Christians and Christianity, Vol. IV: Churches and Monasteries in Judea 9789654062558

Citation preview

The Fi n ds

CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY

CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES IN JUDEA

[  I  ]

y. M ag e n

[ II ]

The Fi n ds

CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY VOLUME IV

CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES IN JUDEA

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

23

[ III ]

y. M ag e n

16

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 978-965-406-255-8

© 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 Roman Bathhouse and Two Byzantine Churches at Khirbet Ẓ ur Shahar Batz and Ibrahim Sharukh

A Byzantine Church at Khirbet ʿEin Dab

Yuval Peleg

A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Duweir Shahar Batz and Ibrahim Sharukh

A Byzantine Rock-Cut Tomb East of Khirbet eṭ-Ṭ ayyibe Yuval Peleg

The Central Church at Beit ʿAnun

1 37 61 107 121

Yitzhak Magen

Greek Inscriptions from the Central Church at Beit ʿAnun

Leah Di Segni

The Northern Church at Beit ʿAnun

169 177

Yitzhak Magen

Khirbet Abu Rish

185

Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Baruch

A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Qaṣr Khalife

Yitzhak Magen

A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ṭ awas

Yuval Peleg

[ VII ]

203 227

y. M ag e n

Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Ṭ awas Leah Di Segni

A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr Yitzhak Magen, Benjamin Har-Even, and Ibrahim Sharukh

Greek Inscriptions from the Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr Leah Di Segni

A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias) Yuval Peleg and Shahar Batz

Greek Inscription from the Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias) Leah Di Segni

A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir

Yitzhak Magen, Yuval Peleg, and Ibrahim Sharukh

Greek Inscriptions from the Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir Leah Di Segni

Syropalestinian Inscription from the Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir Moshe Bar-Asher

A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Rujm Jureida Yitzhak Magen, Yuval Peleg, and Ibrahim Sharukh

A Roman Military Compound and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Deimine Yitzhak Magen, Shahar Batz, and Ibrahim Sharukh

Iconoclasm in Churches and Synagogues in Judea

241 247 299 303 327 331 385 393 397

435

Yuval Peleg

483

Color Plates

495

[ VIII ]

y. M ag e n

Preface This volume summarizes most of the church and monastery excavations conducted in Judea during the past three decades. The sites have been published in geographical order, from north to south, with the area of Byzantine Jerusalem serving as the northern boundary of the volume. Highly significant archaeological discoveries emerged from our excavations of the churches and monasteries in Judea, as they did in Samaria and northern Judea, and in the Christian sites published in JSP 13 and JSP 14. First, as in the northern area published in JSP 15, most of the monasteries were located in fourth century CE military structures that had been built by Theodosius I and his son Arcadius. These military structures served as local outposts and centers for policing and maintaining internal security against the growing numbers of Saracens, who posed an increasing threat that overshadowed the rural population living near the desert’s edge. The settlement of Carmel was the main military center. The extensive construction of buildings and towers throughout the rest of the desert fringe of the southern Judean hills and the northern Negev was meant to keep a watchful eye for Saracen penetration and to protect crown lands possessed by the authorities after the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. In the sixth century CE these structures were given to the monks establishing monasteries. In most instances these fortresses and towers were built over caves, to prevent the latter’s use by the Saracens. Despite this, the Saracen threat did not cease, and they continued to harass and attack the monastic population, as is attested by the defensive means discovered in most of the monasteries, such as walls, towers, and the rolling stones that protected the monastery entrance gates. In the following years the Christians succeeded in converting some of the Saracens, and these new Christians might have inhabited some of the monasteries. In these structures, as in those in Samaria, the construction of churches within them was clearly a secondary phase. These structures also yielded winepresses, thus attesting to viticulture and wine production. In a later phase, after the Christian structure had fallen into disuse, an industrial oil press (with a lever, screw, and cylindrical weight, or with stone monoliths used as weights) was installed. The oil presses are dated to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. Surprisingly, we discovered that in the preceding period, olive trees were not cultivated at these sites, nor did the monks engage in oil production. This, then, is the first time we encountered the cultivation of olive trees and oil presses in areas next to the desert fringe. In addition to the church and monastery reports, the volume includes an article which explores the phenomenon of iconoclasm that spread throughout the churches and Jewish synagogues in the Umayyad period, following the edict issued by Yazid II in 721 CE. 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; Keter Enterprises, especially Asaf Ben-Or, Miri Revivo, and Tal Zeidani; Yoav Tzionit, without whom these volumes could not have been published; and those who assisted in 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 artists Alina Pikovsky-Yoffe, Ravit NenerSuriano 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 those 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 ADAJ

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AIBL

Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Letters

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BAR Int. S.

British Archaeological Reports (International Series)

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.

CIJ J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, Rome, 1936–1952. CJ Codex Justiniauns, P. Krueger (ed.), Berlin, 1929. CNI Christian News from Israel DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers GCS

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

EI Eretz-Israel 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–. P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie XXI: IGLS XXI Inscriptions de la Jordanie, II: Région centrale, Paris, 1986. IGRom R. Cagnat et al., Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes I–IV, Paris, 1911–1927. IK Sestos

J. Krauss, Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones (Inschriften griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien, Bd. 19), Bonn, 1980.

Josh.

Joshua

JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology 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

[ XI ]

y. M ag e n

KO Kunst des Orients 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. PNessana H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana III, C.J. Kraemer, Non-literary Papyri, Princeton, 1958. Ps.

Psalms

QDAP

Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine

RB Revue Biblique SCI Scripta Classica Israelica 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

ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 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 ROMAN BATHHOUSE AND TWO BYZANTINE CHURCHES AT KHIRBET Ẓ UR SHAHAR BATZ AND IBRAHIM SHARUKH

usual in such installations, by a complex comprising a floor suspended on the pillars of a hypocaust system (suspensura). The furnace in the heating room (praefurnium; no. 6) that adjoined the caldarium injected hot air into the suspensura space. In rooms requiring especially hot air, i.e., the caldarium and the sudatorium, the air was channeled through the walls by means of box flue tiles (tubuli; see below). The tepidarium was heated exclusively by the hypocaust.4 The bathhouse at Kh. Ẓ ur measures ca. 10.5×12 m. Although a number of internal changes were introduced at later stages, the plan of the outer walls remained the same. Three walls were exposed in the excavations. W16, in the north, measured 10.50×1.00 m, and was partly hewn, partly built of two faces. Its exterior consisted of ashlars, its interior, of medium-sized stones. W25, in the east, measured 10.50×1.40 m, and was constructed like the northern wall. It was extant to a height of 2.80 m. The bathhouse entrance was fixed in its southeast. W21, in the south of the bathhouse, measured 8.00×1.10 m, but only one course above the foundations remained. The bathhouse walls consisted of ashlars with marginal drafting and a flat boss, as displayed by the remnants of W1, which traverses the structure. It was preserved to a height of four courses and has an arched entrance. Similarly dressed stones, dating to the fourth century, were used in erecting a massive structure at Deir Qalʿa.5 The apodyterium (no. 1), in the southwest, measures 2.80×2.50 m. Access is through a 1.50 m-wide opening in W25. The walls of this room, hewn into the bedrock, were plaster coated. The excavations revealed several layers of plaster. A fragment of the earliest layer showed traces of red, and the apodyterium walls were possibly painted. The arched opening in W1 was 2.00 m wide. Its posts consisted of ashlars with fine marginal drafting. This opening led

Kh. Ẓ ur is situated on the eastern bank of Naḥ al Ha-Ellah, 400 m above sea level (map ref. IOG 15135/11803; ITM 20135/61803).1 It lies some 2 km southeast of the settlement of Neve Mikhaʾel, in the southern reaches of the Ellah Valley (see Site Map on p. XIII).2 In the northwest of the site a complex was exposed, consisting of a bathhouse and of two churches built one on top of the other. Elsewhere on the site, which extends over an area of ca. 80 dunams, structures and caves, including hiding caves, were observed. Kh. Ẓ ur was originally settled in the Chalcolithic period and Early Bronze Age. After centuries of abandonment, it was resettled in Iron Age II, and again from the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods. Afterwards, it was evidently mostly abandoned. Kh. Ẓ ur was not mentioned in earlier surveys of the region. Its name derives from Naḥ al Ẓ ur, a tributary of nearby Naḥ al Ha-Ellah. Excavations of the site revealed four main phases of use (Figs. 1–2): erection of a Late Roman bathhouse (fourth century); erection of a church and changes in the bathhouse (fifth century); erection of a new church over the earlier one and further changes in the bathhouse (sixth century); conversion of part of the bathhouse into a pottery kiln and secondary use of the church interior (seventh and eighth centuries).

PHASE I—LATE ROMAN PERIOD The erection of the bathhouse dates to this phase. It appears to have been a private one, of the “retraced-circle” type3; it comprised a changing room (apodyterium; no.1) leading, in succession, to a cold water room (frigidarium; no. 2), a lukewarm water room (tepidarium; no. 3), a sweating room (sudatorium; no. 4), and finally, a hot room (caldarium; no. 5). Heating the requisite rooms was effected, as is

[1]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

7

L120

W16

L143 L140 369.31 L112 F133L113 W14 L169 L127 W6 L130 F159 L109 370.19

2

W27 W24 W2

L154

W21

370.30

W3 371.80

W6

W26

2 W25

W7

5

8

370.52

F117 F116 F158

3

W1

8

W25

W5

W1

3

W4

5

W15

1

F122

6

370.46

370.51

4

F105

W

370.10

370.52

F124

L146

7

5 m

Fig. 1. Kh. Ẓ ur, detailed plan.

[2]

1

W29

W9

0

F118 F156

F152 L153

W9

22 6

W13 F157 L149

W17

L126

W20

W10

W11

W18

F152

371.55

4

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

1-1

372 00 371 00

W24

L127 W1

W21 W7

W1

W16

W9

W1

370 00

F122

F116 F117

F124

F105

F133

369 00

2-2 373 00 372 00 371 00 370 00

W2

F116 L154

369 00

F117

W1

W3

F158 F116

3-3 W4

L160 W1 W25

372 00 371 00

W6

370 00

F161

369 00

F133

W14 L143 L140

L127

368 00

W15

4-4 W17

373 00

W18

W29

372 00 F157

371 00

W9

F156

F152

370 00 369 00

372 00

F124

5-5 W4

W15

371 00 370 00

W1

W5

L143

369 00

F133

L120

6-6

372 00

W13

371 00 370 00

W22

F118 W10 W11 F156

369 00

F105

7-7

372 00 371 00 W9 370 00

W18

F152

F105 F124

F122

W7 W21

W2 F117

W6

L109 F158 F116 F159

369 00

Fig. 2. Kh. Ẓ ur, sections.

[3]

W4 F133

W5

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

lead pipe conveyed water to the frigidarium center, afterwards being covered by F158. Identical pools are known from other Late Roman bathhouses.6 The tepidarium (no. 3) measures 2.10×2.20 m. It has two openings: one, 0.70 m wide in W1, from the frigidarium; the other, 0.70 m, to the sudatorium (no. 4). The room is divided horizontally into an upper section above the floor, with plaster-coated walls, and a lower section, containing the heating system that consists of hypocaust pillars supporting a suspended floor. The sudatorium (no. 4) was devoid of water installations like tubs or sinks.7 It measured 3.00×1.90 m, and here, too, remnants of the heating system, including hypocaust pillars and tubuli, were found. The walls, extant to a height of 2.80 m, were lined with marble tiles that concealed the system. The floor of this phase was not discovered, but its construction was apparently identical to that of F161, dating to the second phase, which was exposed in the opening between Rooms 3 and 4. F161 was identical to the tepidarium floor, which lay 1.10 m over the bedrock. In addition to the opening from the tepidarium in the room’s south, another opening, in W1, led to the caldarium (no. 5). This entrance measures 1.00×0.75 m. Its extant height above the level of the sudatorium is ca. 2.2 m. Part of the hypocaust system lies beneath the entrance. It and the entrance floor (L127) were up to 1.10 m over the bedrock. The rectangular shape of the sudatorium and its integration into the bathing circuit are characteristic of Late Roman bathhouses, and date it to this period.8 The caldarium (no. 5) was partially hewn into the bedrock and partially built of massive stone walls. In the west of the room was an opening to the furnace. The caldarium was cruciform in plan, measuring 3.70×1.50 m from north to south, and 3.30×2.10 m from east to west; its extant height in the hewn section was 2.85 m. The room included two vaulted niches, opposite each other, north and south of the entrance. The southern niche measured 1.55×0.95 m, the northern one, 1.50×0.85 m. Sinks or tubs were apparently set on the bottoms of these niches at floor level. The caldarium’s hypocaust system was established on a plastered floor (F133), whose foundation was laid over the hewn bedrock; it included small stones for leveling the surface (Fig. 4). The pillars (pilae),

from the apodyterium to the frigidarium, and thence to the other bathhouse rooms. The frigidarium (no. 2), located between the dressing room and the heated rooms, was the largest room in the bathhouse. At least 8 m long and ca. 3.5 m wide, it was bordered in the south by W21, which also comprised the bathhouse’s southern wall. This massive wall is abutted by the frigidarium’s mosaic floor. Several probes exposed sections of the floor abutting the inner face of W21. This floor (F158), of white tesserae (49 per sq. dm), was laid on the bedrock. An examination of the floor indicates it was on the level of the room entrance and evidently also abutted W1, which bordered the room in the east. In the room’s north is a semicircular pool (L109), ca. 1 m in diameter and 0.70 m deep, with a step in its south that served as a bench (Fig. 3). The pool is paved in white mosaic (49 per sq. dm) and abuts the southern face of W24. Pool access is provided by a built, mosaic-covered step (W27), which possibly served as a bench. In the pool’s southern wall, a

Fig. 3. Pool L109, view from the south.

