differ from each other (Tristram 1866: 170). 6

references Abel F.-M. 1924. “Topographie des campagnes machabéennes (suite),” RB 33: 371–387. Abel F.-M. 1926. “Les deux ‘Mahomerie’ el-Bireh, elQoubeibeh,” RB 35: 272–283. Bahat D. and Solar G. 1978. “Une église croisée récemment découverte à Jérusalem,” RB 85: 72–80. Benvenisti M. 1970. The Crusaders in the Holy Land, Jerusalem. Boas A. J. 1999. Crusader Archaeology. The Material Culture of the Latin East, London. Clermont-Ganneau C. 1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874 I, London. Enlart C. 1928. Les monuments des croisés dans le royaume de Jérusalem. Architecture religieuse et civile II, Paris. Guérin V. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée III, Paris. Guérin V. 1874. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Seconde Partie—Samarie I, Paris.

Guérin V. 1897. La terre sainte. Jérusalem et le nord de la Judeé, Paris. Magen Y. 2001. “The Crusader Church of St. Mary in el-Bira,” LA 51: 257–266. Prawer J. 1963a. A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem I, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Prawer J. 1963b. A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem II, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Pringle D. 1993. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Corpus, Cambridge. Tristram H.B. 1866. The Land of Israel. A Journal of Travels in Palestine, Undertaken with Special Reference to its Physical Character, London. Vogüé M. de. 1860. Les églises de la Terre Sainte, Paris. Wilson C.W. 1880. Picturesque Palestine, Sinai and Egypt I, London.

[308]

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AND MONASTERY AT KHIRBET HURIYA BENJAMIN HAR-EVEN AND UZI GREENFELD

THE SITE Kh. Huriya (map ref. IOG 15400/14593; ITM 20400/64593) was built at the top of a small spur, some 310 m above sea level. It is located ca. 500 m north of the settlement of Maccabim, on the border between the Shephelah and the central hill country, at the junction of several important roads leading to Jerusalem (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 Some 50 m south of the site, the main road between Jaffa and Jerusalem through the Beth Ḥoron ascent crosses the road leading from the southern Shephelah to Emmaus.2 Kh. Kafr Lut lies to Kh. Huriya’s southeast. The two ruins, separated by a saddle, are actually one site that sprawls for 300 m from hilltop to hillside. The site, surveyed on a number of occasions, has been identified with the settlement of Kefar Rut, dating to the Second Temple and Roman-Byzantine periods.3 It is marked on the Madaba Map by two towers on either side of a gate, and identified as “Kefar Rutha.” Next to it are stairs, over which “Beth Horon” is written. These stairs may represent the aforementioned Beth Ḥ oron ascent; however, it seems in fact a depiction of Kh. Huriya and its adjacent road.4 The site, extending over an area of ca. 5 dunams, constitutes a complex of structures on a hilltop. Excavations at the site yielded evidence of three main occupation phases (Fig. 1). Sparse finds indicate that it was initially settled in the Early Roman period. A monastery and large church were established during the Byzantine period. The monastery might have served as a hospice for pilgrims proceeding to Jerusalem. A large pool, irregular in shape, lay west of the church.5 In the Umayyad period, a large way station surrounded by a defensive wall was built over the eastern part of the monastery. Several sections of the monastery were destroyed while other parts were reused in the Islamic structure. In the Mamluk period,

a large settlement arose. A way station was built on the site’s southeastern slope to control the main road between Jaffa and Jerusalem. This article will discuss mainly the remains of the Byzantine monastery and church.

THE BYZANTINE MONASTERY During the fifth century a monastery encompassed by a wall was established (Fig. 2). Its major component was a large basilical church, a courtyard, and an adjoining set of rooms. The monastery complex was surrounded by thick, ashlar-built walls: W490 and W238 on the west, W339 on the north, and W343 and W347 on the south. In the east, the original wall, W346, was replaced by W256 when the monastery was expanded. These walls, 0.80 m thick, comprised two faces with bonding material in between. The outer face consisted of medium-sized ashlars, whose external side was smooth, its interior side, unworked. The inner face, consisting of smaller stones embedded in bonding material, was coated in a thick layer of plaster. The monastery complex, from east to west, was probably 41 m long, and 38 m from north to south. An open courtyard lies outside the western walls of the complex and forms a kind of approach to the monastery. The location of the main gate to the complex is unknown.

THE CHURCH The church, 27×14 m, consisted of prayer hall, chancel with an internal apse, pastophoria, and probably a narthex. Although seriously damaged by later construction done inside it, its plan can largely be reconstructed (Figs. 3–6). It included two building

[309]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

ByzantinePeriod Period Byzantine UmayyadPeriod Period Umayyad MamlukPeriod Period Mamluk

0

Fig. 1. Kh. Huriya, construction phases.

[310]

10 m

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

W347

W256

F268 W346 F373

W439

W302

L437

W362

W360

L300

L337

F198

L313 W201

F305 L210

F175

L288

L345

L245

W280

W279

W340

F106

F208

W364 W363

F226

W452

F218

W153

L457

W113

W200

W414

W339

L381 L400 L379

W343

W489

W393

L433

L410 W428 F392

L401

L486

W490

L446

W238 F263

0

Fig. 2. Kh. Huriya, detailed plan of the monastery.

[311]

6

m

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

313.64

314.17

W302 F218 393.45

L457

L437

L300 314.12

2 W153

314.00

L345

314.27

W364

W360

W362

F198 314.19

F208

W363

W280

W279

F305

F106

313.55

L210 313.56 313.52

313.89

313.47

L288

W113

313.59

W339

L381 L400 L379

W200

313.45

L337

1

L245

W414

W340

311.54

F175

W201 W366

F226

1

312.49

L313

312.21

L410

L433

W428 F392 L401 L486

L446

311.52

311.46

312.14

W238

W490 312.45

F263 311.70

2

Fig. 3. Kh. Huriya, detailed plan of the church.

[312]

0

5 m

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA 1-1

315 00 314 315 313 314 312 313 311 312 310 311

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

W279

W339

W340

W339

W340F226 W279

1-1

W280

F175

F226

W280

F175

W153

W130

W200

W153

W130

W200

F208 F208

310 00 2-2 314 00 313 00 314 00 312 00 313 00 311 312 310 311

00 00 00 00

2-2 W238

F392

W428

F392

W428

W201

W113

W201

W414

F263 W238

W113

W414

L313

F263 L313

Fig. 4. Kh. Huriya, sections of the church.

310 00

Fig. 5. Church, view from the west.

[313]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

Fig. 6. Church, view from the north.

stages, the first dated to the fifth century and the second to the second half of the sixth century.

First Stage Church The church walls (W490 in the west, W339 in the north, W302 in the east, and W153 in the south), were 0.60 m thick and consisted of two faces, the space between them filled with bonding material. The outer face was constructed of large stones with smooth external and unworked internal sides. The inner face was constructed of smaller stones embedded in bonding material and coated with a thick layer of plaster. The church was paved with mosaic floors bearing fine geometric patterns, of which only a few segments were extant, aside from a sizable section in the northern aisle (see below). The western part of the church barely survived but probably had an open courtyard. Part of the open courtyard was exposed west of W490. The courtyard comprises two levels, with a height differential of 0.30 m; a low step connected the two levels. The

upper level, in the north, barely survived; the betterpreserved lower level was paved in crude white mosaic (F263). Part of this mosaic abuts W238 to the east, thus apparently lying outside the monastery walls (Fig. 7). While the courtyard is estimated to be ca. 19 m wide, most of its area was not exposed and it was impossible to ascertain its borders in the west. The poor condition of the wall dividing the courtyard and church prevented us from esta-

Fig. 7. Mosaic floor west of the monastery.

[314]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

blishing the location of passageways between them. The western part of the church did not survive (L401, L486). While the excavations failed to disclose any trace of the narthex’s inner wall, making it impossible to verify its size or very existence, the church’s substantial dimensions, proportions, and especially its length, strongly suggest there was a narthex. The wall separating it from the prayer hall canprobably be reconstructed as a northern extension of W428. The church nave is 6.00 m wide, and 15.50 m long, including the bema. It was divided from the aisles by two rows of columns whose bases were set on stylobates (W279, W280). Only the eastern parts of the stylobates survived. The northern stylobate (W279) was extant for a length of 10.30 m, the southern one (W280), for 13.90 m. They were 0.60 m wide, and comprised a course of ashlars laid over a foundation of small fieldstones. The columns were 0.60 m in diameter. Only three bases were found in

situ: two on the east of the northern stylobate, and one on the southern stylobate. The easternmost column on either side of the apse was a pilaster. The mosaic in the nave did not survive (L433, L400), aside from a small section abutting the bema (F175); nevertheless, it was possible to reconstruct the main carpet’s pattern: a central medallion surrounded by interlacing geometric figures. The northern aisle was ca. 16 m long and 3 m wide (Fig. 8). In the east, the aisle ends in a passageway to the pastophorium, of which only a few traces were extant. The floor at the west of the aisle was completely damaged (L288, L379). In the aisle’s east a section of the mosaic floor (F226) and its foundation (F106) was exposed. It was the largest and most complete section of the church’s mosaics to have survived, and featured a large rectangular carpet divided into panels adorned with geometric motifs (see below). The southern aisle was ca. 16 m long and 3 m wide (Fig. 9). In the east, the aisle ends in a passageway

Fig. 8. Northern aisle, view from the west.

[315]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

to the pastophorium. Its threshold was higher than the aisle’s floor by 0.10 m. Only a few segments of the aisle’s mosaic floor (F208) were preserved in its northeastern section, adjoining the stylobate, and the carpet’s pattern can be only partially reconstructed (see below). At the western part of the aisle some stones served as a base for an unidentified installation (L381). In the east of the nave, a large bema extended over the entire eastern third of the prayer hall into the nave between the two stylobates. It was 7.00 m wide and 5.50 m long. Three walls frame the bema. The northern (W362) and southern (W360) ones were built over the stylobates between the columns at a later stage. The western one ran across the breadth of the church between the two columns of the second row, comprising the front of the bema (W364 and W363). Only the edges of this wall were extant (Fig. 10). A chancel screen defining the sacred area was raised over the platform. A row of sockets for its posts and channels for anchoring its panels were cut into the top of the platform walls of the bema. Two series of sockets indicate that two different chancel screen types were installed on the bema. In the first phase were thin marble panels, remnants of which were still embedded in the corresponding channels.

Fig. 9. Southern aisle, view from the west.

Fig. 10. Bema, view from the west.

[316]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

The apse wall (W192), 4.90 m in diameter, adjoined the church’s eastern wall (W302). The space between these walls was filled with bonding material. W302 consisted of large stones smoothed on the outer side and left unworked on the inner one. It survived to a height of one course. W192, of which only the foundation course (beneath the floor level) was extant, consisted of ashlars with carefully dressed outer faces. Pilasters were set over the stylobates on either side of the apse. Only the base of the southern one survived (Fig. 11). Consisting of an ashlar carved in tiers, it also formed part of the corner of the apse. On either side of the apse were pastophoria, which also abutted the church’s eastern wall. They were square in plan and equal in dimension: 3.00×2.70 m. The northern pastophorium was extant for only one course beneath floor level (L457). Not even its threshold survived. The southern pastophorium (L437) was better

Fig. 11. Pillar fixed in the southern stylobate, view from the west.

preserved (Fig. 12). Its threshold survived, as well as a small segment of its mosaic floor (F218), whose level was higher than that of the aisle floor by 0.10 m.

Fig. 12. Southern pastophorium, view from the south.

[317]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

Second Stage Church The second stage can be identified by a series of square pillars arrayed in the nave at regular intervals along the stylobate. These pillars cut into the hall’s mosaic floor, and the damage they caused in their immediate vicinity was repaired by means of crude white mosaic (see Fig. 5). Altogether, the remains of seven pillars were uncovered in the nave—three in the north, and four in the south. One can assume that they continued along the nave’s entire length, sustaining a succession of arches spanning the breadth of the hall. Thus the roof was borne by two long colonnades, as well as arches. This system, involving pillars alongside columns, is very unusual. It appears that the pillars were introduced to buttress the structure, which had somehow been weakened, or, alternatively, to reinforce the roof for the addition of another story. Two benches were set along the walls of the aisles in the second phase. The remains of an ashlar-built bench coated in a thick layer of plaster containing sherds were exposed along the northern aisle’s wall (W340). The bench, 0.40 m wide, was built over the church’s mosaic floor. The remains of another ashlar-built bench coated with a thick layer of plaster containing sherds (W366) were exposed along the southern aisle’s wall (W153). The bench, 0.40 m wide, was built over the church’s mosaic floor. The bema’s platform walls from this stage consist of ashlars and of architectural elements, like column drums, in secondary use. The latter were leveled to create an even surface. Perhaps as a result of damage caused to the marble screen, during this phase another channel was hewn in the bema, broader than the first; it was apparently intended to accommodate a limestone screen (Fig. 13).

CHURCH MOSAIC FLOORS Sections of the mosaic floors were exposed in the nave and aisles. The largest section was found in the northern aisle, while in the nave and southern aisle only a few small segments survived underneath the walls of later structures. The finely executed geometric patterns give the impression of being three dimensional.

Fig 13. Second stage chancel screen.

A mosaic segment (F175) was discovered in the east of the nave, abutting the bema. The pattern of its main carpet can be reconstructed; it was a circle ins a square panel bordered by a frame (Fig. 14). The mosaic margin was set with diagonal rows of white tesserae. The frame comprises a band bounded with various floral patterns, such as lotus flowers. Diagonal strips divide the band into sections, creating the three-dimensional illusion of a colorful wavy ribbon curling around the band. On either side of the band are straight rows of red, ocher, black, and white tesserae. The carpet field is decorated with an intertwined circle consisting of six bands adorned with various patterns. The first is a guilloche formed of two strips in red and ocher (B2*).6 The second is decorated on one side with rows of tesserae in black and gray, and with white leaves against a red background on the other. The third and fourth bands are decorated with an identical pattern: a strip comprising a row of white tesserae bordered on either side by red and black tesserae. The fifth band consists of a wavy

[318]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

Fig. 14. Nave, remains of mosaic, view from the south.

colorful pattern; and the sixth is decorated with a wrapped band (B1*). The space between the bands is completely filled with additional patterns. In the center of the circle a medallion is bordered by a frame consisting of a wave crest pattern (B7*); leaves facing the interweaving bands surround the wave. The medallion’s interior is not extant. The corners of the field were also adorned, but only those in the east are extant; the southeastern corner is decorated with vine tendrils, while the northeastern one features a rabbit (Fig. 15). The round, six-banded circle at the center of the carpet appears in the mosaic floor of the church at Ḥ . Tinshemet,7 This pattern appears to be a variant of the circle composed of interlaced bands, common in mosaics of the fourth and fifth centuries CE.8 The northern aisle was paved with a large rectangular carpet divided into panels, three of which are extant. Part of the aisle (6.50×3.00 m) was exposed (Fig. 16). The carpet margin was set with white tesserae organized in straight rows, and widthwise, in diagonal ones. Diamonds in red, gray, and ocher

Fig. 15. Rabbit in the nave mosaic.

(E* Diamond) were inlaid at varying intervals along the margins. The carpet frame that enclosed the three panels consisted of two rows of white tesserae and one row of black on either side. The eastern panel was enclosed by an additional frame consisting of two rows of red tesserae, one

[319]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

Fig. 17. Northern aisle mosaic, eastern panel.

Fig. 16. Northern aisle mosaic, view from the south.

of white, one of black, two of ocher, and another of white. In the middle of the carpet was a harmony circle (10*) enclosing another medallion that is adorned with a geometric motif (Fig. 17).9 The

panel’s four corners were also decorated with geometric motifs: the western pair with a conch motif (18*); the eastern pair with a rainbow pattern in similar hues.10 The central rectangular panel was divided into nine squares decorated with alternating swastika meanders (A19*) and other interlaced patterns (Fig. 18). The western panel was very poorly preserved. Its frame is identical to that of the eastern panel, and it too contains a medallion. The panel’s patterns could not be reconstructed on the basis of the remains, but one of the corners revealed traces of leaves, and a design was discernible inside the medallion. The southern aisle was paved with a large rectangular carpet divided into panels, three of which were partially preserved (Fig. 19). The carpet edges were set by diagonal rows of white tesserae, quadrangles in red, ocher, and gray being inlaid at various intervals along the eastern edges. The carpet frame enclosing the panels consists of two rows of white tesserae with a row of black on either side. A double inner frame comprising a band with a pattern of strips and another of guilloche encloses the panels. The strips, in red, gray, and white, are divided into segments by circles at regular intervals, while the guilloche is formed of strips in red, gray, and ocher (B2*). The middle and western panels are enclosed by an outer band consisting of strips and an inner one of guilloche. In the eastern panel, the arrangement of these bands is reversed: the outer band is a guilloche;

[320]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

Fig 18. Northern aisle mosaic, central panel.

the inner one consists of strips. The patterns of the frame in this panel produce a meandering swastika (Fig. 20).11 The surviving motifs include a rosette in red, brown, ocher, and gray inside a medallion comprising rows of black and white tesserae. The middle panel is rectangular. Its center is decorated with a large lozenge whose frame consists of a band with alternating vertical and horizontal pairs of ellipses. The lozenge contains a meander pattern. The area between the lozenge and the carpet frame is adorned with triangles enclosing leaves (Fig. 21). The square western panel is adorned with a medallion containing an interlaced circle pattern. The medallion is encircled by a similar design that interlaces with the medallion and enclosing frame. It consists of strips in two shades each of ocher and red, and white and black.

The artisans who produced the mosaics in the church at Kh. Huriya employed eight colors: white, black, brick red, pinkish red, two shades of ocher, gray, and cream. The mosaics were laid at a density of 49 tesserae per sq. dm. Despite the use of relatively large tesserae, the carpets are notable for their colorfulness, as well as for the craftsmen’s skill. Their bold composition and wealth of geometric patterns create an illusion of three-dimensionality. The carpets are especially distinguished for their outstandingly fantastic style.12 The following are common geometric patterns current during the late fifth century CE: The use of geometric motifs found in earlier mosaics; the division of the carpet into square panels; the appearance of a central design—a round design consisting of three to six bands or a circle; the frequent application of

[321]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

0

Fig. 19. Southern aisle mosaic, view from the west.

[322]

40

80

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

MONASTERY ROOMS

Fig. 20. Southern aisle, remains of eastern panel.

Fig. 21. Southern aisle, remains of western panel, view from the south.

running strips, meandering swastikas, conches, and rainbow patterns at the corners of the carpets. In view of the close resemblance between the present mosaics and those of El-Khirbe and Samara, it seems reasonable to ascribe the mosaics at Kh. Huriya to the fifth century CE.13

Monastery rooms were exposed in two areas around a courtyard, south of the church (see Fig. 2). A row of three rooms was built along and south of the church’s southern wall (W153), and four rooms were found along and north of the monastery’s southern walls (W343, W347). There were apparently no passageways between the row of rooms along the church’s southern wall and the church. This row was bordered in the east by W201, in the south by W200, in the west by W238—the western wall of the entire complex, and in the north by W153. The rooms’ walls were extant to a height of one or two courses. The thresholds were no longer extant in some of the rooms, so that the location of their openings is unknown. The rooms’ floors were of beaten earth over a fill of red loam. The western room measures 5.90×4.80 m. In the first phase of the church, a threshold was fixed in the intervening wall, enabling passage between the open courtyard and the room (Fig. 22). In the second phase, however, this opening was blocked with stones and bonding material. This room yielded fragments of a white and black mosaic belonging to the upper story that had collapsed into the room (L446, F392). Underneath the remnants of this fallen story, in the room’s southeastern corner, a large number of broken but complete vessels were found in situ. The two eastern rooms comprised a single elongated room in the first phase, and were apparently divided only in the second one by W113. The central room, 4.80×4.70 m, was bordered on the east and west by partitions consisting of medium-sized ashlars. The end of W113, which abutted the southern wall (W200), was no longer extant. Since the room openings had not been preserved, it was impossible to know if there had been passageways between the two sections of the central room or between it and the western room, and if so, where they were located. In the room’s northwestern corner was an internal partition (W414), evidently belonging to some kind of installation that had not survived. The eastern room was square in plan: 4.80×4.80 m, with a compact earth floor (F305), and beneath it a sealed locus (L245).

[323]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

Fig 22. Monastery rooms along the church’s southern wall.

The part of the floor in the courtyard exposed east of the rooms (F198) probably represents only a small fraction of its entire area and extends further to the east. In the west of the courtyard was a tabun and a plastered stove installation: 0.80×0.40 m (L345, see Fig. 22).14 A row of four rooms of the monastery complex were found along the southern walls of the monastery (W343 and W347). The wall bordering the rooms in the north was not exposed, and the rooms’ sizes are unknown. Although most of the rooms’ openings went undetected, it is reasonable to assume that some were located in the north. The walls were extant to an average height of 0.80–1.00 m (Fig. 23). The easternmost room, 5.50 m long, was longer than the others. It was bordered in the east by W256 and in the west by W346, which delimited the monastery complex. This room was paved with irregular stone slabs (F268). West of this room was a smaller one, 3.00 m long,

bordered in the east by W346 and to the west by W393. Its floor consisted of irregular stone slabs (F373) and was lower than the floor of the room to its east by ca. 0.40 m. As the excavation of the western room did not reach the floor level, our information about it is incomplete. It was 3.80 m long, bordered in the east by W346 and in the west by W439, and was traversed lengthwise by a wall in the north (W489); it appears that this wall was erected in a later phase. The rubble in the room yielded the fragment of a granite column in secondary use, integrated into the room’s southern wall. Excavations west of this room revealed another room divided into two smaller ones, separated by W452. The southwestern room was 2.70 m wide, but only a small segment (1.50 m) of its length was exposed. Pilasters fixed in both its eastern corners attest a vaulted roof. Wall W439 divided the southwestern room from the one to its east; it had an opening that was blocked by stones and bonding material in a later phase.

[324]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H A N D M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T H U R I YA

of the monastery’s southeastern corner gives us an idea of the size of the complex and its borders in the east, west, and south.

FINDS The finds from the site are diverse, and include architectural elements from the church, fragments of marble liturgical objects, pottery vessels (some of which can be restored), glassware, tools, and numerous coins.15

Summary

Fig. 23. Rooms along the southern wall of the monastery.

Only the southeastern corner of the northwestern room was cleared, but the remains of a pilaster in this corner indicate that this room, too, had a vaulted roof. It should be noted that the rooms unearthed in the excavations represent only a small portion of the monastery complex, which covered the entire area surrounding the church. Nevertheless, the exposure

In the course of the fifth century, a complex consisting of a monastery and a basilical church was founded on the site. The monastery seems also to have served as a pilgrim hospice. This can be inferred from its location on the Jaffa–Beth Ḥ oron ascent–Jerusalem road. In the sixth century, most likely during Justinian’s reign, an adjunct to the monastery extended it further east. In the Early Islamic period, probably at the beginning of the eighth century, a large way station established at the site made use of the Byzantine remains. It is unclear whether the church structure served the way station, or stood ruinous at its side. The way station was active in the eighth–ninth centuries, but the site was evidently abandoned at the end of the ninth century. It was resettled in the Mamluk period, when a new way station was erected in the southeast of the site. A large village was established and its construction wrought serious damage to the earlier remains underneath.

notes Kh. Huriya was excavated in April–May 2005 (License No. 1034) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of B. Har-Even and U. Greenfeld, with the assistance of O. Dagan. 2 Fischer, Isaac, and Roll 1996: 71–79. 3 Kochavi 1972: 235, Site No. 231; Fischer 1980: 19; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 14*, Site No. 13. An additional survey took place in 2004 on behalf of the Staff Officer of 1

Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. 4 Avi-Yonah 1954: 60–61, Pl. 7. 5 The pool was documented but not excavated. 6 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 7 Dahari 1998.

A round design consisting of bands appears in the mosaic floors of the synagogue at El-Khirbe that dates to the fourth century CE (Magen 2008: Fig. 28), and at

8

[325]

B. HAR-EVEN AND U. GREENFELD

the site of Deir Qala, which dates to the fifth century CE (see Magen and Aizik, “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qala,” in this volume). An identical design has been observed in the church at Kh. Munyah–Asfur in Transjordan (Piccirillo 1993: 299, nos. 588–589). A similar round design consisting of three bands adorned the eastern panel of the mosaic floor in the synagogue at Samara, which dates to the fourth century CE (Magen 2008: Fig. 68). The shell pattern enclosing the space between the central circle and the quadrangular corners can be found in a similar composition in the corners of the eastern panel of the mosaic in the Church of the Nativity (Richmond 1936: Pl. XLIV) and in the carpet in the church nave at Maresha (Kloner 1993: 260). 10 The motif of a circle adorned with rainbow pattern appears in the mosaic floors of the synagogue at El-Khirbe which dates to the fourth century CE (Magen 2008: Fig. 28), and in the western panel of the mosaic in the nave of the church at Ḥ . Tinshemet (Dahari 1998: Pl. E). The early mosaic floor in the Church of the Nativity, which dates to the beginning of the fifth century CE, features a slight variant of this pattern (Richmond 1936: Pl. XLIV). In Transjordan this pattern has been observed in the church nave at Yasilah, dated by an inscription to 482/3 CE (Piccirillo 1993: 341, no. 754), and on the floor belonging to the earlier stage of the “Glass 9

Court” that adjoins the cathedral complex of Gerasa in the north and dating to the first half of the fifth century CE (Piccirillo 1993: 284, no. 526). 11 Further examples of geometric patterns in mosaics of the fourth and fifth centuries CE can be seen in the synagogues at El-Khirbe and Samara (Magen 2008: Figs. 69–70), in the octagonal mosaic in the Church of the Nativity, from the beginning of the fifth century CE (Harvey and Harvey 1938: Pl. VI), and in the lower level mosaic in the synagogue at Maoz Ḥ ayim, which dates to the fifth century CE (Tzaferis 1981: 87). 12 Characteristic of fifth century mosaics in the Land of Israel and Transjordan as in the Nativity church dating to the fifth century CE (Richmond 1936; Harvey and Harvey 1938: Pl. VI), the church at Maresha (Kloner 1993), Ḥ . Tinshemet (Dahari 1998), and the synagogue at Maoz Ḥ ayim (Tzaferis 1981: 87–88). The cathedral in Gerasa and the church at Yasilah in Transjordan also date to the fifth century CE (Piccirillo 1993: 20, 284, 341). 13 Magen 2008: Figs. 28, 68. 14 Similar cooking installations were observed on the grounds of other monasteries: e.g., at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 72, Fig. 111). 15 The coins were identified and dated by G. Bijovsky. For the full numismatic report, see JSRF L-1034.

references Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Dahari U. 1998. “Ḥ orbat Tinshemet, Church of St. Bacchus,” ESI 18: 102–104 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 67–68). Fischer M. 1980. “Survey in Kh. Kefar Rut Area,” Ḥ A 74–75: 19–20 (Hebrew). Fischer M., Isaac B., and Roll I. 1996. Roman Roads in Judaea II: The Jaffa–Jerusalem Roads (BAR Int. S. 628), Oxford. Harvey W. and Harvey J.H. 1938. Recent Discoveries at the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, Oxford. Hirschfeld Y. 1999. “The Architectural Remains of the Monastery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem, pp. 9–95. Kloner A. 1993. “A Byzantine Church at Maresha (Beit Govrin),” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 260–264.

Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2008. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 117–182. Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstracts). Piccirillo M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman. Richmond E.T. 1936. “Basilica of the Nativity. Discovery of the Remains of an Earlier Church,” QDAP 5: 75–82. Tzaferis V. 1981. “The Synagogue at Maoz Hayim,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 86–89. 

[326]

A LATE ROMAN TOWER AND A BYZANTINE CHURCH IN KHIRBET FAʿUSH, MACCABIM BENJAMIN HAR-EVEN AND LIOR SHAPIRA

THE SITE Kh. Faʿush is located on a small hilltop and its southern slope between the Shephelah and central hill country, at the junction of two main roads leading to Jerusalem (map ref. IOG 15391/14527; ITM 20391/64527).1 The main road between Jaffa and Jerusalem through the Beth Ḥ oron ascent passes some 300 m north of the site. The longitudinal road, between the southern Shephelah and Emmaus, ran along the valley east of the site, crossed the Beth Ḥ oron ascent, and continued to western Samaria (see Site Map on p. XIII).2 The complex at Kh. Faʿush, identified as a church in the British Mandatory Archive,3 was surveyed on a number of occasions.4 The site extends over an area of ca. 8 dunams

(Fig. 1). The excavations revealed evidence of five periods of occupation: Phase I—the Second Temple period; Phase II—the Late Roman period, in which the remains of a square tower of well-dressed ashlars was exposed on the hilltop; Phase III—the Byzantine period, during which the settlement became Christian and a basilica church was established and later renovated. East of the church, on the site’s eastern slope, there were remains of agricultural installations, including an improved winepress, as well as quarries dated from the Second Temple to Byzantine periods; Phase IV—Early Islamic period, in which the settlement continued to exist, but since the church probably went out of use, we assume the character of its populace changed. A crushing basin was found dated to this phase; Phase V—the Mamluk period,

0

Fig. 1. Kh. Faʿush, general plan.

[327]

15 m

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

when the tower was used on a temporary basis by nomads and the remaining structures apparently lay in ruins. This article will mainly discuss the remains of the Late Roman tower and Byzantine church.

Phase I—Second Temple Period Remains from the site’s first period of occupation, the first century BCE to the beginning of the second century CE, were exposed below the church floor. A dwelling cave was discovered, as well as an underground storage system, which apparently served as a winery, including fermentation pits and storerooms, and various other installations (Fig. 2). East of the later church was a large miqweh with a double opening and two submersion chambers (Figs. 3–4).

Phase II—Late Roman Period Most of the structures at the site were probably erected during the Late Roman period (fourth century CE). A

perfectly square massive tower, 14.40×14.40 m, was exposed on the hilltop (Figs. 5–6).5 Only the tower basement survived. Its extant walls are over 4.00 m high: W1 to the north, W2 to the east, W3 to the west, and W4 to the south. They are especially impressive, constructed of well-dressed ashlars, each up to ca. 2×0.8 m, carefully fitted without mortar (Figs. 7–8). It was built into the first phase cave whose ceiling had been breached. The basement ceiling, borne by the internal walls (W5, W7, and W8), was barrel-vaulted. The walls divided the interior into four basic units: a central corridor (L54), northern and southern wings on either side of the corridor, and a western wing. The western wing was divided by W6 into a northern and southern room (L18 and L14, respectively), the latter having the remains of a floor, and an opening (L36) from the Mamluk period. The entrances to these rooms were through two arched openings in W5. The rooms were connected by an arched opening in W6 (Fig. 9).

Fig. 2. Kh. Faʿush, entrance to the Second Temple dwelling cave, view from the south.

[328]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

Fig. 3. Second Temple miqweh entrance, view from the north.

L220

L207

L216

L212

L232 L208 306.56

0

Fig. 4. Miqweh, plan.

3

m

The southern and northern wings were also divided into rooms. The northern wing was divided by W9 into two rooms (L44, L45), each entered through an opening in W7; only the eastern, arched one survived (Fig. 10). The southern wing was divided by W10 into a western room (L47) and a staircase (L80). The tower entrance, probably in the middle of its eastern wall, led to the ground floor, but is no longer extant. It comprised a large lintel with a graduated profile and doorposts, found not in situ. The doorposts consisted of columns shafts engraved to make them resemble pilasters. The basement was reached from the ground floor by means of a spiral staircase (L80) in the tower’s southeastern corner. The staircase led to the basement’s central corridor, whence it was possible to gain access to the other rooms (Fig. 11). It was built around W69 and a central pillar (W93) whose base was hewn into the bedrock. The segment descending to the basement probably represents only part of the original staircase. The tower remains above the

[329]

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

36

4

W66

W1

W9

W67

L56

L18

L45

L44 1 W2

1

W7 L31

W6

2

W69

W5

W3

W8

5

L47

W10

L14

L36

5

W93

2

L54

L80

W4

36

0

4

3

m

Fig. 5. Late Roman tower, detailed plan.

basement provide evidence of an additional story, and include sections of a large white mosaic floor on the entrance level.6 A courtyard (L56, L31), east of the tower and bounded by a massive enclosure wall (W66, W67), was partially cleared. A number of ruins were surveyed that appear to form part of a compound bounded by a wall next to the tower. A public building that included stylobates with columns was found east of the tower, underneath the

church (Fig. 12). It was dated to the fourth century CE, based on numismatic and pottery finds. It comprises an almost square hall, 13.60×12.00 m. Its walls, W144 to the north, W301 to the east, W157 to the south, and W113 to the west, consist of two faces with a fill. The outer face was of large stones dressed and smoothed on the exterior; while the inner face was composed of smaller stones bound together and coated with a thick layer of plaster. The building main entrance, 1.20 m wide, was

[330]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

1-1

311 00

W3

310 00

W5

W2

W9

309 00 308 00 307 00 306 00 305 00

2-2

311 00

W6

309 00 308 00

W67

W2

W3

310 00

W7

W5

307 00

L40

306 00 305 00

311 00

3-3

L4

310 00

W8

309 00

W7

L80

308 00

W1

W9

307 00 306 00 305 00

4-4

311 00 310 00

W4

W1

W5

309 00 308 00 307 00 306 00 305 00 311 00 310 00 309 00

5-5

W2 W69

W10 L80

W5

W3

308 00 307 00 306 00 305 00 311 00 310 00

6-6 W1

W7

309 00 308 00 307 00

W2

306 00 305 00

Fig. 6. Late Roman tower, sections.

[331]

W8

W69 L80

W4

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

Fig. 7. Late Roman tower, view from the east.

Fig. 8. Late Roman tower, view from the north.

[332]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

Fig. 9. Arched opening in the tower’s western wing (W6), view from the north.

Fig. 10. Arched opening in the tower’s northern wing (W7), view from the north.

Fig. 11. Staircase leading from the tower’s ground floor to the basement’s central corridor.

[333]

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

W301

West of the building several walls (W228, W227, and W233) and large tesserae of a white mosaic floor (F230, F217) were excavated, but the overall plan was not revealed.

W1

41

W157

During the fifth and sixth centuries CE, the site assumed the character of a Christian settlement. The tower remained in use, with no architectural changes made, except for raising its floors; and further structures were added to the compound on its south. The church was founded east of the tower, use being made of the Late Roman public building. Two phases were distinguished in the church, based upon the coins.7 During the excavations, 191 coins were discovered. Most of them were found in the tower and church. Each of the four hoards is related to structural changes made in the church during its third phase. The first phase (IIIa) was dated to the first half of the fifth century CE or earlier. The second (IIIb) was dated to the last quarter of the fifth century CE, based on a hoard found above the first-phase floor mosaic (F253) in the southern pastophorium. The latest coin is dated to 454–474 CE. In this phase the apse was changed and the chancel area rebuilt. In the nave and aisles new mosaics were laid, benches were added, and the entranceway was blocked.

W144

W244

W300

Phase III—Byzantine Period

W157

W245

W113

W227

8

W22

F117

F230 W233

0

5

m

Fig. 12. Late Roman public building, detailed plan.

THE CHURCH

located in the south of the western wall (W113). Another entrance was located in the southern wall (W157). The stylobates, along three walls, were of well-dressed and polished ashlars, measuring 2.00×0.60 m. The northern (W244) and southern (W300) stylobates measured 9.00×0.60 m and abutted the building’s eastern wall (W301). They ran parallel to the hall walls, at a distance of 2.20 m. The northern and southern stylobates had four columns and a pilaster in each row, the latter attached to the hall’s eastern wall. The transversal stylobate in the west (W245) measured 5.90×0.60 m. It ran parallel to the hall’s western wall at a distance of 2.70 m. Eight column bases were found in situ: four belonged to the original stylobate and continued in use in the church, while the other four date to the building’s subsequent phases.