[4]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Fig. 4. Hypocaust system and furnace, view from the east.

The hot air conveyance system in the passageways was different from that in the hot rooms (see above, L127). The air was conveyed beneath the floor solely by means of hypocaust tiles, which were affixed to the sides and sustained the floor, without the use of tubuli. Two types of tiles were discerned in the hypocaust system of this phase. The first type is of square tiles, 18×18×3 cm. These were employed in constructing the pillars and lining the walls in this phase. Identical tiles were also found at a number of other sites: in the bathhouse at Ramat Raḥ el, where they bore the stamp of the Roman Tenth Legion10; at Givʿat ha-Arbaʿa, near Ramat Raḥ el, where tiles ascribed to the Tenth Legion were discovered11; in the brickworks of the Legio X Fretensis at Givat Ram12; and elsewhere in Jerusalem’s environs. The present tiles assumedly likewise date to the Late Roman period, even though they do not bear Roman stamp impressions. At a later stage these tiles were replaced by rounded ones (see below). The second tile type is square too, but larger, 25×25×3 cm. These tiles were also set at the base of

of baked square tiles, were set on the floor. Judging by the tiles in situ, the system included several rows of pillars that together formed a cross. The exposed pillars rose to a height of 0.70 m, the intervals between them, 0.20 m. Brick arches surmounted the pillars supporting the suspended floor, which lay 1.10 m above the Hypocaust plastered floor. The suspended floor comprised a layer of hydraulic plaster covered in mosaic; fragments of it were observed amid the debris of the caldarium; others were in situ in the tepidarium. The suspensura was designed to fully exploit the heating system. The floor was apparently laid at a slant, rising from the furnace in the west to the edge of the caldarium, expediting the flow of hot air. Vitruvius (V, X.2) specifies that this is how the suspensura should be installed.9 The room’s walls were lined with hypocaust tiles to a height of 1.00 m above the floor. This lining protected the walls, prone to damage from the hot air. Above this level, tubuli conveyed the hot air inside the walls.

[5]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

The tubuli were concealed with marble slabs. This is based on the discovery of tubuli fragments to which such slabs were affixed in Phase III of the bathhouse, as well as upon the consideration that rooms containing water installations require marble rather than plaster

the hypocaust pillars, smaller ones of the first type being laid over them (Fig. 5). They were also used in constructing the furnace channel, from the west to the middle of the caldarium. In some bathhouses, rectangular tiles were used in constructing the furnace channel.13 The caldarium and sudatorium walls were heated by tubuli, of rectangular section affixed to the walls, conveying hot air from the furnace. These tubuli were open on top and bottom, with oval holes at the four corners. Hot air passed up and down through the openings and sideward through the holes. In every tubulus, two holes were permanently blocked—one to the side adjoining the wall, and the other across from it; this latter was blocked by marble slab paneling (see below). In the rooms’ walls, tubuli were found next to each other (Fig. 6). They measured 14×10 cm and were 22 cm high. Tiles of this type are Late Roman, and similar examples have been found in bathhouses in Jerusalem from the second and third centuries.14

1

2 0

5

Fig. 6. Tubuli discovered in situ.

Fig. 5. Hypocaust pillars. Note the three kinds of tiles.

[6]

10

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Vitruvius (V, X.1), the bathhouse tanks were to be installed above the furnace and inside the caldarium. Lead pipes conducted the water from a pool to the tank. The excavations exposed a number of lead pipe fragments in the rubble overlying the dome (L140, Fig. 7:1). Lead pipes were used in bathhouses beginning in the Early Roman period15 and continuing into the Late Roman period.16 Information about the water supply to the bathhouse is provided by two ceramic pipe fragments found amid the rubble (Fig. 7:2–3). Pipe sections are made with one widened and one indented end, so they can be joined to one another. Each fragment included one of the alternative ends, and one contained a layer of plaster designed to fix and seal the sections.17

facing. Some of the marble slabs were found adjacent to plaster and tubuli fragments. The praefurnium (no. 6), 3.00×3.00 m, west of the caldarium, was built into an opening in W4, which was partially hewn into the bedrock and partially constructed. The opening measured 1.25×1.00 m, its estimated height, 2.10 m. The lower part of the hypocaust furnace was found at the bottom of the opening; its vaulted roof was of baked bricks (L140). A vaulted channel conveyed hot air from the furnace; some six courses, representing its lower part, were intact on either side. The reconstructed height of the vault is ca. 80 cm. The channel extended into the caldarium’s hypocaust chamber; it was 1.95 m long and 1.00 m wide. Air escaped from the end of the channel through three openings in different directions. The furnace’s base was paved with hypocaust tiles. The back of the hypocaust furnace comprises two dressed and elongated stones, 0.50×0.22 m, which abut the opening of W4 in the west. Between them was a 0.34 m-wide opening, probably used when stoking the furnace. Another stone, for shutting the furnace (L143), was found in situ in the opening. The water tank was probably mounted above the furnace dome; it was hidden behind the marble slabs lining the sides of the caldarium. According to

PHASE II—FIRST HALF OF THE FIFTH CENTURY In this phase a church was erected at the site and changes were made in the bathhouse (Fig. 8).

The Church A basilica church was erected south of the bathhouse; its external measurements are 16.00×9.70 m. The west

2

1 0

1

2

0

Fig. 7. Pipes found in the bathhouse.

[7]

5

10

3

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

6

4 5

3 2

1

8

7 10

9

0

5

m

Fig. 8. Kh. Ẓ ur, general plan of Phase II.

[8]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

of the church was not exposed, but one can assume that it included a narthex and possibly an atrium. The prayer hall was divided into a nave and two aisles. An apse, lacking pastophoria, protrudes to the east. During the sixth century a new church was built on top of it. The prayer hall, 11.90×8.50 m, was divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of four columns each. It was paved with a white mosaic floor (F152) that abutted the church walls. The hall walls were coated in thick, yellowish plaster. The southern wall (W9) remained in use in both the early and the later church. The nave (no. 7) measures 8.40×2.80 m, its floor laid over the leveled bedrock. The southern aisle (no. 9) measures 11.90×2.10 m. Its mosaic floor abutted the church’s southern wall and chancel steps. The northern aisle (no. 8) was not exposed, but from the church plan and nave mosaic one can infer that it was identical to its southern counterpart. The chancel (no. 10) measures 5.60×3.80 m. The bema extends 4.00 m into the prayer hall. It was separated from the hall by a screen and stairs. A wide, well-dressed stair (W11) led from the prayer hall to the bema. A channel in the step indicates that a chancel screen had been inserted into it. In the southeast of the bema, an opening in the chancel screen connected the chancel and southern aisle, and one can assume that a similar opening connected the chancel and northern aisle. An external apse protrudes from the church’s eastern wall (W20). The lower courses of its wall were hewn into the bedrock, over which the courses of W22 were laid.

Fig. 9. Chancel mosaic carpet.

diamond. The artisans used only three colors in the carpets: white, red, and black. The white carpets had 36 tesserae per sq. dm, the chancel carpet, 64 tesserae per sq. dm. Similar mosaics have been found at sites dating to the fifth century.19

The Bathhouse

Church Mosaic Floors

The mosaics of the prayer hall, chancel, and apse areas were exposed. They consisted of crude white tesserae set in diagonal rows, except for the three outer rows, which ran parallel to the church walls and chancel step. Only the chancel carpet (F156), 2.60×1.80 m, was decorated (Fig. 9). Diagonal rows of white tesserae ran along the margins. The frame consisted of two rows of black tesserae followed by two rows of white (A2*).18 The carpet field was decorated with a grid of diamonds (H1*) outlined with black and red tesserae. A smaller diamond (E*) was set in the middle of each

In Phase II, a number of changes were introduced into the bathhouse (Fig. 10). The tepidarium floor was evidently replaced, and a probe revealed an identical floor to the contemporaneous one in the frigidarium (see below). Furthermore, an additional coat of white plaster was applied to the walls of the apodyterium, tepidarium, and sudatorium. A new mosaic floor (F116) was laid over the original one in the frigidarium (F158; Figs. 11–12). F116 exhibits a colorful carpet with geometric designs; it abuts the room’s walls (W21 and W27).

[9]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 10. Phase II bathhouse, reconstruction.

Fig. 11. Mosaic carpet of the frigidarium beneath the Phase III baptistery mosaic floor.

[10]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

0

10

20

Fig. 12. Mosaic carpet of the frigidarium, illustration.

and white (occasionally replaced by pale blue and white). The inner frame consists of two rows of black tesserae, with a dentil pattern, in red (A5*), between them. The exposed section of the mosaic carpet contains interlacing strips, creating a round, entwined, concentric design. The strips are of tesserae in: ocher and white; gray, blue, pale blue, and white; red-brick, red, pink, and white. The four corners of the carpet are adorned with highly schematic amphorae whose stylized handles extend like tendrils to either side of the circle.

The pool remained in use during this phase. It appears that the colorful carpet included two identical panels, each 2.30×2.30 m; their remnants were observed underneath the baptismal font and the mosaic carpet of Phase III. Only one of the panels was uncovered. White tesserae were set in diagonal rows along the carpet margins. The frame consisted of two rows of black tesserae (A1*), two rows of white, and a band containing a guilloche (B3*), bordered on either side by a row of black tesserae and two rows of white. The guilloche consists of strips in: ocher and white; red-brick, red, and white; and gray

[11]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

was adorned with two crosses. This floor (F105) was laid over the earlier one (F152); in the east it abuts the chancel step (W11). The floor’s western section was destroyed, but one can assume it abutted the narthex wall (W18). The aisles were identical. They measured 11.50×2.10 m, and were paved with a mosaic carpet of geometric pattern (Fig. 15). The mosaics abutted the church walls. Its western section was destroyed, but one can assume that here, as in the nave, it abutted the narthex wall. The chancel and apse, measured 6.70×6.00 m; they were separated from the prayer hall by two wide ashlar steps (W10 and W11) and a chancel screen. The lower step was in use in the earlier church, the upper one added by its successor (Fig. 16). A limestone chancel screen had surmounted the upper step. Fragments of the bottom of the screen panel were found in situ in the channel and amid the rubble in the nave, together with a fragment of the chancel screen post. The opening in the screen on Step W11, in the southeast of the earlier church’s chancel, had been blocked in the later church, the screen placed in the channel in W10. An internal apse was constructed, bordered in the east by W17. The wall of the new apse (W13; Fig. 17), expanding the sacred area eastwards. Remains of the altar table base were found in the middle of the apse. The addition of W17 resulted in a rectangular room on each side of the apse; these served as pastophoria. The southern pastophorium (no. 12) measured 2.30×2.30 m and was paved in white mosaic (F157). Its walls, like all those of the later church, were plaster coated. Two steps, of ashlars in secondary use, adjoined the western face of W20, in which the room’s opening was fixed. These were abutted by the mosaic of the southern aisle. As in the western wall, they lie over the east of the former church’s southern aisle. The northern pastophorium was not excavated. A baptistery (no. 13) was appended to the church at this phase. Its construction was made possible by separating the frigidarium from the bathhouse complex, attaching it to the church, and adapting it to its new function as a baptistery. Two walls, W2 and W3, were built over the Phase II mosaic floor (F116): W2, over the mosaic-covered step (W27) and part of the pool (L109), which was

Similar mosaic patterns have been found in several fifth century churches in the region. The first stage of the Church of the Nativity has examples from the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century.20 Its carpets are more varied in terms of color, and the patterns create a greater impression of depth. The mosaic floor in a church at Maresha, from the first half of the fifth century, has a composition and patterns resembling those of the frigidarium.21 The latter’s carpet is unusually colorful and includes eight hues: white, black, brick, red, pink, gray, violet, light violet, and ocher. It was laid using 144 tesserae per sq. dm. Another floor (F161) from this phase was found between the sudatorium and the tepidarium. It was made of rough white tesserae (64 per sq. dm).

PHASE III—SIXTH CENTURY

The Church In Phase III, a new, larger church was built over its predecessor, and changes were introduced into the bathhouse (Figs. 13–14). The new church was basilical, with an internal apse adjoined by pastophoria. The church’s outer dimensions were 17.30×12.30 m. The northern prayer hall wall of the Phase II church served as the northern stylobate of its successor. West of the church is a terrace overlying an earlier wall—apparently the western wall of the atrium; whereby one can infer that the church possessed a narthex and an atrium (no. 11). As excavations were not carried out here, their dimensions are unknown. The prayer hall, 12.30×10.50 m, was divided by two rows of four columns each into a nave and two aisles. The column shafts were 0.50 m in diameter, and bore carved Byzantine capitals. Arches rested on the columns. In the east of the church they rested on stone pilasters near the wall of the apse and were aligned with the column bases. During excavations, numerous tiles and nails that had affixed the roof beams were found amid the rubble on the prayer hall floor. The nave, 8.30×4.10 m, was paved with a white mosaic, in the middle of which was a geometric carpet with a stylized frame. East of the carpet, the mosaic

[12]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

6 4 5

3

13 1

8 11

7 10

9 12

5 m

0

Fifth Century CE Sixth Century CE

Fig. 13. Kh. Ẓ ur, general plan of Phase III.

[13]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 14. Late church, view from the west.

Fig. 15. Late church, nave and northern aisle, view from the west.

[14]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Fig. 16. Late church, chancel screen channel, view from the west.

Fig. 17. Late church, apse, view from the west.

[15]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

geometric designs. As they abut the walls of the church and the additional step of the chancel, they clearly belong to this phase. The nave was paved with a single carpet (F105), which apparently extended from the western entrance to the chancel (Fig. 18). Its estimated dimensions are 6.50×3.90 m. The carpet frame, 0.40 m wide, is decorated with a band of guilloche (B4*), with rows of white and red tesserae on either side. The frame edges are adorned with two rows of black tesserae and two rows of white. The carpet was adorned with two superimposed grids: a grid of diamonds, of diagonal strips of oval leaves, in black; and a grid of squares, of rows of diamonds with concave sides, in red. In the triangles formed by the encounter of the two grids, a scale pattern is outlined in red, with a small square in each scale (J5*). This pattern was common in the last quarter of the fifth and the first half of the sixth century.23 Along the carpet margins are set white tesserae in diagonal rows and a row of black tesserae decorated by alternating ovals and small squares (E*, Intended Square) in their middle. In the eastern margins, in

no longer in use; and W3, over one of the mosaic carpets. With the erection of W7, the northern wall of the later church, the southern wall of the bathhouse (W21) from the previous phases was abolished. A white mosaic (F117) was laid over F116, a cruciform baptismal font placed in its center. The floor abutted all the plastered walls of the room, as well as the font itself. The font was built into the earlier mosaic floors (F116 and F158). It was shaped like a flower: in the middle was a cross with rounded arms. Between the arms were four semicircular indentations. The bottom was adorned by exposing portions of the former phase’s mosaic floor. The plaster font measured 2.10×2.10 m. Its interior, used for the actual baptism, was square; it measured 0.60×0.60 m and 45 cm deep; it was plaster coated and mosaic paved (L154). Fonts with this exceptional shape are called “composite cruciform fonts,” and examples have been found at various sites in the Land of Israel.22

Church Mosaic Floors

The church mosaic floors, partially exposed in the chancel, nave and aisles, were decorated with

Fig. 18. Late church, nave mosaic carpet.

[16]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

front of the chancel, two Maltese crosses, opposite each other, were incorporated into the decoration. The western one was larger. Both consisted of a central diamond surrounded by four outward-turning buds (Fig. 19). These crosses were apparently inserted in the first half of the sixth century, in defiance of the imperial edict of 427 CE (during the reign of Theodosius II) forbidding the use of crosses in mosaic floors.24 The northern aisle was paved with a carpet of geometric design (Fig. 20). The exposed section measures 2.70×1.60 m (F122). There were diagonal rows of white tesserae along the carpet margins. The frame included rows of white, black, and red tesserae. A geometric design in the carpet center consisted of an orthogonal pattern of adjacent and intersecting octagons, forming squares and oblong hexagons (H3*). Every hexagon and square had a small diamond, of red and black tesserae (E*). Decorations of this kind are known from churches in the region dating to the sixth century.25

The mosaic carpet in the southern aisle was largely destroyed; its extant section measures 1.70×1.60 m. The pattern is identical to that in the northern aisle. Fragments of a white mosaic floor, F118, were observed on the chancel and along the apse wall. The floor abutted the step of the southern screen, W12, and the apse wall, W13. A row of black tesserae in the south of the chancel suggests that the chancel was adorned with a geometric mosaic. In the southern pastophorium, a number of strips belonging to a white mosaic floor, F157, were discerned. The baptistery was paved in a white mosaic floor that abutted the room’s walls and the baptismal font. The nave and aisle carpets were adorned with three colors: white, red, and black. The chancel might also have had a mosaic carpet of geometric pattern. The remaining church areas were paved in white mosaic. All of the church mosaics were laid at 49 tesserae per sq. dm, except for the southern pastophorium, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm.

Fig. 19. Late church, crosses in the nave mosaic floor, view from the west.

[17]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

Following these changes in the hypocaust system, a new mosaic floor was laid with 49 tesserae per sq. dm, identical to the church floor of this phase. Also, an extra coat of plaster was applied to the walls of the bathhouse rooms.

PHASE IV—EIGHTH CENTURY

The Church In the eighth century, the church was no longer in use. A number of changes were undertaken in the structure. The chancel and its screens were destroyed; provisional walls over the mosaic floor included the secondary use of certain architectural elements, such as fragments of the chancel screen posts and panels.

The Bathhouse The bathhouse also ceased operating and its furnace was converted into a pottery kiln. This interpretation of the secondary use of the furnace is reinforced by the abundance of misshapen vessels, dated to the eighth century, found nearby, and probably fabricated locally. Furthermore, traces of intense combustion, uncharacteristic of a hypocaust system, were found in the vicinity of the furnace and its channel. Fig. 20. Late church, northern aisle mosaic floor, view from the west.

FINDS

The Bathhouse

Liturgical Furniture

A number of significant changes were undertaken in the rooms and hypocaust system of the bathhouse at this phase (see Fig. 13). The separation of the frigidarium from the bathhouse complex and its annexation to the new Phase III church entailed reduction of the bathhouse and creation of a narrow passage between the church and the tepidarium, which remained intact. In addition, parts of the hypocaust system (e.g., in the caldarium) were replaced. The small, square hypocaust tiles were exchanged for round tiles, 19 cm in diameter and 3 cm thick (see Fig. 5). Furthermore, some of the tubuli were exchanged for larger ones (see Fig. 6). The hypocaust tiles and tubuli no longer in use served as fill in the foundations of W7.

All the liturgical furniture found at the site belongs to the later church.

Chancel Screen Panels

Two limestone panels were found. The rubble in the south of the chancel yielded three fragments of a reddish limestone relief-decorated panel. The largest fragment measured 58×35 cm, and was from one of the panel’s corners (Fig. 21). Its decoration includes a horizontal arm of a Maltese cross and a section of the panel frame with an inner ridge, 4 cm wide. Another fragment is of the frame on the left side of the panel, with a 3 cm-wide projection running along its length for attaching the panel to the chancel post. Identical chancel screen panels decorated with two Maltese crosses at either side have been discovered

[18]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

0

10

in numerous monasteries and churches. Usually the screen is of marble, and most have a diadem in the middle, enclosing a cross.26 In the middle of the chancel screen channel, the lower portion of an openwork panel was still in situ. Its remaining fragments were found amid the rubble over the chancel steps and in the nave. The panel, 98×96 cm, of reddish limestone like that of the screen discovered in the south of the chancel, was decorated in openwork technique. It was reconstructed on the basis of the extant pieces (Fig. 22). The panel appears to constitute a variation by a local artisan, who used decorative and iconographic motifs current in his day, but arranged them unconventionally. The first motif is a diadem enclosing a stylized cross with lilies between its arms. This motif is known from marble and bitumen screens in churches

20

Fig. 21. Late church, chancel screen panel fragment.

0

0

5

0

5

0

5 0 0 0 0

0

10

20

0

10

20

Fig. 22. Late church, chancel screen openwork panel reconstruction.

[19]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

dating to the Byzantine period.27 In relief-decorated screens, the diadem customarily touched the top of the frame. In openwork screens, by contrast, the placement of this motif in the panel’s upper portion makes it top heavy. Despite this, in the panel from Kh. Ẓ ur, the diadem is located at the top. There is a smaller cross between the bottom of the diadem and the base; this is inept gravitationally and also diverges from the parallels. In Transjordan, a number of examples were provided of openwork panels with a diadem inside a cross,28 as well as crosses in medallions or circles.29 A second motif consists of vines with leaves and grape clusters that fill the space between the diadem and the panel frame. The vines emanate from medallions, while the lower cross and four doves appear both inside and between the vines. This motif appears in contemporaneous mosaics, frescoes, and panels.30 Examples of openwork panels—mainly ambo screens—featuring vines with leaves and grape clusters have been discovered in Transjordan.31 The dove constitutes the third motif. It is a decorative element that also serves as an iconographic symbol of the Christian world. The dove represents Jesus, who brought mankind salvation, as well as Noah, whose ark saved the human and animal species from extinction.32 The motif of the dove appears on numerous church panels; in most instances it is pecking at a cluster of grapes.33

1 0

10

20

Chancel Screen Posts

Three chancel screen post fragments were found at the site. One was a bitumen corner post (Fig. 23:1). The second was a small fragment of light-colored limestone. The third, also of limestone, was found amid the debris overlying the mosaic floor of the Phase II church; on the basis of parallels, it was identified as a chancel screen post.34 At its base were two rings of herringbone design; fluting decorated its length (Fig. 23:2). The carvings appear on only one face of the post, its back being flat and smooth.

2 0

5

10

Fig. 23. Late church, chancel screen posts.

floor to house the altar table’s colonnette legs. The bases each measure ca. 20×20 cm each and were hewn with square sockets, 12×12×5 cm (Fig. 24). Similar altar table bases are known from churches dating to the sixth century.35

Altar Table

Two stone bases were discovered in the rubble overlying the apse mosaic floor (F118). These represent two of the four bases sunk into the mosaic

[20]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

to the sixth century.39 The bathhouse assemblage also includes storage jars, jugs, and cooking pots from the three periods cited above. Of special note was the discovery of a fragment of a lamp mold; it was made of pottery and adorned with radial lines (Pl. 3:25). Lamps of this type were common from the second to first centuries BCE.

Church Pottery Assemblage The assemblage is characterized by two main groups: bowls and storage jars (Pls. 4–5). Most of the bowls and storage jars belong to types common at the end of the Byzantine period—from the sixth to the beginning of the seventh century. The church also yielded a number of storage jars and lamps ascribed to the Roman period. 0

5

10

GLASS VESSELS

Fig. 24. Late church, altar table base.

Fragments of a few glass vessels were found on the mosaic floor of the Phase II church. They included those of suspended bowl lamps and one of a window. The vessels date from the beginning of the sixth century on.40

POTTERY The pottery assemblage at the site represents four periods.36 Vessels dating to the end of the Second Temple period were recovered from the bathhouse. Apart from these, the entire assemblage contained pottery dating to the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods.37 The pottery remains of the bathhouse and church yielded two ceramic assemblages that differ from one another in terms of vessel type and date and reflect the site’s three periods of occupation.

Summary The assemblage recovered from Kh. Ẓ ur indicates the site was inhabited from the Early Roman to Early Islamic periods. Located on the eastern bank of Naḥ al Ha-Ellah, it is surrounded by fertile soil and adjoins a perennial spring. Its importance was enhanced by its proximity to the route joining the Ellah Valley—a central nexus between Jerusalem and the south—with the hill country plateau approaching Hebron. This route served pilgrims in the Byzantine period, and way stations, including churches, were established along its course for their benefit. The present complex may also have had this function. A bathhouse was erected on the site. On the basis of its pottery, as well as its structure and components, it is dated to the Late Roman period (second half of the fourth century). During this initial phase, only the bathhouse existed at the site. In the first half of the fifth century, a number of

Bathhouse Pottery Assemblage The bathhouse yielded pottery dating to the Second Temple, Roman, and Byzantine periods. Most of the ceramic finds consist of bowls, both locally made and imported, from the first century BCE to the second century CE (Pls. 1–3). Others are characteristic of the sixth to seventh centuries, some belonging to the family of red-slipped Late Roman ware. In addition, twenty rouletted bowls were recorded. Nineteen bowls dating from the end of the third to the fifth century38 were found in two fill loci in the bathhouse. Another bowl (Pl. 2:20) belongs to a late type dating

[21]

0

0

5

0

5

0

5 0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

changes were undertaken in the bathhouse. One notable change occurred in the frigidarium, where a colorful mosaic floor, F116, was laid over the earlier one (F158). Its style dates it to the first half of the fifth century. It was also during this phase that the first church was erected south of the bathhouse. It included an external apse without pastophoria. A number of churches of identical plan have been observed in the region. At ʿAgur, ca. 3.5 km northwest of the site, a church was discovered identical in dimensions and plan to the one at Kh. Ẓ ur; it dates to the end of the fourth to the beginning of the fifth century.41 Two similar churches were discovered at Kh. ʿAsida and Kh. Qufin,42 both located in the hill country, ca. 10 km east of Kh. Ẓ ur and dating to the beginning of the fifth century. Another church of this type was excavated at Marisa.43 It dates to the first half of the fifth century, and its mosaics are identical in decoration to that of the Phase II frigidarium in the bathhouse. Churches with an external apse but no pastophoria were also erected in the course of the sixth century, as exemplified by Umm er-Rus, north of Kh. Ẓ ur.44

In the sixth century, a new church was built over the previous one; it adhered to the more common paradigm, comprising an internal apse and pastophoria. Another sixth century church, identical in plan and mosaic decoration, was discovered at ʿEin el-Ḥ ubaileh, some 8 km to the east. With the erection of the new church, the frigidarium was separated from the bathhouse and transformed into a baptistery attached to the church. A white mosaic was laid over its floor, in the middle of which a plaster baptismal font, shaped like a stylized cross, was built. During this phase, the hypocaust system was renovated and a new mosaic floor was laid in the caldarium. The church was abandoned in the eighth century. Later, new walls incorporating architectural and liturgical elements in secondary use were built in its interior. The bathhouse went out of use, its furnace and caldarium converted into a pottery kiln, as attested by the nearby refuse, consisting of numerous vessels misshapen in the firing process. This phase probably came to an end during the second half of the eighth and beginning of the ninth century.

[22]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Plate 1. Pottery from the Bathhouse: Bowls and Basins No. Locus 1 L130

Type Bowl

2

L138

3

L101*

4

L113

5

L120

6

L101*

7

L101*

WTS bowl Light gray ware 10YR:7/2, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/3. Red paint on inner and outer faces. ARS bowl Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, light red slip 2.5YR:6/6, white grits. LRC bowl Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, red slip 2.5YR:4/8. Light reddish brown ware 2.5YR:6/4, reddish brown to black slip 2.5YR:5/4, white grits. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/6, light red slip 2.5YR:6/6. Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, red slip 10R:5/8, white and gray grits.