To transform the earlier fourth century public building into a church (Phase IIIa) considerable changes were introduced (Fig. 13). The church axis, like that of the former structure, is aligned with the northeast rather than with the east. The church comprised an atrium and a prayer hall consisting of a nave, two aisles, and an external apse (W277) projecting eastwards from the eastern wall (W175, W179). Its outer dimensions are 16.50×12.00 m, excluding the atrium (Figs. 14–15). The most striking change was made in the church atrium. Second phase walls W227, W233, and W239 were dismantled to create a broad atrium in front of the church. Only the entrance thresholds survived. The atrium was 12.00 m long, of which a 5.00 m-wide section was excavated. Since its western border was not exposed, the overall width is unknown. In the

[334]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

the nave and aisles; there was no narthex. The main entrance initially belonged to the Roman building and was thus not oriented along the nave’s central axis, but to its south. The two other entrances were also not oriented

atrium, there were height differentials between the mosaic floors of the northern and southern rooms (F230, F117). The church was entered directly from the atrium via three entrances in its western wall (W113) into

W277

309.15

W 2

W175

308.80

L259

308.50

W179 308.79

W304

F260

W257

309.74

W1

41

F253

308.44

L272 W297

L252

W300

307.94

F272

F143

W144

W244

L271

W182

W157

W185

308.65

L244 W301

W303

308.33

02

W256

309.22

308.64

309.29 308.73

L188 308.81

W245

308.59

308.62

W221

L187

308.30

308.37

L290

308.90

W113

W2

28

W22

7

308.21

F230

F117

308.13 308.10

W234

308.15

W239

W233

0

Fig. 13. Phase IIIa church, detailed plan.

[335]

5

m

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

Fig. 14. Phase IIIa church, view from the west.

Fig. 15. Phase IIIa church, reconstruction.

[336]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

along the church axis: the northern entrance stood opposite the northern row of columns, the southern entrance, next to the church’s southern wall (W157). Furthermore, they opened in different directions: the northern entrance outwards, the southern entrance, like the main entrance, inwards. Their doorposts were crudely hewn into the walls rather than installed as separate units. The prayer hall walls were coated in a thick layer of carefully smoothed high quality gray plaster. Traces of this plaster were preserved on the walls at the eastern ends of the aisles; other traces were preserved due to construction of a large bema that abutted the entire eastern church wall in its second phase (see below). The nave measured 9.00×4.50 m, up to the bema. As mentioned above, the transformation of the Roman public building into a church involved structural alterations, including removal of the central column of the western stylobate (W245). The northern and southern stylobates (W244, W300) continued to function. In addition, pilasters were installed in the church’s western wall, opposite the two rows of columns, creating two colonnades along the nave’s entire length. These pilasters abutted the walls, preserving the thick coat of plaster that apparently belonged to the Roman building. The prayer hall floor (F272) was paved in a mosaic adorned with geometric patterns, a section of which was preserved along the chancel screen wall adjoining the bema, where it was overlaid by a step added in the church’s second phase (Fig. 16). The northern aisle, 12.00×2.30 m, reached the church’s eastern wall (W175). It was paved with a mosaic (F260), of which only the eastern part survived, underneath the second phase bema. It appears that the mosaic continued throughout the aisle. The southern aisle, 12.00×2.10 m, also reached the church’s eastern wall (W179). This aisle was paved with a mosaic identical to that in the northern aisle (F253). In addition to the entrance from the atrium, there was another in the southern wall (W157) that originally belonged to the Roman building; it connected the church with the rooms to its south. The apse was external in both church phases (Fig. 17). Its plan in this phase was semicircular (W277), its construction, massive. Only its foundation course was preserved. While the outer face consisted

Fig. 16. Phase IIIa nave mosaic.

of fieldstones, the visible inner face was of carefully dressed ashlars. The apse’s outer diameter was 6.50 m; its inner one, 3.00 m. This apse was dismantled in the later phase, a trapezoidal apse with a larger internal opening (see below) being built over it. To construct the apse, the Roman building’s eastern wall (W301) was apparently partially dismantled, the apse being integrated into it. Only a single course of roughly hewn fieldstones from the foundations of the earlier wall can be observed in the front of the apse. The ashlars comprising the apse’s inside corners were placed over the remains of this wall. The bema, W303 to the north, W304 to the south, and W297 to the west, built in front of the apse between the two stylobates, was adapted to the apse dimensions. The bema, apparently only a few centimeters higher than the prayer hall floor, stood on one-course-high foundation walls. The northern and southern walls supporting the bema abutted the church stylobate

[337]

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

Fig. 17. Apse in both phases of the church, view from the west.

walls. The bema’s western wall extended between the two eastern columns. Two additional walls (W256 and W257), apparently intended to buttress the bema, abutted walls W303 and W304. The bema walls were constructed of a combination of ashlars and architectural elements in secondary use, like column shaft drums and bases. They were leveled to form an even surface. A chancel screen was erected along the bema edges. A number of sockets for anchoring the screen posts, hewn into the walls’ tops, were nearly uniform in size: 5×3 cm and 3 cm deep. As they would be inadequate for stone chancel screen posts, it is reasonable to assume that the posts and chancel screen panels were of wood or metal. During the third quarter of the fifth century CE, alterations were introduced in the church structure that mainly affected the apse and bema (Phase IIIb; Fig. 18). In addition, the mosaic floors were replaced, and the northern and central church entrances sealed and plastered over, so that only the southern one remained. Benches running along the aisles’ entire lengths were attached to the northern and southern walls (W237 and W238). In this phase (IIIb), the earlier semicircular apse was razed to its foundation course and a new apse,

trapezoidal in plan, was erected (W170; Figs. 19–20).8 Its construction was less massive and its walls were thinner (1.00 m thick) than those of its predecessor. The inner diameter of the new apse (4.00 m) was larger than that of the earlier one. Its foundation wall protruded slightly from the upper wall, of which only one course is extant. The new apse wall was of two ashlar faces, carefully smoothed on their exteriors. A new bema, measuring 10.30×2.50 m, was installed across the church’s entire width, reaching the first colonnade columns (Fig. 21). During the erection of this later church, a dedication was apparently held in which coins were scattered about its foundations (of which 153 were discovered). The bema was paved mostly in coarse white mosaic (F163). In its south, a small section of a carpet of geometric design survived. In front of the bema, a chancel screen was built that enclosed the sacred area (W174, W177, and W178). Its channel was observed in front of the nave and southern aisle. This channel contained sockets measuring 20×20 cm for four posts. In the south, the bema ended in a narrow threshold (60 cm wide) that apparently served for entering the bema. A step was constructed between the bema and the nave; its purpose was unclear, since the screen intervened, and the ascent to the bema was,

[338]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

308.67 309.10

W 17

0

308.64

309.22

309.15

02

W2

L165

308.65

308.80

W175 308.33

309.74

F163

L271

L272 W177

W174

W1

F163 L252

W236 308.82

L140

308.79

F173 308.44

308.50

W179

41

W178

308.16

307.94

F143 W182

W157

W237

W238

F153

W144

W185

309.29

308.73

F171

L188

308.81 308.59

308.62 308.30

W221

L187

308.37 308.90

F171 W113

W228

W227

308.21

F117

F230

308.13 308.10

Fig. 18. Phase IIIb church, detailed plan.

[339]

W234

308.15

W239

W233

0

5

m

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

Fig. 19. Phase IIIb church, view from the east.

Fig. 20. Phase IIIb church, reconstruction.

[340]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

Fig. 21. Phase IIIb chancel, view from the southwest.

Fig. 22. T-shaped stone counter (W236), view from the southwest.

[341]

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

as stated, through the southern aisle. The southern entrance in W157 was blocked. In the northern aisle, on the bema’s side, a T-shaped stone counter, 1.30×0.90 m, was installed (W236), apparently intended for vessels (Fig. 22). The bema mosaic floor abuts it. Although no chancel screen channels were discerned here, the screen likely extended on either side of the counter.

MOSAIC FLOORS In Phase IIIa only one section of the nave mosaic floor, along the bema, survived, having been concealed by the second phase step (F272). The nave mosaic floor frame, not parallel to the line of the bema, was probably laid previously, the latter cutting across its edge (see Fig. 16). Although only a small part of the mosaic is preserved, its pattern can be reconstructed. Along the edges, where repairs are visible, white tesserae were laid in horizontal rows. The frame comprised two rows of black tesserae, while the central carpet consisted of a network of octagons in red, black, and white, with a small lozenge in each. The aisles also featured mosaic floors with geometric decorations (F260 and F253). Although

the floors survived only in the east of the church, it is clear that they extended the length of the aisles and abutted the stylobate walls. Their borders were lined with horizontally set rows of white tesserae, the carpet field adorned with a netting of squares formed by two rows of black tesserae; in the middle of each square was a small lozenge (Fig. 23). The tesserae were red, black, and white, with 42 tesserae per sq. dm. In Phase IIIb the nave, aisle, and bema floors were changed. They were decorated with geometric patterns in red, black, and white. Although only a few floor segments survived in the nave, it can be discerned that its carpet was adorned with scales (J3*),9 each with a bud (F2*) in its center. There was apparently a separate panel in the east of the carpet, opposite the middle of the bema. In the northern aisle, horizontally set rows of white tesserae formed the edges of the carpet field, which was decorated with a network of octagons with diamonds between them. The diamonds were filled with a red, black, and white checkerboard pattern (Fig. 24). In the southern aisle, only the west of the mosaic floor survived (Fig. 25). Horizontally set rows of white tesserae were set along its edges, and an exceptional herringbone pattern in red was set along its western

Fig. 23. Phase IIIa mosaic in the northern aisle, view from the west.

[342]

A L AT E R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H I N K H I R B E T F A ʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

edge. The carpet frame consisted of two rows of black tesserae, while the carpet field was decorated with a network of lozenges comprising two rows of black tesserae, two of red, and a middle one of white. The intercolumnar spaces were adorned with various motifs, three of which can be reconstructed. A small segment survived in the northern row of columns, in the second intercolumnar space from the west. It was possible to reconstruct a pattern of semicircles there. Its frame consisted of two rows of black tesserae enclosing three of red. The intercolumnar space to its east was adorned with a motif identical to that in the northern aisle, but smaller. The western intercolumnar space in the southern row of columns was adorned with a row of adjoining stars, outlined with black tesserae and filled with red ones. The bema was mostly paved in a crude white mosaic. Only a narrow segment survived on the south, from which it was possible to tentatively reconstruct a carpet adorned with a network of lozenges containing arches.

FINDS

Fig. 24. Phase IIIb mosaic in the northern aisle and intercolumnar space, view from the west.

The finds include fragments of marble objects and architectural elements deriving from the church, pottery vessels, glass vessels, stone vessels and other stone artifacts.

Fig. 25. Phase IIIb mosaic in the southern aisle and intercolumnar space, view from the north.

[343]

B. HAR-EVEN AND L. SHAPIRA

Summary The site of Kh. Faʿush, a Second Temple period settlement, can be dated from the first century BCE to the beginning of the second century CE, although the limited excavations could not determine its nature or extent. In the course of the fourth century CE, a sturdy tower surrounded by a compound was established at the site––evidently a military stronghold to guard the strategic crossroad of the two main routes connecting the Shephelah with Jerusalem and the central hill country.

At the beginning of the fifth century the site became Christian. A church was built, making use of the Late Roman public building. In the second half of the fifth century the church underwent extensive renovations, including rebuilding the apse and bema. The complex continued in use during the Umayyad period, when an oil press was apparently installed in the north of the church. The church building was probably not in use during this phase. The site was abandoned at the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century CE. In the Mamluk period, the site was intermittently inhabited by nomads.

Notes 1 Kh. Faʿush was excavated in March 2005 (License No. 1024) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of B. Har-Even, with the participation of L. Shapira and O. Dagan. 2 Roll 1976. 3 The site was surveyed in 1930 by D.C. Baramki and in 1933 by S.A.S. Husseini, who identified a church: IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 148. 4 In the framework of the Benjamin Survey the site was identified as a monastery or farmstead (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 13*, Site No. 4); another survey was undertaken in 2004, prior to the construction of the security fence.

Magen 2008: 199–200. Multistoried Late Roman structures have been discovered at numerous sites in this region, e.g., Umm el-Jimal (Tsafrir 1984: 313–316). For a discussion of tower construction in the Roman-Byzantine period, see Hirschfeld 2000: 689–692. 7 For the full numismatic report, see Bijovsky, “Coins from Khirbet Faʿush, Maccabim,” in this volume. 8 Churches with a trapezoidal apse projecting outward from the wall are known from Ramat Raḥ el (Testini 1964: Fig. 39), Emmaus (Vincent and Abel 1932: Pl. XX), and Beth Shemesh (Taxel 2006: 172, Fig. 2). 9 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 5 6

References Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Hirschfeld Y. 2000. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–246. Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstracts). Roll Y. 1976. “The Roman Road Network in Eretz-Israel,” Qadmoniot 9 (34–35): 38–50 (Hebrew).

Taxel I. 2006. “Hurvat es-Suyyagh—A Byzantine Monastery in the Northeastern Judean Shephelah,” in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies 15, Ariel, pp. 169– 183 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XVIII–XIX). Testini P. 1964. “The Church and Monastery of the Kathisma,” in Y. Aharoni, Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome, pp. 101–106. Tsafrir Y. 1984. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest II: Archaeology and Art, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Vincent L.-H. and Abel F.-M. 1932. Emmaüs. Sa basilique et son histoire, Paris.

[344]

COINS FROM KHIRBET FAUSH, MACCABIM GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

The numismatic evidence ranges from the Second Temple to Ottoman period. The coins were found in two types of context: isolated coins from stratigraphic contexts throughout the excavated areas, and four assemblages or deposits of small bronze coins— minimi—dated to the fourth and fifth centuries CE, uncovered at the church (Fig. 2). These four “hoards” or deposits are all related to structural changes made in the church during its third phase and provide a terminus post quem for these renovations, dated to the third quarter of the fifth century. There is, however, no indicative numismatic evidence to date the construction of the church’s first phase. The isolated coins provide a rough dating of occupation to the second half of the fourth century. The isolated coins will be discussed by chronology and typology rather than by their place of provenance at the excavation. Their distribution breakdown

During excavations at Kh. Faush, 192 coins were found, 59 of which were unidentifiable (Fig. 1).1 Most of the coins were discovered in the church and tower. All the coins are bronze with the exception of a number of medieval and Islamic coins: a silver plated French denier (No. 31), a Venetian silver grosso (No. 32), three Mamluk silver dirhams (Nos. 33, 35–36), and an Ottoman silver medin (No. 37). Identifiable Unidentifiable

Total

Isolated Coins

37

2

39

Deposit A

53

30

83

Deposit B

18

16

34

Deposit C

8

4

12

Deposit D

17

7

24

Totals

133

59

192

Fig. 1. Breakdown of the coins found at the excavation. 35

30

25

20

29 21

15

10 6

5

9 4

0

1

1

1

2

1 1

1 1

1 1

9 3

1

3

4

Isolated coins

6 2

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Coin Deposits

Fig. 2. Chronological breakdown of the identifiable coins: isolated and deposits.

[345]

2

4 1

G. BIJOVSKY

according to excavation area is presented in Fig. 3 (includes identifiable coins only). Period Area A Hasmonean 1 Roman Provincial 1 Roman Imperial 341–346 351–361 355–361 378–383 3 383–395 1 Fourth century 3 402–408 Justin II Maurice Tiberius Heraclius Arab-Byzantine Umayyad 1 Abbasid European Medieval Mamluk 1 Ottoman 1 Totals 12

Area B

Area E No area

3 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3

2 2

20

4

Totals

4 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 37

A few later Islamic coins—Mamluk and Ottoman— were discovered at the church and tower, showing that the site, located at a main crossroads, was sporadically visited. In addition, an uncertain French denier (No. 31) and a Venetian pierced grosso of Doge Ranieri Zeno (No. 32) found at the site are worthy of mention.

THE COIN DEPOSITS Four small contemporary deposits of bronze minimi were discovered, all dating to the beginning of the second phase of renovations in the church’s bema area. The custom of deliberately burying worn minimi as deposition hoards during the construction or renovation of buildings is well known in Israel and abroad.2 This is however, the first church in our region known to the author where foundation deposits were found. These coins, deposited as offerings to ensure good luck, were not intended to be recovered; thus they may comprise coins that were no longer in circulation or simply worthless, such as in the case of Maccabim.

Fig. 3. Isolated coins according to excavation area.

The earliest isolated coins are four Hasmonean prutot (Nos. 1–4): three belonging to the anchor/star type of Alexander Janneus, struck from 80/79 BCE and in use until the mid-first century CE; the fourth is dated to Mattathias Antigonus. These coins were most probably related to the cave over which the Byzantine church was built, dated by the excavator to the Second Temple period. Most of the isolated coins are dated to the second half of the fourth century (Nos. 7–22), the Salus Reipublicae Victory dragging captive type being dominant (Nos. 12–16). Only one isolated coin dated to the beginning of the fifth century (No. 23) was discovered in the floor of the church bemah (L248). All four Byzantine coins discovered at the site come from excavations at the church. They include a half follis of Justin II dated to 568/569 (No. 24), a follis of Maurice Tiberius dated to 585/586 (No. 25), a follis of Heraclius dated to ca. 635 (No. 26), and an ArabByzantine anonymous coin dated to the second half of the seventh century (No. 27). Two Umayyad (No. 28–29) and an Abbasid (No. 30) coins give evidence when the church was abandoned: some time during the ninth century.

Deposit A: It was discovered beneath the later bema chancel (L272), giving a terminus post quem for its construction. The deposit includes 83 coins, 30 of which were completely worn. The identifiable coins are dated from 337–341 until the mid-fifth century. Nineteen coins belong to the Salus Reipublicae Victory-dragging-captive type. Five of the coins are issues characteristic of the first half of the fifth century (Nos. A48–A52). Cast blank flans like No. A53 are usually found in contexts of the mid-fifth to midsixth centuries.3 In the context of the excavations at Maccabim, it does not appear that the finding of this single coin prolongs the dating of deposition of this assemblage; thus it should also be attributed to the mid-fifth century. Deposit B: It was found when removing the western wall of the northern pastophorium (L271). The deposit includes 34 coins, 16 of them unidentifiable. The earliest coin in the deposit is a Hellenistic coin minted in Tenedos, Troas (No. B1). The inclusion of much older coins of similar fabric and module with the fourth–fifth century minimi is unexceptional but well attested from other hoards in Israel and abroad.4 The

[346]

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

Late Roman coins in the deposit date from 337–341 (same as Deposit A) until 395–401 (Nos. B11–B13).

a coin of Leo I bearing his monogram and dated to 457–474 (No. C8).

Deposit C: It was found above the floor mosaic of the first phase at the southern pastophorium (F253). The deposit includes 12 coins, 4 unidentifiable. This is the latest of the 4 deposits described here. The earliest coin dates to 364–375 and the latest is

Deposit D: It was found within the fill between the two floor mosaics at the southern pastophorium (L252). The deposit includes 24 coins, 7 unidentifiable. The earliest coin dates to 355–361, the latest to the beginning of the fifth century (395–408; Nos. D16–17).

[347]

1.14

1.44

1.36 1.31

2.30

1.29

0.85

1.30

1.44

A2

A3 A4

A5

[348]

A6

A7

A8

A9

13

12

12

12

13

13 14

13

14

Weight Diam. (Gm.) (Mm.)

A1

Cat. No.

↑

↑

↑

↑

↑ ↑

↑

↑

Reverse

[SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., holding palm branch and wreath. Mintmark illegible. Same.

Same.

364–375 CE [GLORIA ROMANORVM] Emperor advancing r., holding labarum and dragging captive. Mintmark illegible. Same. Same.

Theodosius I (379–395 CE) DN THEODO–SIVS PF AVG Within wreath: Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed VOT[---] and draped. Mintmark illegible.

Valentinian II (375–392 CE) [DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG] Within wreath: Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed VOT/X/MVLT/XX and draped. Mintmark illegible.

Same.

Same.

Obliterated. [---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

LATE ROMAN Constantius II (337–361 BCE) DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG GLOR–IA EXERC–ITVS Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Two soldiers stg. facing, holding spears and draped. and shields; between them a standard. Mintmark illegible.

Axis Obverse

DEPOSIT A: Locus 272, Reg. No. 1365

378–383

378–383

337–341

Date (CE)

Mint

K No.

36932 36918

36948

36955

Identification 36904 uncertain.

36906 Cf. RIC 9: 229, No. 63a.

Same.

Identification 36907 uncertain. 36910 Cf. RIC 9: 215, No. 21.

Same. Same.

Cf. RIC 9: 274, No. 10.

Cf. LRBC 1: 36923 31, No. 1379.

References and Notes

All of the coins are bronze unless otherwise stated. The coins are arranged chronologically, according to coin type.

CATALOGUE

G. BIJOVSKY

[349]

0.84

0.84

1.14

A19

A20

1.10

A15

A18

1.27

A14

0.98

1.41

A13

A17

1.10

A12

1.03

1.17

A11

A16

1.18

A10

12

12

13

13

12

12

12

12

13

13

13

↑

↑

↑

↑

↑

↑

↓

↓

↑

↑

↓

378–383 CE Within wreath: VOT/X/MVLT/XX Mintmark illegible. Same.

Same

Same

Same.

383–395

383–392

Same

383–386

Arcadius (383–408 CE) DN ARCADIVS PF AVG SALVS REI–PVBLICAE 383–395 Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory advancing l., holding trophy and and draped. dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible.

Theodosius I (379–395 CE) DN THEODO–SIVS PF AVG SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory advancing l., holding trophy and and draped. dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible. ]SIVS[ Same. Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. DN THEODO–SIVS PF AVG Same. Same. Same. Same.

Valentinian II (375–392 CE) DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory advancing l., holding trophy and draped. and dragging captive. In l. field: ; in exergue: ANTA

383–386/388 CE [---] [GLO]RIA REIPVBLI[CE] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Camp gate with two towers. In l. field: and draped. A; in exergue: [TES]

Arcadius (383–408 CE) DN ARCADIVS PF AVG Within wreath: Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed VOT/ V and draped. In exergue: SMHA Same. Same. In exergue: [N]

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same.

LRC: Pl. 1, Nos. 10–11.

LRC: Pl. 2, No. 35.

36942

36921

36927

36922

Antioch

Cf. LRC: Pl. 4: No. 92.

Same.

Same.

Same.

Cf. RIC 9: 293, No. 67b.3.

RIC 9: 234, No. 86a.

36931

36946

36936

36937

36944

36928

36933 Thessalonica Cf. RIC 9: 186, No. 62a.

Heraclea

Same.

Cf. RIC 9: 229, No. 63.

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

1.37

1.45

1.30

1.25

1.18

1.44

1.26 1.23 1.16 1.13 1.05 1.02 1

2.42

2.29

2.06

0.80

A21

A22

A23

A24

A25

A26

A27 A28 A29 A30 A31 A32 A33

A34

[350]

A35

A36

A37

12

12

16

18

11 12 13 13 12 12 12

11

13

11

11

12

12

↑

↑

↓

↓

↓ ↓

↑ ↓ ↑ ↓

↑

↑

↓

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

Same.

SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Same. In exergue: ANT SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Same. In exergue: A [ Same.

383–395 CE SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. In l. field: In exergue: CONS SALV[S REI–PVBLICAE] Same. In exergue: AN [

DN CΛ[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same. Same.

395–401 CE [VIRTVS EXERCITI] Victory crowning emperor with wreath. Mintmark illegible. Same.

Arcadius (383–408 CE) DN ARCADI–VS PF AVG VIRTVS EXERCITI Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory crowning emperor with wreath. and draped. In exergue: SMKA

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

[---]VS PF AVG Same. DN[---]AVG Same. [---] Same. Same.

[---] Same.

]S PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

395–401

Cyzicus

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

36935

Imitative issue? Same.

LRC: Pl. 9: No. 218.

LRC: Pl. 9: Nos. 226–230.

Cf. RIC 9: 292–293, No. 67. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

Same.

Same.

36908

36929

36915

36914

36924 36909 36919 36952 36943 36953 36941

36949

36917

36940

36950 Cf. RIC 9: 292–293, No. 67. Same. 36939

Constantinople Cf. LRC: Pl. 4: No. 92.

G. BIJOVSKY

[351]

0.33

0.47

A52*

A53

11

8

19

11

15

15

10

12 13 15 13 12 12 12

11

13

→

↓

↓

→

↑

↑

c. 408–419 CE Cross within wreath. Mintmark illegible.

Same.

402 CE CONCORDIA AVGG Constantinopolis seated facing on throne. Mintmark illegible.

Blank.

Same.

Cast flan Blank.

Same.

Imitative issue – First half of the fifth century CE [---] Blundered Vota inscription within Bust r., cuirassed and draped. wreath.

[---] Bust r., cuirassed and draped.

[---]PF AVG Bust r., in three-quarter profile, wearing helmet, spear behind shoulder, cuirassed and draped. [---] AVG Same.

Fourth century CE [---] [---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Figure stg. In exergue: ANT and draped. Same. [---] Victory stg. l.? Same. Same. Same. Same. Obliterated. Same. Bust. r. Obliterated. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. ]AVG Same. Bust. r. Same.

Thirty additional coins were unidentifiable.

0.38

A51

2.06

A48

0.43

0.87

A47

A50

0.96 0.75 2.30 1.79 1.09 1.30 1.08

A40 A41 A42 A43 A44 A45 A46

2.77

1.27

A39

A49

1.54

A38

450–550

Antioch

Bijovsky 2000–2002: 202, 5.

Cast. Bijovsky 2000–2002: 199, 2. Same.

Cf. LRC: Pl. 9: No. 238.

Same.

LRC: Pl. 9: No. 238.

Very worn. Fragment.

36905

36959

36913

36958

36912

36916

36954

36956 36957 36911 36947 36926 36930 36934

36938

36945

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

1.01

0.82

0.78

1.03

B5

B6

B7

B8

1.10

B3

1.45

0.52

B2

B4

1.62

[352]

11

10

14

13

12

13

14

12

Weight Diam. (Gm.) (Mm.)

B1

Cat. No.

↑

↑

↓

↓

↓

↑

Reverse

364–375 CE [SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., holding palm branch and wreath. Mintmark illegible.

341–346 CE Within wreath: VOT/ [---]

378–392

Same

379–383

337–341

Second– first century BCE

Date (CE)

Theodosius I (379–395 CE) 383–395 DN THEODO–SIVS PF AVG SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Victory advancing l., holding trophy and Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed dragging captive. In l. field: • and draped. In exergue: ALEΔ

Valentinian II (375–392 CE) Within wreath: DN VALENTINIA[NVS PF AVG] VOT/X/MVLT/XX Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Mintmark illegible. and draped.

Theodosius I (379–395 CE) DN THEODO–[SIVS PF AVG] Within wreath: Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed VOT/X/MVLT/XX and draped. In exergue: SMKΓ Within wreath: DN THEODO–SIVS PF AVG VOT/[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Mintmark illegible. and draped.

Obliterated.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

Constantine I (307–337 CE) [DV CONSTANTINVS PP AVG] Emperor stg. r. on quadriga. Above, Bust r., veiled. hand of God. In exergue: SMANA?

HELLENISTIC Autonomous Stephaned female head (Artemis?) r. [T] – E Double axe.

Axis Obverse

DEPOSIT B: Locus 271, Reg. No. 1363

Alexandria

Cyzicus

Antioch?

Tenedos Troas

Mint

K No.

36881

36879

36885

Cf. RIC 9: 303, No. 20.

36893

LRBC 2: 101, 36889 No. 2733.

Cf. RIC 9: 244, No. 21c.

Cf. RIC 9: 215, No. 21.

Cf. LRBC 1: 36882 31, No. 1398.

Fragment. 36883 Cf. LRBC 1: 31, No. 1374.

Cf. SNG Den. 36888 4: Pl. 11, Nos. 527–529.

References and Notes

G. BIJOVSKY

1.34

B14

[353]

13 11

14 11

10

14 12

12

11

12

↓

↓

↓

↑

395–401 CE [VIRTVS EXERCITI] Victory crowning emperor with wreath. In exergue: ANT Same, but mintmark illegible. Same.

383–395 CE SALVS REI–[PVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. In l. field: In exergue: CON

Same, but mintmark illegible.

Same. Same.

Same. Victory advancing l.?

Fourth century CE [---] [---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory advancing l.? and draped. Same. Same. Same. Obliterated.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same. Obliterated.

Obliterated.

DNTHEODO[SIVSPF AVG] Same.

Sixteen additional coins were unidentifiable.

1.07 0.80

2.38 1.44

B12 B13

B17 B18

1.23

B11

1.42 1.20

1.25

B10

B15 B16

0.98

B9

Second half fourth century

Same

Antioch

Constantinople

Same. Same.

LRC: Pl. 9: No. 231.

Cf. LRC:Pl. 4: No. 92.

Cf. RIC 9: 234, No. 86b.

36886 36877

36890 36894

36891

36878 36892

36887

36880

36937

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

[354]

0.27

1.07

C7

C8

10

9

11

14

12

11

14

12

↓

↑

↑

395–401 CE [VIRTVS EXERCITI] Victory crowning emperor with wreath. Mintmark illegible.

364–375 CE [GLORIA ROMANORVM] Emperor advancing r., holding labarum and dragging captive. In exergue: AN[TA]

Reverse

c. 408–419 CE Cross within wreath. Mintmark illegible.

402 CE CONCORDIA AVGG Constantinopolis seated facing on throne. In exergue: SMKΔ

Leo I (457–474 CE)―Nummus DN LEO PF AVG Monogram: Bust r., cuirassed and draped. In exergue: [CON]

Marcian (450–457 CE)―Nummus Traces of inscription. Monogram: Bust r., cuirassed and draped.

[---] Bust r., cuirassed and draped.

[---]Bust facing., in three-quarter profile, wearing helmet, spear behind shoulder, cuirassed and draped.

Fourth century CE [---] Obliterated. Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same. Two or three emperors stg. facing. Mintmark illegible.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

Obliterated.

Axis Obverse

Four coins were unidentifiable.

0.95

0.74

C4

C6

1.59

C3

1.59

2.40

C2

C5

0.72

Weight Diam. (Gm.) (Mm.)

C1

Cat. No.

DEPOSIT C: Locus 253, Reg. No. 1343

End fourth century

Date (CE)

36899

36895

36896

K No.

Cf. LRC: Pl. 13: No. 333.

LRC: Pl. 10: Nos. 243–244.

36902

36897

A quarter of a 36901 coin.

LRC: Pl. 9: No. 231. Very corroded.

Cf. RIC 9: 274, No. 10.

References and Notes

Constantinople LRC: Pl. 22: No. 562.

36900

36903 Constantinople LRC: Pl. 19: Nos. 497–503.

Cyzicus

Antioch

Mint

G. BIJOVSKY

[355]

1.22

1.48

1 0.88 0.68

1.95

D7

D8 D9 D10

D11

1.12

D4

D6

1.31

D3

1.05

1.66

D2

D5

0.91

17

13 12 12

10

13

14

13

14

15

14

Weight Diam. (Gm.) (Mm.)

D1

Cat. No.

↓ ↓ ↓

↓

↑

↓

↓

383–395 CE [SALVS REI–PVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible. Same.

Same. Same. Same. 395–401 CE DN[---]VS PF AVG VIRTVS [EXERCITI] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory crowning emperor with wreath. and draped. Mintmark illegible.

[---]PF AVG Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same. Same. Same.

Obliterated.

Arcadius (383–408 CE) DN ARCADIVS PF AVG SALVS REI–PVBLICAE 383–395 Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory advancing l., holding trophy and and draped. dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

LRC: Pl. 9: No. 231.

Same. Same. Same.

Same.

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2768–71.

Cf. LRC: Pl. 4: No. 92.

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2769–70.

Cf. LRBC 2: 101, Nos. 2687–92.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2656–57.

References and Notes

364–375 CE [SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., holding wreath and palm branch. Mintmark illegible.

Mint Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2638–39.

Date (CE)

355–361 CE SPES REIPVBLICE Virtus stg. facing, holding globe and spear. Mintmark illegible.

Reverse

378–383 CE CONCORDIA AVGG Female (Constantinople?, Rome?) seated facing on throne. Mintmark illegible. Theodosius I (379–395 CE) DN THEO[DO–SIVS PF AVG] [SALVS REI]–PVBLICAE 383–395 Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed Victory advancing l., holding trophy and and draped. dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible.

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

Obliterated.

Axis Obverse

DEPOSIT D: Locus 252, Reg. No. 1331

37328

37333 37335 37336

37339

37330

37329

37326

37340

37327

37337

K Nos.

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

1.08 0.93

0.85

1.43

1.34

D13 D14

D15

D16

D17

12

14

14

12 11

13

↓

↓

Bas. No.

1284

304 1319

1270

443

Cat. No.

1

[356]

2 3

4

5

80

Surf.

47 Surf.

162

Loc. No.

ISOLATED COINS

A

E

A E

E

Field

9.19

1.71

0.90 0.57

1.12

23

13

11×15 11

12

Weight Diam. (Gm.) (Mm.)

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Uncertain Head r., laureate. Obliterated. Rectangular countermark: head r.

Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 BCE)—Prutah In wreath: Double cornucopiae, ear ‫הכהן‬/‫יה‬/‫מתת‬ of corn between horns.

HASMONEANS Alexander Janneus (103–76 BCE)—Prutah ΒΑ]ΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ Traces of inscription. ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Star. Anchor within circle. Obliterated. Obliterated. [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ Same. ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Anchor within circle.

Reverse

395–408 CE GLO[RI]A ROMANO[RVM] Three emperors stg. facing, holding spears. Mintmark illegible. Same.

Axis Obverse

[---] Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same.

Fourth century CE [---] Figure stg. Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. Same. Obliterated. Blundered inscription. Same. Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped. [---] Victory stg.? Bust r., pearl diademed, cuirassed and draped.

Seven additional coins were unidentifiable.

1.23

D12

Second century

Same Same

80/79–76 BCE

Date (CE)

Jerusalem

Same Same

Jerusalem

Mint

Completely worn.

TJC 2001: 220, No. 39.

TJC 2001: group L9–L17. Same. Same.

References and Notes

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2801–04. Same.

37316

36870

No K. no. 36873

36868

K No.

37338

37334

37331

37341 37342

37332

G. BIJOVSKY

185

185

310

10

11

12

1342

8

1384

1329

7

9

363

6

[357]

7

28

28

290

254

248

61

A

A

E

E

E

B

0.87

0.91

0.91

1.12

2.03

1.15

3.21

14

12

12

12

14

15

22

↓

↑

↑

↑

↑

↑

↓

Theodosius I (378–383 CE) In wreath: [---] VOT/X/MVLT/XX Bust r., pearl diademed, Mintmark illegible. cuirassed and draped. [DN THEODO]SIVS PF [SALVS REI]– PVBLICAE AVG Bust r., pearl diademed, Victory advancing l., cuirassed and draped. holding trophy and dragging captive. In exergue: [SM]N

378–383 CE In wreath: [---] VOT/X/MVLT/XX Bust r., pearl diademed, Mintmark illegible. cuirassed and draped.

383–395

Constantius II (337–361 CE) [DN CONSTANTIVS PF [FEL TEMP 351–361 AVG] REPARATIO] Bust r. Virtus spearing fallen horseman. Mintmark illegible. Same. [SPES REIPVBLICE] 355–361 Virtus stg. facing, holding globe and spear. Mintmark illegible.

LATE ROMAN 341–346 CE DN CONS[---]AVG In wreath: Head r., pearl diademed, VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX cuirassed and draped. In exergue: SMALE

ROMAN IMPERIAL Maximianus Herculius (c. 250–310 CE)— Antoninianus 285–295 IMP C MA IOV ET HERCV MAXIMIANVS PF CONSER AVG AVGG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed Jupiter and Hercules stg. facing. and draped. Below: Є with star above. In exergue: XXV

Nicomedia

Alexandria

Antioch

37320

37312

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2632–33. LRBC 2: 94, No. 2404.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2632–33.