8

L130

9

L117

10 11

L117 L160

12

L143

13

L120

14

L143

15

L138

16

L120

17

L112

18

L120

Bowl

Krater

Descriptions White ware 10YR:8/1.

Parallels Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 92, Pl. 16:265) Ramat ha-Nadiv (Silberstein 2000: 461, Pl. XVIII:34)

Date 1st cent. BCE

Hayes 1972: 239, Fig. 41:44

Late 4th–5th cent. CE Late 5th cent. CE

Hayes 1972: Fig. 67:7 (Form 3C); Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 63:9) Hayes 1972: Fig. 67:7 Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:13 (Form 3D)

Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:15, 69:19 (Form 3E/F); Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 63:12) Light red ware 10R:6/6, light red slip Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 64:6 2.5YR:6/6. (Form 3F)) Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, pink slip Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal7.5YR:7/4. Heginbottom 1988: Pl. IV:169); Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: Fig. 3:9) Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, pink slip 5YR:8/3. Pella (Smith 1973: Pl. 43:1292) Yellowish red ware 5YR:5/6, reddish yellow Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni slip 5YR:7/6, white grits. 1994: Fig. 3:10) Pink ware 5YR:7/4, light brown slip Ramat ha-Nadiv (Silberstein 2000: 7.5YR:6/4. 441, Pl. IX:15–16) Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3, pink slip Hayes 1972: 389, Fig. 85:i 7.5YR:7/4. Light reddish brown ware 2.5YR:7/4, very Jerusalem (Magness 1992: pale brown slip 10YR:8/2. Fig. 5:18) Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3, very pale brown slip Jerusalem (Magness 1992: 10YR:8/2. Fig. 5:17) Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, pink slip Jerusalem (Mazar and Peleg 2003: 7.5YR:7/4. Pl. I.14:3–4) Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, pink Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: core 7.5YR:8/3, pink slip 5YR:8/3. Fig. 5:74) Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, very pale Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: brown slip 10YR:7/3. Fig. 5:71)

[23]

1st cent. CE

6th cent. CE

6th–7th cent. CE

Mid-1st–2nd cent. CE Late 6th cent. CE Late 5th cent. CE Late 5th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 6th cent. CE

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

3

2

1

5

4

7

6

9

8

10

11

12

13

14

16

15

17

18 0

5

Plate 1.

[24]

10

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Plate 2. Pottery from the Bathhouse: Rouletted Bowls No. 1 2 3

Locus L138 L143 L138

4

L138

5

L138

6

L138

7

L138

8

L138

9

L143

10

L143

11

L138

12

L143

13

L143

14

L138

15

L143

16

L138

17

L138

18

L138

19

L138

20

L112

Type Descriptions Rouletted bowl Pink ware 5YR:7/4, red slip 2.5YR:5/6. Pink ware 5YR:7/4, red slip 10R:4/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, light brown slip 7.5YR:6/3. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:7/6. Brown ware 7.5YR:5/3, reddish yellow slip 7.5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, light brown slip 7.5YR:6/3. Pink ware 5YR:7/4, light red slip 2.5YR:6/8. Pink ware 5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:6/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, light reddish brown 2.5YR:6/4 slip, black grits. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 7.5YR:7/6. Pink ware 5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:6/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, light reddish brown slip 5YR:6/4. Pink ware 5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:6/6.

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:6/8. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 7.5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:7/6. Black paint on rim. Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4.

[25]

Parallels

Date

Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 5:1, 15)

4th–5th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 5:9) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:41) Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 5:8, 14)

6th cent. CE Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:49, 51); Givʿot Goral (Fabian and Goldfus 2004: Fig. 8:8)

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

2

3

5

4

7

6

8

9

10

11

13

12

15

14

17

16

18

19

20 0

5

10

Plate 2.

[26]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Plate 3. Pottery from the Bathhouse: Jars, Jugs and Miscellaneous No. Locus 1 L130

Type Jar

2

L138

3 4

L138 L100*

5

L160

6

L138

7

L127

8

L120

9

L117

10

W2

11

L138

12

L143

13

L143

14

L138

15

L138

16

L138

17

L138

18

L101*

19

L101*

20 21

L143 L109

22

L108

Pipe

23

L108

Cooking pot

24

L130

25

L100*

Gaza jar

Jar

Jug

Mold for radial lamp

Descriptions Yellowish red ware 5YR:5/6, light brownish gray core 10YR:6/2, pink slip 7.5YR:7/3, white grits. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2, white grits.

Parallels Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 154, Pl. 24:415)

1st cent. BCE–1st cent. CE Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/6, red self slip. Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 7:51) 1st cent. BCE Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/2, white grits. Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 3rd–5th cent. 231–232) CE Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4. Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 32:19) Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/8, reddish Majcherek 1995: Pl. 3:2; Ashdod 4th cent. CE brown slip 5YR:5/4. (Baumgarten 2000: Fig. 3:2) Reddish brown ware 5YR:5/4, pink wash Majcherek 1995: Pl. 3:4; Ashdod 5th–7th cent. 5YR:7/3. (Baumgarten 2000: Fig. 4:10–12) CE Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, very pale Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: 6th–7th cent. brown slip 10YR:8/2. CE Fig. 7:100–101) Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, very pale Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: brown slip 10YR:8/2. Fig. 7:102) Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white grits. Jerusalem (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:5) Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/6. Pella (Smith 1973: Pl. 31:1155, 7th cent. CE 1277) Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, pink slip Masada (Bar-Nathan 2006: 201, 1st cent. CE 7.5YR:8/3. Red paint. Pl. 34:2–7) Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3. Red paint. Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/2, reddish yellow slip 7.5YR:6/6. Red paint. Light gray ware 10YR:7/2, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/4. Pinkish white ware 7.5YR:8/2. Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 61–62, Late 1st cent. Pl. 10:111) BCE Very pale brown ware10YR:8/4, light gray Masada (Bar-Nathan 2006: 115, Early 2nd CE slip 10YR:7/2. Pl. 22:66) Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3, light gray slip Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 159, 1st cent. CE 10YR:7/2. Pl. 25:433) Pale yellow buff ware 2.5Y:8/2. Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 38, 1st cent. BCE Pl. 8:56, 58) Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3. Yellowish red ware 5YR:5/6, light reddish Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: 1st cent. CE brown slip 5YR:6/4, white grits. 158–159, Pl. 25:429) Reddish brown ware 5YR:5/4, reddish yellow slip 5YR:7/6, white grits. Reddish brown ware 2.5YR:4/4. Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 6th–7th cent. 1994: Fig. 6:8) CE 6th cent. CE Red ware 2.5YR:4/6. Givʿot Goral (Fabian and Goldfus 2004: Fig. 9:3) Brown ware 7.5YR:5/4, very pale brown slip Schloessinger Collection 2nd–1st cent. 10YR:7/3, white grits. (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 12–13) BCE

[27]

Herodium (Bar-Nathan 1981: Pl. 3:21)

Date 1st cent. CE

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

2

3

5

6

1

4

9

8

10

7

13 11

15

14

12

16

17

18

19

22 20

23

25 21

Plate 3.

0

24

0

5

[28]

10

1

2

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Plate 4. Pottery from the Church: Bowls, Basins and Jars No. Locus 1 L129*

Type ARS bowl

Bowl

Descriptions Light red ware 10R:6/6, light red slip 2.5YR:6/6. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/8, light red slip 2.5YR:6/8. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/8, light red slip 2.5YR:7/8. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/6, light red slip 2.5YR:6/6. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4.

2

L150

LRC bowl

3

L129

4

L131*

5

L104

6 7 8 9

L147 L151 L126 L150

Basin

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6, white grits.

10

L104

Reddish brown ware 5YR:5/4, light reddish brown slip 5YR:6/3.

11

L149

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3.

12

L147

13 14

L147 L146

White buff ware 5Y:8/1. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3.

15 16

L151 L151

17 18 19 20 21

L147 L151 L153 L150 L144*

Light gray ware 2.5Y:7/1. Light gray ware10YR:7/2, white slip 5YR:8/1, white grits. Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/3. Pink ware 5YR:7/3. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6, white grits. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6, white grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6.

22 23 24

L150 L126 L149

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white grits. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2.

25

L118

Jar

Hole-mouth jar

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6.

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6, white slip 10YR:8/1.

[29]

Parallels Hayes 1972: 237, Fig. 39:36 Hayes 1972: 327–329, Fig. 66:4 (Form 2B) Hayes 1972: 329, Fig. 68:16 (Form 3E) Hayes 1972: 329, Fig. 68:29 (Form 3H) Jerusalem (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:7) Jerusalem (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:11) Jerusalem (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:14) Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (CohenFinkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:10)

Date Late 4th–mid5th cent. CE 425–450 CE 6th cent. CE

Late 6th cent. CE 6th–early 7th cent. CE

7th cent. CE

Pella (Smith and Day 1989: Pl. 49:7) Ḥ . Hermas (Sion and Parnos 2006: Fig. 5:3) Shechem (Magen 2009: Pl. 10:20) Caesarea (Adan-Bayewitz 1986: 91–92, Fig. 1:6); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:106) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:102)

6th–early 7th cent. CE 3rd–4th cent. CE

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:100)

6th–7th cent. CE

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:99) Kh. el-Niʿana (de Vincenz and Sion 2007: Fig. 3:7–8) Jerusalem (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:20) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:109)

5th–6th cent. CE 5th–8th cent. CE

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

3

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

12

15

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 0

5

Plate 4.

[30]

10

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Plate 5. Pottery from the Church: Miscellaneous No. 1

Locus L104

Type Cooking pot

2

L144*

Reddish brown ware 2.5YR:4/4.

3

L146

Red ware 2.5YR:4/6.

4

L151

Jug

5

L127

FBW jug

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3, pinkish white slip 7.5YR:8/2, black and whites grits. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white grits.

6

L120

Jug strainer

Pinkish gray ware 7.5YR:7/2.

7

L106*

Juglet

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3, white grits.

8

L144*

Lid

9

L113

Mold-made lamp

10

Survey

Pale yellow buff ware 5Y:8/3, white slip 5Y:8/1. Light reddish brown ware 2.5YR:6/4, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, white grids. Reddish yellow ware 5YR:6/6.

11

L120

Gray ware 7.5YR:5/1.

12

L144*

Figurine

Descriptions Red ware 2.5YR:5/8.

Reddish yellow ware 5YR:7/8.

[31]

Parallels Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:88) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:87) Kh. el-Niʿana (de Vincenz and Sion 2007: Fig. 2:15) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 8:119) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 8:121) Caesarea (Adan-Bayewitz 1986: Fig. 4:17) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 9:132) Caesarea (Adan-Bayewitz 1986: 106, Fig. 3:14) Jerusalem (Herschkovitz 1987: Fig. 11:5) Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:96) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 10:137–138) Ramla (Kletter 2005: Fig. 22:4)

Date 6th–7th cent. CE

Early 7th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE Early 7th cent. CE 1st–3rd cent. CE 2nd–3rd cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

3

2

5

4

7

6

8 0

5

9

10

10

11

12 0

1

Plate 5.

[32]

2

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

Notes 1962: 25, Fig. 18). The brick works of the Tenth Legion at Givʿat Ram yielded pipe segments (Barag 1967: 252). 18 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 19 Similar mosaic floors were found in the dwelling quarters of the monastery at Kh. ed-Deir (Talgam 1999: 115; Fig. 23), in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 133, 138; Fig. 60), and in the monastery at Kh. el-Qaṣ r (see Magen, Har-Even, and Sharukh, “A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣ r,” in this volume). 20 The mosaic floors are dated to the fourth century, being above the level of the early stylobate and below that of the Justinian stylobate (Harvey and Harvey 1938: Pl. VII). 21 Kloner 1993: 260. 22 For further information concerning baptismal fonts, see Ben Pechat 1989. 23 An identical carpet was found in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 116–119, Fig. 37a); and an identical pattern was observed in a church dating to the first half of the sixth century CE at ʿEin elHubaileh, east of Kh. Ẓ ur (Vincent 1939: Pl. IV:1). 24 In a large number of churches, crosses were integrated into the mosaics, especially during the sixth century. Concerning this phenomenon and the imperial edict, see Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 162. 25 An identical pattern was observed in a church at ʿEin elHubaileh (Vincent 1939: Fig. 1, Pl. III). A similar mosaic floor was found in an aisle of the church at Umm er-Rus, north of Kh. Ẓ ur. This church apparently dates to the sixth century (Macalister 1899). 26 Similar screens, of marble, were found in a church at Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XIX:5), at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 515–517, Figs. 125, 128, 131), in the monastery at Deir ʿAin ʿAbaṭa (Politis 1992: Pl. II:2), and in a church at Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: 194–195). Chalk screens decorated with cruciform reliefs were found in a church at Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: 108, Ill. 160). 27 A similar diadem motif was found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: Figs. 125, 127, 136, 168, 169). 28 Mt. Nebo produced the fragment of an openwork panel featuring a diadem containing elements that can be construed as a cross surrounded by lilies (Acconci 1998: No. 151). 29 A church in Petra produced an openwork panel with the motif of crosses inside circles (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: 199–200), and the monastery at Deir ʿAin ʿAbaṭa produced fragments of a panel adorned with crosses, some within circles (Politis 1992: Pl. III:2). 30 Concerning the grapevine motif, see Dauphin 1987. 31 Similar openwork panels from ambos featuring a grapevine