37311

37320

37320

36872 Cf. RIC 8: 461, No. 149.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2632–33.

Cf. LRBC 2: 33, Nos. 1474–76.

RIC 5/2: 294, 37314 No. 622.

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

54

76 1371 434 1121 1375

1344

17

18 19 20 21 22

23

306

15

1375

37

14

16

1375

13

[358]

248

425 275 F. 65 154 Surf.

327

Surf.

7

213

Surf.

E

A E

A

A

A

E

1.34

1.84 1.52 1.26 1.52 0.86

1.87

1.02

1.26

1.48

1.08

14

13 13 13 13 12

18

12

13

11

12

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

Theodosius II (402–450 CE) [---] [GLORIA Bust r., pearl diademed, ROMANORVM] cuirassed and draped. Three emperors stg. facing, holding spears. Mintmark illegible.

Fourth century CE [---] [---] Bust r., pearl diademed, Figure stg. cuirassed and draped. Same. Obliterated. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

383–395 CE [---] [SALVS REI– Bust r., pearl diademed, PVBLICAE] cuirassed and draped. Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible. [---] [SALVS REI– Bust r., pearl diademed, PVBLICAE] cuirassed and draped. Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. In l. field: In exergue: SM[ Same. Same.

Arcadius (383–408 CE) DN ARCADIVS PF AVG SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Bust r., pearl diademed, Victory advancing l., cuirassed and draped. holding trophy and dragging captive. In l. field: Mintmark illegible.

402–408

383–395

Cf. LRC: Pl. 12, Nos. 308–312.

Same.

Same.

Cf. LRC: Pl. 4, No. 92.

Cf. LRC: Pl. 4, No. 92.

36863

37319 No K no. No K no. No K no. 36875

37313

36876

37323

36867

36874

G. BIJOVSKY

1212

26

[359]

46

465

29

30

1186

28

1278

1106

25

27

1061

24

262

W49

193

171

206

138

138

A

E

E

E

E

E

E

2.37

2.27

2.05

2.9

2.03

10.45

5.09

13

17

19

22

20

28

21

↓

↓

↓

‫محمد‬ ‫رسول‬ ‫هللا‬ Obliterated.

Same

Eighth century

Second half seventh century

c.635

585/586

568/569

ABBASID Anonymous—Cast fals AH 217 = In center: In center: 832 CE ‫ال اله اال‬ ‫مجمد‬ ‫هللا وحده‬ ‫رسول‬ ‫الشريك له‬ ‫هللا‬ Marginal legend: ‫بسم هللا ضرب هذا القلس بالرملة‬ ‫سنة سبع‬ ‫عشر وماتيت‬

‫الاله‬ ‫االاله‬ ‫وحده‬ ‫الاله‬ ‫]االاله‬ ]‫وحده‬

UMAYYAD Post-reform—fals

ARAB-BYZANTINE Anonymous Imperial figure stg. facing, m details obscure. holding globe and long cross.

Heraclius (610–641 CE)—follis Heraclius and his son M to l.: AN; above, ; in Heraclius Constantine stg. r. field: X[---] facing in military dress, holding long crosses.

Maurice Tiberius (582–602 CE)—follis [---] M to l.: ANNO; above, Bust facing, wearing cross;delete space in r. crown with pendilia, field: II/II; below: B; in cuirassed and draped, exergue: CON holding globe with cross.

BYZANTINE Justin II (565–578 CE)—half follis ]TIN[ K to l.: ANNO; above, Bust facing, wearing cross; in r. field: Δ; crown with pendilia, below: TES cuirassed and draped.

37321

36871

Ramla

Cf. Ilisch 37322 1993: 14, No. 98

37325

36860

Irregular flan. 36862 Struck out of flan.

Constantinople Cf. DOC 2/1: 36864 298, No. 112.

Constantinople DOC 1: 304, No. 27b.

Thessalonica Overstruck. DOC 1: 221, No. 64.

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

14

33

[360]

35

290

1279

42

32

34

1318

31

W4

171

109

209

F117

A

E

E

E

E

1.24

0.77

2.24

1.91

0.33

14

12

20

20

18

Twelfth century

Uncertain—fals ]---[‫االما م‬

Al-Nāsir Nāsir al-Dīn Muhammad (2nd reign) A.H. 698–708/ 1299–1309 CE—silver fraction of dirham Within star: Within star: ‫ضرب‬ ‫احد و‬ ‫بجلب‬ ‫سبعماية‬

Illegible.

Missing

Venice

France

A.H. 701 = Aleppo 1320

MAMLUKS Al-Zāhir Rukn al-Dīn Baybars I A.H. 658–676/ 1260–1277 CE, citing Caliph Ahmad Abu’l-Qasim al-Mustansir—silver dirham A.H. ‫الصا لحى‬ ‫االمام‬ 659/660 = ‫الساطان الملك‬ ‫المستنصر باهلل‬ 1261 CE ‫الظاهر ركن الدنيا والدين‬ ‫ابو القسم احمد بن‬ ‫يرس قسيم امير المومنين‬ ‫االمام الظاهر امير‬ ‫المومنين‬ Marginal legend: ]---[‫سنة تسع وخمسين و‬

Doge Ranieri Zeno (1253–1268 CE) Silver grosso :RA:GENO:[DV]X:S:M: Jesus Christ seated facing VENETI on throne. On both sides: St. Mark and the Doge IC – [XC] standing facing holding a standard between them.

+ΓGϨ[---] Cross pattée.

MEDIEVAL Silver-plated denier SSTE

36869

Balog 1964: 134, No. 171.

37317

36861

Balog 37315 1964: 89, No. 37.

Pierced. Papadopoli 1893: 1:106, No. 1.

36865 Fragment. Uncertain type. Indentified by R. Kool.

G. BIJOVSKY

457

37

Surf.

41

A

E

0.83

0.70

12

11

Illegible

OTTOMANS Silver medin Illegible

Two additional coins were unidentifiable (L84 Reg. No. 447 and L275 Reg. No. 1371).

212

36

Al-Nāsir Nāsir al- Dīn Muhammad (3rd reign) A.H. 708–741/ 1310–1341 CE—silver fraction of dirham ‫]السلظان الملك الناصر الدنيا‬ ‫ ودين الحق‬/ ‫] ارسله بالهدى‬---[ ]---[

Seventeenth Misr century

Identified by A. Berman.

Cf. Balog 1964: 146, No. 212.

37318

36866

C O I N S F R O M K H I R B E T F Aʿ U S H , M A C C A B I M

[361]

G. BIJOVSKY

notes The coins were cleaned at the IAA laboratories under the supervision of L. Kupperschmitt and were photographed by S. Ammami. 2 For deposits from synagogues and secular buildings, see Ariel 1987: 148; Bijovsky 2000–2002: 197. For a similar 1

example of two foundation deposits discovered in Ashqelon, see Bijovsky 2004: 111–121. 3 Bijovsky 2000–2002: 202. Bijovsky 2000–2002: 202.

4

references Ariel D.T. 1987. “Coins from the Synagogue at Ein Nashut,” IEJ 37: 147–157. Balog P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamlûk Sultans of Egypt and Syria (Numismatic Studies 12), New York. Bijovsky 2000–2002. “The Currency of the Fifth Century C.E. in Palestine—Some Reflections in Light of the Numismatic Evidence,” INJ 14: 196–210. Bijovsky 2004. “Coins from Ashqelon, Semadar Hotel,” Atiqot 48: 111–121. DOC 1: A.R. Bellinger. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 1. Anastasius I to Maurice. 491–602, Washington DC, 1966. DOC 2: P. Grierson Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 2. Phocas to Theodosius III. 602–717, Washington DC, 1968. LRC: Grierson P. and Mays M. 1992. Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection—From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius, Washington DC.

LRBC 1: P.V. Hill and J.P.C. Kent. “The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine, A.D. 324–346,” in Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498), Part 1, London 1965. pp. 4–40. LRBC 2: R.A.G. Carson and J.P.C. Kent. “Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498,” in Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498), Part 2, London 1965, pp. 41–114. Papadopoli N. 1893. Le Monete di Venezia, Venice. RIC 5/2: P.H. Webb. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part II, London 1933. RIC 9: J.W.E. Pearce. The Roman Imperial Coinage IX. Valentinan I–Theodosius I, London 1951. TJC: Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba, Jerusalem and Nyack 2001.

[362]

A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y A N D C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L - M A Ḥ M A

A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AND CHURCH AT KHIRBET EL-MA¡MA BENJAMIN HAR-EVEN

THE SITE Kh. el-Ma¢ma (IOG 16336/14325; ITM 21336/64325) is located 760 m above sea level, south of an elongated spur that descends from the hill country in the east towards the Shephelah in the west (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 Bordering on Wadi Jeriut in the north and Na¢al Modiªim in the south, it overlooks Na¢al Modiªim and the main Shephelah–Jerusalem road. Kh. el-Ma¢ma was surveyed several times,2 and the sites identified along the spur’s entire length attest to this region’s dense settlement, especially

during the Second Temple, Late Roman, and Byzantine periods.3 Surveys and excavations indicate that the site extended over an area of ca. 10 dunams. Numerous building remains are visible along the spur’s upper eastern slope (Fig. 1). The excavations provided evidence of five phases: Phase I—The Second Temple period yielded abundant finds indicating that the site was probably initially occupied in the second century. A large settlement covering the entire spur included numerous dwellings, some sturdily built; of the latter, some were several stories high and corbel roofed. Below

A1

A2

A3

0

Fig. 1. Kh. el-Ma¢ma, general plan.

[[363 91 ]]

20 m

AR R -- EEVVEENN BB. . HHA

the compound ruins, a building from this period was discovered that had square columns and contained a pottery kiln. Phase II—In the Late Roman period, a massive tower, ca. 10×10 m, consisting of ashlars with marginal dressing was built on the summit of the site, over the vestiges of Second Temple-period walls. The tower was only partially exposed; it had been greatly damaged when a lime pit was installed inside it. Additional rooms were probably constructed south of the tower during this period. Phase III—In the Byzantine period, a complex, probably of a monastery, and a large church, were established on the site. Use was made of the Late Roman tower and its adjoining rooms. The Byzantine monastery was enclosed by a defensive wall. Oddly, the church was built outside it, east of the monastery. A large improved winepress was discovered in the monastery precincts.

Phase IV—The compound remained in use at the beginning of the Early Islamic period, partition walls being added to the various wings. It appears that the church was also active at this phase, the local populace still Christian. In the Umayyad period, the Byzantine winepress east of the tower was converted into an oil press of the lever-screw-and-cylindricalweight type (Fig. 2). Its small oil-collecting vat was cut into the earlier mosaic floor.4 Phase V—In the Abbasid period, substantial changes occurred in the local population and the church was not in use. Part of the compound served as living quarters, but other sections were abandoned. The oil press also ceased activity. The installations and profusion of animal bones indicate that a slaughterhouse was built in its stead. The site was abandoned by the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century. A sheikh’s tomb that probably dates to the Ottoman period provides evidence of its

Fig. 2. Oil press of the lever-screw-and-cylindrical-weight type constructed over a Byzantine winepress, view from the southeast.

[[364 92 ]]

A ZBAYNZ T A INNT EI NM EO MNO A NS AT S TE ERRYY AAN ND D C R IBREBT EETL -EMLA- ḤMMAA¡ M A A BY C HHUURRCCHHAT ATK HKIH

final use. It was built over the ruins of the Late Roman tower. This article will discuss mainly the remains of the Byzantine monastery complex.

THE MONASTERY The Byzantine complex, probably a monastery, was a closed compound built in tiers down the spur’s southern slope, overlooking Na¢al Modiªim. Although only limited soundings were conducted in the monastery, most of its well-preserved outer walls were visible aboveground, even before excavations. Thus it was possible to obtain a plan of it. The monastery complex was apparently composed of three separate wings surrounded by an enclosure wall (Figs. 3–4). The northeastern wing (A1) was erected on the summit of the spur. It reused the tower building of Phase II. During the sixth century, a room was added east of the tower, serving as an improved winepress (see Fig. 2). Other rooms adjoin the tower in the south. However, the excavations failed to determine whether these rooms were

initially built with the tower during the Late Roman period, or were added in the Byzantine period. The central wing (A2) of the monastery, ca. 20×20 m, was erected southwest of A1, abutting its corner. The wings were joined at their openings. Bolt sockets were fixed in their doorposts. Technically, it is clear that A2 postdates A1. The vestiges of its interior walls attest to a division into quadrangular rooms. Most of these were not explored, and their plans are unconfirmed. The excavations focused on the southeastern corner, where a large room whose roof rested on arches was exposed (Fig. 5). Abutting A2 in the west, another wing (A3) was enclosed by a massive wall. It appears that this section of the monastery, measuring 20×13 m, was a closed courtyard, since no walls were visible on the surface.

THE CHURCH As mentioned above, the church was oddly located

Fig. 3. Monastery, western enclosure wall, view from the west.

[[365 93 ]]

AR R -- EEVVEENN BB. . HHA

Fig. 4. Monastery, southern enclosure wall, view from the south.

outside the monastery walls to the east (Figs. 6–7). A revetment was built on the southern slope. Above the fill between it and the slope, a flat surface was created on which the church and large courtyard were built, which afforded a wide view over Na¢al Modiªim. The basilical church, 19×11.2 m, includes a narthex, prayer hall with nave and two aisles, and an interior apse with pastophoria on either side (Fig. 8). The church’s mosaic floor consisted of crude white tesserae with simple colorful geometric designs, only a few of which remain (see below). When the revetment collapsed, almost the entire southern section of the church was carried away, including parts of the narthex, southern aisle, southern pastophorium, and a large part of the apse. Only the walls’ foundation courses, far below floor level, were still extant. Despite this damage and the sparse remains, it was possible to reconstruct the church outline. The church walls, 0.80 m thick, consisted of two faces with bonding material in between. The outer

face was of large, roughly dressed stones, the inner face, of smaller stones embedded in bonding material and coated with a thick layer of plaster. The church’s northern wall (W56) was extant along the structure’s entire length, but only to a height of one course. The western wall (W71) survived in the north for a length of 6.50 m, to a height of one course; in the south it was no longer extant. The eastern wall (W89) survived for the structure’s entire width, to a height of one course, beneath the floor level. The southern wall (W45) was only partially exposed for a length of 16.25 m. Built on the spur’s southern slope, it was largely destroyed. The surviving part, comprising its foundations, was preserved to a height of one course. Terrace walls were built over the remnants of these foundations at a later phase. The church was entered through a vestibule (L1024) in the west, only a part of which was cleared. Its floor consisted of crude white mosaic, only the section along the room’s northern wall

[[366 94 ]]

A ZBAYNZ T A INNT EI NM EO MNO A NS A TS TE ERRYY AAN ND D C R IBREBT EETL -EMLA- ḤMMAA¡ M A A BY C HHUURRCCHHAT ATK HKIH

Fig. 5. Room in the southeastern corner of wing A2, view from the southwest.

(W72) surviving (F1024). The church’s western wall (W71), extant to a height of two courses, was partially exposed for a length of 1.70 m. The 0.90 mwide opening in this wall led from the vestibule to the narthex and was situated opposite the center of the prayer hall. Its threshold was found in situ, while its two doorposts had fallen on the narthex floor. The narthex (L1026) measured 9.80×3.80 m internally. It was paved with a mosaic consisting of diagonal rows of white tesserae, except for the margins along the walls, where the tesserae were laid in two straight rows (F1026). The northern half of the floor survived, while its southern half collapsed together with the revetment. Three openings led from the narthex to the prayer hall. The central opening led to the nave, the northern opening, to the northern aisle; although the third opening,

in the south, did not survive, it probably led to the southern aisle. In the floor of the northwestern corner of the narthex was a partially built cist tomb (L1033); it measured 1.70×0.75 m and was 1.60 m deep. The tomb had apparently been lined with stone slabs, but these were not found. Two prominent brackets on the inner sides, half way down, aided descent into the tomb. The nave (L1037), only partially preserved, was 9.50 m long and 5.00 m wide (Fig. 9). Two rows, probably of columns that did not survive, divided it from the aisles. The columns had been placed on stylobates constructed of small fieldstones. Only a few sections of the northern stylobate (W90) were still extant beneath the church floor. In the east, the stylobate abutted the wall of the northern

[[367 95 ]]

AR R -- EEVVEENN BB. . HHA

1

757.25

L1010

757.66

W89 W46

L1003 L1011

3

756.60

3

757.86 757.50

W93

757.56

757.92

L1034

W59

W91 W90

757.22

L1037

L1005 F1005

F1005

W45

W56

757.14 757.95 758.01

W86

W85 758.05

758.10 758.03

758.26

W87

F1026

W75 W74

2

W92

L1033

2

756.60

W71

W71 758.15

F1024 W72

L1024 758.11

1

Fig. 6. Kh. el-Ma¢ma, detailed plan of the church.

[[368 96 ]]

0

3

m

A ZBAYNZ TA INNTEI NM E OMNOAN SATS E T ERRYY AANND D C CH A BY HUURRCCHHAT ATK H KIHR IBREBT EETL -EMLA- ḤMMAA¡ M A

1-1

761 00 760 00 759 00 758 00

W72

W71 W74

F1026

W46

W85

W89

W91

757 00

2-2

761 00 760 00 W92

759 00

W74 W87

W85

758 00 757 00

3-3

770 00 769 00

W56

758 00

W46

757 00

W45

756 00

Fig. 7. Kh. el-Ma¢ma, sections of the church.

pastophorium (W93). Only a narrow strip of mosaic was preserved in the north of the nave, enabling us to reconstruct its pattern (Fig. 10). Its margins were paved in white mosaic, set diagonally, framed by two horizontally set rows along the walls. The carpet frame was formed of two rows of black tesserae bordered by two rows of white tesserae on either side. The carpet field, 4.20×2.20 m, was adorned with a grid of squares with small rhombi in their corners and centers, at a density of 49 per sq. dm. Of the church aisles, only the northern one

survived; it was 1.70 m wide. In the east it ended in a passage to the northern pastophorium, of which only vestiges remain. The aisle was paved in a simple mosaic consisting of white tesserae in diagonal rows, the margins along the wall consisting of two straight rows of white tesserae (L1005). The chancel was only partially extant. The apse (L1034) was internal, and its wall, W46, 3.90 m in diameter, abutted the church’s eastern wall. The space between these walls was filled with bonding material. The bema was no longer extant. There

[[369 97 ]]

AR R -- EEVVEENN BB. . HHA

Fig. 8. Church, view from the west.

were pastophoria on either side of the apse. Only the apse foundation walls survived to a height of two–three courses beneath the church’s floor level. Its building stones were of medium size and very roughly dressed. The pastophoria on either side of the apse also adjoined the church’s eastern wall. They were squarish in plan and of identical dimensions, 2.50×2.00 m. The threshold was no longer extant. In the middle of the northern pastophorium (L1011) a

small section of mosaic floor survived (Fig. 11). It consisted of diagonal rows of white tesserae surrounding a square design of black tesserae that was divided into four triangles by two intersecting lines; a row of small triangles framed it. The edge of the design comprised a band consisting of alternating triangles and buds in black tesserae. The carpet was crudely made of tesserae, 49 per sq dm. The southern pastophorium (L1003) extant only in its foundation courses. Its entrance no longer existed.

[[370 98 ]]

A ZBAYNZ TA INNTEI NM E OMNOAN SATS E T ERRYY AANND D C CH A BY HUURRCCHHAT ATK H KIHRIBREBT EETL -EMLA- ḤMMAA¡ M A

Fig. 9. Nave and chancel, view from the west.

Fig. 10. Nave, mosaic floor segment.

Fig. 11. Northern pastophorium, mosaic floor segment.

[[371 99 ]]

AR R -- EEVVEENN BB. . HHA

NOTES 1 Kh. el-Ma¢ma was excavated in March 2005 (License No. 1046), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of B. Har-Even, with the participation of L. Shapira and O. Dagan.

2 Kochavi 1972: 180, Site No. 102; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 18*, Site No. 44. 3 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 17*–19*, Site Nos. 40, 41, 45, 49, 50, 51, 56. 4 Magen 2008: 287–288.

REFERENCES Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2008. “Oil Production in the Early Islamic Period,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 257–343.

Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstracts).

[[372 100 ]]

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET BEIT SILA SHAHAR BATZ

Kh. Beit Sila is located some 650 m above sea level, on a slope facing Naḥ al Modiʿim (Map ref. IOG 16483/14280; ITM 21483/64280), 2 km south of the village of Bituniyya (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 The road along Naḥ al Modiʿim leads from the Judean Shephelah to the top of the central mountain range, providing a secondary, concealed route to Jerusalem. In the 1920s there was a proposal to identify the site with biblical Shiloh, but this was rejected following the excavation of Tel Shiloh.2 During the 1990s the site was part of the Land of Benjamin Survey.3 Three main periods of occupation were discerned at the site (Fig. 1). In the first phase, dated to the Second Temple period, a public building was constructed and a miqweh (ritual bath) was founded in its vicinity. In the second phase, ascribed to the Byzantine period, a church was built on the foundation of the Second Temple period public building. A burial chamber was hewn adjacent to the church and a structure was built over the miqweh. In the third phase, the Early Islamic and Ayyubid periods, changes were introduced inside the church, probably by a nomadic population.4

PHASE I—SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD The remnants of a large building were found. Judging from its dimensions and location on the site, it was apparently a public building. According to a coin of Antiochus III found in its foundation, it was erected during the first half of the second century BCE. The building’s western (W112), southern (W110), and eastern (W113) walls are of dressed fieldstones, each measuring ca. 0.75×0.45×0.40 m, with small stones in between. The walls were preserved to a height of five courses. The northern wall (W111) differs from the other walls in being cut into the rock. It contains an entrance in its west. The building had two entrances, one in the south (L132) and another in the north (L180). The southern

entrance was 1.20 m wide; it was reached through an alley that was part of the general network of streets on the site. The northern entrance, 0.55 m wide, was cut into the wall. The building contained several rooms. A large, open courtyard was found west of the building. A miqweh with a staircase and feed channel was found there (L300). It was identified as a miqweh because its dimensions are identical to those of other miqwaʾot found in the vicinity. A large cistern, 5.50 m in diameter and 7.00 deep, was found 4.00 m east of the miqweh. Walls creating two rectangular spaces were exposed to the building’s south, and a hewn cave, measuring 8.70×6.50 m, was found to the building’s east, and apparently served for storage (L269). This phase was dated, according to the ceramic and numismatic finds, to the Second Temple period.

PHASE II—BYZANTINE PERIOD A church, measuring 19.20×11.50 m, was erected in the early sixth century and comprises two building stages. Basilical in plan, it includes a paved atrium, a narthex paved with stone slabs, a central prayer hall divided into a nave and two aisles, and on the east, a chancel with pastophoria on either side. The northern pastophorium was used as a baptistery. The church walls were completely covered in a thick layer of plaster (Figs. 2–6). The open courtyard of the Second Temple public building was incorporated into the church plan and served as an atrium. It was paved with stone slabs (F162). Two walls (W187 and W188), built of medium-sized dressed fieldstones, abut the atrium’s eastern wall (W112), near the narthex entrance. The narthex, 9.00×4.10 m, is paved with stone slabs of varying size, some apparently deriving from the previous phase public building, others taken from other buildings from the preceding phase. Three of

[373]

S . B AT Z

Second Temple Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic and Ayyubid Period

0

Fig. 1. Kh. Beit Sila, construction phases.

[374]

5 m

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

2

L265

1

W113

L170 631.16

F156

L225

F140 632.07

630.85

633.58

632.29

F137

631.72

631.45

L181 L164

631.42

W111

L148

L242 L241 W243

L180

W244 L240

W252 L248

631.21

632.31 W183 631.60

F143

635.20

L101

631.54

631.89 W112

W188

632.33

W187

W112

F162

632.64

633.89

631.23

631.36

631.17

631.35 631.43

L132

F104

W134

633.86

632.99 632.93

632.25 631.82

2

1

L247

631.75

W160

F246

W115 F263

4

F262

L266

W249

631.01

W230

W268

631.66

631.41

631.32

W235

W245

W234

631.33

L229

631.90

631.42

631.36

3

F220

631.42

631.35

L173

631.17

631.11

L136

631.19

631.36

L223

W110

W130

633.54 633.45

630.95

631.43

631.17 631.03

633.25

W163

L153

L269

632.46

631.59

632.49

639.70

631.10

4

F261

631.23 631.03

631.11

630.94

631.16

L300

L260

631.04

631.17

W231 631.10

630.58

3 W267

0

Fig. 2. Kh. Beit Sila, detailed plan of the church.

[375]

5 m

S . B AT Z

1-1

634 00 633 00

W113

L216 F222

L190

630 00

W187

F137

F143

L233 F222

W112

W110

L170

W110 W163 F137

632 00 631 00

W134 W183

F104

F104

L164

L264

L101

F162

L154

2-2 634 00 633 00

W110

L132

632 00 631 00 630 00

L229

F220

L223

L269

L225

3-3 W234

634 00 633 00 632 00

W249 F261

W231

F263

W252 L241

630 00 L300

L266 4-4

633 00

W160

F257

632 00 631 00 630 00

F261

W244

W115

631 00 629 00

W243

W249

F262

629 00 628 00

W230

F263 L266

627 00

Fig. 3. Kh. Beit Sila, sections of the church.

[376]

L242

L248

L265

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

0

Fig. 4. Kh. Beit Sila, general plan of the church.

[377]

5

m

S . B AT Z

Fig. 5. Kh. Beit Sila, view from the northwest.

Fig. 6. Kh. Beit Sila,, reconstruction of the church.

[378]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

its four walls (W110, W111, and W112) belong to the building from the previous phase. A 1.00 m-wide entrance was built in the center of the western wall (W112). The previous entrance, in the northwest of the northern wall (W111), was blocked with stones and plaster. A large dressed stone measuring 2.00×0.65 m, with an incised cross, was found near the entrance and apparently served as the lintel of the prayer hall’s main entrance.5 The eastern wall (W134), which separates the narthex and prayer hall, was built during this phase. This wall, 9.30 long and 0.70 m wide, is of large fieldstones, with a filling of small stones and binding materials; its construction is poor compared to that of the earlier building. Three entrances lead to the prayer hall. The main entrance is 1.20 m wide, the two others, to the north and south, 0.90 m wide. Benches were built between these three entrances along the eastern wall of the narthex. It is unclear whether the benches were originally part of the church or were added during the second building stage. The prayer hall, measuring 13.00×9.50 m, is divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of three columns each, between which mosaic carpets of various geometric pattern were laid (see below). The column shafts, 0.30 m in diameter and 1.80 m high, were topped by Byzantine capitals.6 The excavation unearthed one column in situ; it is incised with a cross, at the center of which is part of a bronze cross.7 A set of arches above the capitals supported the roof. An iron ring was found in a stone at the center of the arcade, from which the church’s oil chandelier hung. Many roof tiles were found, as well as a large quantity of nails belonging to the roof beams.8 Two plaster benches next to the wall bounding the nave on the west were built over the mosaic floor, indicating their addition after the initial building stage of the church. The nave floor, 13.00×9.50 m, was paved in a mosaic, of geometric design, that contained two inscriptions.9 An unframed inscription near the main entrance reads:

1.68 m long including the handles, and 0.57 m wide, at the foot of the chancel. The inscription reads: † For the salvation and succor of Peter the priest; from what Saint Theodore granted him, he made the main body of the church and the apse; and the deposition of relics is done in the month of November, on the tenth (day).

The inscription contains the date of the church dedication (November 10), as well as the name of the martyr to whom it was dedicated. The text goes through the frame into the white background. Apparently, the dedication date was added after the rest of the text had been written (Fig. 8). The nave floor was laid over the remains of the earlier building. The debris from the two arches belonging to the southern colonnade was found inside the nave. The direction of this debris as well as of other debris finds indicate that the church was damaged by an earthquake after it had been abandoned. The floor of the northern aisle, 9.00×2.20 m, is paved in a mosaic of geometric design (see below). A plastered niche (L173), measuring 1.00×0.60×1.25 m, was found in W11, close to the northern entrance to the prayer hall. Fragments of coarse glass with

Offering of John. This is a monogram, apparently honoring the donor of the funds for constructing the church (Fig. 7). This inscription is contemporaneous with the nave mosaic floor. The other inscription was set in a tabula ansata,

0

10

20

Fig. 7. Inscription near the main entrance to the nave.

[379]

S . B AT Z

0

10

20

Fig. 8. Inscription in tabula ansata in front of the chancel.

rough edges were found inside the niche. These were probably of square windows installed in wooden frames. Another niche was found in the eastern wall of the aisle (W130). Rounded at the top, it was divided into two sections by a marble shelf. A marble

bowl fragment dated to the sixth century was found in the upper section (see below). A limestone reliquary was found in situ underneath the glass. It has two compartments, one with a stone cover decorated with a cross (see below). Similar niches with reliquaries

[380]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

have been found in other churches, especially in Transjordan.10 The southern aisle, 9.00×2.30 m, is asymmetrical, since its southern wall (W110) formed part of the earlier structure. The aisle was paved in a mosaic carpet of geometric design (see below). Two entrances are located in the aisle’s southern wall. The western entrance (L132) is narrow, 0.50 m wide, and is located at the spot of the original main entrance of the earlier building. The original entrance height was raised by 1.00 m, bringing it to the level of the aisle floor. The eastern entrance is 1.20 m wide; its doorposts and threshold were plastered. The aisle mosaic floor abuts the threshold, indicating that the two are contemporaneous. Two plaster benches were added to the aisle along the southern wall, on top of the mosaic, after the church’s construction. Two main stages of use were discerned in the

chancel (Fig. 9). In the first stage the chancel was separated from the nave by a single ashlar stair. Although there is no evidence of a screen channel in the stair, a screen probably did exist. An internal apse was established on the leveled bedrock in this stage. The apse wall (W163) is constructed mostly of ashlars surrounded by medium-sized fieldstones held together with coarse plaster. Secco fragments painted in black, green, and maroon were discovered in fill L216, over the first stage chancel floor (F222), suggesting the apse wall was coated. The largest secco fragment was found attached to one of the arch stones in the nave. The piece included the painted image of a grape vine (Fig. 10). The chancel floor was paved in a mosaic (F222), whose bedding (L233) rests on a fill of earth, sherds, and worked stones. F222 was poorly preserved (see below). The floor abuts the apse wall slightly above its foundation.

Fig. 9. Chancel, view from the west.

[381]

S . B AT Z

0 0

10

10

20

Fig. 11. First stage altar table.

Fig. 10. Secco fragment, illustration.

A marble altar table, the top of which measured 74×60×5 cm, was placed in the apse. The top had a flat exterior frame with a sharp ridge. In the center were five drilled holes (Fig. 11). The central hole was located exactly above a large, 6 cm in diameter, hole in the center of the altar base.11 A metal pole was apparently placed in the central hole to support the heavy marble upper plate. The altar table base measured 119×66×4 cm and had four additional smaller holes in which traces of metal were found. It seems that these holes were used for attaching a decorative metal element. The altar stood on four grayish marble colonnettes, each 103 cm high, inserted into square holes in the altar base. The colonnettes and their capitals were square, 10×10 cm (Fig. 12).12 The colonnette capitals were decorated with lotus flowers, a popular design in sixth century churches. The alter table was replaced by a new one in the second building stage. The first stage alter table top was found in secondary use as an offering table. The base got broken in the removal process, and one of its pieces served as a shelf in a niche in the northern pastophorium, the other lining the reliquary niche beneath the altar. The reliquary niche (L170), built east of the altar base,13 is probably the one mentioned in the mosaic dedication inscription in the nave, in front of the

0

10

20

Fig. 12. Altar table colonnette.

[382]

20

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

chancel (see above). The niche measures 25×20 cm; its walls are lined with rectangular marble plates. The niche opening was covered with a marble slab, 30×24×4 cm, with a cross shape in relief (Fig. 13). At this stage a limestone double-compartmented reliquary was apparently placed in the reliquary niche. However, the reliquary was found in L173 (see below). The chancel mosaic floor abuts the altar base and reliquary niche, attesting that all were constructed at the same time. In the second stage a second stair, different in size, was added between the chancel and the nave. The new stair had a 20×20 cm square section into which a channel for the screen was cut. The stair cut the west of the chancel mosaic floor (F137). The mosaic floor rested on a fill (L216) over the floor of the previous stage. The fill contained fragments of the former mosaic floor and secco fragments from the apse wall. The new mosaic floor extended some 40 cm west of the original chancel. It is thus clear that the chancel was widened to the west in this stage. The chancel screen consisted of 1.00×0.90 m panels, and colonnettes. The panels were of several types. One type, of marble, had a thick frame decorated with plants, and a cross in the middle (Fig. 14:1).14 A second type, also of marble, had a double frame and a lattice pattern (Fig. 14:2).

The chancel screen colonnettes, measuring 20×19 cm and 110 cm high, were of marble. They were found in situ, set into the chancel screen channel. The colonnettes were of the simple type, with a schematic decoration of linear frames on the side (Fig. 14:3). An opening in the center of the chancel screen provided access to the chancel. On either side of the opening, sockets were cut for the chancel screen colonnettes, to which a chain was attached to prevent free access to the sacred area. In the excavation a colonnette of the opening was found in situ. Two metal objects were found attached to it (see below). The first stage altar table was replaced by a new one, of light-colored marble with a clear grain.15 The new table had rounded sides and bore an inscription on the side facing west (Fig. 15), which reads: For the vow of Chry[sippus? - - - ]. A stonecutter’s mark monogram with a cross was found on the table bottom. The new marble base was some 20 cm wider than the first stage altar base. This base, 119×86×5 cm, was found in situ in center of the apse (Fig. 16). In its center is a hole, 10 cm in diameter, surrounded by four small drilled holes, used for the attachment of a decorative metal element. The inscription, relating to the reliquary beneath the slab, reads:

0

Fig. 13. Reliquary niche marble cover.

[383]

2

4

S . B AT Z

1 1

3 3

2 2

Fig. 14. Second stage chancel screen.

0 0

10 10

For the memory and rest of our Christ-loving brothers Peter, John, Mary, Anastasia, Mary, and Andrew. When the new base was installed, part of the frame of the bema mosaic floor had to be cut. To accommodate the altar colonnettes, 12×12 cm squares were carved in each of the base’s four corners, damaging part of the inscription. The colonnettes of the previous altar continued to serve the new one. An offering table was placed in the southwestern corner of the chancel.16 This table was the first stage

20 20

altar table, in secondary use. It stood on a pair of light-colored fluted marble colonnettes, which were found in the debris underneath the table in the chancel southwest (L136). The offering table colonnettes were 74 cm high, with 15×15 cm bases and a round ridge on their tops that was identical to that on the colonnette’s capital, which was 13 cm in diameter (Fig. 17). A chancel screen panel and colonnette were found lying on top of the offering table. During this stage several changes were made in the reliquary niche, and the reliquary itself was replaced by a marble reliquary with one compartment. The niche

[384]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

0

5

10

Fig. 15. Second stage altar table.

00

10 10

Fig. 16. Second stage altar table base.

base was lined anew, using part of the former altar base (F190). The reliquary was found in situ inside the niche (L170). Apparently, the first stage reliquary was placed in the niche in the northern aisle (L173). A hexagonal bituminous chalk ambo was installed in front of the northwestern corner of the bema (see Fig. 9).17 Two ashlar blocks, 80×65 cm, found in situ, which were part of the northwestern edge of the bema, most likely supported a wooden ramp connecting the ambo and bema (L164).18 The northern pastophorium served as a baptistery (Fig. 18). Measuring 3.50×2.30 m, it was paved in a coarse mosaic that abutted a baptismal font. The limestone baptismal font (L153) is a built cube, each side measuring 1.00 m, with a hemispherical font, 50 cm in diameter and 55 cm deep, sunken in its center. A depression for collecting water was made in the mosaic floor in the northwestern corner of the room. A niche (L181) measuring 0.70×0.50×0.40 m was built on the western baptistery wall (W130). The niche ceiling is concave and wide, its base, trapeze shaped. A marble shelf divided the niche into two

20 20

0

10

20

Fig. 17. Offering table colonnette.