Kh. Ẓ ur was excavated in July–August 2005, following the erection of the security fence in the south of the Ellah Valley. The excavation (License No. 1047) was carried out on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria under the direction of S. Batz and I. Sharukh. 2 The Ellah Valley forms the nexus of a number of wadis draining the western slopes of the Hebron Hills to the Mediterranean Sea. Its rich soil and profuse precipitation have turned it into one of the most fertile districts in the Judean Shephelah. Its location and topography have made it an important approach from the Shephelah to the hill country. Two main routes cross the valley: the first links Bethlehem with the Shephelah; the second goes toward Beit Ẓ ur and Hebron. 3 For the various bathhouse types in the Land of Israel, see Gichon 1978: 39. 4 In numerous Roman bathhouses, hot air was conveyed by means of a hypocaust system from the hot caldarium to the lukewarm tepidarium; see Nielsen 1990: 156. See, for example, the bathhouse at Rama (Tzaferis 1980: 69). 5 See Magen and Aizik 2012. 6 Identical pools were found at Rama (Tzaferis 1980, Pool H) and Beth Yeraḥ (Stekelis and Avi-Yonah 1946–1947: Fig. 2). 7 Vitruvius (V, X.5) states that the sudatorium should adjoin the frigidarium. 8 A comprehensive study of the bathhouses of this period was published by I. Nielsen. She notes that the sudatorium occupied this position in bathhouses in the Land of Israel from the third century CE onwards (Nielsen 1990: 83). 9 A slanting floor was found in the Roman bathhouse at Ramat Raḥ el (Ciasca 1962: 70). 10 Aharoni 1962: 26, Fig. 19:1. 11 Kloner 2000: 95*, Site No. [106] 112. 12 Avi-Yonah 1949: 22, Pls. 3–4. 13 At Umm el-ʿAsafir rectangular bricks were used in the construction of both the furnace and its channel (Batz 2003: Pl. 3:5). 14 Excavations at the Temple Mount revealed a bathhouse from the Late Roman period with tubuli of similar dimensions (Perez 2000: 108–109). 15 Lead pipes were found in the bathhouse at lower Herodium (Netzer, Kalman, and Laureys 2000: 120). 16 Lead pipes were found in a Roman villa at ʿEn Yaʿel (Edelstein 1994: 117). 17 Identical segments were found in the excavations of the Citadel in Jerusalem; these bore the stamp of the Tenth Legion (Johns 1950: 152–153, Fig. 17). The Roman bathhouse at Ramat Raḥ el had a lead drainage system in situ; it included identical segments dating to the third century CE (Aharoni 1

[33]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

motif were found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: Fig. 151), and at Umm er-Rasas in the Church of St. Stephanus (Piccirillo and Alliata 1994: 295, Fig. 17). 32 Bagatti 1971: 213. 33 The dove motif occurs on panels in the northern church at Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XIX:1). A church at Reḥ ovot-in-theNegev produced a screen with the figure of a bird that can be construed as a dove (Patrich 1988: 112–113, Ill. 170, Pl. VIII:31). 34 See Patrich 1988: 114–118. 35 Similar bases were found in a church in the Western Upper Galilee (Aviam 2002: 199–200); at Mt. Nebo in the Church of St. George (Saller and Bagatti 1949: Pl. 22:2; Piccirillo 1998: 323); in the Church of the Deacon Thomas (Picirillo 1998: 332); and in the Church of Lot and Procopius (Piccirillo 1998: 344).

We would like to thank B. Yuzefovsky for writing the pottery discussion and plates. 37 Note that loci designating surface finds or fills are marked in the tables by an asterisk and do not appear in the plans. 38 Magness 1993: 185–187. 39 Magness 1992: 152. 40 For a full report about the glass vessels by Y. Gorin-Rosen, see JSRF L-1047. 41 For references on the church in ʿAgur, see Tabula: 58–59. 42 Churches exhibiting an external apse were found at Kh. ʿAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934) and Kh. Qufin (Baramki 1935: 118–119). 43 Kloner 1993. 44 Macalister 1899. 36

References Barag D. 1967. “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis,” Bonner Jahrbücher 167: 244–267. Baramki D.C. 1935. “Recent Discoveries of Byzantine Remains in Palestine. A Church at Khirbet Kūfīn,” QDAP 4: 118–121. Baramki D.C. and Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “An Early Christian Church at Khirbat Asida,” QDAP 3: 17–19. Batz S. 2003. “The Roman Bathhouse at Umm el Asafir,” in E. Baruch, U. Leibner and A. Faust (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem 9, Ramat-Gan, pp. 123–146 (Hebrew). Baumgarten Y.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, pp. 201–202). Ben-Pechat M. 1989. “The Paleochristian Baptismal Fonts in the Holy Land: Formal and Functional Study,” LA 39: 165–188. Ciasca A. 1962. “A Hypocaust at Ramat Raḥ el,” in Y. Aharoni, Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome, pp. 69–72. Colt H.D. 1962. “Architectural Details,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 48–51. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Dauphin C. 1987. “The Development of the ‘Inhabited Scroll’ in Architectural Sculpture and Mosaic Art from Late Imperial Times to the Seventh Century A.D.,” Levant 19: 183–212. Edelstein G. 1994. “A Roman Villa at ʿEin Yaʿel,” Qadmoniot 26 (103–104): 114–119 (Hebrew). Fabian P. and Goldfus H. 2004. “A Byzantine Farmhouse,

Acconci A. 1998. “Elements of the Liturgical Furniture,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997, Jerusalem (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), pp. 468–542. Adan-Bayewitz D. 1986. “The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building and Its Implications (Stratum 4),” in L.I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 90–129. Aharoni Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome. Avi-Yonah M. 1949. “Excavations at Sheikh Bader,” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 15: 19–24 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Aviam M. 2002. “Five Ecclesiastical Sites in Western Upper Galilee,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 165–218 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 184*–185*). Bagatti B. 1971. The Church from the Circumcision. History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Smaller Series 2), Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan R. 1981. “The Finds at Lower Herodium. Pottery and Stone Vessels of the Herodian Period,” in E. Netzer, Greater Herodium (Qedem 13), Jerusalem, pp. 54–71. Bar-Nathan R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations III: The Pottery, Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan R. 2006. Masada. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports VII: The Pottery of Masada, Jerusalem.

[34]

A R O M A N B AT H H O U S E A N D T W O B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H E S AT K H I R B E T Ẓ U R

the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Warsaw, pp. 163–178. 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. Netzer E., Kalman Y., and Laureys R. 2000. “Lower Herodium’s Large Bathhouse,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies 9, Ariel, pp. 113–120 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XV–XVI). Nielsen I. 1990. Thermae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths, Aarhus. Ovadiah R. and Ovadiah A. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel, Rome. Patrich J. 1988. “Architectural, Sculpture, and Stone Objects,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-inthe-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 97–133. Perez R. 2000. “The Bathhouse from the Temple Mount Excavations,” in A. Faust and E. Baruch (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem 6, Ramat Gan, pp. 103–116 (Hebrew). Piccirillo M. 1998. “The Mosaics,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 265–371. Piccirillo M. and Alliata E. 1994. Umm al-Rasas Mayfaʿah I: Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 28), Jerusalem. Politis K.D. 1992. “Excavations at Deir ʿAin ʿAbaṭa 1991,” ADAJ 36: 281–285. Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zeʾev East A),” ʿAtiqot 38: 171–203. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1988. “The Pottery,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 78–96. Saller S.J. and Bagatti B. 1949. The Town of Nebo (Khirbet el-Mekhayyat) with a Brief Survey of Other Ancient Christian Monuments in Transjordan (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 7), Jerusalem. Silberstein N. 2000. “Hellenistic and Roman Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, Jerusalem, pp. 420–469. Sion O. and Parnos G. 2006. “Ḥ orbat Hermas,” ʿAtiqot 51: 19*–31* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 235–236). Smith R.H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis I: The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella, Wooster. Smith R.H. and Day L.P. 1989. Pella of the Decapolis II:

Terraces and Agricultural Installations at the Goral Hills near Beʾer Shevaʿ,” ʿAtiqot 47: 1*–14* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 209–210). Gichon M. 1978. “Roman Bath-houses in Eretz-Israel,” Qadmoniot 11 (42–43): 37–53 (Hebrew). Harvey W. and Harvey J.H. 1938. Recent Discoveries at the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, Oxford. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes J.W. 1985. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto, pp. 181–194. Herschkovitz M. 1987. “The Pottery of the First and Second Centuries CE from Givʿat Ram,” EI 19: 314–325 (Hebrew). Johns C.N. 1950. “The Citadel, Jerusalem. A Summary of Work since 1934,” QDAP 14: 121–190. Kanellopoulos C. and Schick R. 2001. “Marble Furnishings of the Apses and the Chancel, Phase V,” in Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski, and R. Schick, The Petra Church, Amman, pp. 193–215. Kletter R. 2005. “Early Islamic Remains at ʿOpher Park, Ramla,” ʿAtiqot 49: 57–99. Kloner A. 1993. “A Byzantine Church at Maresha (Beit Govrin),” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 260–264. Kloner A. 2000. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Survey of Jerusalem. The Southern Sector, Jerusalem. Macalister R.A. 1899. “A Byzantine Church at Umm er Rûs.” PEFQst: 200–204. Magen Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period (JSP 11), Jerusalem. Magen Y. and Aizik N. 2012. “A Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 107–156. Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣ ṣ aṣ ) and Its Mosaics,” Christian Archaeology: 91–152. Magness J. 1992. “The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Areas H and K,” in A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh (Qedem 33), Jerusalem, pp. 149–164. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology. circa 200– 800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Magness J. 2003. “Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery,” in Geva H. 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. Majcherek G. 1995. “Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered,” in H. Meyza and J. Mlynarczyk (eds.), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean—Advances in Scientific Studies. Acts of

[35]

S . B AT Z A N D I . S H A R U K H

Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I, Toronto. Tzaferis V. 1980. “A Roman Bath at Rama,” ʿAtiqot 14: 66–75. Ustinova Y. and Nahshoni P. 1994. “Salvage Excavations in Ramot Nof, Beʾer Sheva,” ʿAtiqot 25: 157–177. Vincent L.H. 1939. “L’église byzantine de Ḥ ebeileh,” RB 48: 87–90. Vincenz A. de. and Sion O. 2007. “Two Pottery Assemblages from Khirbat el-Niʿana,” ʿAtiqot 57: 21–52.

Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, The Civic Complex, 1979–1985, Wooster. Stekelis M. and Avi-Yonah M. 1946–1947. “Excavations at Beth Yerah (Second Preliminary Report),” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 13: 53–65 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. V–VII). 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.

[36]

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

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET ªEIN DAB YUVAL PELEG

Kh. ªEin Dab is located on a spur on the western slopes of the Judean Hills, 440 m above sea level (map ref. IOG 15189/11516; ITM 20189/61516); approximately 4.5 km south of the settlement of Roglit, and about 2.5 km northwest of the village of Kharas (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 It was mentioned in a number of surveys from the nineteenth century.2 The ruins include the remains of buildings, quarried dwelling caves, agricultural installations, cisterns and burial caves. A church with mosaic floors from the Byzantine period was discovered at the eastern end of the ruins, apparently beyond the residential area. The entire site and the church had been heavily damaged by looters. The site is possibly identified with ²ÇíáäÜâ (Enadab), mentioned by Eusebius as a village located about ten Roman miles from Beth Guvrin, along the road leading to Jerusalem.3 This road passed through the Ellah Valley, approximately 2 km north of the site.

THE CHURCH The Byzantine Phase The church is basilica shaped with three internal apses (Fig. 1). Its external length is 24 m and its estimated width is 13.60 m. The nave, aisles and chancel were paved with colorful mosaic floors that are partially preserved. The nave consisted of a mosaic floor depicting vine scrolls inhabited by birds. The church was partly excavated. A small section of the wall between the narthex and prayer hall was uncovered. It probably contained three entrances: a wide central entrance leading to the nave and two narrower entrances leading to the aisles. A probe in the narthex (L127) revealed the foundation of a mosaic floor.

The width of the nave is 5.60 m; the width of the northern, and probably also the southern aisle, is 2.80 m (Fig. 2). The nave was separated from the aisles by rows of columns. Each row consisted of five columns and two pilasters. The locations of the columns, at intervals of 1.95 m, are evident between the mosaic carpets that set them apart. Their marble bases apparently measured 0.55×0.55 m. One of the columns was complete, measuring 2.90 m in height with a diameter of 0.42 m. Shaft fragments scattered throughout the site, two of which in secondary use as roofing a cistern in the western part of the site. The columns topped by marble Corinthian capitals. The chancel at the eastern part of the nave has a central apse (W1010) whose internal diameter is 4.70 m (Fig. 3). The bema seemingly protruded into the nave. It was higher than the nave floor by ca. 0.80 m. Marble chancel screen fragments were found throughout the church (see below). The eastern end of the northern aisle ends in an apse, and the southern aisle, only partially excavated, probably also ended in an apse. The walls of the church are 0.65 m thick, based on the northern wall (W1002), the only wall whose full width has been preserved. They were built of fine ashlars laid on the bedrock and were mostly robbed down to the lowest course, which in some cases is also missing. The western wall (W1012) is preserved to a height of three courses (1.20 m). Two partly excavated rooms (not shown in the plan) adjoining the northern wall of the church probably functioned as auxiliary rooms. The eastern room possibly served as a chapel. These rooms had coarse white mosaic floors (46 tesserae per sq. dm). The northern wall has two entrances. Of the eastern entrance, only the western part of the threshold is preserved. It could be closed from inside the church and led to the northern auxiliary rooms. Of the

[[37 29]]

Y. PP E E LL EEGG Y.

431.96

W1015

431.78 431.75

W1010

L114

430.88

L111 430.92

W1021

L117

431.73

L124

431.80

W1002

431.75

W1016

431.76

W1000 W1009

431.76

431.75

431.71

431.74

431.72 431.67

L138

431.75

431.69

L127 W1012 431.65

431.64

00

Fig. 1. Kh. ªEin Dab, detailed plan of the church.