[385]

S . B AT Z

Fig. 18. Northern pastophorium, view from the west. Note the niche in the western baptistery wall.

spaces.19 A fragment of a libation chalice was found inside the larger, upper space; in the smaller, lower one, an alabaster liturgical bowl was found. The southern pastophorium, measuring 3.60×2.30 m, had a mosaic floor decorated with a geometrical pattern, and a stone threshold. Its walls were plastered, like the other walls of the church. An auxiliary room, 6.50×4.20 m, was add to the church in the south, probably in the second stage. Entrance to the room was through the church’s southern aisle. The room was paved with a crude white mosaic (F220), with 30 tesserae per sq. dm, like the mosaics in the pastophoria. The floor was laid over a layer of plaster dated to the first stage, outside of W110. A burial chamber (L242), 3.20×2.70 m, was built northwest of the church, in front of the Second Temple period building entrance (Fig. 19). Trapezoidal in shape, its roof was vaulted. The chamber contained three burial troughs, one measuring ca. 2×1.8 m; all are ca. 0.8 m deep. They were constructed of stone slabs in secondary use, apparently deriving from the earlier phase. Such stone slabs were also employed in paving the narthex. There were eight interments in the chamber.20 The trough in the center was not originally planned as a grave. The finds from the

chamber include a bead necklace, a crucifix pendant, and fragments of a glass window. Northwest of the church, a structure with ashlar pillars, measuring 10.30×9.50 m, was erected over the Second Temple period miqweh and cistern. Two main stages of use during the Byzantine period were revealed. The first stage was constructed of ashlars with marginal drafting, the floor consisting of irregular stone slabs (F262) abutting the structure’s walls. At least some of these slabs were clearly in secondary use. The floor was established on the bedrock. The builders were careful not to block the channels feeding the cistern from the previous phase. Secondary use of ashlars is also evident in the structure’s corners. The ashlars comprising the pillars were possibly also in secondary use. In the second stage, a stone slab floor (F261) was laid over the earlier floor. A coin found between the two floors dates to the second half of the fifth century CE. The floor in this stage was covered with rubble from a second story. It included vestiges of a white mosaic floor (F257); plaster negatives on their underside indicate that the second story floor foundations rested on round wooden beams. In the northeast of the structure were the remains of stoves and a large amount of pottery, including various

[386]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

Fig. 19. Burial chamber, view from the east.

cooking vessels dating from the sixth to seventh centuries CE. Adjoining the structure in the east was a narrow oblong room measuring 12.50×6.50 m. It had a common wall (W115) with the structure, and they were clearly built simultaneously. The room was paved with stone slabs (F246) that abutted the walls. It was entered from the church atrium. The entrance, 1.70×0.90 m, was fixed in W235. A rectangular installation (L247), a kind of stone table, was found in the west of the room. A cistern (L265), measuring 7.20×4.20×2.50 m, was built east of the church, next to the previous phase hewn cave (L269). The cave walls were covered with hydraulic plaster, an opening added for drawing water.

Church Mosaic Floors The church was paved in mosaic floors, which were almost perfectly preserved. The prayer hall floors were decorated with geometric designs. The chancel carpets are the most elaborate. They are decorated with an interlaced geometric pattern, while the apse floor includes birds, a fish head, grape clusters, and an amphora. The nave carpet measures 5.90×3.70 m (Fig. 20).

Fig. 20. Nave mosaic floor.

[387]

S . B AT Z

The carpet edges to the north and south were of horizontally paved white tesserae. Two inscriptions were set in the carpet: one in front of the main entrance from the narthex to the nave; the other in a tabula ansata in front of the chancel (see above). The latter was surrounded by a frame of two rows of red tesserae. The text goes through the frame into the white background. The inscription was flanked by two medallions. The southern medallion is circular, 90 cm in diameter, containing five smaller circles, each enclosing interwoven ellipses (I4*21; Fig. 21:1). The northern circular medallion is decorated with a guilloche that divides it into four quarters, each quarter decorated with buds. The medallion was damaged and concealed from view by the insertion of the ambo colonnettes (Fig. 21:2). The carpet field is encompassed by a 20 cm-wide frame consisting of a band of guilloche (B2*) with a dentil on either side (A5*), bounded by a row of black

tesserae. The carpet field is decorated with a grid of diamonds, each decorated with a cross composed of four buds (H7*). The nave mosaic is of red, white, and black tesserae. The northern aisle’s mosaic floor is a single carpet measuring 5.90×1.60 m, laid using 70 tesserae per sq. dm, in white, red, and black. The mosaic edges are of white tesserae laid diagonally in a herringbone pattern and decorated with buds and crosslets. The mosaic frame consists of five rows, 6 cm wide, in white, red, and black. The carpet field contains rows of buds (F22*). The southern aisle’s mosaic floor measures 7.20×1.50 m and is similar in workmanship and decoration to its northern counterpart, with one difference. In the center of the mosaic is a medallion, 1.17 m in diameter, framed by a wreath of buds (F7*),22 and containing a motif of interlacing squares (Fig. 22). Between the columns of the church were six mosaic

1

2 0

20

Fig. 21. Nave, medallions flanking the inscription.

[388]

40

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

0

20

40

Fig. 22. Southern aisle, central medallion.

carpets, three in the north and three in the south. All are in three colors: white, red, and black, laid using 70 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic carpets differ from each other; and the ones on the north differ as a group from those on the south. In the northern row of columns, the westernmost intercolumnar carpet, measuring 1.75×0.58 m, has a frame consisting of two parallel rows in black. The carpet is divided by rows of black tesserae into 30 small squares; in the center of each is a red rosette with a white crosslet in its center (Fig. 23:1). The next carpet to the east, measuring 1.52×0.57 m, has a frame identical to the previous

one. The decoration consists of three large rosettes composed of four spindles (J4*). The space between the flowers is decorated with squares and that between the flowers and frame, with triangles (Fig. 23:2). The easternmost carpet in this row measures 1.55×0.55 m. The north of the frame is identical to the frames of the other two carpets. The carpet is decorated with a scale pattern, each scale decorated with a bud. The southeastern corner of the carpet was modified because of restorations to the frame of the nave floor (Fig. 23:3). In the southern row of columns the westernmost intercolumnar carpet, measuring 1.63×0.55 m, has a frame consisting of a single row of red tesserae. The inside of the carpet is decorated with a concentric pattern of lozenges of varying sizes. In the center is a design of three entwined strips (Fig. 24:1). The next carpet to the east, 1.63×0.55 m, also has a frame of a single row of red tesserae. The decoration inside consists of triangles, lozenges, flower buds, and four schematic crosses formed of flower buds (Fig. 24:2). The easternmost carpet in this row is relatively short, measuring 1.30×0.55 m. This is due to the alignment of its eastern end with the nave floor’s eastern frame. It is decorated with triangles, lozenges, and buds (Fig. 24:3). The first stage chancel floor (F222) is poorly preserved. It consisted of white, black, and red tesserae; its upper section was polished to a brilliant sheen. The second stage chancel floor (F137) is the highest in quality in the church (Figs. 25–26). The bema carpet measures 3.60×2.20 m. This carpet’s margins were paved with diagonally set white tesserae. The frame consists of two rows of black tesserae and a band with a wave pattern in black (B7*). The innermost frame consists of a red dentil pattern. The central panel is decorated with interlaced circles and squares (J2*), decorated with floral and geometrical motifs. The main decorative motif running through most of the decorations is the depiction of a schematic cross. The frame was damaged in several places, testifying to changes made in the chancel. The two most damaged areas were at the altar base in the east of the chancel and in the west of the chancel screen stair. The apse carpet, 3.10×2.50 m, has a double frame that follows the contour of the apse and merges with

[389]

S . B AT Z

1

2

Fig. 23. Northern aisle, intercolumniations.

0

20

40

3

1

2

0

20

Fig. 24. Southern aisle, intercolumniations.

[390]

40

3

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

Fig. 25. Chancel mosaic floor, view from the west.

the frame of the bema carpet. The internal frame is decorated with black roses. The carpet field is decorated with two rows of interlocking round medallions (J1*). The outer, larger row contains 13 medallions. Its middle medallion is located at the center of the apse, opposite the reliquary niche opening. It is decorated with an amphora on a threelegged base.23 The amphora’s location and decoration are indicative of its importance (Fig. 27:1). At the medallions’ sides are heraldic birds, looking towards the amphora.24 The birds are carefully executed, including what appear to be teeth inside their beaks. Further along the row of medallions are a grape cluster, a pomegranate with a fringe and crown,25 flowers26; the last medallions in the row contain decorations of sweetwater birds (Fig. 27:2–6). The middle medallion in the inner row contains a fish head with gills and fins, a decorative motif known from other churches of the period (Fig. 28).27

The Greek word for fish—ΙΧΘΥC (Ichthus) — is also an acronym for the phrase “Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (God) Uiou (Son) Soter (Savior),” and thus the fish motif had special significance. Its depiction beneath the amphora, on the axis of the altar and reliquary, lends additional importance to this motif here.28 The northern pastophorium floor, 3.70×2.10 m (F140), was laid using 30 white, black, and red tesserae per sq. dm. In front of the room entrance is a circular geometrical decoration, at the center of which is a crosslet composed of four buds. Four semicircles were attached to the circle frame. The tesserae size and colors of the southern pastophorium floor (F156) are identical to those of the northern pastophorium. In the east of the floor, near the room entrance, are three circles. The middle circle contains four ivy leaves forming a schematic cross, the two others, rosettes with four spindles.

[391]

S . B AT Z

0

Fig. 26. Chancel mosaic floor, illustration.

[392]

20

40

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 27. Apse mosaic floor, medallions.

[393]

S . B AT Z

Fig. 28. Apse mosaic floor, fish medallion.

The quality of workmanship of the first and second stage mosaics in the church is markedly different. In the first stage, the prayer hall and pastophoria floors were laid using rather large tesserae of three colors—white, red, and black. The prayer hall mosaics were laid using 70 tesserae per sq. dm, while the pastophoria floors were coarsely laid, using 30 tesserae per sq. dm. The chancel floor of this stage (F222) did not survive. The second stage chancel mosaic included eight colors— white, black, brick-red and red, two shades of gray, and two shades of ocher. It was laid using 100 tesserae per sq. dm, while the birds in the medallions were laid even more finely, with 122 tesserae per sq. dm.

PHASE III—EARLY ISLAMIC AND AYYUBID PERIODS After the church was abandoned, probably during the Early Islamic period, it underwent a number of changes. Most of the changes point to secondary use of the church, perhaps by nomads; there was no organized use or purposeful destruction. The dating of this phase is based on the stratigraphic, ceramic, and numismatic finds. Twelve tombs were found in the atrium’s vicinity and dated to the Early Islamic period. Because of the presence of the tombs, one of which was excavated, no further excavation was conducted there. The careless form of burial might point to a nomadic population. Most changes were in the narthex. The bench on the southwest was destroyed and replaced by an installation (L101), measuring 1.00×0.50×1.00 m,

of unclear function; next to it a wall (W183) of medium-sized fieldstones with no binding materials was shoddily constructed. Pottery and two coins dated to the Early Islamic period were found in its foundations. The remnants of a small lime kiln (L148) found in the north of the narthex were also dated to the Early Islamic period. Some of the church’s furniture and other wooden parts were possibly used for fuel in the kiln. The ambo screen panels and rails, found inside the prayer hall next to the entrances from the narthex, were used to block theses entrances and thus survived. Pottery and glass fragments dated to the Early Islamic period were found inside the blocked entrances. The chancel also underwent modification. The chancel screen channel was lined with plaster, as can be seen where the joint between the chancel screen and ambo rails was damaged. In addition, two colonnettes, originally used as chancel screen colonnettes, were put to secondary use above the altar base. The original altar colonnettes were found in the baptistery. In addition, two oil presses were constructed at the site.29 The above changes probably occurred in the Early Islamic period, although the building continued in use up to the Ayyubid period.

FINDS Liturgical Objects Ambo

A hexagonal bituminous chalk ambo was installed in front of the northwestern corner of the bema (Fig. 29). Two ashlar blocks, 80×65 cm, found in situ, which were part of the northwestern edge of the bema, most likely supported a wooden ramp connecting the ambo and bema (L164). The ramp railings were triangular in shape. The northern one, which survived intact, is decorated with a cross and lilies30; it had been mounted on the chancel screen track, and extended from the bema westward (Fig. 30). It was found in the blockage of one of the entrances to the prayer hall in the Early Islamic period. The southern one, of which only a fragment of a cross has survived, was attached to the upper bema step with plaster. The other ends of the railings were attached to the ambo panels. The ambo platform, which rested on four undecorated square bituminous chalk colonnettes, each 15 cm in diameter,

[394]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

rose ca. 0.7 m above floor level. The ambo colonnettes were inserted directly into the nave mosaic floor, rather than resting on a stone base, the latter method found in most churches with ambos.31 The colonnettes were arranged so that they formed a cross. Two decorative rings were incised above the base. The ambo at Kh. Beit Sila can be classed as the type of ambos integrated with the bema, characteristic of Eastern churches.32 The ambo platform and screens constitute the most elaborately decorated items in the church. The ambo platform, 110 cm long and 8.5 cm thick, was hexagonal in shape.33 In five of the six 58 cm-long sides of the hexagon, a ca. 3 cm-wide channel was carved, into which the screen panel was fitted. The sixth side had two projections, which served to connect it to the two rails, as well as to the wooden platform joining the ambo and chancel. A dedication inscription was carved on the side facing the prayer hall. At the end of the inscription is a cross from which tendrils extend (Fig. 31).34 The inscription reads:

Fig. 29. Ambo, reconstruction and illustration.

0 0

20 20

40 40

Fig. 30. Ambo, northern railing of the ramp.

0

20

Fig. 31. Ambo, inscription.

[395]

40

S . B AT Z

O Lord, accept the offering of Thy servant Peter the priest. This same Peter was also mentioned in the inscription set in front of the bema. Five decorated screen panels, of which three have survived (Fig. 32), were connected to the table. The screen panels were 77 cm long and 55 cm wide. They were some 3 cm thick at the bottom to enable their fitting into the channels in the ambo table. The tops of the screen panels contain holes into which nails were driven to connect the screen panels to each other. Decorative stone pine cones were placed above these joints. The panels were slanted on the sides to strengthen the bonds between each pair of panels as well as those between the rails and the panels. Each panel has a main decoration with a cross surrounded by different kinds of geometrical patterns,35 such as a meander design, lozenges, squares, etc. Above the main decoration, each panel has a band, measuring 55×7 cm, decorated with a row of lilies. The function of this band is to provide a uniform frame for the screen panels, as can be seen in the reconstruction. The ambo’s bitumen color and carved decorations give the impression of a piece of wooden furniture.

Limestone Reliquary

This reliquary, measuring 24×22 cm and 17 cm high, was found inside the plastered niche in the northern wall (W111). It was probably placed there in the second stage, having been removed from its first stage location in the center of the apse. The reliquary had two compartments, one measuring 13.5×8 cm and the other, 10×9.5 cm; each was 6 cm deep. The latter compartment had a flat pink limestone cover, measuring 10×9.5×1 cm, decorated with a Maltese cross (Fig. 33).36

Marble Reliquary

This reliquary was found in situ underneath the altar. Shaped like a miniature sarcophagus or coffin, it measures 16×11×8 cm. It has ridged sides and a single compartment.37 Its gable-like cover, 5 cm in height, is reminiscent of sarcophagus covers. There are rounded projections at each of the cover’s four corners. At the center of the cover is a funnel-like hole, 2.5 cm in diameter. Bronze clasps found in situ on the reliquary indicate that holy relics were sealed and locked inside

(Fig. 34). A brown hair, 19 cm long, was found inside the reliquary. The hair apparently belonged to a saint, perhaps even to the one to whom the church was dedicated.

Liturgical Bowls

An alabaster liturgical bowl and marble basin fragment were found in situ inside the niche in W130. The liturgical bowl, 26.5 cm in diameter and 3.4 cm deep, is undecorated.38 The bowl rim is simple and vertical (Fig. 35:1). The basin was apparently quite deep and 2.5 cm thick, with a wavy rim and grooved, fan-like sides (Fig. 35:2). Metal remnants attached to the fragment were used for carrying or hanging the basin.39

Pottery and Glass The church pottery assemblage is dated from the second half of the fifth to the beginning of the seventh century CE (Pls. 1–3). The glass fragments found at the site belong mostly to rectangular glass window panes. In addition, lamps and vessels were found that dated to the sixth to seventh centuries CE.

Metal Objects Two metal objects were found inserted into a chancel screen in front of the chancel. A hook for a metal chain was inserted at the center of the post, and a piece of metal, inserted on its upper part; this piece might have been part of the base of a cross-shaped ornament. Excavation of the burial chamber produced a metal cruciform pendant, thickened at its ends, which were adorned with identical circular decorations. An aperture at the end of the longer arm served to attach the cross to a chain. Such crosses have been discovered in burial chambers throughout the Land of Israel.40 A rare and unique silver mirror plaque was found in the west of the structure, built over the miqweh. The plaque is round (7 cm in diameter) and features geometric designs in lattice work (Fig. 36). Of two ring-shaped additions (1 cm in diameter) that project symmetrically on opposite sides of the plaque, one survived almost in its entirety; only the edge of the other survived. A triangular “tail” decorated with dots is attached to the plaque, perpendicular to the two ring-shaped additions. A round hole in the center of the plaque (3.5 cm in diameter) probably held the inlaid mirror. 41

[396]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

1

3

2 0

10

Fig. 32. Ambo, screen panels.

[397]

20

S . B AT Z

0

Fig. 33. First stage limestone reliquary.

0

Fig. 34. Second stage marble reliquary.

[398]

2

4

2

4

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

Coins Twelve coins were found at the site of the church, ten in an archaeological context.42 The earliest coin dates to the reign of Antiochus III (223–187 BCE), and was found in the foundations of the western wall (W112) in L100. Four coins were found around the walls, particularly in the vicinity of the miqweh: one from the reign of Herod the Great; one from that of Herod Archelaus; one from that of Agrippa I; and one from the days of Marcian (450–457 CE). One Byzantine coin, found under the narthex, is of Justin I and is dated to 518–522 CE. Four coins were found that were dated from the Islamic period in the seventh century to the Ayyubid period (the reign of Al-Kamil I, 1227–1237 CE). These coins date the end of the building’s use as a church and the settlement of Muslims in it. The two other coins are from the Middle Roman period and were found during a survey of the surface area.

1 0

5

10

Summary 2 0

Fig. 35. Liturgical bowls.

0

1

2

Fig. 36. Mirror plaque.

10

20

The church at Kh. Sila was constructed in the Byzantine period on top of a public building dated to the Second Temple period. While its exterior walls follow those of the earlier building, changes were introduced to the building to adapt it to the typical basilica plan. The main entrance was moved from the southern wall to the western one, and an apse, pastophoria, narthex, and atrium were constructed. The church renovations are apparent in the prayer hall and chancel. The first stage altar and reliquary were replaced by new ones in the second stage, and were put to secondary use. Part of the old altar table was used as an offering table, while the other part was used as a shelf. In addition to the new altar table and offering table an ambo was constructed. Benches were also constructed some time after the original establishment of the church, in the prayer hall and narthex. The church was richly adorned with mosaic floors; those in the prayer hall and chancel were modified over time when the church was active. The northeastern aisle was modified due to changes in the frame of the nave floor to accommodate the ambo. The dedication

[399]

S . B AT Z

year was added to the inscription at the foot of the bema after the tabula ansata was set. The chancel was entirely repaved. The church was abandoned sometime in the second half of the seventh century CE, following the

Muslim conquest. The Muslim nomads who took over the building made small changes to it. Various installations were constructed in the narthex. Twelve tombs were built in the atrium area and two oil presses were constructed in the vicinity.

[400]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

Plate 1. Pottery: Open Vessels No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L116

LRC bowl

Red ware, good firing.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 65 (Form 1)

End of 4th–mid-5th cent. CE

2 3 4

L157 L123 L116

ARS bowl

Hayes 1972: Fig. 69 (Form 3F) Hayes 1972: Fig. 71 (Form 10C) Hayes 1972: Fig. 31:22 (Form 104B)

5

L123

FBW bowl

6 7

L116 L141

8

L116

9

L100

Rouletted bowl Bowl

Red ware, good firing. Red ware, good firing. Orange ware, red slip, good firing. Brownish-yellow ware, good firing. Orange ware, good firing. Brownish-yellow ware, good firing. Brownish-yellow ware.

10

L116

Krater

11 12 13

L108 L144 L180

14

L116

Brownish-yellow to yellow ware. Brownish-yellow ware. Brown ware. Brown ware. Brownish-yellow ware, gray core. Brownish-yellow ware.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 194, Form 1A) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 197, Form 1F) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 200, Form 2C) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 186–187, Form 1)

Mid-6th–first quarter of 7th cent. CE Mid-6th–beginning of 8th cent. CE End of 7th–8th cent. CE

End of 3rd–5th cent. CE Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 35:2–4) End of Byzantine– Early Islamic period Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 204, Form 1) End of 3rd cent.– Byzantine period Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 206–207, Form 2A) 6th cent.–Umayyad period Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 208, Form 2B) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 29:11–12; Early Islamic period Magness 1993: 210, Incurved Rim Basin) Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.82)

[401]

S . B AT Z

1

2

3

4

7

5 6

9

8

10

11

12

13

14 0

5

Plate 1.

[402]

10

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

Plate 2. Pottery: Closed Vessels and Cooking Vessels No. Locus 1 L124

Type Jar

Description Brownish-pink ware.

2

L124

Brownish-pink ware.

3 4

L124 L129

Brownish-pink ware. Brownish-orange ware.

5

L168

Brownish-pink ware.

6 7

L116 L116

Brownish-orange ware. Brownish-yellow ware.

8

L168

Orange ware.

9

L141

FBW jug

10

L124

Jug

11 12

L151 L154

13

L117

14 15

L125 L124

Brownish-yellow, fired ware. Brownish-pink ware. Brownish-yellow ware. Brownish-reddish ware.

Juglet

Orange ware.

Casserole

Orange ware. Brownish-reddish ware.

Parallels Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 27:13, 31:3; Magness 1993: 225, Form 4B) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 226, Form 5A); Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.111) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 30:2) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 31:7; Magness 1993: 230, Form 6B) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 30:33, 31:11; Magness 1993: 231, Form 7) Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.113) Qaṣr al-Qadim (Whitcomb and Johnson 1982: Pl. 46:e–g); Negev region (Nevo 1991: Pl. 1:18) Emmaus (Bagatti 1993: Fig. 24:2) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 238, Form 1B) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 32:44); Kursi-Gergesa (Tzaferis 1983: Fig. 8:22, defined as a flask) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 35:36) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 240, Form 2A); Mt. Nebo (Bagatti 1985: Fig. 18:8); Negev region (Nevo 1991: Pl. 8:10) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 243, Form 2B); Mt. Nebo (Bagatti 1985: Fig. 18:7) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 244, Form 3) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, Form 1); Kh. el-Karak (Delougaz and Haines 1960: Pl. 53:25, 28–29); Capernaum (Peleg 1989: Fig. 52:20–23); Hammat Gader (Ben-Arieh 1997: Pl. XII:11)

[403]

Date Late Byzantine period, from 6th cent. CE– Umayyad period

Crusader–Ayyubid periods End of Byzantine– Umayyad period

Early Islamic period Early Byzantine– Early Islamic period Byzantine period

Byzantine–Early Islamic period

S . B AT Z

1

4

7

11

2

3

5

6

9

8

13

12

15

0

5

Plate 2.

[404]

10

10

14

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

Plate 3. Pottery: Lamps No. Locus 1 L127

2 3 4

L117 L123 L101

5 6

L166 L136

Type Round lamp with decorated discus Large candlestick lamps

Early channelnozzle lamp

Description Brownish-orange ware.

Parallels Date Jerash (Iliffe 1945: Pl. IX); Schloessinger 3rd–4th cent. CE Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 85–90)

Brownish-yellow ware. Brownish-yellow ware. Brownish-yellow ware. Bears dedication inscription in Greek. Brownish-pink ware. Brownish-pink ware.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252–253, Form 3) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252, Form 3A) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 253, Form 3C)

Mid-6th–end of 7th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 256–257, Form 4B–C)

Early Islamic period

1 3

2

5

4

6 Plate 3.

0

1

[405]

2

S . B AT Z

Notes 1 Kh. Beit Sila (License Nos. 776, 893, and 1096) was excavated in October to December 1997 on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of S. Batz and A. Reuben, as part of a salvage excavation along Road No. 45. 2 A.T. Richardson claimed that Kh. Beit Sila was biblical Shiloh, due to the phonetic resemblance of the names (Richardson 1927). This was refuted by W.F. Albright, who identified Tel Shiloh with the presently accepted site of Shiloh (Albright 1927). 3 Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 63. 4 For previous publications of the site, see: Batz 2002; 2003; 2004. 5 Support for this reconstruction can be found in the Church of St. Paul at Umm er-Rasas in Transjordan (Piccirillo 1992: 201, Fig. 2). 6 Carved Byzantine capitals similar to Corinthian capitals were found in the excavations on Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 539, Nos. 3, 5). 7 An incised cross on a column inside a church was found in the excavation at Ḥ . Ḥ esheq (Aviam 1990: 370, Fig. 27) and Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 504, Fig. 105). 8 Roof tiles with pieces of plaster stuck on them were found in the northern church at Oboda. The excavator concluded that the plaster belonged to a roof with wooden beams (Negev 1997: 118). A similar picture emerged at Kh. Beit Sila. 9 For the Greek inscriptions discovered in the church at Kh. Beit Sila, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in this volume. 10 Piccirillo 1982: Ph. 17. 11 A fragment of a similar plate was found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 490) and Kh. ed-Deir (Habbas 1999: 120). 12 Similar fragments of colonnettes have been found in various sixth century churches; see, for example, Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 479, 481, Nos. 26–29). 13 Niches under the altar base were found at ʿEin el Ḥ anniya (Baramki 1934: Pl. XXXVII:2) and Kh. el-Beiyudat (Archelais; Hizmi 1990: 250–257). 14 This type of chancel screen panel was found in many churches, including on Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 526, No. 151). 15 This table plate belongs to Acconci’s Type B (1998: 489). 16 Altar tables on the west of the chancel existed at Ḥ . Ḥ esheq (Aviam 1990: 357, 359) and Nahariya (Duval 1994: 199). 17 In churches in the Land of Israel, the ambo is located in the northwestern corner of the chancel, whereas in Transjordan it is in the southwestern corner. Churches with ambos were found in Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Tsafrir 1988: 45–46, Ill. 63); in Oboda (Negev 1997: 114, 135); and in Transjordan, at

Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1992) and Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 521). 18 Ashlar platforms connecting the chancel and ambo were found at the Church of Bishop Isaiah in Jerash (Clark 1986: 313), and at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 521–522). 19 A niche with a marble shelf was found in the northern aisle of the Church of the Virgin at Madaba, at a location identical to that of the niche in the Church of Kh. Beit Sila (Piccirillo 1982: 376, Ph. 17). 20 For a full anthropological report by Y. Nagar, see JSRF L-1096. 21 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 22 An identical decoration was found in the mosaic of the natural cave excavated in the Shepherds’ Field (Tzaferis 1975: Pl. 1, Ph. 2). 23 This kind of amphora was found among the mosaics of the Church of the Lions at Umm al-Rasas, as well as in the ambo balustrade decoration there (Piccirillo 1992: 210, Fig. 6.8, Pls. 9, 19, Phs. 19, 47). 24 This motif was found in the apses of the Church of the Lions and the Church of St. Paul at Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1997: Ph. 26). 25 This decoration exists in the Church of the Lions at Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1992: Pls. 14–15, Phs. 32–35). 26 A similar decoration was found in the church complex of Mt. Nebo (Piccirillo 1998: 279). 27 See, for example, the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 127, Fig. 45). 28 On fish motifs in churches and monasteries, see Bagatti 1955–1956: 254, note 36. 29 Magen 2008: 288–291. 30 An identical decoration was found on a bitumen rail from the Church of the Lions at Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1992: 205–210). 31 Three column fragments were found sunken into the mosaic floor in the Church of Bishop Isaiah in Jarash (Clarck 1986: 313). The column bases at Oboda were octagonal, with a recess for the shaft (Negev 1997: 114, 135). An ambo column base was found in Transjordan at Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1992: Pl. 10, Ph. 20). 32 Duval 1994: 193. 33 Bitumen chalk fragments of hexagonal ambo tables were found at the Church of the Lions at Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1992: Pl. 10, Ph. 21). A hexagonal base was found at Mt. Nebo, and the ambo table was probably of the same shape (Acconci 1998: 521). 34 A similar decoration on a bitumen screen was found in the Church of the Lions at Umm er-Rasas (Piccirillo 1992: 205, Fig. 5.2).

[406]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

A screen, of identical material, decoration, and joining method, was found in the Church of the Lions at Umm erRasas (Piccirillo 1992: Fig. 6.1–5). 36 A limestone reliquary was found in the church at Oboda (Negev 1997: 115, Ph. 166). Reliquaries with two compartments were common in the area during the sixth and seventh centuries CE, and were found, for example, at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 533, No. 166). 37 Similar reliquaries were found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 498, Nos. 80–82) and Kh. el-Beiyudat (Archelais; Hizmi 1990: 252–257). 38 Bowls used in Mass were found in many churches (Acconci 1998: 495). 39 Vessels fragments with metal remnants whose use has been identified have been found at Pella (Acconci 1998: 497, No. 79). 35

See Avni and Dahari 1990: 311. The closest parallel to the mirror plaque from Kh. Beit Sila is a leaden one found at a church at Kh. el-Maṣaniʿ, north of Jerusalem (Mazor 2000: 21*–22*, Fig. 9); another similar parallel was found near Ḥ . Sugar (Aviam and Stern 1997: Fig. 6:8). Mirror plaques of limestone and ceramic were found in several Byzantine sites in the Land of Israel. These appear in a variety of shapes: geometric and architectural designs; animal figures (particularly birds and fish); and human figures. The small mirrors set into the plaques were not suitable for regular use as mirrors, and the plaques might have been used as trophies (for more about mirror plaques, see Rahmani 1964). 42 For the numismatic report by G. Bijovsky, see JSRF L-776. 40 41

References Acconci A. 1998. “Elements of the Liturgical Furniture,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 468–542. Albright W.F. 1927. “The Danish Excavations at Seilun— A Correction,” PEFQSt 60: 157–158. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Aviam M. 1990. “Ḥ orvath Ḥ esheq—A Unique Church in Upper Galilee: Preliminary Report,” Christian Archaeology: 351–378. Aviam M. and Stern E.J. 1997. “Burial Caves near Ḥ . Sugar,” ʿAtiqot 33: 89–102 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 16*). Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneʿam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avni G. and Dahari U. 1990. “Christian Burial Caves from the Byzantine Period at Luzit,” Christian Archaeology: 301–314. Bagatti P.B. 1955–1956. “Scavo di un monastero al ‘Dominus Flevit,’” LA 6: 240–270. Bagatti B. 1985. “Nuova ceramica del Monte Nebo,” LA 35: 249–278. Bagatti B. 1993. Emmaus—Qubeibeh. The Results of Excavations at Emmaus—Qubeibeh and Nearby Sites (1873, 1887–1890, 1900–1902, 1940–1944) (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 4), Jerusalem. Baramki D.C. 1934. “An Early Christian Basilica at ʿEin Hanniya,” QDAP 3: 113–117. 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 Cemetery at Horvat Beit Sila,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and L.D. Chrupcala, 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): 113–120 (Hebrew). Ben-Arieh R. 1997. “The Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader. Final Report, Jerusalem, pp. 347–382. Clark V.A. 1986. “The Church of Bishop Isaiah at Jerash,” in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeological Project 1981– 1983 I, Amman, pp. 303–332. Delougaz P. and Haines R.C. 1960. A Byzantine Church at Khirbat al-Karak, Chicago. Duval N. 1994. “L’architecture chrétienne et les pratiques liturgiques en Jordanie en rapport avec la Palestine: Recherches nouvelles,” in K. Painter, ‘Churches Built in Ancient Times.’ Recent Studies in Early Christian Archaeology, London, pp. 149–212. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Habas L. 1999. “The Marble Furniture,” in Y. Hirschfeld, The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem, pp. 119–132. Hizmi H. 1990. “The Byzantine Church at Khirbet elBeiyûdât: Preliminary Report,” Christian Archaeology: 245–264. Iliffe J.H. 1945. “Imperial Art in Trans-Jordan. Figurines and Lamps from a Potter’s Store at Jerash,” QDAP 11 (Nos. 1–2): 1–26.

[407]

S . B AT Z

Magen Y. 2008. “Oil Production in the Land of Israel in the Early Islamic Period,” Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 257–343. Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstracts). Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraşşaş) and Its Mosaics,” Christian Archaeology: 91–152. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology. circa 200– 800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Mazor G. 2000. “A Church at Khirbet el-Maṣaniʿ North of Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 40: 17*–23* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 159). Negev A. 1997. The Architecture of Oboda, Final Report (Qedem 36), Jerusalem. Nevo Y.D. 1991. Pagans and Herders. A Re-examination of the Negev Runoff Cultivation Systems in the Byzantine and Early Arab Periods, Jerusalem. Peleg M. 1989. “Domestic Pottery,” in V. Tzaferis, Excavations at Capernaum I: 1978–1982, Winona Lake, Indiana, pp. 31–114. Piccirillo M. 1982. “La Chiesa della Vergine a Madaba,” LA 32: 373–408. Piccirillo M. 1992. “La chiesa dei Leoni a Umm al-Rasas— Kastron Mefaa,” LA 42: 199–225.

Piccirillo M. 1997. “La chiesa di San Paolo a Umm alRasas-—Kastron Mefaa,” LA 47: 375–394. Piccirillo M. 1998. “The Mosaics,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–199 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27) Jerusalem, pp. 265–371. Rahmani L.Y. 1964. “Mirror-Plaques from a Fifth-Century A.D. Tomb,” IEJ 14: 50–60. Richardson A.T. 1927. “The Site of Shiloh,” PEFQSt 60: 85–88. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Tsafrir Y. 1988. “The Northern Church,” in Tsafrir Y., Patrich J., Rosenthal-Heginbottom R., Hershkovitz I. and Nevo Y.D. 1988. Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem. Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I, Toronto. Tzaferis V. 1975. “The Archaeological Excavation at Shepherds’ Field,” LA 25: 5–52. Tzaferis V. 1983. The Excavations of Kursi—Gergesa (ʿAtikot 16), Jerusalem. Whitcomb D.S. and Johnson J.H. 1982. Quseir al-Qadim 1980, Preliminary Report, Malibu.

[408]

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CHURCH AT KHIRBET BEIT SILA LEAH DI SEGNI

the right handle of the tabula. The characters, ca. 5 cm high, are traced in black tesserae and belong to the round alphabet. They are roughly shaped, which makes dating difficult; however, they do not appear to be later than the first third of the sixth century. The text began with a cross and ended with a sprig, the latter only partly preserved.

Five Greek inscriptions were discovered in the church.1 Inscription no. 1 is set in the mosaic floor, at the eastern end of the nave in front of the bema. Inscription no. 2 is set in the mosaic at the opposite end of the nave, in front of the main entrance from the narthex. Inscription no. 3 is engraved on a marble slab under the altar, and no. 4, on an altar table fragment found in the course of excavating the church. Inscription no. 5 is engraved on the base of the ambo, which was also discovered in the church.

+ UPERCWT. . . . . . .NTILH 2 MYEWCPETROU. OUPRE CBUTEROUEXWNPARICC 4 ENAUTOUOAGIOCQEOD WROCEPOIHCENTHNPRO 6 CQIKHNTHCEKLHCIACKTH NKONCHNKGHNONTETAK 8 10

Inscription 1 The inscription is set in a tabula ansata beyond the eastern border of the nave mosaic carpet, between the two easternmost columns. The tabula ansata measures 110×57 cm; its length including the handles is 168 cm. The frame consists of two rows of red tesserae separated by two rows of white. Part of the script spills out of the frame and continues beneath

0

10

20

[409]

ATA QECIA MHNOEM BRIWD EKATH

L. DI SEGNI

+ ‛Up™r swt[hr…aj k(aˆ) ¢]ntil»2 myewj Pštrou [t]oà pre sbutšrou: ™x ïn par…sc4 en aÙtoà Ð ¥gioj QeÒd wroj ™po…hsen t¾n pro6 sq…khn tÁj ™klhs…aj k(aˆ) t¾ n kènchn k(aˆ) g»nonte t¦ kata 8 qes…a mh(n…) Noem10 br…J d ek£tV. (cross) For the salvation and succor of Peter the priest; from what Saint Theodore granted him, he made the main body of the church and the apse; and the deposition of relics is done in the month of November, on the tenth (day).

The text presents several phonetic and morphological vulgarisms typical of the period: iotacism (prosq…kh instead of prosq»kh, par…scen instead of paršscen, g»nonte instead of g…(g)nontai), exchange of long and short vowels (kènch instead of kÒnch—the spelling kÒgch is almost forgotten in the Byzantine period), ™klhs…a with a single kappa (the usual spelling of the noun in Palestinian inscriptions of the Byzantine period); genitive instead of dative (aÙtoà for aÙtù, “to him”), the already mentioned reduction of the verb g…gnomai, and the use of the third person plural with a neuter subject, which in classical Greek and koine would require the singular. The term prosq»kh is of interest. Its usual meaning is “addition, increase” or in the financial sense “interest,” but in its application to the context of ecclesiastical architecture the sense of the term is far from obvious. The Liddell and Scott lexicon has no example of such usage. Lampe’s lexicon of patristic Greek explains this particular meaning of the term as “that part of the church which is additional to the sanctuary,” and quotes an inscription from Shaqqa (Sakkaia-Maximianopolis in the province of Arabia), which reads: Okoj ¡g…wn ¢qlofÒrwn martÚrwn

Gewrg…ou kaˆ tîn sÝn aÙtù ¡g…wn: ™k prosfor(©j) Tiber…nou ™pisk(Òpou) ™kt…sqh ™k qemel…wn të ƒerat‹on kaˆ t¾n prosq»khn toà naoà, that is,

“House of the holy victorious martyrs George and his fellow-saints: with the offering of Bishop Tiberinus,

the presbytery and the prosq»kh of the temple were built from the foundations.” An unclear date in the sixth century follows.2 From this example, however, it is not clear whether the prosq»kh fully corresponded to the naÒj—in the restrictive sense of ‘prayer hall,’ i.e., that part of the church accessible to laity, as opposed to the ƒerate‹on, reserved for the clergy—or was an annex of the naÒj, which, together with the ƒerate‹on and the naÒj itself, constituted the whole oŠkoj tîn ¡g…wn martÚrwn. The term occurs four more times in our region in a similar context3: once, in an early seventh century Greek inscription in the church of the Armenian foundation excavated near the Third Wall in Jerusalem4; a second time in an inscription of the second half of the sixth century in a church at Kh. el-Khan (Ḥ . Ḥ anot, map ref. 20453/62438) on the Jerusalem–Eleutheropolis road5; a third time in an inscription from the lost church of Kh. Makkus6; and the fourth time is the case discussed here. The testimony of the latter seems to indicate that prosq»kh indeed signifies a church prayer hall, and not some addition to an existing church, for the present inscription indisputably represents the original dedication of the sacred building, and the term prosq»kh cannot refer to any other part of it but the inner space of the building which, together with kÒnch, Peter arranged and furnished as a cultic place. The use of the present tense in the last sentence may indicate that this part of the inscription was added at the last moment, when all was ready and the day of the inauguration—November 10th—had come. This may be the reason why the text spilled out of the frame: whoever planned the inscription had left just enough space to add the date at the last moment, but when the time of completion came, the patron demanded an explicit mention of “the depositions,” and this required a hasty remaking of the portion of white mosaic beneath the right side of the tabula ansata. Kataqšsion means “repository” for a dead body (i.e., sepulcher) or for relics7; in this context, however, the term clearly indicates the action that took place on November 10th, namely, the deposition of relics in repositories made for this purpose (reliquiaria), or the deposition of such repositories with their contents in the niches prepared to receive them. The use of the plural, kataqšsia, is noteworthy: it reflects the fact that more than one deposition of relics was made in the

[410]

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

church, as the discovery of two reliquaries has proven. The deposition of holy relics under the altar was a formal act necessary for the dedication of a church, at least since the mid-fifth century. Altars without relics did exist, but the Eucharist could not be properly celebrated on them. According to canonical law in some regions of the Empire, altars dedicated to martyrs but containing no relics were to be destroyed.8 On the other hand, there was no necessary connection between the relics and the saint to whom the church was dedicated,9 and the day of dedication was not necessarily the feast of the patron saint, or of the martyrs whose relics were deposed under the altar on that day. The mention of the day of encaenia (inauguration) somewhere visible in the building was extremely important to the faithful of a church; unfortunately for us, it was more important than the mention of the year—for on that date every year they would celebrate the encaenia festival of their church.10 The Georgian Calendar of the Church of Jerusalem faithfully reports the inauguration dates of sacred buildings in the city and its vicinity.11 The saint mentioned in the inscription is St. Theodore, a military martyr very popular in Palestine.12 Peter ascribed his financial success, which enabled him to pay for the construction and decoration of the church, to St. Theodore’s protection. The concept that a church donation is a kind of return of benefits granted from heaven is reminiscent of the liturgical formula t¦ s¦ soˆ prosfšromen, or t¦ s¦ ™k tîn sîn so‹ prosfšromen KÚrie, “O Lord, we offer you what is yours, from your gifts.” In the Greek liturgy this formula was pronounced after the Elevation of the Host, as well as at the foundation of a church, and has parallels also in the Latin liturgy; sometimes it appears in church inscriptions.13 But our inscription recalls even more one found in the so-called Mortuary Church at Gerasa: ‛Upr swthr…aj patrÕj ka… mhtrÕj t¦ Ømîn Øm‹n met¦ eÙcarist…aj prosšnigka, “For the salvation of (my) father and mother I have offered you what is yours in thanksgiving.”14 This inscription was—in our opinion—misinterpreted: the chapel would have been built with money inherited by the donor from his dead parents, who would have been buried in a cave attached to the chapel. But while the cave may well have been used for burial by the family of the donor,15 we cannot learn from the inscription

that his parents were dead when the chapel was built: the formula Øpr swthr…aj is used for the welfare of the living rather than for the eternal salvation of the dead. If the parents were alive, the son had not inherited, and the address in the inscription is not to them but to the saints or martyrs to whom the sacred building was dedicated. If so, the donor built the chapel with money gained through the benevolence of these heavenly patrons, just as Peter the priest built the church at Beit Sila with the gifts of St. Theodore. It is interesting to note that in another case, known from Cyril of Scythopolis’ Life of Sabas, St. Theodore is invoked in connection with money matters, when a silversmith of Jerusalem made a substantial donation to the church dedicated to the martyr in the city in thanksgiving for the recovery of a large quantity of silver that had been stolen from him.16

Inscription 2 The inscription, set in the central passage between the narthex and the nave, is unframed. The script faces east. On its right side is a floret of black and red tesserae. The letters, rather roughly traced in black tesserae, vary greatly in size, from a small ypsilon, 2.5 cm high, to a large nu. stretching to 10 cm. Part of the inscription is abbreviated, part is monogrammed, but all the letters forming the script can be identified without difficulty, and no part of the inscription is missing. The text reads:

QUIWAN

0

10

20

The second letter, a small ypsilon, is overwritten, which clearly marks an abbreviation. Obviously, it is not the usual abbreviation q(eo)à, which as a rule consists of two characters of the same size, surmounted by a horizontal line; nor would the expression “Of the God of John” make much sense here. Invocations to “Lord the God of” this or that saint are quite common, but this is no invocation. The address “Lord” (KÚrie) is

[411]

L. DI SEGNI

more general sense. Therefore we suggest reading the inscription as follows:

absent, and we assume, based on Inscription 1, that the church was dedicated to St. Theodore, not to St. John. The letters QU, often with an overwritten ypsilon, are known as an abbreviation of words other than q(eo)à: M. Avi-Yonah lists qu(g£thr) (daughter), qÚ(ra) (door), qÚ(ma) (sacrifice).17 The first does not make sense in this context. The second possibility makes more sense, since the inscription itself is located on the threshold of the main door of the church; however, why should this door be named after a John? True, he may have been a benefactor who donated this door; in fact, a John, possibly identical to the main church benefactor, is mentioned together with Petrus in the memorial inscription under the altar (no. 3). However, if this John donated the door, we would expect any inscription commemorating the fact to have been located on the door itself, which is not preserved. Moreover, the church doors were not of such monumental size or quality to justify their being named after their donor, as in the famous case of the Temple gate that was named after Nicanor.18 Thus, though this interpretation cannot be excluded, the third possibility seems preferable: QU as the abbreviation of qÚma or another word of the same root: qum…ama or qus…a. All these terms mean “sacrifice,” but also “sacred offering” in a

0

Qu(m…ama) 'Iw£n(n)ou. Offering of John. This would mean that this part of the church—probably the nave mosaic carpet—was donated by John, while Peter, the main benefactor, paid for constructing the prayer hall and decorating the presbytery. The spelling of the name 'Iw£nnhj with one nu is not unusual.19

Inscription 3 A rectangular marble slab, 119 cm long, 86 cm wide and 4 cm thick, was discovered in situ in the church apse, where the altar had stood. The slab has a central hole that gave access to a reliquary located under the altar; beyond its eastern border was another niche for a reliquary. The slab had a projecting frame, 5 cm wide. From literary sources we learn that oil could be poured into a reliquary through a funnel (cènh) inserted into the lid. The oil would thus come into contact with the relic, the excess spilling out on the slab surface, whence it could be collected and used to anoint the sick.20 The projecting border of the slab

10

[412]

20

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

prevented oil from spilling onto the presbytery floor. The stone surface is polished except for four squares at the corners, which were left rough to support the altar legs. A three-line inscription was engraved in the lower part of the slab, between the two front legs. The letters, 3–4 cm high, are finely cut, of elegant oval shape, and show some traits—especially the drop-shaped omicron and theta—indicating a date slightly later than the mosaic inscription at the foot of the bema. This can be explained by surmising that the marble slab was not made locally, but ordered from a city workshop which was more up-to-date as to current fashions; alternatively, the slab was installed some years after the church had been inaugurated, in place of an earlier and more modest altar base. The text reads:

UMKANAPAUCTWNADELFWNHMWN 2 PETROUIWANNOUMARIACANACTACIAC MARIACK  ANDREOUTWNFILOCRICTON haedera ‘Up(r) mn»(mhj) k(aˆ) ¢napaÚs(ewj) tîn ¢delfîn ¹mîn 2 Pštrou, 'Iw£nnou, Mar…aj, 'Anastas…aj, Mar…aj k(aˆ) 'Andršou tîn filocr…ston.

For the memory and rest of our Christ-loving brothers Peter, John, Mary, Anastasia, Mary, and Andrew. The first two words are abbreviated with overwritten and underwritten letters. A small pi hangs over the ypsilon of Øpšr and a small nu over the mu of mn»mhj. In addition, a small cursive pi is redundantly added below the ypsilon, slightly to its left, and a small eta occupies the space between ypsilon and mu and beneath them. The spelling is correct, except for the exchange of omicron instead of omega in filocr…stwn. The term “brothers” does not, of course, mean brethren in a monastic sense, for no mixed community—such as those sometimes mentioned in fourth century Syria—ever existed in Palestine. The people commemorated in the inscription were either real siblings, or members of the same village community and possibly of the same clan. Their names are all common Christian biblical names and

tell us nothing of their ethnic background. Two of the names, Peter and John, are also mentioned in the dedicatory inscriptions in the mosaic floor, and if they referred to the same men, this would prove the inscription on the marble slab to be later than the mosaic inscriptions. However, as both names are quite common, it is impossible to say whether one or both indicated persons other than the benefactors mentioned in the mosaic floor.

Inscription 4 Two adjoining fragments of an altar table were discovered in the church. One (A), 18 cm long and 4 cm thick, forms the front left corner of the table and bears the initial cross and the first four letters—the last slightly incomplete—of the dedicatory inscription decorating the front of the altar. The other fragment (B), 36 cm long, contains eight more letters, besides the remnants of the fourth letter of the first fragment. A monogram, formed by a xi and a chi, followed by a small cross, is engraved on the back of fragment B, that is, on the bottom of the table. This was probably a stonecutter’s mark. The letters in both fragments are 1.6–2.6 cm high, elegantly shaped, and exhibit several characteristics—“collared” ypsilon, rho with a curly loop, alpha with a long decorative serif in the middle bar – pointing to a date not earlier than the second half of the sixth century.

0

a. + UPER



[413]

5

10

b. EUCHCCRU - -

+ ‘Upr eÙcÁj Cru[s…ppou? - - - 

(cross) For the vow of Chry[sippus? - - - ]

L. DI SEGNI

Chrysippus is the most common of several names beginning with Cru-, but there are other possibilities, like Crus£fioj, CrÚsanqoj, and so on. All these are Greek names that show a different cultural, but not necessarily ethnic, background from the plain Christian names of the other people mentioned in the inscriptions in the church. The name was probably followed by a title (presbyter, deacon?) or by other names that filled up a major part of the entire length of the table.

diameter of the base is 101 cm, each side measures 58 cm, and the stone slab is 8 cm thick. The script occupies three adjoining sides; it begins with a cross and ends with a decoration composed of two sprigs from which a cross arises. The letters, 2.5–3 cm high, are finely cut and show the drop-shaped omicron and theta that appear not earlier than ca. 540 CE. This handsome piece of furniture was not made locally, and was possibly installed some time after the inauguration of the church, but not many years after that, for the same benefactor, Peter the priest, is mentioned in the dedication. The text reads:

Inscription 5 This inscription was engraved on the hexagonal base of the ambo that was discovered in the church. The

0

10

[414]

20

G R E E K I N S C R I P T I O N S F R O M T H E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T B E I T S I L A

+ KEPROCDEXAITH . KARPOFO RIANTOUDOULOUCOUPETROUT OUPRECBUTEROU

+ K(Úri)e prosdšxai t¾[n] karpofo-

r…an toà doÚlou soà Pštrou toà presbutšrou. (cross) O Lord, accept the offering of Thy servant Peter the priest.

This is the commonest formula of dedicatory inscription. Summing up, the inscriptions in the church form a homogeneous group and express the activity of two

main patrons: Peter the priest, who provided for the construction, the decoration of the apse, and the ambo, and John, who probably donated the mosaic carpet in the prayer hall. They may have been members of the same extended family, some members of which were commemorated on the altar base. The dedications may all belong to the same phase, if the stone carvings were ordered from workshops with a keener eye for fashion than that of the mosaic workers who made the floor and may well have been village artisans. On the other hand, it is also possible that the church was first installed with the mere cultic necessities, and only later was it embellished with the rich stone and marble furniture discovered in it.

Notes I would like to thank the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria for allowing me to publish the inscriptions from S. Batz excavation (License Nos. 776, 893, and 1096), see Batz, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in this volume. 2 CIG: no. 8603; Waddington and Le Bas 1870: 505–506, no. 2158, and cf. Lampe 1968: 1171, s.v. prosq»kh, 5. For the date (566/7 or 564/5?), see Meimaris 1992: 326–327, no. 4. 3 Interestingly enough, a similar usage is not attested, to my knowledge, in other regions rich in Christian buildings and epigraphy, for instance in Egypt or Asia Minor. 4 SEG XLIII: no. 1063; photo in Amit and Wolff 1993: 56. On this church, see also Amit and Wolff 1994. 5 For the inscription, see Di Segni 2003; for the church, see Shenhav 1986; 2003. 6 Gibson, Vitto, and Di Segni 1998, esp. discussion at pp. 329–333. 7 See Lampe 1968: 708, s.v. kataqšsion. 8 Registri Ecclesiae Cathaginensis excerpta 83, Munier (ed.) 1974: 204–205. 9 For instance, in the church of St. Stephen built by Eudocia in Jerusalem, the empress deposed the relics of the martyrs Callinicus, Domninus, Thecla and others, as is attested by an inscription found near the Tombs of the Kings, where the church stood: SEG VIII: no. 192. 10 For this reason, the day and month of the inauguration are often registered in church building inscriptions. A lintel from el-Juwezi (Golan: SEG VIII: no. 29), explicitly mentions the significance of the foundation date, for it reads: “The encaenia of St. Mark is on August 15.” 11 The military martyr Theodorus (there may be confusion 1

between two soldier martyrs of this name: see Meimaris 1986: 130–131) was commemorated in Jerusalem no less than eight (or nine) times in the course of the year: on February 9 and 20, on March 10 (originally a mobile feast on the first Saturday of Lent), on June 2, 3, and 8, on August 8 on December 12, and possibly also on October 2: Garitte 1958: 154, 162, 174–175, 239, 241–242, 245, 297, 337, 347, 407–408. A commemoration on May 21 was held in a village called Gebale or Gelbane, perhaps el-Jib, ancient Gabaon (Garitte 1958: 230; Milik 1960: 579, no. 69; Verhelst 2004: 17, 25, 30, 70, no. 56). There is no mention in the Georgian calendar of a feast of St. Theodore, or of the inauguration of a church of St. Theodore on November 10, but this is only to be expected, for the Georgian calendar only records celebrations in villages in the near vicinity of Jerusalem. 12 For a list of the cult places of this saint attested in inscriptions, see Meimaris 1986: 131–132. To Meimaris’ list we can add a church of St. Theodore in Jize, west of Bostra (Savignac and Abel 1905: 597, no. 4), more examples from ʿAvdat and ʿEn ʿAvdat (Negev 1981: 36, 38, 42–43, nos. 26, 31, 43 = SEG XXVIII: nos. 1377, 1380, 1404; SEG XLI: no. 1542), one from Madaba (SEG XXXI: no. 1473), and one from Jerusalem, known from a literary source (Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, ch. 78, Schwartz (ed.) 1939: 185). 13 Examples from Syria (IGLS II, no. 694; IV, no. 1693), the Hauran (Alt 1951), Mount Nebo (Di Segni 1998: 453, no. 12a), Carmel in Judaea (Bagatti 2002: 95). 14 Welles 1938: 486, no. 333. 15 But not necessarily: Palestine is full of churches that were built on caves or ancient tombs and made into a focus of veneration: cf. Di Segni 2006–2007.

[415]

L. DI SEGNI

See above, note 11. Avi-Yonah 1940: 70. 18 M Yoma 3:6, and cf. CIJ II, no. 1256. 19 See, for instance, two cases on Mount Nebo: Di Segni 1998: 441, 446, nos. 39, 48. 16 17

Cf. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius, chs. 42, 52, 54 (Schwartz 1939: 61, 75–76); Antonius Chozibita, Miracles of the Holy Virgin in Choziba, ch. 6 (Houze 1888). 20

References Sources

Antonius Chozibita, Houze C. (ed.), 1888. “Antonius Chozibita, Miracula Beatae Virginis in Choziba,” AB 7: 368–369. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii, vita sabae E. Schwartz (ed.), 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49 ii), Leipzig, pp. 3–85, 85–200. Di Segni L. (transl.). 2005. Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Studies

Alt A. 1951. “Eine christlische Asylinschrift aus dem Ostjordanland?,” ZDPV 68: 246–248. Amit D. and Wolff S. 1993. “Excavations of an Early Armenian Monastery in the Morasha Neighborhood of Jerusalem,” Qadmoniot 26 (102–103): 52–56 (Hebrew). Amit D. and Wolff S. 1994. “An Armenian Monastery in the Morasha Neighborhood, Jerusalem,” in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 293–298. Avi-Yonah M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (QDAP, Supplement to vol. 9), Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev, Jerusalem. Di Segni L. 1998. The Greek Inscriptions, in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds.), The Memorial of Moses. The Results of the Excavations (1949–1995) (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 425– 467. Di Segni L. 2003. “A Greek Inscription in the Church at Horvat Hanot,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and M. Piccirillo (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 273–276. Di Segni L. 2006–2007. “On the Development of Christian Cult Sites on Tombs of the Second Temple Period,” ARAM 18–19: 381–401.

Garitte G. 1958. Le Calendrier Palestino-Géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle) (Subsidia hagiographica 30), Bruxelles. Gibson S., Vitto F., and Di Segni L. 1998. “An Unknown Church with Inscriptions from the Byzantine Period at Khurbet Makkus near Julis,” LA 48: 315–334. Lampe G.W.H. 1968. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford. Meimaris Y.E. 1986. Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Christian Church of Palestine, Athens. Meimaris Y.E. 1992. Chronological Systems in Roman– Byzantine Palestine and Arabia. The Evidence of the Dated Greek Inscriptions (MELETHMATA 17), Athens. Milik J.T. 1960. “Sanctuaires chrétiens de Jérusalem à l’époque arabe (VIIe–Xe siècles),” RB 67: 354–367, 550– 586. Munier C. 1974. Concilia Africae A. 345–A. 525, CCSL 149: 204–205, Turnhout. Negev A. 1981. The Greek Inscriptions of the Negev (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 25), Jerusalem. Savignac R. and Abel F.-M. 1905. “Chronique. Inscriptions grecques et latines,” RB 14: 596–606. Shenhav E. 1986. Horvat Hanot (Kh. El-Khan), ESI 5: 46-47. Shenhav E. 2003. “Horvat Hanot—A Byzantine Tradition of Goliath’s Burial Place”, in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and M. Piccirillo (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 269–272. Verhelst S. 2004. “Les lieux de station du lectionnaire de Jérusalem,” Proche–Orient Chrétien 54: 13–70, 247–289. Waddington W.H. and Le Bas P. 1870. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions et explications II, Paris. Welles C.B. 1938. “The Inscriptions,” in C.H. Kraeling, Gerasa, City of the Decapolis. New Haven (Conn.), pp. 355–615.

[416]

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET EL-LAṭAṭIN UZI GREENFELD

Kh. el-Laṭaṭin is a comparatively large site (ca. 4 dunams) situated on a plateau at an altitude of ca. 775 m above sea level (map ref. IOG 16600/14174; ITM 21600/64174), some 400 m north of Givʿat Zeʾev (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 Owing to its position on a junction of roads leading to Jerusalem, it was surveyed on several occasions.2 A number of scholars identify it as the way station appearing on the Madaba Mosaic Map as To Ennaton, which was located on the ninth Roman mile on the road from Jerusalem to Beth Ḥoron.3 The site included a church, situated on the main road, probably for the use of pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.

THE CHURCH Three main building phases were discerned in the church (Figs. 1–2): In the first phase, during the Byzantine period (fifth century), the church was erected. It comprised a narthex, a prayer hall, and a chancel with pastophoria. They were paved in white mosaic except for the chancel, which was embellished with a colorful geometric mosaic floor. In the second phase, during the six century, a splendid chapel comprising a long hall with a colorful mosaic floor was built on the church’s north. In the third and final phase, at the Umayyad period in the seventh and eighth centuries, walls of the first phase were widened to enable the installation of oil presses.

Phase I During the fifth century a basilical church was built. Its outer dimensions, including the narthex, are 20.60×12.20 m. The narthex’s inner dimensions are 10.60×2.60 m (Fig. 3). The narthex western wall

(W1002) is a later addition to a wall beneath it from the same construction phase. The northern and southern narthex walls (W1023, W1014) are 0.80 m wide. The eastern wall of the narthex (W1031), whose vestiges were discerned underneath a later wall (W1017), is 0.70 m wide, and has three openings connecting the narthex and prayer hall. The central opening leads to the nave, while the two smaller ones lead to the aisles in the north and south. The prayer hall, whose inner dimensions are 12.60×10.60 m, is divided into a nave and two aisles. The chancel is at the eastern end of the nave, and the eastern ends of both aisles are flanked by pastophoria. The northern wall of the prayer hall (W102) was later covered by W1011. The southern wall of the prayer hall (W1001), built above an earlier wall, is 0.85 m thick. Remains of an engraved tabula ansata were revealed in the threshold of the opening in this wall. The nave is separated from the aisles by two rows of columns. In the east it is delimited by a step leading up to the chancel, and in the west by W1031. The northern aisle, measuring 12.60×2.60 m, is delimited in the south by the northern stylobate, in the west by the church’s western wall, and in the east by the northern pastophorium (Fig. 4). The southern aisle, measuring 12.60×2.30 m, is delimited in the north by the southern stylobate, in the south by W1001, and in the west by W1031, which has an opening affording access from the narthex (Fig. 5). In the east, it is delimited by the southern pastophorium (see below). The eastern section of the nave includes the chancel, comprising the bema and the apse, which measures 5.60×4.70 m. It was paved with a well-preserved mosaic floor revealing colorful geometric patterns. In its center an altar table base with a reliquary niche was found, sunken into the earlier mosaic (Fig. 6).4

[417]

U. Greenfeld

765.74

W1033

765.55

W1000

766.06

W1030 765.60 765.50

W1007

765.86

W1006

765.75 765.40

765.90 765.45

W1032

W1001

765.77

765.60

W1003

W1011

765.72

765.30

765.70

765.85

765.40 765.55

765.60

W1031 W1017

765.10

765.55

765.40

W1002

W1014

W1023

765.40

0

5

765.41

Fig. 1. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, detailed plan of the church.

[418]

m

764.10 764.88

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L- L A ṭ A ṭ I N

Fig. 2. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, the church, view from the west.

Fig. 3. Narthex, view from the south.

Fig. 4. Northern aisle, view from the west.

[419]

U. Greenfeld

Fig. 5. Southern aisle, view from the west.

Fig. 6. Chancel, view from the west.

[420]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L- L A ṭ A ṭ I N

Frescoes evidently covered the apse walls. The bema, higher than the prayer hall floor by ca. 0.4 m, was reached by a step, which contained a socket for one of the posts supporting the chancel screen. The northern pastophorium measures 3.00×2.50 m. Its mosaic floor is no longer extant, but evidently abutted the walls. A stone slab embedded in the floor in the area dividing this room from the northern aisle contains two sockets for chancel screen posts (Fig. 7). One of the posts was recovered, and although it was not found in situ, the dimensions of its base correspond to those of the sockets. The southern pastophorium, measuring 2.30×2.30 m, was paved in white mosaic. It also had an oblong stone slab embedded in the floor at the passageway between this room and the southern aisle. The slab (W1030) probably bore posts that supported a screen to separate this room from the aisle, as in the northern room.

Phase II During the sixth century, the church was enlarged by the addition of a chapel in the north, probably due to a considerable rise in the number of pilgrims converging on Jerusalem. The church and chapel’s outer dimensions are 20.60×17.80 m. The chapel includes a hall, 13.60×5.00 m, and a room, 5.00×3.50 m, to its east, which served as a bema. The room is delimited in the west by W1007. The unpaved bema is built upon the bedrock, which is higher here than the chapel floor. The hall is paved with a colorful mosaic that was preserved below walls erected during the structure’s third phase, in the Umayyad period. A pulpit was installed in the hall, northwest of the bema (Fig. 8). The chapel’s western wall was not found during the excavation, but probably was the continuation of W1002. The chapel is delimited in the north by W1003, in the east by W1033, which is a continuation of W1000 to the north, and in the south by W1011, which replaces the northern wall (W1032) of the first phase church. The new wall stood further from the northern stylobate, thus broadening the northern aisle by 0.40 m. Passage from the church to the chapel was afforded by openings in this wall. The western opening is 1.20 m wide, the eastern one, 1.00 m wide. A long, narrow, carefully worked stone was integrated into the floor of the eastern opening,

Fig. 7. Northern pastophorium, view from the west.

Fig. 8. Chapel, the pulpit, view from the northwest.

possibly part of a chancel screen panel in secondary use.

Phase III The structure’s final phase dated to the Umayyad period, when the church was no longer in use and

[421]

U. Greenfeld

several oil presses had been installed in it. Walls of the first phase were widened to enable the installation of the oil presses. It seems that a small section of white mosaic that covered the first phase mosaic floor in the apse belongs to this phase, as does most of the pottery recovered in the excavations.5 A socket for the pressing device and a collecting pit were observed in the narthex (see Fig. 3). No remnants of weights were discovered here, but the dimensions of a weight from another pressing device in the northern aisle correspond to those of the socket in the narthex. South of the narthex was another press with all its elements (Fig. 9): the collecting pit, the pressing device, and the beam-supporting scaffold, which was discerned in the upper section of what was formerly the church’s southern wall (W1014).

Fig. 9. The collecting pit, the pressing installation, and the beam-supporting scaffold, south of the narthex.

At a later stage of this phase, probably the final one, a crushing device was installed in the chapel and, as stated, a pressing installation, all of its elements extant, was installed in the northern aisle (see Fig. 4). It appears that W1006, in the east of this aisle, was erected at this stage; it includes a niche for the beam of the pressing installation.

MOSAIC FLOORS

Phase I Mosaic Floors Large sections of the church mosaic floors have survived in the narthex, southern aisle, and chancel, while in the nave and northern aisle only a few fragments are extant. The narthex, nave, and aisles were paved in white mosaic enclosed by a black frame, while the pastophoria were paved in crude white mosaic. The chancel mosaic was intact and decorated with colorful geometric patterns. The apse and the edges of the bema carpet were paved with white tesserae set diagonally, and indented squares are inlaid against the white background. The bema carpet includes a square central panel surrounded by three rectangular panels separated by two rows of black tesserae (Fig. 10). The square panel is enclosed by two frames. The outer frame is adorned with a guilloche (B3*)6 consisting of strips in ocher, red and gray, while the inner frame consists of rows of tesserae in white, red, ocher and black. The panel is adorned with interlocked circles and squares (J2*) that intertwine with the inner frame. In the center of the circles and squares are various decorative motifs. South and north of the central panel are two rectangular panels whose frames consist of one row of red tesserae and another of black. Their patterns are similar, but not identical: a grid of intersecting octagons forming squares and elongated hexagons (H3*). The hexagons, adorned with “rainbow style” patterns, are separated by squares featuring various motifs, including a checkerboard, a zigzag line, and interwoven ellipses. The rectangular panel east of the central one has a grid of squares consisting of red and black tesserae. Each square is adorned with a small lozenge. The mosaics in the narthex and prayer hall

[422]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L- L A ṭ A ṭ I N

Fig. 10. Chancel mosaic floor.

are mainly of white tesserae, 30 per sq. dm. The chancel mosaic floor is richer than the others and is comprised of seven colors: red, black, two shades of gray, ocher, yellow and white, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm.

Phase II Mosaic Floors The mosaics of this phase are not well preserved. The earlier chancel mosaic was overlaid with a new one, of which only a small fragment remains in the apse. The mosaic carpet’s margins were white, and its main pattern cannot be reconstructed. A section of the mosaic in the chapel survived underneath a later wall, enabling us to reconstruct the whole pattern (Fig. 11). Its broad margins were set with diagonal rows of white tesserae forming

Fig. 11. Segment of the chapel mosaic floor, view from the west.

[423]

U. Greenfeld

a herringbone pattern, at the center of which was a row of buds in black and brick-red tesserae. The carpet frame, a 0.60 m- wide band, consists of three strips. The two lateral strips are decorated with a wave pattern in red tesserae, while the central strip is adorned with a guilloche. The carpet field is decorated with a colorful pattern consisting of pairs of interlocking elongated hexagons with two concave sides forming various geometric shapes: circles, octagons, and lozenges, as well as triangles and semicircles along the frame. The three octagons and the circle that survived are occupied by a bear (Fig. 12) and a bird (Fig. 13). At the front of the bema, a few fragments of a separate panel reveal a tabula ansata flanked by two birds, of which only the northern one survived. A few letters of the inscription are extant, and above its handle additional letters are visible (Fig. 14). It reads7: Of Kyrikos the deacon. The colorful chapel mosaic includes twelve hues: white, black, yellow, brown, green, three shades of

Fig. 13. Bird in the chapel mosaic floor.

Fig. 12. Bear in the chapel mosaic floor.

[424]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L- L A ṭ A ṭ I N

Fig. 14. Bird and inscription in the chapel bema mosaic floor.

red, two shades of gray, and two shades of ocher. It was laid using 100 tesserae per sq. dm along the margins and 216 tesserae per sq. dm in the head of the male bear. Some of the tesserae are round and minute. The quality of the animal’s details, which included the use of variously shaped tesserae, indicates that this mosaic dates to the third quarter of the sixth century.

Liturgical Furniture Chancel Screen

The excavation uncovered numerous fragments of the limestone chancel screen panels that had bordered the chancel and were adorned with various patterns. One of the panels was almost wholly reconstructed (Fig. 15). It was found in secondary

[425]

U. Greenfeld

use as a kind of rim around the collecting vat in the oil press later erected in the narthex.8 The panel surface is enclosed by a recessed frame. The relief decoration in the center includes a cross encircled by a stylized wreath of acanthus leaves, while the space between this motif and the frame is decorated with clover leaves and lilies.9

Altar Table

The base of a limestone altar table (sacra mensa) with a hewn reliquary niche, 0.60×0.30 m, was discovered in the apse as mentioned above. The niche includes a rectangular cell, 0.20 m deep, for the reliquary, and to its west, a shallow, concave depression that probably held some sacramental liquid (Fig. 16).10 Fig. 15. Chancel screen panel.

Fig. 16. Altar table base. Note the reliquary niche in the center.

[426]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L- L A ṭ A ṭ I N

Summary In the first phase, during the fifth century, a small church was erected at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, mainly for the use of the pilgrims traveling on the road to Jerusalem. In the second phase, during the sixth century, perhaps owing to an increase in the number of pilgrims, the church was enlarged by

the addition of a splendid chapel in the north. The church continued in service until the end of the Byzantine period. Following the church’s abandonment during the Umayyad period, three oil presses were installed inside the structure. The site continued to be occupied until the end of the Mamluk period, after which it was never resettled.

notes 1 The Church at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin was excavated by Y. Selinger (License No. 706) in May 1995, and under the direction of U. Greenfeld in May 2007 (License No. 1119), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. 2 SWP III: 118; the reports of D.C. Baramki from 1935 and S.A.S. Husseini from 1940 and 1942 in the IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 126, Kh. Latatīn; Kochavi 1972: 181, Site No. 112; Avi-Yonah 1976: 102; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 69, Site No. 60; Selinger 1998: 77–84. An excavation under the direction of M. Itah in 1993 exposed an oil press in a cave at the site (see JSRF L-570). 3 See Thomsen 1907: 61. P. Thomsen’s identification has been accepted by many other scholars (Alt 1927: 25–26; Abel 1938: 318; Avi-Yonah 1954: 148; Tabula: 251; Selinger 1998: 83–84). The source of the name Laṭaṭin has not been established with certainty. G. Dalman (1913: 18) proposed that it derives from the Latin “lattūn/ attūn,” a lime oven, which connects it with the actual lime ovens observed at the site.

Selinger 1998: 77. The pottery from Kh. el-Laṭaṭin will be published in the JSP Series. 6 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 7 For more about the inscription, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from the Northern Chapel at Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin,” in this volume. 8 The secondary use of a chancel screen panel for flooring was also observed at Ein el-Ḥ anniya (Baramki 1934: Pl. XXXVII:1). 9 A panel employing the identical technique and adorned with a similar design was discovered at Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XIX: 5). 10 Reliquaries are known from other churches in the area. The base of an altar table with a reliquary niche was found in the Church of St. Stephanus at Umm er-Rasas, dating from the sixth to the eighth or ninth centuries (Piccirillo 1994: 83, Fig. 38). 4 5

references Abel F.-M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II, Paris. Alt A. 1927. “Das Istitut im Iahre 1926. Die Uusflüge,” PJ 23: 29–50. Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Baramki D.C. 1934. “An Early Christian Basilica at ʿEin Hanniya,” QDAP 3: 113–117. Colt H.D. 1962. “Architectural Details,” in H.D. Colt (ed.),

Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 48–51. Dalman G. 1913. “Jahresbericht des Instituts für das Arbeitsjahr 1911/12,” PJ 8: 1–63. Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstracts). Piccirillo M. 1994. “Gli scavi del complesso di Santo

[427]

U. Greenfeld

Stefano,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata (eds.), Umm alRasas Mayfaʿah I: Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 28), Jerusalem, pp. 69–110. Selinger Y. 1998. “The Identification of the Jerusalem–Lydda (Diospolis) Roman Road on the Madaba Map and Khirbet el-Latatin,” BAIAS 16: 75–84.