[[38 30 ]]

55 mm

A BAYBZYAZNA TN ITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R IR NA D H AT BB E TE TʿE ªI E N ID BAB

Fig. 2. Kh. ªEin Dab, the church, view from the west.

Fig. 3. The chancel, view from the west. Note the later collecting vat for oil production in front of it.

[[39 31]]

Y. PP E E LL EEGG Y.

western entrance, 1.20 m wide, the threshold and doorpost are preserved. The sockets in the threshold (eastern measuring 10×10 cm; western measuring 30×10 cm) indicate that the entrance had a double door that could be closed from the outside and led out of the church complex.

Later Phases The Byzantine mosaic floor of the nave, consisting of vine scrolls inhabited by birds, was damaged in the eighth century CE as part of iconoclastic activity following the decree issued by the Umayyad Caliph Yazid II, ca. 721 CE. Shortly afterward, two ashlar walls were built in the nave of the church, replacing the rows of columns that collapsed in the earthquake that occurred in 749 CE. The southern wall (W1018, dismantled during the excavation) was constructed to replace the southern row of columns, the bases of which were removed in order to erect a sturdier wall. The northern wall (W1009) was built parallel to the northern row of columns, about 1.50 m south of it, over the mosaic floor (Fig. 4). At this time, three pilasters were also constructed: in front of the chancel, adjoining the

wall between the narthex and the prayer hall, and in the northern aisle, against the church’s northern wall. During this stage, the structure functioned as a local oil production complex. This change is evidenced by the construction of three square plastered collecting vats cut into the church’s mosaic floors. The collecting vat uncovered in the western part of the nave (L138), 0.90×0.90 m and 0.91 m deep, was lined with three courses of ashlars. A frame, apparently for holding a cover, was cut into the inner face of the upper course. Traces of plaster were found on the floor and inner walls of the vat. A second collecting vat is located in the nave, in front of the chancel (L124), and a third one is located in front of the apse of the northern aisle (L117; Fig. 5). The latter two vats resemble the western vat in construction and size. A domestic oil press and pressing installation were erected in the northern aisle. A pier-shaped weight in secondary use in the western part of the structure may also be related to the oil industry. It is noteworthy that a rock-cut crushing basin, 1.70 m in diameter, also part of this site, was discovered some 30 m west of the church.

Fig. 4. Northern ashlar wall (W1009), view from the northwest. Note the Mamluk wall that was dismantled during the excavation.

[[40 32 ]]

H AT ET NI D A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B

Fig. 5. Northern apse, view from the southwest.

This secondary use of the structure as an oil press would explain, to some extent, the poor preservation of the mosaic floors. Additional changes, including the erection of a number of walls in the aisles and nave, making secondary use of the church stones (Walls W1016, W1000 and W1019, dismantled during the excavation), were also carried out during the Mamluk period, although the looting of the site prevents us from learning more of their nature. The finds from this period include domestic pottery vessels and a number of coins that may indicate the building’s use for residential purposes.

MOSAIC FLOORS The nave, aisles and chancel were paved with colorful mosaic floors that are partially preserved (Fig. 6). The central carpet of the nave, which suffered extensive damage, was encompassed by a 0.55-mwide frame of swastika meander with alternating

square spaces containing depictions of birds (A19*).4 The strips of swastika meander are formed of a guilloche pattern (B2*). The birds, as noted above, were damaged in the early eighth century and replaced shortly afterward with large white tesserae. The damage blurred the outline of the figures, at times beyond recognition; in only a few instances can the original bird be identified. In the northwestern part of the nave, the tail of a rooster has survived, while in the center of the southern side of the frame, the head of a parrot is composed of very small elongated and rounded tesserae in brown, green, and yellow (Fig. 7). The frame was separated from the carpet field by a band of wave crest pattern (B7*) with two rows of white tesserae and a row of black tesserae on either side. The carpet field is poorly preserved, decorated with vine scrolls with leaves and grape clusters (Fig. 8). These scrolls seemingly emanate from an amphora and form fourteen rows of five medallions each.5 The medallions were originally inhabited by

[[41 33 ]]

Y. Y. P P EE LLEEGG

Fig. 6. Nave mosaic floor.

Fig. 7. Head of a parrot in the nave mosaic floor.

various birds. A bird’s head and beak are visible in one medallion, and a tail in another. The scrolls are composed of brown-red shades, the grape clusters of ocher and white and the leaves of black and green. Another carpet, between the carpet of vine scrolls and the chancel, was probably embellished with red and black lozenges (E*, Lozenge). This pattern is similar to that found at the fringes of the apse’s mosaic floor (see below).

Fig. 8. Vine scrolls in the nave mosaic floor.

[[42 34]]

H AT ET NI D A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B

The intercolumnar carpets are rectangular with geometric designs as colorful as the carpet of the nave, and are apparently comprised of three interchanging patterns (Fig. 9). The pattern of the first rectangular carpet, measuring 0.74×0.56 m, consists of interlacing circles with alternating dots or small crosses in their center (Figs. 10–11:1). The pattern of the second rectangular carpet, 1.45×0.58 m, is composed of an interlocked lozenge with a cross at its center; in each of the four corners are colorful triangles (similar to J4*; Fig. 11:2). The pattern of the third, smaller rectangular carpet, 1.77×0.55 m, contains a concentric diamond pattern (G3*; Fig. 11:3). The aisle mosaic floors, uncovered only in the eastern part of the church, consist of two variations of the same geometric patterns, with a large medallion near the center. The carpets are framed by a band of lotus flowers, 0.28 m wide (B9*). The carpet fields are decorated with a grid of diamonds formed

of buds. In the center of each diamond is a black cross in a red circle (H7*). For unknown reasons, at the eastern end of the northern aisle, the crosses in the middle of the diamonds are missing.

Fig. 10. A carpet in the intercolumnar space.

1

2

Fig. 9. The mosaic carpets of the intercolumnar spaces in the southern colonnade, view from the west.

3

Fig 11. Patterns appearing in the intercolumnar carpets.

[[43 35 ]]

Y. PP E E LL EEGG Y.

ÏÁÃÉÅÃÅ . ÑÃÉÂÏÇÈS ÃÅÏÑÃÉÍÔÏ ÍÐÑÅCÂÕ ÔÅÑÏÍÁÌ . ÍÊ Ë YËËËÑË

In each aisle is a large, round medallion, 1.83 m in diameter, framed by rows of white and black tesserae. The southern aisle medallion was partly preserved, and is decorated with interlaced colorful bands (Fig. 12). The medallion in the northern aisle consists of interlacing guilloches and ribbons creating eight conches (I8*) and of a smaller, central medallion, 0.50 m in diameter (Fig. 13). This medallion contains a six-line Greek inscription composed of black letters, 6 cm high, against a white background6:

Fig. 12. The medallion in the southern aisle mosaic floor.

‹¾Ù› á¸ãéå Ãå /[þ]ñãé(å), âïÞè(åé)/ Ãå‹þ›ñãé(ï)í ôï`/í ðñåóâý/ôåñïí. ³Áì/[Þ]í, Êýñ(éå). O Saint George, help George the priest. Amen, o Lord.

Fig. 13. The medallion in the northern aisle mosaic floor.

[[44 36 ]]

H AT ET NI D A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B

The central apse was also paved with a mosaic of which only the frame and edges of the carpet are preserved. The edge is composed of diagonally set, white tesserae and a row of squares (E*, Indented Squares) in white, red and black. The frame consists of a guilloche pattern (B3*). The craftsman of the Kh. ªEin Dab mosaic used ca. 80 tesserae per sq. dm while the birds in the nave were designed with particular care, using elongated and rounded stones, at 110–150 tesserae per sq. dm. Twelve shades of color were used by the mosaic artists: two red, two ocher, two gray, two brown, green and yellow glass tesserae, including white and black.

1

2

FINDS Stone Architectural Elements Fragments of architectural elements like column bases, shafts and capitals were found at the site, some in secondary use and others on the surface. Fragments of a white marble chancel screen panel decorated with a conch pattern (Fig. 14:1), a laurel wreath (14:2), and a medallion (Fig 14:3), were found at the nave and southern aisle. A loom weight (Fig. 15:1) and a cylindrical stone with two small depressions (Fig. 15:2) were also found.

Pottery Most of the loci in the excavation were disturbed as a result of looting. The pottery dates from the Byzantine to Mamluk periods, fifth to fourteenth centuries CE (Pls. 1–4). Glass Artifacts The glass finds include several artifacts and window fragments that reflect activity at the site from the Byzantine to Mamluk periods (Pl. 5).7 Metal Implements The metal finds reflect mainly later activity at the site, when the church was no longer in use. These include work tools such as a knife, a scythe and a plumb bob, as well as jewelry, cosmetic accessories and a number of nails and iron rings (Pl. 6).

1

2

Fig. 15. Loom weight and a cylindrical stone.

3

Fig. 14. Fragments of chancel screen panels.

Coins Nine coins were discovered in the excavations, reflecting the different periods in which the site was occupied.8 The earliest coin, found beneath the floor level in front of the chancel, was minted in Antioch and dates to the time of Maximianus Herculius (293 CE). Four coins reflect the period in which the church was in use, from the mid-sixth century to the Umayyad period. Of these, one was discovered in [[45 37 ]]

Y. PP E E LL EEGG Y.

the foundation of the narthex mosaic (L127) and dates to the time of Justinian I (548/549 CE). The three others were all found in the southern aisle: a coin from the time of Justin II (575/576 CE), an Arab-Byzantine coin, possibly from the time of Constans II (mid-seventh century CE), and a postreform Umayyad coin (eighth century CE). Four Mamluk coins were discovered in the church, all dating to the fourteenth century CE, the latest to the time of Hajji II (1381 CE).

SUMMARY The church of Kh. ªEin Dab was erected in the sixth century. In the early sixth century CE, Kh. ªEin Dab was occupied by a flourishing Christian community that erected a large church embellished with mosaic floors and marble columns. It seems that this

community continued to exist also after the Umayyad conquest, based on the damaged birds in the colorful mosaic floor of the nave that were immediately repaired with large white tesserae. Care was evidently taken to avoid inflicting excessive damage to the mosaics, and in many instances the figures can still be identified. The Christian community probably implemented the effacement following the decree issued by the Muslim ruler. In a later period, the rows of columns in the church were replaced by walls, possibly following the collapse of the columns in the 749 CE earthquake, and the structure ceased to function as a church. During this phase three square plastered vats were dug into the floors and apparently served as part of the local oil production complex at the site. A number of dwellings were constructed at the site in the Mamluk period. Their poor state of preservation rules out any attempt to reconstruct their plan.

[[46 38 ]]

CH H AT BB E TE TʿE Iª E N ID BAB A BAYBZYAZNA TN ITNI N E ECCHHUURRC AT KKHHI R IR NAD

Plate 1. Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery: Open Vessels No. Locus

Vessel

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L114

LRC bowl

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: Fig. 3:14); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig.1:13–15)

Mid-6th cent. CE

2 3

L114 L133 Rouletted (n. aisle) bowl

4

Cleaning

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 186, Form 1, nos. 6–7); Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 7:20–21, 23)

Late 3rd or early 4th–first half of the 6th cent. CE

5

L109

Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 2:11)

Early Islamic period

6

L106 (north of W1002) L129 Glazed bowl

Well-sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6, red slip and burnishing on upper part. Roulette decoration on outer face, below rim. Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, red slip, burnish. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, red slip and burnishing on rim and outer face. Roulette decoration on outer face, below rim. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4, traces of red slip and burnishing. Roulette decoration on outer face, below rim. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3, dark green monochrome glaze on inner face and upper part of outer face. Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, green monochrome glaze on inner face and rim.

7

Monochrome glazed bowl

8

L100 (n. aisle)

9

L100

10

L131 (narthex)

11

L120 (s. aisle)

12

L135 Bowl with (narthex) slightly rounded wall L120

13 14 15

L122 (s. aisle) L133

16

L129

Krater

Pale brown ware 10YR:6/3, yellow and green glaze on inner face and rim. Small glazed trickles on outer face. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4, few small white grits, light yellow glaze. Decorated with green and brown glazed washes. Pink ware 5YR:8/3, light green monochrome glaze on inner face and rim. Decorated with brown-black glazed stains on inner face. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4, few large white grits, light yellow glaze on inner face. Decorated with green glazed bands and brown stains, pale yellow glazed washes visible on outer face. Red ware 2.5YR:4/8, yellow monochrome glaze on inner face and rim, remains of white slip over which are brown glazed washes on the upper part of the outer face. Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, light yellowishbrown core 10YR:6/4, few large gray grits. Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/8, gray core 5YR:5/1, many various sized white grits. Yellowish-red ware 5YR:4/6.

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. A:2–5); Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Pl. XVI:4–5); Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.2); Kh. elBireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 2:12–14)

Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4. Ledge rim with wavy decoration on upper surface.

6th–7th cent. Jerusalem (Magness 1993: CE 207, Form 2A, No. 12); Wightman 1989: Pl. 10:2); Bethany (Saller 1957: Fig. 52:2826) Kh. el-Bireh and southern region of the Land of Israel (Avissar 1997: 113, Fig. 1:19; see also note 18)

Krater with Strong brown ware 7.5YR:5/6, few large thickened rim gray grits.