Thomsen P. 1907. Loca Sancta. Verzeichnis der im 1. Bis 6 Jahrhundert n. chr. erwäehnten Ortschaften Palästinas, Haupt.

[428]

GREEK INSCRPTION FROM the Northern Chapel at KHIRBET EL-LAṬ AṬ IN LEAH DI SEGNI

A Greek inscription framed in a tabula ansata was inserted in the mosaic floor at the eastern end of the northern chapel.1 Only the upper left corner of the tabula ansata is preserved, with part of the left handle and the beginning of three lines of script. The frame consisted of two rows of colored tesserae—the outer one black, the inner red—on a white background. The handle enclosed a triangle traced in red tesserae. The rectangular panel of the tabula ansata contained rectangles traced in red tesserae, each framing a line of the inscription. The attachment point of the triangular handle shows that the entire inscription consisted of four lines, each enclosed in a red frame. The letters are traced in black tesserae, as is a cross marking the beginning of the inscription. In addition, some letters, also made of black tesserae, were inscribed outside the tabula ansata, above the handle. These are remarkable for a twice-repeated ligature of kappa and ypsilon. The last preserved character, an alpha, may have been followed by a small lifted letter that disappeared in a break of the mosaic. As a rule, lifted letters mark an abbreviation2; but with or without

this additional character, the surviving letters can be identified with reasonable certainty as a truncated form of the word diavkono"—here in the genitive.3 Thus the inscription reads:

KURKUDIA Kur(ia)k(o)u dia(kÒnou) or dia[k(Ònou)]. Of Kyrikos the deacon. This is probably the ‘signature’ of the person in charge of the work, rather than of the artist, though the latter cannot be excluded. Of the inscription in the tabula ansata, only the beginning of three of the four lines can be made out. They are: + EP - CTA - AR - ----

[429]

L. DI SEGNI

The inscription is too broken to be deciphered. However, building inscriptions in churches usually follow a well-known formula: ‘In the days of so-andso (name of the bishop or of the priest in charge at the time of the building or of the laying of the mosaic floor) this work was done’. Based on this pattern, we may attempt a tentative restoration, for instance:

+ 'Ep[ˆ toà ¡giwt(£tou) kaˆ qeofil(est£tou) 'Ana-] sta [s…ou ¡rciepiskÒpou kaˆ patri-] £r[cou ™gšneto tÕ p©n œrgon ----.] [----------------------] (cross) In the days of [the most holy and Godloving Ana]sta[sius, archbishop and patri[ar[ch, all the work of the mosaic floor (?) was done.] Anastasius was archbishop of Jerusalem—in whose boundaries Kh. el-Laṭaṭin was situated—from 458 to 478, a date that fits well the shape of the letters—at least those few that survived—though not the dating of the mosaic floor of the chapel, according to its style. However, the shape of the letters can also fit a dating in the first half of the sixth century, which would be acceptable, considering the style of the mosaic. An alternative restoration can be attempted, with shorter lines and different presumed proportions of the tabula ansata, better fitting the width of the chapel; e.g.:

+ 'Ep[ˆ toà Ðsiwt(£tou) or qeofil(est£tou) ’Ana-] sta[s…ou presb(utšrou) kaˆ] ¢r[cimandr…tou ™gšne-] [to toàto tÕ œrgon.] (cross) In the days of [the most saintly (or: the most God-loving) Ana]sta[sius, priest and] ar[chimandrite, this work was done.] The mention of an archimandrite, the head of a monastery, does not necessarily mean that the church belonged to a monastery. If Kh. el-Laṭaṭin is correctly identified with the road station of ‘The Ninth Mile’, on the Jerusalem–Lydda road,4 conceivably the

basilica was not a parochial church serving a village community, but fulfilled a function for the travellers along the road. Not all sacred building attached to a road station was primarily a pilgrim church, namely, a place consecrated to a special memory of biblical or early Christian holiness. Some probably fulfilled a hospitality function, as part of a Church-founded hostel (xenodochium). An example of such function is the xenodochium sancti Georgii described by the Piacenza Pilgrim, and identified with Mizpe Shivta, where monks received the travellers.5 Another example is St. Peter’s church, erected by Empress Eudocia beside a cistern she built for the relief of the travellers on the Jerusalem–Jericho road.6 Lodging in a church along the road is sometimes mentioned in late antique sources.7 A Greek inscription in the church beside the road station of Kh. el-Khan shows that a priest and hegumen was in charge of the sacred building.8 In both cases, as a pilgrimage site and as a hospitality resort, the church would have needed the service of a monastic community, if only a small one, under the leadership of an abbot. Such a state of things would fit well the restoration of the inscription suggested above. There is, however, a difficulty: in the Jerusalem area the term archimandrite, commonly used elsewhere to describe the head of a monastery, seems to be reserved to a special ecclesiastical function—the supervision of all the monasteries of the diocese— traditionally entrusted to the heads of the Great Laura of St. Sabas and St. Theodosius’coenobium.9 Against this background, the appropriation of the title archimandrite by the head of a modest monastic community attached to the church of Kh. el-Laṭaṭin seems unlikely. On the other hand, one Anastasius was archimandrite of the coenobites in the diocese of Jerusalem between ca. 481 and ca. 491,10 and it is possible that, if there was no monastery attached to the church, the monks who served there depended directly from the archimandrite in Jerusalem. This suggestion is hypothetical, and therefore the reconstruction of the inscription and of the function of the church must remain in doubt.

[430]

G R E E K I N S C R P T I O N F R O M t h e N ort h ern C h a pe l at K H I R B E T E L - LAṬ AṬ I N

Notes I would like to thank the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria for allowing me to publish the inscriptions from U. Greenfeld (License No. 1119) excavation, see U. Greenfeld, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin,” in this volume. 2 Avi-Yonah 1940: 29–30. 3 For the many abbreviations of this word, very frequent in church inscriptions, see Avi-Yonah 1940: 59. 4 For this identification, see Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 251. 5 Antonini Piacentini Itinerarium 35, ed. Geyer 1965: 146– 147; Baumgarten 1993; Figueras 1995: 420–423. 6 Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii 35, Schwartz (ed.) 1939: 53; transl. Di Segni 2005: 114–115; Hirschfeld 1992: 56–58; 2002: 154–156. The complex includes a living quarters next to the church and the cistern, and should be viewed as a hostel manned by monks, rather than a proper monastery. Hostels manned by monks, some adjacent to a monastery, others standing by themselves, are frequently mentioned in the hagiographic sources or epigraphically attested: see Leclercq 1925; Hirschfeld 1992: 196-200; IGLS IV: no. 1750; IGLS XXI, 2: no. 163. 7 See for instance John Rufus, Life of Peter the Iberian 188, Horn and Phenix (ed. and transl.) 2008: 272–273. 1

Shenhav 2003; Di Segni 2003. For a change of focus in the hospitality duty along the roads, see also Di Segni 2004: 146–151. 9 Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 30; Vita Theodosii 4; Schwartz (ed.) 1939: 114–115, 239; cf. Di Segni 2005: 165, note 129. The abbot of St. Sabas was responsible for the lauras, and had as a deputy the head of the Laura of Gerasimus; the abbot of St. Theodosius was responsible for the coenobia, and had as a deputy the head of Martyrius’ Monastery. In fact, the only mention of an archimandrite in inscription from the Jerusalem region refers to the abbot of Martyrius’ monastery: see Di Segni 1990. On the use of the term in Palestine and vicinity, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume. 10 This Anastasius was appointed to the office when Gerontius, the head of Melania’s monasteries, had to relinquish the office and to abandon Jerusalem, owing to his refuse to accept communion with the Chalcedonian mainstream: Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii 45, Schwartz (ed.) 1939: 66–67. The date of his expulsion is not quite certain: it occurred after 479, possibly in 481 or 484. See Perrone 1980: 39, note 9, 135, note 110; Di Segni 2005: 127, note 254. Anastasius was succeeded by Marcianus in 491/2: Di Segni 2005: 165, note 129. 8

Refrences Sources

Antonini Placentini Itinerarium, P. Geyer (ed.). 1965, Itineraria et alia geographica, CCSL 175, Turnhout: 127–153. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii; Vita Sabae; Vita Theodosii, E. Schwartz (ed,). 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis (TUGL 49 ii), Leipzig, pp. 3–85; 85–200; 235–241. Di Segni L. (transl.). 2005. Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew). John Rufus: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus, C.B. Horn and R.R. Phenix Jr. (eds. and transl.), 2008, Atlanta.

Studies

Avi-Yonah M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (QDAP, Supplement to vol. 9), Jerusalem. Baumgarten Y. 1993. “Mizpe Shivta,” NEAEHL III: 1058– 1061. Di Segni L. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale

Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ): The Inscriptions,” Christian Archaeology: 153–163. Di Segni L. 2003. “A Greek Inscription in the Church at Horvat Hanot,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and D. Chrupcala (eds.) One Land—Many Cultures. Archaeological studies in honour of Fr S. Loffreda, OFM (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 273–276. Di Segni L. 2004. “The Beersheba Tax Edict Reconsidered in the Light of a Newly Discovered Fragment,” SCI 23: 131–158. Figueras P. 1995. “Monks and Monasteries in the Negev Desert,” LA 45: 401–450. Hirschfeld Y. 1992. The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period, New Haven and London. Hirschfeld Y. 2002. The Desert of the Holy City, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Leclercq H. 1925. Hôpitaux. Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie VI, Paris, pp. 2748–2770.

[431]

L. DI SEGNI

Perrone L. 1980. La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche: Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553), Brescia. Shenhav E. 2003. “Horvat Hanot. A Byzantine Tradition of Goliath’s Burial Place,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures.

Archaeological studies in honour of Fr S. Loffreda (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 269–272. Tsafrir Y., Di Segni L., and Green J. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani—Judaea-Palestina, Jerusalem.

[432]

THE CHANCEL MOSAIC FLOOR OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET EL-LAṭ Aṭ IN KAREN C. BRITT

The church at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin (map ref. IOG 166000/141748; ITM 216000/641748), located northwest of Jerusalem and excavated in 1995, appears to correspond with Το Έννα[τον] on the sixth century CE Madaba Map mosaic, which, in turn, led the excavator to identify the site as a Byzantine road station at the ninth mile marker.1 The church is a monoapsidal basilica with two aisles terminating in square rooms that flank the apse (Fig. 1). Auxiliary rooms were found along the north of the building and a narthex is located along the structure’s west. The church complex was entered from a large southern courtyard through doorways on the south of the narthex and the west of the south aisle. Substantial alterations were made to the structure in the Early Islamic period, but a polychromatic mosaic floor was discovered intact in the church chancel. That floor is the subject of the present article.

DESCRIPTION The mosaic floor is divided into four panels separated from each other by two rows of horizontally laid black tesserae (DGMR 1.i).2 The panels will be referred to as central, east, north, and south (Fig. 2). The maximum dimensions of the mosaic floor are 2.57 m long and 3.45 m wide (see Color Plate V)

Central Panel

The field of the central panel (1.35×1.33 m) is composed of interlaced squares and circles, an iconography commonly found in Byzantine mosaics in the Near East (A-Y: J2; DGMR 148.g). The squares and circles, arranged in five horizontal and vertical rows on a white background, are of red and yellowocher tesserae, highlighted by a strip of white tesserae on the their outer edges and outlined by a row of black (Fig. 3). The squares measure ca. 0.22×0.22 m, the

circle diameters, ca. 0.22 m. Each circle contains a smaller circle, and each square, expanded crosses, crosslets, or solid squares (A-Y: C1; E, diamond; DGMR (vol. 2) simple motifs: stepped cross, cross, square).3 The edges of the main field are completed by a looped border of red and yellow-ocher tesserae, highlighted in white and outlined in black (variant of A-Y: B11; DGMR 81.d). This border is followed by two horizontal rows of tesserae (DGMR 1.j), one in yellow-ocher and the other in red. Next there is a band of two rows of horizontally laid white tesserae (DGMR 1.i). The central panel border (0.19 m wide) is a three-strand guilloche (A-Y: B3; DGMR 72.d) of diagonally laid red, yellow-ocher, and blue tesserae, highlighted with white and outlined in black against a black background. This border is followed by a band of two rows of horizontally set white tesserae (DGMR 1.i). Next is a band of two rows of horizontally set black tesserae (DGMR 1.i), which divides the mosaic floor into four panels. No organizing principle appears to govern the arrangement of the motifs that fill the interlaced squares and circles. From the row farthest west, moving eastward from north to south, the motifs are as follows: Row 1: The first circle contains a red circle outlined in black.4 The northern square contains a red square. The motif of the central circle is identical to that of the farthest left circle in the row. The southern square contains an expanded cross motif whose exterior is of black tesserae and its interior, of red. The southernmost circle contains a red circle outlined in black. Row 2: The northern square contains a small red square, and the northern circle, a small red circle outlined in black. The central square contains a medium sized red square. The motifs in the southern and northern circles are identical. The southern square contains a crosslet in red and black.

[433]

K.C. BRITT

765.74

W1033

765.55

W1000

766.06

W1030 765.60 765.50

W1007

765.86

W1006

765.75 765.40

765.90 765.45

W1032

W1001

765.77

765.60

W1003

W1011

765.72

765.30

765.70

765.85

765.40 765.55

765.60

W1031 W1017

765.10

765.55

765.40

W1002

W1014

W1023

765.40

0

5

765.41

764.10 764.88

m

Fig. 1. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, detailed plan of the church.

Row 3: The northern circle contains a large red circle set against the black outline of the outer circle. Next follows a strip of white and a small yellow circle in the center. The central circle contains the same motif as the north one, but with reversed colors: a circle of yellow-ocher against the black outline of the outer circle, a strip of white, and a small red circle in the center. The northern square contains a black square.

The southern square contains a medium sized black square. The southern circle contains a small red circle against a white background. Row 4: The northern square contains an expanded cross motif in red and black against a white background, and the northern circle, a medium sized red circle outlined in black. As in the previous rows, the central element contains the same motif found in

[434]

T H E C H A N C E L M O S A I C F L O O R O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L - L Aṭ Aṭ I N

Fig. 2. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, mosaic floor in the church chancel.

the square or circle on the north of the main field. It is noteworthy that the same does not hold true for the motifs occupying the square or circle on the south of the main field. In the southern circle, the smaller circle is formed of a row of red tesserae against a white background. The southern square contains a medium sized black square. Row 5: The northern circle is occupied by a medium sized circle in red outlined by a row of black tesserae. The northern square contains an expanded cross motif in black and red. The motifs of the central and northern circles are the same. The southern square contains the same expanded cross motif as the others in this panel. The southern, central, and northern circles in this row contain the same motif.

Eastern Panel

The eastern panel, located just beyond the central one and a dividing band composed of two rows of black tesserae (DGMR 1.i), is separated from the band by two rows of horizontally laid white tesserae on the west (DGMR 1.i), four rows (that become six in the east) of horizontally set white tesserae on the north (DGMR 1.y), and two rows of horizontally placed white tesserae on the south (DGMR 1.i; Fig. 4). On the east, the floor (0.44×1.7 m) is essentially a rectangular grid formed of three horizontal rows, each divided into 12 squares for a total of 36 compartments (DGMR 123.c). The grid consists of a row of black tesserae, and a row of red surrounds the interior of each compartment. The average size

[435]

K.C. BRITT

Fig. 3. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, central panel of the chancel mosaic, view to the south.

Fig. 4. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, eastern panel of the chancel mosaic, view to the south.

of each compartment is 0.15×0.15 m. Each square contains either an expanded cross or a crosslet motif against a white background. Facing east, from north to south, the first square in each row contains a cross composed of red and black tesserae (A-Y: E, diamond). The center of the cross consists of a white tessera surrounded on four sides by red ones. The red tesserae are surrounded by black ones. Moving from north to south, the next four compartments in each row contain an expanded cross motif in red and black (A-Y: variant of A10). The center of the motif is a cross consisting of a white tessera enclosed by red ones, in turn surrounded by a row of white background. Next, black tesserae are arranged around the outer edges of the crosss. The orientation of the geometric motif suggests that it should be interpreted as a cross pointing to the east of the building.. The cross is a religiously significant symbol for Christians that takes many shapes and is commonly found in Byzantine church floor mosaics in the region. The remaining seven compartments in each row contain simple crosses of the type previously described for the northern square of each row. The asymmetry of the chancel mosaic motifs is pronounced in the east panel. Further, there is a perceptible juxtaposition

[436]

T H E C H A N C E L M O S A I C F L O O R O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L - L Aṭ Aṭ I N

between the simple crosses that occupy the positive spaces and the expanded crosses incorporated in the negative spaces.

Northern Panel

The northern panel (2.09×0.59 m) of the chancel floor consists of five equidistantly spaced squares filled with various geometric motifs (Fig. 5). A row of diagonally laid white tesserae radiating from the corner of each square is flanked by two rows of red and then two rows of black. Together, these rows form a thick band that intersects with the one radiating from the next square to form an X. The ‘X’s form the angular ends of the four hexagons that surround each square (A-Y: H3; DGMR 169.b), forming an octagon. The hexagons are filled with diagonally laid tesserae that form a chevron motif (DGMR (vol. 2) simple motifs). All the tesserae are set point-to-point. The rows are variously colored: red, blue, yellow-ocher, black,

and white. At one end of each hexagon, the chevron motif forms a diamond-shaped compartment within the acute angle. Some of these compartments contain expanded cross motifs that resemble those of the east mosaic panel. However, the cross motif here is obscured by the complexity of the decorative pattern. The smallest squares at the center of each octagon contain various geometric patterns. The squares measure 0.25×0.25 m. While the geometric patterns of the innermost squares differ, the layout of each set of concentric squares is identical. The outermost square is formed of a single row of horizontally laid black tesserae flanked on the inside by one row of red tesserae followed by two rows of white. A double band of white tesserae surrounds the inner square, which is created by a row of red followed by a row of black. From west to east, the first square contains two horizontal rows in black of a zigzag motif against a white background (DGMR 9.a). The short zigzag lines are not of uniform distance from each other. The next square is filled with diagonal rows of white, red, and black tesserae (A-Y: variant of G1; DGMR 1.p). The central square contains small squares, each of four tesserae, in red, black, and white. The small squares are configured to form diagonal lines of each color (A-Y: G2; DGMR 1.x). The penultimate easternmost square contains a red and white checkerboard motif (A-Y: G1; DGMR 111.a). The easternmost square is divided into small red, black, and white squares, of four tesserae, less skillfully executed than the pattern in the middle square (A-Y: variant of G2; DGMR 1.x). Not having left adequate space for the smaller squares on the north of the square, the mosaicist was forced to reduce their size by half so they would fit. The northern panel border consists of a single row of horizontally laid red tesserae (DGMR 1.a). Between the border and the black band that divides the floor into four panels are additional two rows of white tesserae (DGMR 1.x). On the north of the panel, nearly three-fourths of the border and black band remain covered by an early Islamic wall built directly on the mosaic; ca. one-fourth of the wall was removed during the excavation.

Southern Panel Fig. 5. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, northern panel of the chancel mosaic, view to the east.

The panel south of the central carpet is similar to that in the north. Although the southern panel (2.32×0.80 m)

[437]

K.C. BRITT

is noticeably larger (Fig. 6), the compositions of both are identical: squares containing various geometric motifs form the centers of octagons comprised of hexagons that flank all sides of the squares (A-Y: H3; DGMR 169.b). The hexagons contain chevron motifs in the same color scheme as those in the northern panel. The border configurations are also the same. The southern panel contains four concentric squares, while the northern panel contains five. The squares (ca. 0.35×0.35 m), of the same compositional arrangement as the northern panel, each contain a smaller square with a geometric motif. The following description of the geometric motifs contained in the squares proceeds from west to east. The westernmost square consists of a red and white checkerboard pattern (A-Y: G1; DGMR 111.a). The next square contains a chevron motif (A-Y: A16; DGMR 7.f) in red, blue, yellow-ocher, white, and

black. The penultimate easternmost square contains two interlocking ellipses that form a quadrilobe, also known as Solomon’s knot (A-Y: I4; DGMR (vol. 2) complex motifs). The vertical lobe is yellow-ocher, highlighted by a row of white tesserae along the outer edge and the lobe is outlined in black. The horizontal lobe is red, with similarly placed strips of highlighting and outlining. The motif is set against a white background; the triangular corner spaces formed by the position of the quadrilobe in the square contain small red crosslets (A-Y: D; DGMR (vol. 2) complex motifs) on the north of the square and possibly on the south. The easternmost square is a slightly more elaborate version of the motif in the westernmost square of the north panel: horizontal rows of zigzag lines (DGMR 9.a) arranged in bands of alternating colors (white, red, black, and yellow-ocher). The northeastern corner of the southern panel is covered by a later installed stone platform, identified by the excavator as a reliquary.5 Most of the southern border and a small portion of the field are damaged or covered by the erection of a later wall that was not removed during the course of the excavation. The portion of the south panel located west of the square with the checkerboard motif is heavily damaged and, in some areas, destroyed. Nonetheless, the consistency of the composition makes it possible to reconstruct this area of the mosaic floor with relative certainty.

Eastern Bema Floor

Fig. 6. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, southern panel of the chancel mosaic, view to the east.

The area beyond the eastern panel presents difficulties because a significant portion of the mosaic floor is covered by the later installation of a stone platform, identified above as a reliquary. East of the border are six rows of horizontally set white tesserae (DGMR 1.y). Unlike in the other chancel panels, there is no double row of black tesserae to the east that serves as a border separating the mosaic carpets from each other. Beyond the horizontal rows of white tesserae is an area with a diagonally laid white background that abuts the horizontal rows. The composition of this area is strikingly disorganized compared to the remainder of the floor. The mosaic contains scattered expanded cross6 motifs in red and black, loosely arranged in horizontal rows (A-Y: E, indented square; DGMR (vol. 2) simple motifs; Fig. 7). It is impossible to determine the number and precise distribution of

[438]

T H E C H A N C E L M O S A I C F L O O R O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L - L Aṭ Aṭ I N

Fig. 7. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, eastern bema mosaic, view to the south.

this motif across the floor because some are certainly covered by the stone reliquary platform. It is striking that the orientation of the expanded crosses in this section of the floor differs from those of the east panel. In that panel, the motifs are deliberately arranged on their points to form two types of crosses that are clearly oriented towards the east. Here, the motifs are placed on their sides, so that if they are to be interpreted as expanded crosses, their orientation is roughly north–south. This leads to the question of the interpretation of these motifs. Should their orientation be interpreted as significant? Are they intended to point or lead one’s gaze to something important? How can the apparent randomness of this area of the floor be reconciled with the principles of organization in effect in the panels to the west? How should the chancel floor as a whole be interpreted? These questions are addressed in the following sections.

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS The fifth century CE date assigned to the church, based on the numismatic evidence, is consistent with

the style and iconography of the mosaic floor.7 The layout of the chancel mosaic is best described as a juxtaposition of adherence to some principles of organization with other randomly arranged elements. These characteristics, commonly found in fifth century CE floor mosaics in Syria and Palestine, give rise to floors that are densely packed, intentionally haphazard in composition, and, in certain contexts, include motifs that can be interpreted as religiously significant. In combination, these qualities contribute to an overall style that is quite lively.8 By contrast, geometric mosaics in the region dating to the late fifth and sixth centuries CE are more rigidly organized, deliberately repetitive in composition, and subdued in tone and style.9 The floor is divided into four panels separated from each other by a border composed of two rows of black tesserae. The panels are completely filled with geometric motifs and together they form a carpet pattern; yet, because the panels are so clearly divided from each other, each should be viewed as an individual carpet. The carpet pattern is one of several new compositional arrangements found in the eastern

[439]

K.C. BRITT

Mediterranean in late antiquity that were a response to changes in the way mosaic floors were conceived. In the East, the use of the emblema as a central feature around which the floors were organized persisted longer than in other parts of the Roman world.10 Nonetheless, the stylistic trends in the provinces of Syria and Palestina underwent a radical transformation from the mid-fourth to mid-fifth century. During this period, the mosaic floors installed emphasized the floor as a solid, unified surface, the use of techniques intended to de-emphasize the material existence of the floor ceased11; and the geometric carpet pattern effectively demonstrates this change. A good early example of this frequently used composition (387 CE) is found in the cruciform Martyrium of St. Babylas in Antioch-Kaoussie.12 At Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, the quality of the tesserae and the execution of the mosaic are uneven and, in some places, sloppy, which likely indicates the haste on the part of the mosaicists. The tesserae quality lacks consistency, particularly in terms of size and shape. This resulted in the inability to set the tesserae tightly together when the floor was laid. These factors led to the creation of a mosaic floor of mediocre quality. Beyond aesthetic considerations is the matter of durability. When tesserae are not set closely together to form an even, hard, and tightly laid surface, the floors formed are less durable and are prone to damage. There is evidence that the mosaicists attempted to address this concern by the insertion of tiny, irregularly shaped pieces to bridge the gaps. The white floor near the northwest edge of the bema (near the in situ column built into the early Islamic wall) was laid using 63 tesserae per sq. dm (Fig. 8).13 The guilloche border on the western side of the central panel was laid using 64 tesserae per sq. dm. Thus, the tesserae size of the white monochrome and the polychrome decorated areas does not vary greatly. According to C. Dauphin’s rubric for assessing the quality of Byzantine mosaics in the Levant, the chancel floor at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin falls just inside the middle quality category of 60–110 tesserae per sq. dm.14 Symmetry was not a consideration in the design of this mosaic: the southern panel is significantly larger than the northern one, while the eastern panel is closer to the southern panel border rather than to the one

Fig. 8. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, view of the chancel floor with column embedded in Early Islamic wall, view to the north.

in the north. Moreover, the smaller northern panel contains five squares filled with different geometric motifs while the larger southern panel contains four squares. Further examples include the eastern panel, a rigidly composed grid of 36 compartments, which has a varied and asymmetrical arrangement of motifs. In the central panel, the motifs in the interlocking squares and circles are haphazard, with no discernible repetitive pattern. Finally, the expanded cross motifs beyond the eastern panel appear to have been randomly placed. In general, early Byzantine art abandoned classical principles of compositional design like symmetry and three-dimensional pictorial logic in favor of twodimensional hieratic and ornamental treatment.15 During this period, the strength and solidity of the church building were stressed: there is no illusionism in wall or floor decoration, no desire to dissolve the surfaces to remove the sense of being in a deliberately

[440]

T H E C H A N C E L M O S A I C F L O O R O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L - L Aṭ Aṭ I N

circumscribed space. Thus, the interior decoration of the early Byzantine church is subordinate to the architecture and reinforces the solidity and sense of eternity associated with the building. The nonclassical style appeared in art and architecture alike, and was used in both the eastern and western Mediterranean. The new stylistic ideal that favored asymmetry is displayed, for example, in the lack of correspondence between the arcades of the main and gallery levels in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and in the off-axis placement of the narthex in the Church of San Vitale, Ravenna. The nave wall mosaics in the Church of S. Apollinare Nuovo are but one example of the late antique aesthetic that emphasized the solid presence of the wall rather than attempting to create a vista. Floor mosaics from the same period in the west likewise followed the same stylistic precepts; examples include the twin basilicas in Aquileia and the Basilica of St. Euphemia in Grado. A geographically closer parallel is found in the late fifth to early sixth century CE mosaic floor of the basilica in Arethousa, Macedonia.16

CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHANCEL MOSAIC The panels that comprise the chancel mosaic of this church fit comfortably within the iconographic and stylistic repertory of Near Eastern mosaics during the early Byzantine period. The compositional schemes and individual motifs are found in sacred and secular contexts. The following parallels are a representative sampling that demonstrates their ubiquity in the region. The interlaced circle and square composition occurs in two contexts: in borders and in the decoration of the main fields. An example of the latter is found in a chapel on the grounds of the Russian convent of the Ascension on the Mt. of Olives.17 The floor is composed of 35 medallions containing organic objects including birds, animals, fruit and flora. This mosaic dates to the fifth to sixth centuries CE. The lowest register of the Orpheus mosaic floor discovered northwest of the Damascus Gate contains the interlaced composition as a field decoration.18 The panel consists of a row of two circles interlaced with

two squares. The medallions contain animals and hunters. In the same area of Jerusalem, a Byzantine church of uncertain date was paved with a mosaic floor whose border was of interlaced squares and circles. As in the Kh. el-Laṭaṭin mosaic, the geometric shapes were inhabited with diamonds in the squares and smaller circle within the circle medallions.19 Another border of interlaced squares and circles is found in the nave of the church at Kh. Umm Jarrar (sixth century CE).20 Here, the squares contain birds, the circles, various geometric motifs. Excavations at a church at Kh. el-Beiyûdât, 12 km north of Jericho, revealed floor mosaics that included a panel of interlaced squares and circles on the west of the southern aisle.21 The mosaics were dated to the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century CE. In the central hall of the cave church at Kh. ed-Deir in Judea, the mosaic floor’s main field is surrounded by a border of interlaced squares and circles.22 Construction of the monastery including the cave church and its mosaics has been dated to the late fifth to early sixth century CE. In the basilica in the church complex at Ḥ . Beth Loya, in the southern Judean foothills, the north and south aisles are carpeted with unidentical mosaic floors that contain a variation of the interlaced composition.23 In the unusual peg-shaped Church A at Magen in the Negev, the nave floor contains a panel of interlacing squares and circles containing geometric and floral motifs, animals, and a male portrait.24 The church and its mosaics date to the late fifth to early sixth century. In Jordan, the interlaced squares and circles composition occurs in the eighth century CE south aisle mosaic in the Church of St. Stephen at Umm al-Rasas.25 The same composition is found in an intercolumnar panel in the southeast of the nave in the Church of St. George in Kh. es-Samra (637 CE).26 Finally, in the Church of the Holy Fathers in Khattabiyah, a mosaic floor in the south aisle bears resemblance to the central panel at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin: the interlaced circles and squares contain smaller circles and squares.27 The octagonal composition is similarly widespread in the region. For example, in Judea it is found: in the south of the nave at the Byzantine level (late fourth century CE) of the Basilica of the Agony in Gethsemane; in a courtyard in the monastery of

[441]

K.C. BRITT

St. Theodosius (fifth to sixth centuries); and as the main field composition in the atrium of a Roman bath at ʿEin Yerda.28 An intercolumnar panel on the southeast of the nave arcade in the North Church at Herodium (fifth to sixth centuries CE) contains this composition.29 It is one of the geometric compositions used in the sixth century CE mosaics of the lateral aisles and narthex of the Beit Alpha synagogue30; as well as in the aforementioned church mosaics at Kh. el-Beiyûdât and Magen that also contain the square and circle interlace design. At Kh. el-Beiyûdât, the composition occurs in one of the panels of the south aisle. Coincidentally, this panel is located just east of the one that contains the interlaced squares and circles; moreover, the center square of one of the octagons contains a knotted quadrilobe, comparable to the one in the south panel at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin. At Magen, the mosaics on the eastern ends of the north and south aisles are laid out in octagons.31 Unlike the hexagons at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, the majority of those comprising octagonal compositions in these mosaics contain a lozenge motif. This particular compositional arrangement is found in several locations in Galilee. In the large basilica at Shavei Zion in western Galilee, each of the two phases of mosaic in the church contained the octagonal composition. The remains from the earlier phase, dated to the beginning of the fifth century CE, are located in the northeastern corner of the nave.32 Here, a panel survives that is decorated with octagons composed of hexagons containing lozenges and squares containing various motifs, some identical with those in Kh. el-Laṭaṭin. The southern aisle floor comes from a later phase, the late fifth to early sixth century CE.33 The mosaic is designed with interlaced octagons that have a swastika motif at the center. Elsewhere in Galilee, the octagonal composition occurs in the Chapel of the Angel in the Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth,34 and behind the altar in the

Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes at Tabgha.35 Parallels to the octagonal composition in Jordan are too numerous for detailed discussion.36

Conclusions The significance of the chancel floor at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin rests in its mediocrity: it is a good example of the type and quality of floor mosaics installed in common, ordinary churches during the fifth century CE. While the execution and technical quality of the floor are average, it is worthwhile noting that the iconography and style are in keeping with the regional trends of the period. The arrangement of the composition exhibits a degree of spontaneity and liveliness that gave way to predictability and repetitiveness during the sixth century. Moreover, the use of geometric motifs in the mosaic grids rather than organic elements such as flora, fauna, and humans, or of inorganic objects, suggests that the floor dates to the first half of the fifth century. By the late fifth and sixth century, mosaic carpet grids tended to contain an array of objects, both animate and inanimate. The choice of floor designs that included motifs appropriate for a church context, such as overt and concealed crosses and a Solomon’s knot, reveals not simply an awareness of current trends but a concern for including apotropaic symbols.37 The protection of the chancel along with other ecclesiastically liminal spaces, like thresholds, was of paramount importance since these spaces were viewed as particularly vulnerable. Thus, the chancel floor at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin is not simply consistent with the stylistic trends of the period and region but also with the tendency to include iconography in ecclesiastical settings that showed a concern for protecting the space and, therefore, was reflective of prevailing mentalities.

Notes 1 The Church at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin was excavated by Y. Zelinger (License No. 706) in May 1995, and under the direction of U. Greenfeld in May 2007 (License No. 1119), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria (see Zelinger 1998; Greenfeld, “A Byzantine

Church at Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin,” in this volume. I am grateful to Y. Zelinger for inviting me to work on the mosaic floor discovered during his excavation at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin. Thanks are also due to Dr. Sam Wolff, who recommended me to Y. Zelinger.

[442]

T H E C H A N C E L M O S A I C F L O O R O F T H E B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T E L - L Aṭ Aṭ I N

The alpha-numeric designations used in the description of the mosaic floor at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin are taken both from Avi-Yonah’s key to mosaic motifs (abbreviated A-Y) published in Avi-Yonah M. 1933: 138–141 and from Balmelle et al.’s designations (abbreviated DGMR) published in Balmelle C. et al. 2002. I have used both designations because: 1) Avi-Yonah’s rubric, albeit outdated, was keyed specifically to mosaics in Palestine; and 2) neither source alone provides a comprehensive rubric for the mosaic floors found in this region. 3 In this article, the E, diamond motif is referred to as a cross; there is no Avi-Yonah designation for the expanded cross motif, which is a variant of A10. 4 The circle filling motifs are variations of DGMR (vol. 2) complex motifs: target. 5 This is the conclusion drawn by Y. Zelinger and shared with me in discussions about the church. 6 Orientation is important: when oriented on point towards the east, this motif is an expanded cross; however, the orientation in this case now corresponds with Avi-Yonah: E, indented square. 7 Zelinger 1998: 78 8 Donceel-Voûte 1994: 205–210. 9 Donceel-Voûte 1995: 88–100. 10 Dunbabin 1999: 176. The emblema technique created the illusion of depth and treated the floor as a series of receding planes. 11 Kitzinger 1976: 65. 12 Donceel-Voûte 1988: 21–31. 13 It was not possible to take measure tesserae density with any degree of thoroughness due to the protective covering and backfilling of the mosaic after excavation. As a result, I was able to uncover only portions of the west of the mosaic for measurement. 14 Dauphin 1976: 123. 15 For a comprehensive overview of the transition in stylistic trends of late antiquity, see Kitzinger 1977. 16 Karivieri 2005: 371–377. 2

Avi-Yonah 1933: 167; Narkiss 1979: 21–23. Vincent 1901: 436–444. 19 Avi-Yonah 1933: 175–176. 20 Avi-Yonah 1934: 33. 21 Hizmi 1993. 22 Hirschfeld 1993. 23 Patrich and Tsafrir 1993. 24 Tzaferis 1993. 25 Piccirillo 1993: 238–239. 26 Piccirillo 1993: 306. 27 Piccirillo 1993: 244–245. 28 Avi-Yonah 1933: 152–153, 164, 158. 29 Netzer, Birger-Calderon and Feller 1993: 220–222. 30 Sukenik 1932: 21. 31 Tzaferis 1993: 283–285. 32 Prausnitz 1967: 47. 33 Prausnitz 1967: 47–55. 34 Avi-Yonah 1934: 36. 35 Schneider 1937. 36 The following is a list of parallels with page citations from M. Piccirillo’s survey of the mosaics of Jordan (Piccirillo 1993): Madaba, Church of the Holy Apostles (pp. 106–107); Mt. Nebo, New Baptistery in the Memorial of Moses (pp. 148–150); Upper Church at Kaianus (pp. 190–191); Church of Al-Dayr, near Wadi al-Dayr (pp. 202–203); Church of Bishop Sergius, Umm al-Rasas (pp. 234–35); Church of the Lions, Umm al-Rasas (pp. 236–237); Church of the Rivers, Umm al-Rasas (pp. 240–241); Church of the Priest Waʾil, Umm al-Rasas (pp. 242–243); Upper and Lower Churches, Massuh (pp. 252–254); Church of the Bishop Isaiah, Gerasa (pp. 294–295); Church of St. George, Kh. es-Samra (p. 306); Church of St. Mary, Rihab (pp. 310–311); Church of St. Basil, Rihab (p. 311); Church of St. Menas, Rihab (p. 313); Church of Tell Nimrin, Shunah al-Janubiyah (pp. 322– 323); Church at Zay al-Gharby (pp. 324–325); West Church, Yasilah (p. 341). 37 Kitzinger 1970: 639–47. 17 18

References 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, Pls. 14–18. Ballmelle C. et al. 2002. Le décor géométrique de la mosaique romain II: Répertoire graphique et descriptif des décors centrés, Paris. Dauphin C. 1976. “A New Method of Studying Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements (Coding and a Computer Cluster Analysis) with Special Reference to the Levant,” Levant 8: 113–49.

Donceel-Voûte P. 1988. Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéeologie et liturgie 1–2 (Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université Catholique de Louvain 69), Louvain-la-Neuve. Donceel-Voûte P. 1994. “Le Vème siècle dans les mosaïques syriennes,” in CMGR 4, Paris, pp. 205–211. Donceel-Voûte P. 1995. “Syro-Phoenician mosaics of the 6th century,” in CMGR 5, R. Ling (ed.), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics. Bath, England, September 5–12, 1987 (JRA Supp. ser. 9), Ann Arbor, pp. 88–100.

[443]

K.C. BRITT

Dunbabin K. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge. Hirschfeld Y. 1993. “The Cave Church at Khirbet ed-Deir,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 244–258. 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. Karivieri A. 2005. “Floor Mosaics in the Early Christian Basilica in Arethousa (Central Macedonia),” in H. Morlier H. (ed.), La Mosaïque Gréco-Romaine IX, 1, Rome, pp. 371–378. Kitzinger E. 1970. “The Threshold of the Holy Shrine: Observations on Floor Mosaics at Antioch and Bethlehem,” in P. Granfield and J. Jungman (eds.), Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quastern 2, Westfalen, pp. 639–647. Kitzinger E. 1976. “Stylistic Developments in Pavement Mosaics in the Greek East from the Age of Constantine to the Age of Justinian,” in W.E. Kleinbauer (ed.), The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies by E. Kitzinger, Bloomington, pp. 6488. Kitzinger E. 1977. Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th centuries, London.

Narkiss B. 1979. Armenian Treasures of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Netzer E., Birger-Calderon R., and Feller A. 1993. “The Churches of Herodium,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 219–232. Patrich J. and Tsafrir Y. 1993. “A Byzantine Church Complex at Horvat Beit Loya,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 265–272. Piccirillo M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman. Prausnitz M.W. 1967. Excavations at Shavei Zion. The Early Christian Church, Rome. Schneider A.M. 1937. The Church of the Multiplying of Loaves and Fishes at Tabgha on the Lake of Gennesaret and its Mosaics, London. Sukenik E.L. 1932. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha, London and Jerusalem. Tzaferis V. 1993. “Early Christian Churches at Magen,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 283–285. Vincent L.H. 1901. “Une Mosaïque Byzantine à Jerusalem,” RB 10: 436–444. Zelinger Y. 1998. “The Identification of the Jerusalem-Lydda (Diospolis) Roman Road on the Madaba Map and Khirbet el-Latatin,” BAIAS 16: 75–84.

[444]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA RONI AMIR

Colorful mosaics were recently discovered at 22 sites in Judea and southern Samaria. These mosaics, with their spectacular designs, enrich our knowledge of mosaics from Israel and Jordan.1 The mosaics from Jordan were published by Father M. Piccirillo2 and those from Israel studied extensively by R. Talgam.3 The present article will review the Judean and southern Samarian mosaics and compare them with previously excavated mosaics found in the region.4 The mosaics excavated in Judea were found at the sites of Kh. Umm Deimine, Rujm Jureida, ʿAnab elKabir, Kh. Istabul (Aristobulias), Kh. el-Qaṣr, Qaṣr Khalife, Kh. Ṭ awas, Kh. Beit ʿAnun, Kh. ʿEin Dab, and Kh. Ẓ ur. In northern Judea and southern Samaria, mosaics were excavated at the following sites: The Good Samaritan, Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, Kh. Beit Sila, Kh. el-Maḥ ma, Kh. el-Kiliya, Kh. Faʿush, Kh. Huriya, Deir Qalʿa, Shiloh, Kh. Deir Samʿan, and Kh. Ḥ amad. In the Jordan Valley, mosaic floors were found at the site of Kh. Umm Zaqum (Fig. 1). Some of the abovementioned mosaics are still in situ, while others were transferred to The Good Samaritan Museum, established by Y. Magen.5 Most of the mosaics adorned churches and chapels in monasteries or villages. The earliest church mosaic was found in the early church at Shiloh, ascribed to the end of the fourth century or beginning of the fifth. The latest mosaic is from the church at Kh. Istabul, dated by its inscription to the beginning of the eighth century (701 CE). Most of the mosaics are dated to the end of the fifth and the sixth century. Several mosaics adorned secular structures, probably bathhouses, from the Late Roman period (fourth to fifth centuries), e.g., a room in the bathhouse at Kh. Ẓ ur and one in the fortress at Deir Qalʿa. Most of the mosaics from the Judean and Samarian region were adorned with geometric grids, set with

faunal and floral motifs and geometric patterns. Some were decorated with vine scrolls having the same motifs and patterns. Among the mosaics published here, human figures or personifications were not depicted at all. However, human figures were depicted in several mosaics excavated in the Judea region in the past.6 The meager representation of human figures in the mosaics is noteworthy, especially in comparison with those of Madaba, Mt. Nebo, and Umm er-Rasas in Jordan, where human figures abounded.7 There are two main explanations for the dearth of human representations. Firstly, the artistic perception and tradition of Jews and Samaritans living in this region during the Second Temple period enforced the Second Commandment, which forbids graven images. While the Jews allowed figurative art from the third century on, the Samaritans continued to allow only non-figurative art.8 This non-figurative approach is rooted in the artistic tradition of  Nabataeans, Edomites, and pagan nomads during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.9 Secondly, some of these mosaics appear more “provincial” than those in Jordan, as a result of there being fewer resources and less skilled and educated artists. Undoubtedly, depicting figures in mosaics required high artistic ability. Some of the mosaics were decorated with animals, most of which were damaged during the iconoclastic campaign and later repaired, as we can see, for example, at Kh. Umm Deimine, ʿAnab el-Kabir, Kh. ʿEin Dab, as well as in the central and northern churches at Beit ʿAnun and in the later northern church at Shiloh.10 All the church mosaics discovered were notable for their emphasis on the nave mosaic floor, whose carpet was adorned with richer patterns and colors than the aisle mosaics, whose carpets are duller and decorated with simple patterns. The artisans’ aim was

[445]

R. AMIR

(

}

Aphek (

 !  ! !

!





Lod (

 !

 ! !



Ramallah (  ! !



!

(

 . .

Jericho

!

( (

Jerusalem



Beth Lehem

 !

(

Beth Guvrin

!





Dead S ea

!

Hebron (  !

!



!



 

! ! !



!

Christian Site Ancient Road

0

5

10 Km

Fig. 1. Distribution Map of sites with mosaics found in Judea and Samaria.

[446]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

to accentuate the church’s central axis, sometimes also stressed by inscriptions or crosses. Of the churches under review, the chancel mosaic was extant in only five: Kh. Umm Deimine, ʿAnab el-Kabir, Kh. Beit Sila, and the early northern church of Shiloh. In these churches the chancel carpet was divided into two panels: that of the bema and that of the apse.

Mosaic Floors The colorful, patterned mosaic floors will be described below only briefly. Detailed descriptions of them can be found in the excavation reports of each site. All of the patterns are described according to M. Avi-Yonah.11

Kh. Umm Deimine The monastery mosaics were exposed in the chapel and in a room to its south (Fig. 2). The chapel mosaic carpet was adorned with two unequally sized panels. The western one was adorned with pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends, interlocking with each other and producing additional geometric shapes like circles, diamonds, octagons, and triangles, which were decorated with fauna, flora, and geometric patterns, as well as various objects (H5*). The eastern rectangular panel depicted an amphora flanked by two defaced heraldic lions (Fig. 3). The fauna in the mosaic were damaged in the iconoclastic campaign and most were repaired with plaster. The mosaic carpet was framed by a wide strip of six-strand guilloche (B6*), surrounded by a zigzag strip (A6*). The chapel bema mosaic was poorly preserved; it was adorned with two medallions decorated with: interlocking patterns and various objects like a conch; rainbow patterns; and pomegranates at the carpet corners (Fig. 4). The carpet was surrounded by a wide frame of interlaced guilloche with central squares (B5*). The floor of the room south of the chapel was adorned with two square panels on a white background. One was decorated with alternating schematic fish and squares (see below); the other, with a grapevine with scrolling tendrils (see below, Fig. 44:1).

Fig. 2. Umm Deimine, chapel mosaic.

A crux gemmata was inlaid in the mosaic at the front of the chapel (see below, Fig. 46:6). Another, enclosed in a medallion, was depicted in the mosaic of a room west of the chapel (Room 8). This mosaic includes seven colors: brick red, light red, ocher, green-ocher, light gray, black, and white. Tesserae sizes vary from 64 tesserae per sq. dm in the margin, to 81 per sq. dm in the carpet field. Based on its style, the chapel mosaic can be dated to the sixth century. Pairs of elongated hexagons became a popular mosaic pattern in Judea through the sixth century; this is one of the design’s earliest appearances in this region. The carpet’s stylistic traits include a black outline around the motifs, use of only seven colors, and areas defined by separate colors without shading; indicating that it dates to the first half of the sixth century.

[447]

R. AMIR

Fig. 3. Umm Deimine, eastern panel in the chapel mosaic.

0

Fig. 4. Umm Deimine, bema mosaic.

[448]

40

80

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Rujm Jureida In the compound at Rujm Jureida, mosaics were found in the monastery rooms and in the Late Roman tower. They were of low quality and adorned with simple geometric patterns. The mosaic floor in the central room of the southern wing (L5), almost completely intact, was decorated with grids of diamonds (H1*), each having four buds that cross in its center (D*, Fig. 5), surrounded by a simple frame. The chapel mosaic floor (L4), partially preserved, consisted of two abutting carpets. The southern carpet was decorated with hexagons in black and red (H3*). Each hexagon contained a lozenge in similar hues (E* lozenge). The northern carpet was decorated with squares with internal loops, and a Greek inscription with only three surviving letters (Fig. 6). The tower mosaic was adorned with a square panel with interlacing squares and circles (J2*, Fig. 7); it was similar in workmanship to the chapel’s northern carpet. Unusually, the margins of the tower carpet were inlaid with three ocher geometric shapes.

All the mosaics were decorated in four colors: white, black, red, and ocher, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm. It is noteworthy that the mosaics at this site were inferior in design and technique to those at nearby sites to the north and south: the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir and the monastery at Kh. Umm Deimine. The Rujm Jureida mosaics cannot be dated on the basis of their style. The mosaics might possibly be ascribed to Justinian’s reign by dint of the coin found in its bedding.12

ʿAnab el-Kabir

A church with an external apse and an adjoining chapel in the north was exposed at ʿAnab el-Kabir. Nine inscriptions were discovered in the mosaics in the atrium, narthex, nave, aisles, intercolumniations, bema, and northern chapel. The nave mosaic floor was adorned with pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends, interlocking with each other and producing additional geometric shapes like circles, diamonds, octagons, and triangles, decorated with birds and geometric

Fig. 5. Rujm Jureida, mosaic of a room in the southern wing.

[449]

R. AMIR

Fig. 6. Rujm Jureida, chapel mosaic.

Fig. 7. Rujm Jureida, tower mosaic.

[450]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

patterns (H5*, Fig. 8). The birds were damaged in the iconoclastic campaign and later repaired with tesserae. An inscription decorated the eastern part of the carpet. The carpet frame consisted of two wave crest strips facing each other (B7*); between them was a strip with swastika meander and rectangles containing alternating birds and a four-swastika motif (A19*). Three of the mosaicists’ names were mentioned in the eastern rectangles of the frame (see below, Fig. 49:2–3). Rectangular panels with floral and geometric designs occupied the intercolumniations. The aisle carpets were adorned with buds on a white mosaic background, the southern one decorated with a row of crosslets formed of buds. The bema mosaic was divided into three panels (Fig. 9). The central panel was adorned with an amphora, flanked by four damaged animals identified as lions, and an inscription. Like the aisles, the lateral panels were adorned with a bud design on a white background. In the carpet margins a ChristianPalestinian Aramaic inscription was discovered. The narthex was paved in white mosaic, with a grid of intersecting octagons forming squares and oblong hexagons (H3*). The carpet contained a Greek inscription. A white mosaic with an inscription was found in the atrium.

Fig. 8. ʿAnab el-Kabir, nave mosaic.

Fig. 9. ʿAnab el-Kabir, bema mosaic.

[451]

R. AMIR

Kh. Ṭ awas

Fig. 10. ʿAnab el-Kabir, central mosaic panel in the northern chapel.

The northern chapel mosaic was divided into three panels enclosed with simple frames, the western one decorated with ivy leaves, the eastern one with an interlaced motif with an amphora in its center, and the central one with a cross-shaped pattern of four interlacing circles, each decorated with buds (Fig. 10). The chapel bema carpet was decorated with a grid of diamonds of black and red tesserae (H1*). Nine colors were used in the nave mosaic: white, black, brick red, red, two shades of ocher, brown, gray and yellow, with 81–100 tesserae per sq. dm. The aisle carpets feature a limited palette of white, black, and red, with 81–100 tesserae per sq. dm. In the chapel mosaic, the colors used were white, black, brick red, red, and ocher, with 25 tesserae per sq. dm, although the medallion in the chapel’s central panel was more delicate, with 81 tesserae per sq. dm. The narthex mosaic floor was of white, black, and red tesserae, with 25 tesserae per sq. dm, while the inscription was of 64 tesserae per sq. dm. Judging by the mosaic style, it appears that the nave, aisle, and bema carpets were installed in the mid- or third quarter of the sixth century, not long before the narthex inscription was installed and dated, according to the inscriptions, to 571 or even 586.13 The chapel mosaic was added at this time.

Excavations at Kh. Ṭ awas exposed a church with an external apse. Mosaics were found in the nave, northern aisle, and intercolumniations (Fig. 11). The nave carpet was adorned with two panels divided by an inscription. The eastern panel was adorned with a grid of diamonds (H1*) framed by black and white tesserae (A1*). The western one was adorned with interlocking circles, each surrounded by four spindles, creating Greek crosses between them. At the center of the mosaic panel was a four-line inscription. The frame of this panel was decorated with a double guilloche pattern (B12*). Another inscription was set in the church entrance, in a tabula ansata at the margins of the western panel. The tesserae were of five colors: white, black, brick red, ocher, and gray, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic floors were laid on a foundation of small fieldstones and white bonding material. According to the letter style of the inscriptions, the mosaic can be dated to the seventh century.14 The division of the nave carpet into two panels decorated in different geometric patterns and the careless workmanship confirm the seventh century date.

Kh. Istabul The excavations at Kh. Istabul (Aristobulias) exposed a church with an internal apse. It had mosaics in the narthex, nave, aisles, intercolumniations, and southern rooms. The nave carpet was divided into three panels enclosed by a guilloche frame (B3*). The eastern panel contained an inscription enclosed by a tabula ansata (Fig. 12). The central panel was adorned with a grid of diamonds consisting of buds (H1*). The western panel was almost wholly destroyed. The aisles were adorned with grids of diamonds (H1*). The aisle mosaics were decorated by grids of diamonds with a simple line frame (A1*, Fig. 13). The church’s southern wing was paved with three carpets. The central room’s carpet was decorated with a row of buds with a simple frame (A2*). The eastern room’s carpet was decorated with alternating rows of diamonds and squares with a simple frame (A2*). The nave mosaic carpet was comprised of six colors: black, white, ocher, brown, brick red, and reddish pink, with 81–100 tesserae per sq. dm. It was more delicate than the aisle mosaics, which are of

[452]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 11. Kh. Ṭ awas, nave mosaic.

Fig. 12. Kh. Istabul, nave mosaic.

[453]

R. AMIR

Fig. 13. Kh. Istabul, southern aisle mosaic.

Fig. 14. Kh. el-Qaṣ r, nave mosaic.

three colors: white, black, and red; with 36 tesserae per sq. dm. The narthex had a crude white mosaic, with 25 tesserae per sq. dm. The nave mosaic inscription is dated to the beginning of the eighth century (701 CE).15 The use of simple geometric patterns and the careless work of the mosaic floor are compatible with the late date.

of two types of common compositions in the region: vine medallions springing from an amphora flanked by animals (peacocks are preferred); and a tree flanked by animals facing each other.16 The eastern panel was adorned with a scale pattern (J3*), which exceptionally face the western panel. In this mosaic the artist used a limited palette of red, white, and black. There were 49 tesserae per sq. dm in the margins and frame and 81 tesserae per sq. dm in the carpet field. The carpet field of the chapel floor mosaic was damaged in some places and later repaired with white tesserae, 49 tesserae per sq. dm. The atrium and narthex carpets were poorly preserved. A rectangular panel decorated with a medallion surrounded by a guilloche frame was found in the courtyard (Fig. 15). It consisted of white, black, red, and brown-gray tesserae. The margins consisted of 25 tesserae per sq. dm; the frame, of 49 tesserae per sq. dm; and the carpet field, of 81 tesserae per sq. dm.

Kh. el-Qaṣr The chapel in the monastery of Kh. el-Qaṣr had an internal apse. Mosaics were observed in the narthex, nave, and chapel apse. The nave mosaic was divided into two panels in simple frames (Fig. 14). The western panel was adorned with an amphora flanked by peacocks; to either side of the stalk rising out of the amphora were deer facing each other; above them was a scene of a dog chasing a rabbit. At the eastern end of the carpet was an eagle in a medallion, borne by two lions. The composition of this carpet is a “hybrid”

[454]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 15. Kh. el-Qaṣ r, courtyard mosaic.

An inscription enclosed by a tabula ansata was found in the narthex. The inscription was dated by L. Di Segni to the second half of the fifth century.17 The unusual iconography of this mosaic will be discussed below.

Beit ʿAnun Central Church The central church, with an internal apse and two lateral rooms, has two mosaic floors from different periods, one on top of the other. The earlier church floor had three mosaics: in the narthex, nave, and aisles. The narthex mosaic comprised three rectangular panels, each surrounded by a simple frame (A1*). The northern one was decorated with crosslets, the central one, with a grid of diamonds (H1*; Fig. 16), and the southern one, only partially preserved, with circles. The nave was adorned with a geometric pattern comprising two superimposed grids. The first consisted of squares composed of scales; the second, of diamonds whose lines were formed of oval leaves

(J5*, Fig. 17). An inscription enclosed by a tabula ansata was found at the edge of the nave carpet, near the main entrance. The carpet margins and the aisles were adorned with crosslets. The northern aisle was decorated with crosslets and the southern one, with grids of diamonds (H1*). Another carpet was found in the “Inscriptions Hall,” decorated with a grid of squares surrounded by a simple frame (A2*), with inscriptions in its eastern and western ends. The first stage church mosaic consisted of red, black, and white tesserae. Simple in design and with few hues, it was installed with admirable care and skill, using 81 tesserae per sq. dm in the nave and 64 tesserae per sq. dm in the narthex carpet. This mosaic was dated to the fifth century. Crosslets were observed in several mosaics from this period, to be described below. As stated above, the floor level was raised at the second stage. New colorful carpets were installed in the narthex, nave, and aisles of the later church. A chapel was added to the structure in the north, as well as a room north of the atrium.

[455]

R. AMIR

Fig. 16. Beit ʿAnun, crosslets in the early central church narthex mosaic.

Fig. 17. Beit ʿAnun, early central church nave mosaic.

[456]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

The nave was adorned with pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends, interlocking with each other and thus producing additional geometric shapes like circles, diamonds, octagons, and triangles, decorated with faunal, floral, and geometric patterns (H5*, Fig. 18). These motifs were damaged in the iconoclastic campaign and later repaired (see below, Fig. 42:4). The frame consisted of two wave crest bands facing each other (B7*–8*) with a guilloche between them (B6*). The pattern in the nave is characteristic of many churches from the third quarter of the sixth century. Mosaics of similar composition were found at nearby Kh. Bureikut,18 and at other sites, as will be seen below. The northern aisle was paved with a scale pattern (J3*), the southern aisle, with a grid of diamonds formed of buds (H1*). The chapel attached to the church in the north was paved in a carpet adorned with a grid of diamonds consisting of buds (H7*). A medallion with an eightarmed chrismon in its center was applied as a “patch”

in the middle of the carpet (see below, Fig. 48:3). The second stage mosaics included a palette of 13 hues: white, black, ocher, cream, brick red, red, pinkish red, dark gray, gray, light gray, olive green, light green, and brown. The tesserae were small, with some 100 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic’s style corresponds to that of mosaics dating to the third quarter of the sixth century, notable for their impression of threedimensionality, and their rich coloration and shading (Fig. 19).

Beit ʿAnun Northern Church

The northern church at Beit ʿAnun is rectangular, and remnants of mosaics were found in the nave, intercolumniations, and southern aisle. The nave carpet frame was adorned with a meander of alternating swastikas and squares (A19*). One square was decorated with a fruit with two olive branches at its side (Fig. 20). The intercolumniations were adorned with colorful

Fig. 18. Beit ʿAnun, late central church nave mosaic.

[457]

R. AMIR

Fig. 19. Beit ʿAnun, diamond in late central church nave mosaic.

Fig. 20. Beit ʿAnun, northern church nave mosaic.

[458]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

designs, including a cornucopia. The mosaic was of 12 hues: white, black, ocher, pinkish red, red, brick red, dark gray, gray, light gray, olive green, light green, and brown. The tesserae were small, with 144 tesserae per sq. dm. This mosaic offers an excellent example of the style in the third quarter of the sixth century, characterized by rich colors and by gradual shading that creates an effective illusion of three-dimensionality.

white, black, green, and light green. The tesserae size ranged from ca. 81 tesserae per sq. dm, to 144– 256 tesserae per sq. dm in the small details. The mosaics are notable for their rich coloration, and the scrolling vines clearly created an impression of compositional depth. The mosaic’s style ascribes it to the third quarter of the sixth century.

Kh. ʿEin Dab

A church with three internal apses was unearthed at Kh. ʿEin Dab. The mosaic floor was partly preserved. Mosaic remnants were excavated in the nave, aisles, and intercolumniations. Small surviving fragments in the nave floor enabled reconstruction of the carpet composition; it comprised rows of medallions formed by vine scrolls, grape clusters, and leaves (Fig. 21). The carpet frame was composed of a meander of alternating swastikas and squares (A19*), decorated with birds that had been damaged and later repaired (Fig. 22). The aisle carpets were adorned with a grid of diamonds formed of buds (H7*) and colorful medallions “patched over” this grid (see below, Fig. 48:1). Twelve hues of tesserae were used in the mosaic: red, brick red, dark gray, brown, light gray, two shades of ocher,

Fig. 21. Kh. ʿEin Dab, nave mosaic.

Fig. 22. Kh. ʿEin Dab, nave mosaic frame.

[459]

R. AMIR

Kh. Ẓ ur A mosaic-paved bathhouse and church were excavated at Kh. Ẓ ur. The bathhouse retained part of its mosaic floor in the frigidarium. The composition, in a square panel, consisted of a circle decorated with interlocking circles and triangles (Fig. 23). The carpet included eight hues: white, black, brick red, red, pink, gray, dark violet-brown, light violet-brown, and ocher. There were 144 tesserae per sq. dm. According its style, the mosaic may be ascribed to the fifth century. A church with an external apse was erected next to the bathhouse; it included two mosaic floor carpets, one above the other. The first stage mosaics were found in the nave, aisles, and bema. Exceptionally, the nave and aisles were paved in white mosaic. The only decorative mosaic was on the bema, which had a grid of diamonds (H1*). The second stage mosaics were found in the nave, aisles, and bema. The nave was adorned with a geometric pattern consisting of two superimposed grids: a grid of squares formed of scales was overlaid by diamonds formed of black oval leaves (J5*). The carpet margin in front of the bema was decorated with two small crosses made of buds. In the aisles was a grid of intersecting octagons that formed squares and hexagons (H3*). The mosaics from the two stages were of three colors: red, black, and white. The artists used large tesserae, 49 to 64 per sq. dm. According to their style, these mosaics probably dated to the sixth century.

Kh. el-Laṭaṭin A church with an internal apse and two lateral rooms and a northern chapel was excavated at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin. The church and chapel mosaic floors each belonged to a different phase. Remnants of the white church mosaics, which can be ascribed to the first phase, were exposed in the narthex, nave, and aisles. The bema’s colorful mosaic was decorated with four panels (Fig. 24): a central square panel, decorated with interlacing circles and squares (J2*) enclosed by a three-strand guilloche (B3*), was bordered on three sides by rectangular panels. The western one was decorated with a grid of squares and the other two panels were decorated with “rainbow style” patterns. The apse mosaic was of white tesserae set diagonally, with two lines of small squares. Seven colors were

used in the bema carpet: red, black, two shades of gray, ocher, yellow, and white, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm. The style of this mosaic dates it to the fifth century. The mosaic in the chapel north of the church belongs to the second phase (Fig. 25). It was adorned with pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends, interlocking with each other and thus producing additional geometric shapes like circles, diamonds, octagons, and triangles and decorated with animals and geometric patterns (H5*). The octagons and circles surrounded animals like bears and storks (see below, Fig. 42:2–3). Near the chapel bema a small mosaic fragment survived that was decorated with a bird and a fragmentary inscription in a tabula ansata. The colorful chapel mosaic includes 12 hues: white, black, yellow, brown, green, three shades of red, two shades of gray, and two shades of ocher. The tesserae size varied from 100 tesserae per sq. dm in the margins to 225 tesserae per sq. dm for the animals. The mosaic style is of the third quarter of the sixth century, characterized by foreshortened depictions of animals and the use of diverse tesserae shapes and sizes.

Kh. Beit Sila A church with an internal apse and two lateral rooms was excavated at Kh. Beit Sila. Wellpreserved mosaics were exposed in the nave, aisles, intercolumniations, bema, and apse. They possibly were laid in two stages. The mosaics comprising the nave carpet were adorned with a grid of diamonds formed of buds (H7*, Fig. 26).19 The carpet frame consisted of two rows of dentils (A6*) flanking a guilloche (B3*). In the aisles, there was a decoration of buds on a white background. In the southern aisle a medallion with an interlaced pattern decorated the center of the aisle (Fig. 27). The prayer hall mosaic floors were laid in white, red, and black, with 64–100 tesserae per sq. dm. The chancel mosaic and the mosaic panel with an inscription in front of the bema were more colorful (Fig. 28). The chancel mosaic consisted of two panels, one on the bema and the other in the apse. The bema panel features interlaced squares and circles (J2*) adorned with various geometric and floral patterns (J2*), whereas the apse panel showed interlaced circles (J1*) inlaid with symbolic motifs like a fish,

[460]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 23. Kh. Ẓ ur, bathhouse carpet.

[461]

R. AMIR

Fig. 24. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, bema mosaic.

Fig. 25. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, chapel mosaic.

[462]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 26. Kh. Beit Sila, nave mosaic.

Fig. 27. Kh. Beit Sila, medallion in the southern aisle.

[463]

R. AMIR

Fig. 28. Kh. Beit Sila, chancel mosaic and mosaic east of the nave.

an amphora, two birds, and a cluster of grapes (see below, Fig. 44:2). The symbols were apparently connected with the Eucharist, thus accentuating the area’s sanctity. The chancel mosaic and the inscription set in front of the bema included various colors: white, black, brick red, red, two shades of gray, and two shades of ocher, green glass, with 64–100 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic can be dated to the sixth century because of the rich impression of the geometric patterns in the chancel mosaic, the use of diversely shaped and sized tesserae, as well as the use of glass tesserae.

Kh. Faʿush A church with an external apse was excavated at Kh. Faʿush. Its mosaic floors belong to two stages. The first stage mosaics (IIIa) decorated the nave and aisles. The nave mosaic was badly preserved but its pattern can be reconstructed. It was adorned with a grid of intersecting octagons (H3*). The aisle mosaics

that continued in the lateral rooms on each side of the apse were adorned with a grid of squares with small diamonds in their centers (E*; Fig. 29). The tesserae were red, black, and white, with 42 tesserae per sq. dm. Based on the coins, the first stage has been dated to not later than the third quarter of the fifth century (454–474 CE). In the second stage (IIIb), the floors were raised in the nave and aisles, and alterations were made in the church structure. The nave was now adorned with a scale pattern (J3*), each scale decorated with a bud. The southern aisle was adorned with a grid of diamonds (H1*), the northern aisle, with a grid of squares with cut corners that formed small diamonds. The tesserae were red, black, and white, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm. The second mosaic is from the last quarter of the fifth century or later.20 The simple designs and crude mosaic technique are similar to those of the mosaics discovered in the church in the nearby settlement of Shoham.21

[464]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

badly preserved. In the nave was an intertwined circle composed of six ribbons adorned with various patterns like a guilloche, a wavy ribbon, acanthus leaves, etc. (Fig. 30). The frame, of excellent workmanship, consisted of a wavy ribbon with interwoven lilies. Two of the three panels of the northern aisle mosaic were well preserved (Fig. 31). The eastern panel contained a colorful circle (I10*), and the central panel was decorated with squares that were decorated with either

Fig. 29. Kh. Faʿush, first stage mosaic.

Fig. 30. Kh. Huriya, nave mosaic panel.

Kh. Huriya A church with an internal apse and lateral rooms was excavated at Kh. Huriya. Sections of mosaic floors divided into square panels were exposed in the nave and aisles. The nave and southern aisle mosaics were

Fig. 31. Kh. Huriya, northern aisle mosaic.

[465]

R. AMIR

four swastika meanders or with interlacing bands. The mosaics included eight colors: white, black, brick red, pinkish red, two shades of ocher, gray, and cream; with 49 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic carpets are distinctive for their complex patterns and high quality. The panels were decorated with colorful bright mosaics, giving the impression of three-dimensionality, and of the work being that of an experienced, admirable craftsman. The mosaic’s style dates it to the second half of the sixth century. The mosaic floors of Kh. Huriya and of nearby Ḥ . Tinshemet22 display unusual compositions. In both churches the nave carpet was divided into square panels decorated with different patterns. The prevalent patterns were interlacing bands that created a colorful circle. This composition and its patterns were also present in Samaritan synagogue mosaics dating to the fourth and fifth centuries.

Kh. el-Maḥ ma A church with an apse and lateral rooms was uncovered at this site. White mosaics were observed in the narthex, northern aisle, and northern pastophorium. The only decorated mosaic was in the nave. The carpet was adorned with squares having small rhombi at their points of contact. Three colors were used in the mosaic: white, red, and black, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm. As the mosaics are very simple, it is difficult to date them according to their style; they are probably of the sixth century.

Deir Qalʿa The mosaics discovered at the site are from two main phases. The earliest mosaic carpet from the fortress (Phase I) belongs to a secular building from the Late Roman period (Fig. 32). The carpet was cut off by

Fig. 32. Deir Qalʿa, Late Roman fortress mosaic floor, Phase I.

[466]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 33. Deir Qalʿa, southern chapel, first stage mosaic, Phase II.

0

Fig. 34. Deir Qalʿa, narthex, second stage mosaic, Phase II.

[467]

20

40

R. AMIR

Fig. 35. Deir Qalʿa, northern chapel mosaic, Phase II.

[468]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 36. Deir Qalʿa, northern chapel mosaic detail, pomegranate tree.

walls of a later chapel (Phase II). The floor contained a square panel with an octagon enclosing a circle. The circle was decorated with three interlacing bands, its center adorned by a star. Between the octagon and square frame were an array of alternating squares, triangles, and diamonds, with diverse geometric patterns. The carpet was enclosed by two frames, the outer one adorned with a running wave crest (B7*), the inner one, with a guilloche (B3*). This floor was only of five colors: ocher, brick red, brown, white, and red. The craftsman used 100– 122 tesserae per sq. dm, except for the inner circle, where he used 169 tesserae per sq. dm. The carpet’s northwestern corner was carelessly repaired, using 25–30 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic’s design and style indicate its installation in the first half of the fifth century.23 Another mosaic from the same period was found in the adjoining room east of the above mosaic. The carpet field was decorated with overlapping octagons (H3*), using 100 tesserae per sq. dm.

The Byzantine mosaics (Phase II) are from two different stages. The mosaics of the first stage of the southern chapel were badly preserved. A conch pattern decorated the apse floor (Fig. 33) and remains of mosaics were found in the nave. They were of five colors: brick red, red, brown, ocher, white, and black. According to their style, these mosaics are apparently from the second half of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. The narthex mosaic carpet of the southern chapel was installed in the second stage, when the chapel was enlarged in the sixth century. It consisted of a rectangular panel divided into smaller rectangles, decorated with ornamented lozenges enclosed in a guilloche frame and an outer double-wave crest frame (Fig. 34). This mosaic floor was of five colors: brick red, red, brown, ocher, white, and black, with 100 tesserae per sq. dm at the margins and 144 tesserae per sq. dm in the main carpet field. The northern chapel mosaic carpet contained an inscription dating it to 542 CE.24 The carpet was adorned with vine scrolls, leaves, and grape clusters issuing from an amphora; the tendrils form medallions arrayed in thirteen rows and five columns (Fig. 35). The carpet’s central axis was adorned with various stylized trees and geometric patterns (Fig. 36), except for the three eastern medallions, which were decorated with leaves and grape clusters. The absence of images and animals in this specific composition is rare, and worth studying. This phenomenon possibly reflects the Samaritan regional style of avoiding figurative art. The patron or designer of the mosaic was influenced by this tradition. The carpet frame consisted of sixstrand guilloches (B6*). This mosaic floor was of five colors: brick red, red, brown, ocher, white, and black, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. As the inscription indicates, this mosaic is from the end of the first half of the sixth century. Although from different periods, all mosaics from the site use only five main colors, and may have been produced in a workshop active in this region during the fifth to sixth centuries.

Shiloh Four churches have been excavated at Shiloh: the “pilgrims” church and the “basilica church,” were located south of the tell; “the northern churches,”

[469]

R. AMIR

were located beneath the tell’s southern slope and included two churches, one above the other, each paved in colorful mosaics (Fig. 37).