[[47 39]]

9th–late 11th cent. CE

Y. PP E E LL EEGG Y.

2

1

3

4

7

6 5

9

8

10

11

13

12

14

15

16

Plate 1.

[[48 40 ]]

N EC CHHUURRCCHH AT AT KKHHI IRRBBE E T TʿEªIENI N D ADBA B A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI E

Plate 2. Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery: Closed Vessels and Cooking Vessels No. Locus

Vessel

Description

Parallels

Date

1 2 3

L133 L133 L111

Jar with cylindrical ridged neck

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, many small white and gray grits. Combed wavy decoration below rim.

Mid-7th–mid8th cent. CE

4 5

L129 L120

Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 9:3–8); Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 5:2); Farm north of Kh. et-Tinat (Sion 1997a: Fig. 6:10); Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 3:1) Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 5:10–12)

6 7

L106 L138

8

L100

9

L128 (nave)

10 11

L118 L129

Jar with Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8. triangular rim Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, many various sized gray and black grits. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/8. Jug Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3. Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Inscribed lines below rim. Fig. XIII.129); Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. C:19–21) Juglet Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, gray core Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 7.5YR:5/1, burnished outer face. Fig. 2:31) Ring base. Casserole Red ware 2.5YR:4/6. Horizontal Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen handles. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 7:21); Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 8:5–6) Cooking pot Red ware 2.5YR:5/6. Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 7:18) Red ware 2.5YR:5/8.

[[41 49]]

Umayyad period Late 5th–8th cent. CE Mid-7th–mid8th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE

Y. P P EE LLEEGG Y.

1

1

2

2

5

4

3

5

4

3

6

8 7

6

8 7 9

9 10

11

10

11

0

5

Plate 2.

[[50 42]]

10

A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCCH AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B H AT ET NI D

Plate 3. Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery: Lamps and Miscellaneous Vessels No. Locus

Vessel

Description

Parallels

1

L111

Wheel-made lamp

Nozzle sherd. Yellowish-red ware 5YR:4/6, few small gray grits.

2

L126

Mold-made lamp

3

L128

4

L104 (nave)

5

L138

Decorated fragment

6

L138

Zoomorphic vessel

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: Fig. 3:5); Kh. Jemameh (Gophna and Feig 1993: Fig. 15:12–14); Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 122–123, nos. 505–509); Warschaw Collection (Israeli and Avida 1988: No. 500) Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6. Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Pl. Geometric decoration. XVII:9); Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 8:4); Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 129–131, nos. 546–562, Group 1) Yellowish-brown ware 10YR:5/4. Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Trailing floral pattern. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 8:1); Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal Brown ware 10YR:5/3. Trailing and Sivan 1978: 129–131, nos. floral pattern. 546–562, Group 1) Body sherd. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3. Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Decoration of small circles with dot Fig. XIII.133); Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 5:15–16); in center, forming rosette and line Jerusalem (Magness 1992: patterns, carved decoration and Fig. 11:7); Acco (Pringle 1997: impressed decorations. Fig. 6:1) Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, white Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: slip. Decorated with alternating Fig. 16:10–12, 14, 18–20); Beth rows of dots and wide bands. Shean (Fitzgerald 1931: Pl. XXIX:4); Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.158:4); ªEin el-¡anniya (Baramki 1934: Pl. XL:1); Kh. ªAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934: Pl. XII:2)

[[51 43 ]]

Date

5th cent. CE and spread during the Islamic period

Late 8th–early 9th cent. CE

Late Umayyad period, and continued into the Abbasid period9 Umayyad period

Y. PP EELLEEGG Y.

1 4 3

2

5

6

Plate 3.

[[52 44]]

H AT ET NI D A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B

Plate 4. Mamluk Pottery No. Locus

Type

1

L134 Glazed bowl (narthex)

2

L126

3

L111

4

L122

5

L100

6

L134

Painted jug

7

L111

Painted filter jug

8

L122

Cooking pot

9

L114

10

L111

11

L113 Mold-made (north of lamp W1002)

Painted bowl

Hand-made lamp

Description

Parallels

Date

Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, few small white grits, yellow-brown monochrome glaze on inner face, above which is a decoration of thin brown-glazed bands. Red ware 2.5YR:4/8, white slip on upper part of outer face, yellow monochrome glaze on inner face and rim, over which is a decoration of thin brown-glazed bands. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, many large red and black grits. Black-red geometric pattern on upper part of inner face, rim and outer base. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, few large white and black grits. Red geometric pattern on rim, upper part of inner face and handle. Light reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:7/4, white slip, large black grits. Red-brown geometric pattern. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6, a lot of red grits. Red-brown geometric pattern on rim, upper part of inner face and outer face. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, many large red and black grits. Black-red geometric pattern on rim, upper part of inner face and outer face. Red ware 2.5YR:4/8, few large white grits. Decorated with glazed band on outer face, under rim. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, many large white and gray grits. Soot marks on rim. Gray ware 10YR:6/1. Handmade vessel. Soot marks inside filling hole. Light brownish-gray ware 10YR:6/2. Soot and burn marks over entire vessel.

Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. III.24)

Late 12th–early 13th cent. CE

[[53 45 ]]

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. F:14, 23–25)

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. F:10); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 4:10) Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. F: 3) Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 32, Fig. 7:15); Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Figs. 45:16)

12th–13th cent. CE

Y. P P EE LLEEGG Y.

1

2

4 3

5

8

6 9

7

11

10 Plate 4.

[[54 46]]

H AT BB E TE TʿE ªI E N ID BAB A BAYBZYAZNA TN ITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R IR NA D

Plate Plate 5.. Glass lass Artifacts rti acts No. Locus

Object

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L118

Miniature vessel

Nishapur, Iran (Kröger 1995: nos. 174–176)

Early Islamic period (9th–10th cent. CE)

2

L111

Marvered bowl

Complete vessel. Thick colorless glass, covered by patches of silverblack weathering. Cube-shaped body. Cross carved on the base. Protruding bosses on the walls. Four recesses carved between the walls’ ornamentation, near the rim. Rim and wall fragment. Translucent purplish glass. Decorated with opaque white strands. Colorful weathering and sandy encrustation.

Mamluk period (13th–14th cent. CE)

3

L121 (s. aisle)

Bottle/ flask

Çammat Gader (Lester 1997: Pl. I:16). Vessels made in the same technique were found in Fustat, Egypt (Shindo 1992: 581, No. 5) and Çama in Syria (Riis and Poulsen 1957: Fig. 186) Beth Shean (Hadad 1998: Pl. 58:978)

4

L136 Bead (chancel)

Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Sion 1997b: Fig. 11:11)

Early Islamic period

5

L110 (nave)

Na¢al Mitnan (Lester 1990); Yokneªam (Lester 1996: Fig. XVII.18:12); Kh. Tinani (Gil 2000: Fig. 31)

Umayyad– Mamluk periods

Weight

Rim and neck fragment. Colorless glass. Out-turned ledge rim. Thick layer of silver weathering covered by sandy encrustation. Diam. 1.1–1.8 cm. Dark green, red and yellow glass. Made of drawn and folded glass rods. Coin shape. Diam. 1.6 cm, 0.2 cm thick, weight 0.859 gr. Greenishblue glass. Traces of Arabic script.

[[55 47]]

12th–14th cent. CE

Y. P P EE LLEEGG Y.

1

2

3

4

Plate 5.

[[56 48]]

5

H AT ET NI D A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B

Plate 6. Metal Objects No. Locus

Object

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L100

Kohl stick

Yokneªam (Khamis 1996: Fig. XVIII.6:1)

13th–14th cent. CE

2

L129

Bronze kohl stick. 14 cm long. Flat top; maximal width 0.6 cm with rounded end. Lower part has rounded section. Impressed geometrical pattern on one side of the broad top. Bronze kohl stick. 16.1 cm long. Decorated by encircling ridges.

3

L126

Beth Shean (Fitzgerald 1931: Pl. XXXVIII:12, 14); ¡. Shemaª (Meyers 1976: Pl. 8.1:1) Kh. ed-Deir (Baruch 1997: Fig. 8:9, decorated with circles); Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Sion 1997b: Fig. 11:5, undecorated)

Byzantine and Early Islamic periods Byzantine and Early Islamic periods

4

L118

5

Beth Shean (Fitzgerald 1931: Pl. XXXVIII:19)

Byzantine period

6

L101 Buckle (n. aisle) fragment L121

7

L118

Bowl fragment

Tiberias (Khamis and Amir 1999: Pl. 3)

8

Surface

Bowl fragment

6th–8th cent. or 9th–11th cent. CE10 Early Islamic period

9

L128

Plumb bob

10

L129

Scythe

11

L120

Knife

Ring

Simple bronze ring. 2 cm diam.; 0.4 cm width of flat section.

Bronze ring. 1.9–2.3 cm diam.; 0.8 cm width of flat section. Traces of incised rhombic pattern. Bronze buckle fragment. Decorated with grooved lines. Bronze buckle fragment. Decorated with grooved lines. Bronze piece with lacework pattern. 6 cm length; 2.5 cm width. Bronze bowl fragment. Decorated with two inscribed horizontal lines on outer face below rim; on inner face: a band bounded by two inscribed horizontal lines between which is a type of impressed trefoil pattern; below it, impressed dots creating floral pattern. Total length 8.8 cm. Bronze-plated lead. Shape of inverted cone, knobs at top and bottom. Horizontal and vertical boreholes for threading string in upper knob. Two simple inscribed crosses on wall of cone. Iron scythe. Preserved length 32 cm; 2.2 cm maximal width. Iron knife. 11.1 cm length; 1.2 cm maximal width.

[[57 49 ]]

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 72:18); Tiberias (Khamis and Amir 1999: 111)

Cilicia in Asia Minor (Russell 1982: 6th–7th cent. Fig. 1:3) CE

10th–14th cent. CE11

Y. PP EELLEEGG Y.

3

4 1 2

6

7

9 8 5 11

Plate 6.

[[58 50]]

10

H AT ET NI D A BAYBZYAZNATNITNI N E ECCHHUURRCC H AT KKHHI R I RB B E TʿE ªI E N ADB A B

NOTES 1 Kh. waswas excavated in August–September 1999 Kh. ªEin ʿEinDab Dab excavated in August–September (License No. 870) behalf the Staff of Officer Archaeol1999 (License No.on870) onofbehalf of Officer the Staff of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and under Samaria, ogy—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, the under the of direction of Y. Peleg. direction Y. Peleg. 2 Thesite siteisismentioned mentionedby byV.V.Guérin Guérin(Kh. (1869: Aʾı ̈n 2 The Aºïn348, Dab,Kh. Guérin Dab) and H.H. (SWP(Khu III: É 347, 1869: and 348)C.R. and Conder C.R. Conder and Kitchener H.H. Kitchener rbet Khü bet ʾAin ºAin rDab, SWPDab). III: 347). 3 94:29. E.Z. E.Z. Melamed Melamed (1966: (1966: 46, 46, Site Site No. No. 3 Onomasticon, Onomasticon, 94:29. 477, note 1) 1) notes notes that that this this site site also also appears appears on on the the Madaba Madaba 477, note Mosaic (Enetaba); however, on Mosaic Map, Map,with withthe thename nameEνεταβα Eíåôáâá (Enetaba); however, the map it is situated to the north of Iamnia (Yavneh), and not on the map it is situated to the north of Iamnia (Yavneh), and in the Hills. not in Judean the Judean Hills. 4 The patterns are numbered according to the classification 4 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 5 Similar decoration has been discovered in many churches 5 Similar decoration has been discovered in many churches and synagogues (Avi-Yonah 1975), especially noteworthy and synagogues (Avi-Yonah 1975), especially noteworthy among the nearby sites are mosaic pavements in churches among the nearby sites are mosaic pavements in churches at at Kh. ʿAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934: Pl. X) and Ḥ . Kh. Baramkiand andTsafrir Avi-Yonah BethªÁsida Loya (Patrich 1985:1934: 110).Pl. X) and ¡. Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1985: 110). 6 A round medallion carpet, without an inscription, was also 1

6 A roundinmedallion wiinthout an inscription, wasLoya also revealed the aisle carpet, mosaics a church at ¡. Beth revealed in the aisle mosaics in a church at Ḥ . Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1993: 266). We would like to thank (Patrich and for Tsafrir 1993: 266).in reading the inscription. L. Di Segni her assistance 7 This information was transmitted orally orally to to the the author author by by Y. Y. 7 This information was transmitted Gorin-Rosen, for which he is grateful. Gorin-Rosen, for which he is grateful. 8 Thecoins coinswere wereidentified identified and and dated dated by by G. G.Bijovsky. Bijovsky. 8 The 9 This sherd belongs to a type of vessel that first appears 9 This sherd belongs to a type of vessel that first appears in in the late Umayyad period and continues into the Abbasid the late Umayyad period and continues into the Abbasid period (Avissar (Avissar 1996: 1996: 159–160, 159–160, Fig. Fig. XIII.133). XIII.133). M. M. Avissar Avissar period notes that these vessels were produced mainly in the notes that these vessels were produced mainly in the Abbasid period, but were quickly abandoned for more easily Abbasid period, but were quickly abandoned for more easily manufactured mold-produced vessels. Since this sherd was manufactured mold-produced vessels. Since this sherd was discovered in an Umayyad–Abbasid assemblage, we prefer discovered in an Umayyad–Abbasid assemblage, we prefer the earlier dating proposed by Avissar, who questions the the earlier dating proposed by Avissar, who questions the later dating assigned by Baramki. later assigned byhorde D.C. Baramki. 10 Thedating vessels from the found in Tiberias date to these 10 The vessels from the horde found in Tiberias date to these two periods; the final report has not yet been published. two periods; the final report has not yet been published. 11 The scythe and the knife are everyday tools, dated to the phase 11when Thethe scythe and was the knife aredwelling everyday to the structure used for or tools, for oil dated production. phase when the structure was used for oil production or for dwelling.