Shiloh Early Northern Church The earlier church was irregularly built. The elongated narthex was located in the north rather than west. In the east, the church concluded with a rectangular bema. Mosaics were exposed in the narthex in the nave, aisles, and bema. The narthex was decorated in a rectangular carpet having three panels, the one in its north having an inscription. The name of Shiloh was mentioned in this inscription. The western and eastern panels were decorated with intersecting circles, each containing concave diamonds (J4*). The central panel was decorated with a grid of squares. Only the northern aisle survived; it was divided into three panels, two decorated with a grid of diamonds (H1*), the central one bearing an inscription in a medallion. The nave carpet was divided into two panels of unequal size; both were adorned with intricate geometric patterns

requiring precise preliminary drawings (Fig. 38). The square eastern panel enclosed concentric circles. Its center was decorated with a square enclosing a Star of David pattern. The corners had a rainbow pattern. The western panel was decorated with intersecting circles, and there was a frame of interlocking squares north and south of the carpet. The northwestern square included an inscription bearing the artist’s name (see below, Fig. 49:1). The mosaic is similar in patterns and workmanship to that in the Church of Lazarus in Bethany.25 The bema mosaic was decorated with a square panel with interlacing circles, each with a central square and internal loop (Fig. 39), and an inscription in a tabula ansata. Five basic colors were used in the early church at Shiloh: ocher, red and brick red, gray, white, and black. Each was of various hues. The tesserae were laid using 49–64 per sq. dm in the margins and bema, and 169–182 tesserae per sq. dm in the nave. The high quality, patterns, and architectural irregularities of the mosaic date it to the end of the fourth or first half of the fifth century.

Fig. 37. Shiloh, northern churches mosaic.

[470]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 38. Shiloh, earlier northern church mosaic.

Fig. 39. Shiloh, earlier northern church bema mosaic.

[471]

R. AMIR

Shiloh Later Northern Church The later northern church extended further east than its precursor, and was basilical with an external apse. The nave mosaic included patterns comprising a meander of alternating swastikas and squares decorated with stars, flora and fauna. All the animals were damaged in the iconoclastic campaign (Fig. 40). The composition is reminiscent of those of mosaics from northern Jordan, near Gerasa.26 The frame pattern was exceptional, consisting of wavy medallions of vine tendrils issuing from an amphora (Fig. 41). Such mosaic frames are rare in mosaics from Israel, but have parallels in Syria.27 The northern aisle mosaic was adorned with a scale pattern ending in an inscription. The late church mosaics were of five colors: ocher, gray, two shades of red, white, and black, with distinct differences in tesserae size: from 49 tesserae per sq.

dm to 64–81 tesserae per sq. dm in the carpet field. This mosaic resembles the style of the northern chapel mosaic at Deir Qalʿa, dated to 542 CE.

Shiloh “Basilica Church” In the “Basilica Church,” the narthex, nave, and aisle mosaics belong to several stages.28 The narthex mosaic was divided into square panels adorned with various geometric patterns, as well as one with crosslets. The nave mosaic was adorned with pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends, interlocking with each other and thus producing additional geometric shapes like circles, diamonds, octagons, and triangles, and decorated with floral and faunal motifs and geometric patterns (H5*). The animals were damaged in the iconoclastic campaign and repaired with floral motifs. The aisles were adorned with simple geometric

Fig. 40. Shiloh, later northern church nave mosaic.

[472]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 41. Shiloh, later northern church nave mosaic frame.

designs, and several stages can be discerned. In the “Basilica Church,” the narthex, nave, and aisle mosaics belong to several stages in the sixth century. All mosaics are dated to the sixth century.

Kh. Ḥ amad A church with an external apse was excavated at Kh. Ḥ amad. The mosaics were partially extant in the narthex, nave, and aisles. The nave mosaic was divided into two rectangular panels separated by a colorful band. The eastern panel was adorned with a medallion that enclosed a star. The western panel was partly preserved. The mosaic coloration was dull: white, black, and red. It is difficult to date these mosaics on the basis of style.

Kh. Deir Samʿan The mosaics at this site were badly preserved. Several mosaic fragments probably originated in

a chapel, located in the southern wing’s second story.29 In the northern wing, the few remains found in situ were in a chapel decorated with geometric patterns. The bema was decorated with a large cross with a palm tree and a bird, with another carelessly made small cross in front. In the monastery courtyard two medallions were enclosed in a rectangular frame. One was decorated with a big cross. These mosaics were of poor quality, with dull colors: ocher, red, black, and white, with 25 tesserae per sq. dm. They probably date to the seventh century.

Church of The Good Samaritan A pilgrimage church with an internal apse and two lateral rooms was discovered at the site of The Good Samaritan.30 Mosaics were observed in the narthex, nave, aisles, and apse. The carpets were adorned with simple geometric designs. The mosaic nave was adorned with a grid of intersecting octagons (H3*),

[473]

R. AMIR

the southern aisle with a grid of squares, and the northern aisle with a grid of diamonds (H1*). The apse carpet was adorned with scattered buds on a white background. The mosaic coloration was dull: white, black, and red. The church has been dated to the Late Byzantine period, i.e., the sixth to seventh centuries.

Kh. Umm Zaqum The monastery at Kh. Umm Zaqum included a chapel with an internal apse. Mosaics were exposed in the nave, bema, and an auxiliary room south of the chapel.31 The chapel mosaic was adorned with a grid of diamonds formed of oval leaves. There was a small cross at the center of each diamond. The frame was of guilloche (B3*). The bema and apse were paved with a single carpet; the interior of the carpet consisted of white tesserae in diagonal rows; it was adorned with buds (F17*). The auxiliary room mosaic was divided into two panels. The western panel was adorned with eleven grapevine medallions arrayed in four rows. The vines issued from an amphora in the middle of the southern row. The medallions were adorned with various motifs: e.g., a cluster of grapes, a bird, and a cross formed of buds (F23*). The eastern panel was adorned with rows of alternating buds (F23*) and diamonds (E*). The mosaic probably dates to the sixth century.

Mosaic Composition and Patterns The patron and the mosaic designer chose the mosaic composition and patterns. Several factors influenced the selection of a design: the financial resources, the structure’s architectural plan, as well as the popular mosaic fashion and patterns in a given period and geographical area. Scholars noticed that there were similar compositions and patterns in remote places, which would indicate the use of pattern books.32 Studies have shown that each geographical area exhibited a preference for one or two of the current popular compositions and patterns. A known example of this phenomenon is the mosaics of the “School of Gaza.” Although not of the same workshop, a mosaic

composition of vine scrolls issuing from an amphora, forming rows of medallions that enclosed various animals and other objects was very popular, especially in the Gaza area. 33 This phenomenon was also noted in the mosaics of Jordan. While in the city of Gerasa and its vicinity in the country’s north, geometric grids depicting figurative animals, plants, and other geometric patterns were preferred, in the Madaba region carpets adorned with vine scrolls occupied by animals and human figures were the most common.34 In the Judean and Samarian mosaics presented above, and in others in this area, three compositions are particularly common. The first is: pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends, interlocking with each other and thus producing additional geometric shapes like circles, diamonds, octagons, and triangles, decorated with floral and geometric patterns and animals (H5*, Fig. 42). This design was observed at: Kh. Umm Deimine; ʿAnab el-Kabir; in the later central church at Beit ʿAnun; in the northern chapel at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin; in the church of the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim; at Ḥ . Ḥ anot; at Kh. Bureikut; at Mattaʿ, etc. It was widely common in the sixth century, especially in mosaics from the third quarter of the sixth century.35 The second composition popular in this region is that of vine scrolls springing from a central amphora.36 The medallions are arrayed in rows and decorated by faunal, floral, and geometric patterns, as well as by various objects. An example of this type is provided by mosaic fragments in the church nave at Kh. ʿEin Dab. Although only a small part is extant, the entire floor can be reconstructed. This composition can be found at Tel Qerayot, Ḥ . Beth Loya, Kh. Maqarqesh, Kh. ʿAsida, Sokho, Ḥ . Ḥ anot, Mattaʿ, the central church at Herodium, Kh. Fattir, ʿEin el Ḥ anniya, and elsewhere. The stylistic development of this type can be traced through its numerous occurrences. The third popular composition is based on a variety of geometric grids. These geometric grids are occasionally composed of floral patterns, like small buds, as in the nave mosaic in the church of Kh. Beit Sila (see above, Fig. 26). They are sometimes composed of geometric patterns made of straight rows of tesserae, as in the church mosaic at the site of The Good Samaritan.

[474]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 42. Pairs of elongated hexagons: 1. Umm Deimine; 2–3. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin; 4. Beit ʿAnun central later church; 5–6. Martyrius Monastery.

Symbolic Motifs in Mosaics Scholarly opinion differs as to whether the various motifs in the mosaic floors are symbolic or merely decorative. C.M. Dauphine links the viewer’s

interpretive ability to his social status.37 H. Maguire claims that the interpretation of a specific motif or group of motifs depends upon the outlook and intellectual level of the individual observer. He further contends that a particular workshop could

[475]

R. AMIR

produce different mosaic floors. In a given carpet, the donor or designer could arrange a repertoire of motifs to convey a sophisticated message; in another, by contrast, the same motifs could be devoid of symbolic import.38 L. Habas believes it possible to ascertain whether a motif is symbolic or merely decorative, according to its architectural setting or its position in relation to other motifs. She also raises the issue of whether there are differences in the symbolism of motifs chosen to adorn the liturgical sacred spaces, i.e., the apse and pastophoria, as opposed to those adorning the nave and aisles. She concludes that such a distinction cannot be drawn,39 refuting the previously prevailing assumption that arrangements giving symbolic expression to the world of here and now were located in the prayer halls, whereas those expressing the hope of eternal life in the world to come were located in the liturgical spaces reserved for the clergy. Among the mosaics under discussion, only one instance can be cited of a comprehensive symbolic arrangement in the prayer hall: the western panel in the chapel hall at Kh. el-Qaṣr, adorned with an arrangement comprising two peacocks flanking an amphora from which a grapevine stalk springs. The stalk ends in the east with two lions bearing an eagle set in a medallion (clipeus). The amphora symbolizes the fountain of life. The peacocks, representing the faithful, drink from the amphora, and are thus eligible for eternal life through Jesus, represented by an eagle at the eastern end of the mosaic, who symbolized triumph over death (see above, Fig. 14). Apart from this instance, symbolic arrangements of motifs in the mosaics under discussion occur in the liturgical spaces. The surviving chancels usually depict an amphora flanked by grapevines or animals, e.g.: in the churches at ʿAnab el-Kabir; in Kh. Beit Sila, where the amphora is flanked by birds and a fish. When the amphora appears in the apse, it symbolizes the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was performed on the offering table in the middle of the bema. The animals facing the table are construed as the faithful in service who will be granted salvation.40 While the amphora in the apse has symbolic significance, the same motif elsewhere can be purely

decorative. In the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir the amphora from which a grapevine springs occurs in the intercolumniation mosaics, where it appears that the motif is purely decorative (Fig. 43:1). In the sixth century, artisans dismantled the arrangement, laden with symbols of the heavenly kingdom, and scattered its various motifs among floral and geometric grids in the prayer hall, as seen in the churches under review. Several examples can be cited. The bird in a cage that appears, for instance, in the mosaic at ʿAnab el-Kabir (Fig. 43:2), has a number of interpretations. According to one, it is comparable to the soul imprisoned in the body.41 The bird in the cage also possibly represents temptation or may be a sacrificial offering to God.42 Fish and fish heads also appear repeatedly in these mosaics (Fig. 44:1–3). The fish, ichthus in Greek, represents the initials Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (God) Uiou (Son) Soter (Savior), and is thus a symbol for Christian souls, divine providence, and a blessed life on earth.43 Fish are depicted schematically in a square panel in the floor of a small room south of the chapel at Kh. Umm Deimine, and they adorn the bema mosaic at Kh. Hubaileh.44 In other mosaics only the fish head appears, e.g., in the medallion in the church apse at Kh. Beit Sila and in the prayer hall of the later central church in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim. The eagle symbolizes Jesus, and after the conversion of Constantine the Great, the triumph of Christianity over paganism.45 Eagles appeared in the above mosaics (Fig. 44:4–6). One appeared in a medallion flanked by two heraldic lions in the mosaic at Kh. el-Qaṣr. It bore a branch in its beak, and its body was frontal, while its head turned to the side. A very similar eagle was also found in the fifth century church in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim. Eagles (which were defaced) were also set into the floor in ʿAnab el-Kabir and in the later northern church at Shiloh. The peacock represents eternal life, since its flesh allegedly does not decay; and because it molts its feathers in the winter and renews them in the spring, it is also emblematic of pride and arrogance. Maguire ascertained the literary and symbolic significance of peacocks in Byzantine writings, where they are

[476]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 43. ʿAnab el-Kabir: 1. Bird, the intercolumniation mosaic; 2. Bird in the cage, nave mosaic.

described as “beautiful ornaments of creation.”46 The peacock is common in the regional mosaics. Two peacocks flank the amphora in the western carpet of the chapel at Kh. el-Qaṣr.47 Another motif appearing in these churches is the axe (Fig. 45). It occurs in the intercolumnar carpets at ʿAnab el-Kabir and Kh. Ṭ awas, as well as at the churches at Beit ʿAnun; it is uncommon, however, in the mosaics of Transjordan. The axe generally adorned mosaics at building entrances, and possibly signified the power to daunt evil. It conceivably alluded to the passage in the New Testament: “And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees, and any tree which does not produce good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire” (Matt. 3:10). The character of mosaic crosses changed between the fifth and sixth centuries. In several fifth century

mosaics, crosslets were randomly arrayed across the floor. In the earlier central church at Beit ʿAnun, they were laid at equal intervals (Fig. 46:1). A similar phenomenon can be observed in the church at ʿAjur,48 and in the northern church at Herodium, which dates to the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century.49 Crosslets as well as larger crosses were observed in the church floor at Magen in the Negev.50 The appearance of crosslets in fifth century mosaics (Fig. 46:2–4) violates the edict issued in 427 by Theodosius II: “It being our concern to preserve by all means the faith in God Supreme, we hereby decree that no-one shall carve or draw the sign of the Lord our Savior on the floor or on a slab of marble laid over the ground; those that are found shall be removed, and whoever dares to break this law shall be punished with a heavy fine.”51 According to

[477]

R. AMIR

Fig. 44. Fish in mosaics: 1. Umm Deimine; 2. Kh. Beit Sila; 3. Martyrius Monastery; Eagles in mosaics: 4. Shiloh; 5. ʿAnab el-Kabir; 6. Martyrius Monastery.

[478]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

1

2

3

4

Fig. 45. Axes in mosaics: 1. ʿAnab el-Kabir; 2. Kh. Ṭ awas; 3. Beit ʿAnun northern church; 4. Beit ʿAnun later central church.

[479]

R. AMIR

1

3

2

4

6

5

Fig. 46. Crosses: 1. Beit ʿAnun central earlier church; 2–4. Shiloh; 5. Kh. Beit Sila; 6. Umm Deimine.

[480]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Habas, this edict had scant influence on the mosaics of our region. Nevertheless, the changeover from crosslet-adorned surfaces, customary in fifth century mosaics, to large crosses in certain precincts of the church in the sixth century, implies an altered attitude towards this symbol. The law was possibly enforced by degree in the course of the sixth century. But in our region it was understood to mean the restriction of crosses to special areas rather than their total disappearance. As mentioned, mosaic floors bearing large crosses, usually in central locations, typify the sixth century (Fig. 46:5). In many churches such crosses appear at the nave entrance. Their function was possibly apotropaic, since it was believed that a cross deters the entry of evil forces.52 Two large crosses were found in the mosaic floors in the monastery of Kh. Umm Deimine; one, in front of the chapel, was set before the entrance threshold leading to the nave (Fig. 46:6); the other was set in a medallion in one of the monastery rooms. Both were of the crux gemmata type. They had 13 decorative symbols representing Jesus and his disciples. As such, they are ideographs of the Savior and of resurrection. While the crosses in the nave were intended to protect the church itself, those in the liturgical spaces symbolized their sanctity and salvation through the Eucharist.53 An example of a cross in the middle of the apse is provided by the church at Tel Qerayot.54 A large mosaic with two crosses appears in a chapel bema in the northern wing of the compound at Kh. Deir Samʿan. Other crosses also appear at this site. Large crosses were sometimes placed on the floor to mark the position of liturgical furniture, like the offering table at the beginning of the bema, or in the apse. Large crosses were also placed in chapels. One appears in a medallion in the northern chapel of the later central church at Beit ʿAnun (see below, Fig. 48:3). It was located in the middle of the floor and imposed over a geometric grid. This is the chrismon, which comprises eight sides—four representing the cross and four representing the Greek letter χι (chi), symbolizing Christ. The cross is prominent against the background design and stresses the room’s center.

Dating the Mosaic Floors Three of these mosaics can be dated by their inscriptions. The carpet in the northern chapel at Deir Qalʿa, adorned with a grapevine springing from an amphora, is dated by its inscription in the west to 542 CE. The mosaic in the church at Kh. Istabul can be dated by the inscription at the front of the bema, in the east of the prayer hall, to 701 CE. Kh. Faʿush is the only site whose mosaics have been dated by coin hoards, found between the upper (Phase IIIB) and lower, earlier, mosaics (Phase IIIA). Hence the upper mosaics were not made before the third quarter of the fifth century (454–474 CE) and the lower mosaic floor was not made after this date. In large villages, churches have been found whose mosaics were installed over each other at different stages. The reason for raising the floor level is not always obvious. Sometimes the earlier mosaics were almost completely intact, e.g., in the central churches at Kh. Beit ʿAnun and in the church at Kh. Faʿush, two mosaics were observed, one laid above the other. In the northern churches of Shiloh, one church was built over the other, each having mosaic floors. The later church was extended to the east, whereby the atrium and prayer hall floors covered the earlier mosaic.

Stylistic Development of the Mosaics

Fifth Century Mosaic Floors Six mosaic floors may be ascribed to the fifth century: that in the bathhouse at Kh. Ẓ ur; that in the fortress at Deir Qalʿa; those of the earlier northern church at Shiloh; those of the earlier central church at Beit ʿAnun; that of the chancel in the first phase church at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin; and the first stage mosaic at the church at Kh. Faʿush. These mosaics are all characterized by the use of interlocked geometric patterns, with no faunal or floral motifs. There are differences in the quality of the mosaics. In a large village like Shiloh and in the fortress at Deir Qalʿa, the mosaics are of superior workmanship. Lower quality mosaics, expressed by simpler patterns and crude execution, are typical of smaller sites like Kh. Faʿush.

[481]

R. AMIR

Talgam suggests that the fifth century mosaics mostly made use of only five or six hues, in contrast to those of the third quarter of the sixth century, notable for their rich coloration. The colors commonly used in the fifth century mosaics under discussion were ocher, red, brick red, gray, black, and white. Some of the mosaics were confined to three colors: red, black, and white.55 Of the geometric patterns, the “rainbow pattern” is very common (Fig. 47). It is characterized by closely spaced adjoining rows of tesserae in various colors, generally ocher, red, black, and white. Examples can be seen in the eastern carpet corner in the earlier northern church at Shiloh, and in the earlier mosaic in the compound at Deir Qalʿa. Another example, but of lower quality, appears in the bema mosaic of the earlier stage church at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin. This pattern continues to the sixth century. A further example of this pattern has been observed in the mosaics in Jordan.56

Sixth Century Mosaic Floors Six mosaics ascribed to the second half of the sixth century include: the church floor at, ʿAnab el-Kabir, the floors of the later central church and the smaller church at Beit ʿAnun, the church floor at Kh. ʿEin Dab, the chapel floor at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin, and the chancel floor in the church at Kh. Beit Sila. These mosaics are adorned with geometric grids decorated with floral and faunal motifs. The decorations of the carpet fields and frames create rich compositions, forming one of the hallmarks of the Justinian renaissance of the sixth century.57 According to Talgam, the mosaics of the third quarter of the sixth century underwent a kind of “renaissance,” as expressed by an attempt to create an illusion of depth in the patterns by using a rich palette as well as using differently sized and shaped tesserae in different parts of the carpet.58 An instance of subtle shading can be seen in the floor of the northern church at Beit ʿAnun. A fruit in one of the recesses in the frame exhibits gradual shading, creating an impression of volume (see above, Fig. 20). An instance of the use of differently shaped tesserae occurs in the depiction of a bear in the chapel floor at Kh. el-Laṭaṭin. Triangular tesserae are used in the depiction of its teeth, and round tesserae, in its pupils. The attempt to create an impression of three-dimensionality by means of

coloration and overlap is observable in the small surviving portion of a mosaic in the church nave at Kh. ʿEin Dab, with its vivid colors, or in the frame of the Huryia nave mosaic (see above, Fig. 30), where the frame is of excellent work and consists of a wave ribbon with interwoven lilies. The sumptuous taste can be seen in the mosaics adorned with geometric patterns to which a colorful medallion “patch” was added (Fig. 48). Examples appear in the church aisles at Kh. ʿEin Dab, in the northern chapel of the later central church at Beit ʿAnun, as well as in one of the intercolumniation mosaics in the northern church at Beit ʿAnun.

Seventh and Beginning of Eighth Century Mosaic Floors Mosaics ascribed to the seventh century include the church floor at Kh. Istabul, and probably the mosaic at Kh. Ṭ awas. These mosaics are characterized by simple geometric patterns, the division of the nave mosaic into panels, the absence of animal or floral motifs, and the careless quality of the mosaics. Some of the patterns originated in the sixth century and continued until the beginning of the eighth.

The Artisans Among the churches under discussion, it is difficult to identify a workshop that worked on several mosaics, although it is possible to speak of similar artistic trends. Dunbabin stated that the substantial demand for mosaics during the Byzantine period apparently produced many artisans and workers who offered their services.59 Although mosaic workers were rarely mentioned in the historical sources, it was not unusual for them to sign their works, as we can see in mosaics from the Holy Land and Jordan.60 Two of the mosaics discussed in this article include the artisan’s name (Fig. 49). The name Zosys is cited in a tabula ansata inscription in front of the altar at the early church mosaic at Shiloh: “Lord Jesus Christ, preserve Eutonius the bishop and Germanus the priest and Zosys the mosaic worker who has set this up.” The same Zosys is mentioned in another inscription, in the frame of the western panel of the nave mosaic. There he is mentioned as an artist: “I, Zosys the artist,

[482]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

Fig. 47. Rainbow pattern: 1. Shiloh; 2. Deir Qalʿa; 3. Kh. Huriya; 4. Kh. el-Laṭaṭin.

[483]

R. AMIR

1

2

3

Fig. 48. Medallion “patch”: 1. ʿEin Dab; 2. Beit ʿAnun northern church; 3. Beit ʿAnun late central church.

[484]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

3

1

have made the benches.”61 The excellent quality of the mosaic at Shiloh may suggest that Zosys designed the mosaic and was a workshop owner, and not just a mosaic worker. In the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir, three inscriptions citing the artisans name were set in three squares of the nave carpet mosaic frame, in front of the bema. “Lord, (give) life to Samuel, mosaic layer”; “Lord, (give) life to Thomas, mosaic layer”; and in the south, “Lord, (give) life to Theophanes, mosaic layer.”62 Typically, two or three artisans were employed in each mosaic workshop in the Byzantine period. Sometimes these were family concerns comprising father and son.63

2

Fig. 49. Artisan’s name: 1. Shiloh; 2–3. ʿAnab el-Kabir.

Notes The excavations were conducted on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. I would like to express my gratitude to Y. Magen, former Head of the Staff Officer of Archaeology and to the excavators: E. Aharonovich, N. Aizik, A. Aronshtam, S. Batz, I. Sharukh, M. Dadon, U. Greenfeld, B. Har-Even, Y. Peleg, and L. Shapira. 2 Piccirillo 1993; see also Habas 2005. 3 Talgam, in press. 4 Mosaic floors from Judea were observed at the following sites, among others: Tel Qrayot (Govrin 1993); Kh. Yattir (Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2001; Besonen 2001); Kh. Maqarqesh (Vincent 1922); Maresha (Kloner 1993); Kh. ʿAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934); Kh. Bureikut (Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1993); Ḥ . Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1

1993); Kh. Hubaileh (Vincent 1939); Umm er-Rus (Ovadiah 1970: 127–128); Ḥ . Hanot (Shenhav 2003); Mattaʿ (Ovadiah, Ovadiah and Gudovitz 1976); Sokho (Gudovitch 1996); ʿEin el-Ḥ anniya (Baramki 1934); Kh. Fattir (Strus 2003: 429–430); the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990); Herodium (Netzer, Birger-Calderon, and Feller 1993); the synagogues at Eshtemoaʿ (Yeivin 2005); and Kh. Susiya (Yeivin 1993). Mosaic floors were discovered in the region of northern Judea and southern Samaria at Ḥ . Tinshemet (Dahari 1996); Kh. Shoham (Dahari 1998); Kh. Hani (Dahari 2003); Mevo Modiʿim (Eisenberg and Ovadiah 1998); Kh. Zikhrin (Fischer 1985), etc. 5 Magen 2010. 6 Mosaic floors bearing human figures were found, for example, in the church at Mahatt el-ʿUrdi (Baramki 1972:

[485]

R. AMIR

136) and in the church at Ḥ . Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1993: 265–270). Orpheus appears in the “Orpheus Mosaic,” discovered north of Damascus Gate (Avi-Yonah 1981: 319, no. 133, Pls. 50–51), etc. 7 Piccirillo 1993: 38–42. 8 Magen 2008: 173. 9 Patrich 1990: 36–40, 48–49. 10 See Peleg 2012. 11 Avi-Yonah 1981. 12 Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh 2012. 13 Di Segni 2012a. 14 Di Segni 2012b. 15 Di Segni 2012c. 16 The composition of a tree with animals on either side appears in the mosaic floor of the lower baptistery chapel in the Madaba Map (see Piccirillo 1993: 119, Fig. 121), and in other mosaic floors in Jordan (see Piccirillo 1993: 132, Figs. 160–161). 17 Di Segni 2012d. 18 Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1993. 19 A carpet bearing a similar design was uncovered at Kh. el-Judeira (see Yitach 2001: 109, Fig. 169). 20 Bijovsky, “Coins from Khirbet Faʿush, Maccabim,” in this volume. 21 Dahari 1998. 22 Dahari 1996: Pls. ii–iii. 23 Fifth century parallels can be found: in the mosaics of the Holy Land, e.g., at the site of Yavneh-Yam (Vitto 1984); in Syrian mosaics, e.g., in the church at Hir Esh-Sheikh (Donceel-Voûte 1988: 131); in Transjordanian mosaics, e.g., in the northern aisle of the church of the Salayta family (Piccirillo 1993: 132); and in the bathhouses of Herakleides at Gadara (Piccirillo 1993: 328). 24 Di Segni , “Greek Inscription from Deir Qalʿa,” in this volume. 25 Saller 1957. 26 Piccirillo 1993: Figs. 535, 566. 27 A similar frame was discovered in mosaic floors in Antioch, Levi 1945: Pl. XCI. 28 Dadon, “The ‘Basilica Church’ at Shiloh,” in this volume. 29 See Magen, “A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan,” in this volume, pp. 29–31. 30 Magen 2010. 31 Reich 1985; see also Ovadiah 1970: Pls. CVII–CVIII; Peleg, “A Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Zaqum,” in this volume. 32 Dauphin 1978a: 408.

33 Avi-Yonah 1975: 191–193. The term “school” has been used by scholars with different meanings. C. Dauphin 1976: 130 conceives of several generations of artisans working in the same stylistic mode. L. Habas, by contrast, defines “school” as the cultural ambience of the artistic activity in one region or another, thus representing local fashion; see Habas 2005: 164–165. 34 Habas 2005: 95, 113. 35 Habas 2005: 107–109. 36 Tal 1996: 132–140. 37 Dauphin 1978b: 32–33. 38 Maguire 1987: 2. 39 Habas 2005: 351, 399. 40 Habas 2005: 393. 41 Roussin 1985: 356. 42 Avi-Yonah 1975: 194. 43 Habas 2005: 297. 44 Vincent 1939. 45 Habas 2005: 315–323. 46 Maguire 1987: 38–39. 47 Peacocks flanking an amphora appeared in the church mosaics at: Tel Qrayot (see Govrin 1993: 112–113); and at Ḥ . Beth Loya (see Patrich and Tsafrir 1993: 265–270). 48 Ovadiah 1970: Pl. 1. 49 Netzer, Birger-Calderon and Feller 1993: 222–224. 50 The hoard of coins found underneath the apse floor dates this stage to the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century; see Tzaferis 1985: 10. 51 Mango 1986: 36. 52 Habas 2005: 345–346. 53 Habas 2005: 345–347. 54 Govrin 1993. 55 Talgam 1986: 73–74. 56 In the church of Massuh, south of Heshbon, dated to the second half of the fifth century; see Piccirillo 1993: Figs. 446–447. 57 Kitzinger 1977: 81–112. 58 Talgam 1986: 74–78. 59 Dunbabin 1999: 269–270. 60 In the baptistery mosaic floor chapel commemorating Moses on Mt. Nebo, the names of three artisans are cited: Soelos, Kaioumas, and Elias; see Piccirillo 1993: 47. 61 Di Segni , “Greek Inscriptions from the Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in this volume. 62 Di Segni 2012a. 63 Dunbabin 1999: 275.

[486]

MOSAIC FLOORS IN JUDEA AND SOUTHERN SAMARIA

References Avi-Yonah M. 1975. “The Gaza School of Mosaicists in the Fifth–Sixth Centuries C.E.,” EI 12: 191–194 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” in H. Katzenstein and Y. Tsafrir (eds.), Art in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies, Jerusalem, pp. 283–382. Baramki D.C. 1934. “An Early Christian Basilica at ʿEin Hanniya,” QDAP 3: 113–117. Baramki D.C. 1972. “A Byzantine Church at Mahatt El Urdi, Beit Jibrin, 1941–1942,” LA 22: 130–152. Baramki D.C. and Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “An Early Byzantine Church at Khirbet ʿAsida,” QDAP 3: 17–19. Besonen J. 2001. “The Yattir Mosaic. A Visual Journey to Christ,” BAR 27 (4): 37–43. Dahari U. 1996. “Ḥ orbat Tinshemet, Church of St. Bacchus,” ESI 18: 67–68. Dahari U. 1998. “Shoham Bypass Road,” ESI 20: 79–83 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 56*–59*). Dahari U. 2003. “The Excavation at Horvat Hani,” Qadmoniot 126: 102–106 (Hebrew). Dauphin C.M. 1976. “A new method of studying early Byzantine mosaic pavements: Coding and a computed cluster analysis with special reference to the Levant,” Levant 8: 113–149. Dauphin C.M. 1978a. “Byzantine Pattern Books; A Reexamination of the Problem in the Light of the ‘Inhabited Scroll,” Art History 1(4): 400–423. Dauphin C.M. 1978b. “Symbolic or Decorative? The Inhabited Scroll as a Means of Studying some Early Byzantine Mentalities,” Byzantion 48: 10–43. Di Segni L. 2012a. “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 385–392. Di Segni L. 2012b. “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Ṭawas,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 241–246. Di Segni L. 2012c. “Greek Inscription from the Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias),” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 327–330. Di Segni L. 2012d. “Greek Inscriptions from the Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr,” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 299–302. Donceel-Voûte P. 1988. Les Pavements des églises Byzantines de Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéologie et liturgie, Louvain La Neuve. Dunbabin K.M.D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge.

Eisenberg E. and Ovadiah R. 1998. “A Byzantine Monastery at Mevo Modiʿim,” ʿAtiqot 36:1*–19* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 123–124). Eshel H., Magness J., and Shenhav E. 2001 “Surprises at Yattir, Unexpected Evidence of Early Christianity,” BAR 27(4): 32–36. Fischer M. 1985. “Excavation at Horvat Zikhrin,” Qadmoniot 18 (71–72): 112–120 (Hebrew). Govrin Y. 1993. “Tel Qerayot-1991,” ESI 13: 112–113 (Hebrew). Gudovitch S. “A Byzantine Building at the Foot of Horbat Sokho,” ʿAtiqot 28: 17* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 19). Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structure and Their Relationship with the Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Pavements, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Kitzinger E. 1977. Byzantine Art in the Making, London. Kloner A. 1993. “A Byzantine Church at Maresha (Beit Govrin),” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 261–264. Levi D. 1945. Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton. Magen Y. 2008. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 117–180. Magen Y. 2010. The Good Samaritan Museum (JSP 12), Jerusalem. Magen Y., Peleg Y., and Sharukh I. 2012. “A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Rujum Jureida” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 397–434. Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ) and Its Mosaics,” Christian Archaeology: 91–152. Maguire H. 1987. Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art, London. Mango C. 1986. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453: Sources and Documents, Toronto. Netzer E., Birger-Calderon R., and Feller A. 1993. “The Churches of Herodium,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 219–232. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Mosaic in the Holy Land, Bonn. Ovadiah A., Ovadiah R., and Gudovitz S. 1976. “Une église Byzantine a Matta,” RB 83: 421–431. Patrich J. 1990. The Formation of Nabatean Art— Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabateans. Jerusalem. Patrich J. and Tsafrir Y. 1993. “A Byzantine Church Complex at Ḥ orvat Beit Loya,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 265–272.

[487]

R. AMIR

Peleg Y. 2012. “Iconoclasm in Churches and Synagogues in Judea” in Christians and Christianity IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea (JSP 16), Jerusalem, pp. 483–494. Piccirillo M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman. Reich R. 1985. “Some Byzantine Remains: A Chapel at Khirbet Umm Zaquma,” ʿAtiqot 17: 212–213. Roussin L. 1992. The Iconography of the Figural Pavements of Early Byzantine Palestine, Michigan. Saller J.S. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953) (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 12), Jerusalem. Shenhav A. 2003. “Horvat Hanot. A Byzantine Tradition of Goliath’s Burial Place,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and L.D. Chrupcata, One Land—Many Cultures (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collection Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 269–272. Strus A. 2003. Khirbet Fattir—Bet Gemal, Roma. Tal M. 1996. Main trends of compositions in floor mosaics in Jordan and the Byzantine surroundings from the fourth to eighth centuries and their origins in the Roman world, M.A.Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Talgam R. 1986. Mosaics of Khirbet el-Muraşşaş and stylistic mosaic trends in the Holy Land in the Fifth to Sixth Centuries, M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Talgam R. in press. Mosaics of Faith: Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, and Muslims in the Holy Land, Jerusalem and Pennsylvania. Tsafrir Y. and Hirschfeld Y. 1993. “The Byzantine Church of Ḥ orvat Berachot,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 207–218. Tzaferis V. 1985. “An Early Christian Church Complex at Magen,” BASOR 258: 1–16. Vincent L.H. 1922. “Une Villa Gréco-Romain a Beit Djebrin,” RB 31: 259–281. Vincent L.H. 1939. “L’église Byzantine de Hebeileh,” RB 48: 87–90. Vitto F. 1984. “Jamnitarum Portus,” Qadmoniot 66–67: 76–78 (Hebrew). Yeivin Z. 1993. “Susiya, Khirbet,” NEAEHL 4: 1415–1421. Yeivin Z. 2005. “The Synagogue at Eshtemoa in Light of the 1969 Excavations,” ʿAtiqot 48: 59*–98* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 155–158). Yitach M. 2001. “Khirbet el-Judeira,” ESI 113: 108–109 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 72*).

[488]

COLOR PLATES

P l at e I

Shiloh, early church, nave mosaic floor.

Shiloh, early church, Greek inscription mentioning “Shiloh and its inhabitants.”

[490]

P l at e I I

Shiloh, early church, bema mosaic floor.

Shiloh, late church, Greek inscriptions in the northern aisle.

[491]

P l at e I I I

Deir Qalʾa, Roman fortress mosaic floor.

Deir Qalʾa, church narthex mosaic floor.

[492]

P l at e I V

Deir Qalʾa, northern chapel mosaic floor.

[493]

P l at e V

Khirbet el-Laṭaṭin, bema mosaic carpet.

[494]