REFERENCES Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Ra¢el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome. Avi-Yonah M. 1975. “The Gaza School of Mosaicists in the Fifth–Sixth Centuries C.E.,” EI 12: 191–193 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneªam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery of Khirbet el-Bireh,” in Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai, and J. Schwartz, Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat-Gan, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Baramki D.C. 1934. “An Early Christian Basilica at ªEin Hanniya,” QDAP 3: 113–117. Baramki D.C. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Baramki D.C. and Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “An Early Christian Church at Khirbet ªAsida,” QDAP 3: 17–19. Baruch Y. 1997. “A Site of the Early Roman and Byzantine Periods at ed-Deir, Hebron,” ªAtiqot 32: 109–118 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 44*). Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ªAtiqot 32: 19*–34*.

Fitzgerald G.M. 1931. Beth-Shan Excavations 1921–1923. The Arab and Byzantine Levels, Philadelphia. Gil Z. 2000. “Haifa, Khirbet Tinani,” ¡A 111: 20–22 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 16*). Gophna R. and Feig N. 1993. “A Byzantine Monastery at Kh. Jemameh,” ªAtiqot 22: 97–108. Guérin V. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée III, Paris. Hadad S. 1998. Glass Vessels from the Umayyad through Mamluk Periods at Bet Shean (7th–14th Centuries C.E.). Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). Israeli Y. and Avida U. 1988. Oil Lamps from Eretz Israel. The Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection, Jerusalem. Khamis E. 1996. “The Metal Objects,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneªam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 218–235. Khamis E. and Amir R. 1999. “The Fatimid Period Bronze Vessel Hoard,” Qadmoniot 32 (118): 108–114 (Hebrew). Kröger J. 1995. Nishapur. Glass of the Early Islamic Period, New York. Lester A. 1990. “Appendix: A Glass Weight from the Times

[[59 51 ]]

Y. PP E E LL EEGG Y.

of ªAbd al-Malik B. Yazid,” ªAtiqot 10: 125–126 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 21*). Lester A. 1996. “The Glass from Yoqneªam: The Early Islamic, Crusader and Mamluk Periods,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneªam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 202–217. Lester A. 1997. “Islamic Glass Finds,” in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader. Final Report, Jerusalem, pp. 432–441. Magness J. 1992. “The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Areas H and K,” in A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh (Qedem 33), Jerusalem, pp. 149–164. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology. circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Melamed E.Z. 1966. The Onomastikon of Eusebius (Tarbi« 19 and 21), Jerusalem (Hebrew trans. with notes). Meyers E.M. 1976. Ancient Synagoge at Khirbet Shemaª, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970–1972 (ASSOR 42), Durham, N.C. Patrich J. and Tsafrir Y. 1985. “A Byzantine Church and Agricultural Installations at Khirbet Beit Loya,” Qadmoniot 18 (71–72): 106–112 (Hebrew). Patrich J. and Tsafrir Y. 1993. “A Byzantine Church Complex at ¡orvat Beit Loya,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 265–272.

Pringle D. 1997. “Excavations in Acre 1974: The Pottery of the Crusader Period from Site D,” ªAtiqot 31: 137–156. Riis P.J. and Poulsen V. 1957. Hama. Fouilles et recherches 1931–1938 IV:2, Copenhagen. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Russell J. 1982. “Byzantine Instrumenta Domestica from Anemurium: The Significance of Context,” in R.L. Hohlfelder (ed.), City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantine Era, New York, pp. 133–154. Saller S.J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953), Jerusalem. Shindo Y. 1992. “Glass,” in K. Sakurai and M. Kawatoko (eds.), Egyptian Islamic City: al-Fustat. Excavation Report 1978–1985, Tokyo, pp. 304–355. Sion O. 1997a. “Farms to the Northeast of Jerusalem,” ªAtiqot 32: 159–166 (Hebrew, English summary, p. 48*). Sion O. 1997b. “Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ªAtiqot 32: 183–194 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 50*). Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto. Vaux R. de. and Steve A.-M. 1950. Fouilles à Qaryet elªEnab Abû Gôsh, Palestine, Paris. Wightman G.J. 1989. The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Excavations by C.-M. Bennett and J.B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964–66 (BAR Int. S. 519), Oxford.

[[60 52 ]]

A ROMAN FORTRESS AND A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT KHIRBET ED-DUWEIR SHAHAR BATZ AND IBRAHIM SHARUKH

THE SITE

5.50×0.30 m, is extant. It is constructed of flat fieldstones laid on the bedrock. Pottery sherds dated to this period were found in several natural caves on the spur of the site, suggesting use of the caves by local occupants in this phase. No water storage facilities were found that can be dated to this period; however, a natural spring is located some 100 m east of the site, on the spur slope.

Kh. ed-Duweir is located ca. 2 km southeast of Ḥ alḥ ul, 2.5 km northeast of Alone Mamre and 2 km east of the road linking the Hebron Hills with Jerusalem (map ref. IOG 16232/10911; ITM 21232/60911).1 It stands on a spur in the west of Siʿir Valley, overlooking agricultural fields. The valley lies between a watershed in the west and the edge of the Judean Desert in the east and has abundant water sources (see Site Map on p. XIII). Five occupation phases were discerned at the site (Fig. 1). In the first phase, during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, evidence of the site’s occupation derive mainly from sparse remains of walls and small finds attributed to the period. The second phase, in the Early Roman period, includes remains of walls and a water system, as well as miqwaʾot (ritual baths), and hiding caves. In the third phase, in the Late Roman period, at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century CE, a fortified complex with a massive tower was constructed. In the fourth phase, in the Byzantine period, in the sixth to eighth centuries CE, a monastery was erected. The fifth phase is dated to the Early Islamic period, the eighth century CE. In this phase minor structural additions were made in the complex, and remains of a winepress and oil press inside a cave were observed. Burial caves were discovered on the south of the site.

Phase II—Early Roman Period The remains of structures dated to this period were found mainly in the east of the site. Architectural elements and small finds from the Early Roman period were found throughout the site. Several walls dated to this period were uncovered inside the Byzantine monastery, where no later construction took place. One of these walls, W42, 6.00×2.10 m, was discovered in the southeast of the complex. The wall, preserved to a height of two courses, was built of two faces of fieldstones, each stone measuring 0.50×0.40×0.20 m, with no binding material. Its dating is based on ceramic finds from the first century CE. An irregular stone slab floor (F314) abutted W42 from the west. A stone vessel, dated to the first century CE, was found on it. Ashlars with marginal drafting dated to this period were found in secondary use in W152 and W143, built in the next phase. The site’s water system consisted of three bellshaped cisterns (Cisterns 1–3) as well as an elliptical cistern (Cistern 4) with a northern and southern opening, discovered under the east of the Late Roman fortified complex. Rock-cut channels led to all the cisterns. The water system is contemporary with the two miqwaʾot found at the site. Miqweh 1, discovered in the next phase fortified complex, consists of a hewn rectangular corridor (L308), 2.60×1.10 m, which slopes toward an immersion room (Figs. 2–3). Five hewn steps of

Phase I—Persian and Hellenistic periods Ceramic assemblages and several glass vessels testify to the occupation of the site during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. A number of walls observed in the excavation were attributed to this phase. W210 was discovered about 1 m west of third phase W104 in the northwest. Only the wall’s foundation course, northeast–southwest in orientation and measuring

[61]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

21

20 18

17

14

15

24

19

16

25

28 26

27

23 30

Courtyard B

13

22

Hiding Hiding Complex complex

29 12

31

Miqweh 2

32

Cistern 1

Courtyard A

9

Cistern 3

33

8

7

Cistern 2

11

10

34

36

Cistern 4

35 Miqweh 1

6

3

5

2

4

1

37

38

Early Roman Period Late Roman Period Byzantine Period 0

Early Islamic Period

Fig. 1. Kh. ed-Duweir, main construction phases.

[62]

10

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 D - D U W E I R

1 L308

L311

1

1-1

0

2

m

Fig. 2. Miqweh 1, detailed plan and section.

varying width led to the immersion room (L311). The central step was of three hewn stones bound with binding material and coated in hydraulic plaster. The doorposts of the entrance from the corridor to the immersion room were hewn as projecting pillars; thus the entrance was 0.20 m narrower than the corridor. The entrance lintel was hewn as a gable. The immersion room, 2.60×2.50 m, is a natural cave that was widened and given a rectangular shape. The western wall was thickened and a supporting wall was built blocking the continuation of the cave to the west. In the immersion room, three additional steps of varying widths were hewn across the length of the room. Two channels conveyed runoff water to the miqweh, one from the west and the other from the northeast. Miqweh 2 (L305), located north of Miqweh 1, includes a rectangular corridor and a rectangular immersion room, constructed inside a natural cave. The corridor, 2.50×2.00 m, has five hewn hydraulic plastered stairs, measuring 2.00×0.60 m, that led to

Fig. 3. Miqweh 1, view from the east.

the immersion room. A hewn channel next to the stairs led runoff water into the room. The room entrance is as wide as the stairs. Its lintel was not preserved. The immersion room, 3.60×2.80 m and 2.25 m high, was plastered in its entirety. Construction of the room necessitated widening the natural cave. The cave ceiling was found collapsed. A hiding complex dated to the Second Temple period was discovered adjacent to Miqweh 2. Its construction took the existence of the miqweh into account.2 It consisted of several caves linked by hewn tunnels (Fig. 4). Only the northwest of the complex was surveyed and it likely expanded further to the south. W41, 2.00×0.90 m, was found west of an opening to the hiding complex. Only one course of the walls, laid on the bedrock, was extant. It was possibly the foundation of a structure covering one of the hiding complex entrances. In the part of the hiding complex that was surveyed,

[63]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

Miqweh 2

entrance of this phase was not discovered; it was probably located in W102, since the road from the region of Ḥ alḥ ul is on this side and a sunken area was observed in the middle of the eastern terrace. Only a small section of W102 was exposed. It was poorly built and approximately 1.00 m wide. The wall had largely been dismantled while the site was still in use, and the excavators were unable to ascertain its exact position. The southern wall is 30 m long, 1.00 m thick, and has two faces. The outer face was of roughly hewn stones, each measuring some 0.60×0.50×0.40 m, with no binding material. The inner face consisted of medium-sized fieldstones and rows of flat slabs. The space between the faces was filled with small stones, earth, and sherds. Eight courses of the wall, established on a leveled bedrock surface, are extant; the upper two apparently represent a later renovation. The western wall, 51 m long and 1.10 m thick, underwent several repairs and changes. The wall was thickened by ca. 0.25 m in the section where it functions as both the complex’s and the tower’s western wall. The tower is bounded by W151 in the south, W118 in the west, W143 in the north, and W148 in the east. The tower’s outer walls were thick compared to those of the fortified complex. These walls survived to a height of 2.00–3.00 m and are ca. 1.25 m thick. The tower was divided into rooms by crisscrossing inner walls W150, W152, and W153 (Fig. 8). The eastern wall, 16.30 m long, extant to a height of 3.00 m, comprises eight courses, of which the uppermost appears to be a later addition, its stones being different in shape. The wall was constructed of two faces of roughly hewn fieldstones separated by leveled rows of flat ones. This mode of construction is characteristic of the outer walls of the tower, from the foundations up. In several instances, small stones were used to even the bedrock surface before the larger fieldstones were placed.3 Between the outer and inner faces is a fill of earth and broken stones without binding material. The tower entrance, located in the middle of the wall, was originally ca. 1 m wide, judging by the ashlar threshold, 1.00×0.50 m and ca. 0.3 m high. The lintel, 1.74×0.55×0.40 m, decorated with a lozenge in high relief, was evidently placed over the tower’s original entrance (Fig. 9).4

L805

L305 L806

L803

L301 W 41

Hiding Complex complex Hiding

L804

L310

0

5 m

Fig. 4. Miqweh 2 and hiding complex, plan.

an oval-shaped central hall (L803) was discovered. The hall 7.00×5.00 m, was formed by enlarging a natural cave, as evidenced by chisel marks on the floor and walls. An entrance from the hall led to a small room (L804) 2.66×1.40 m. The entrance frame was hewn on the outside for placement of a blocking stone. An entrance in the north of the central hall had a hewn frame on the outside for placement of a blocking stone and oil lamp niches. It led to a tunnel leading to two additional rooms. The western room (L805), is hewn and oval shaped; in its north is a kind of hewn bench. The second chamber is a cistern (L806), in whose western wall the tunnel opening was hewn. Ceramic vessels found in this cistern date it to the Early Roman period.

Phase III—Late Roman Period In this phase, a rectangular fortified complex, 51×30 m, was erected. The complex included a tower in its southwestern corner and two stone-paved courtyards with rooms to their north. The water cisterns continued to serve the complex. The fortified complex was surrounded by W151 in the south, W118 in the west, W104 in the north, and W102 in the east. The complex walls were all built in a similar manner (Figs. 5–7). The complex’s main

[64]

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 D - D U W E I R

2

W210

L527

941.92

W104

L602

W111

943.05

F824

L613

L504

F656

W117

940.79

Cistern 1

940.49

941.07

W175

Cistern 2 Cistern 3

Cistern 4

L632

L684

W177

W168

F622

940.26

3 W137

4

5

W203

W171

16

942.15 940.25

W121

W156

941.90

W

942.64

L632

F825

F563

W146

W202b W202a

W142

F686 W166

L627

941.25

F730

L180

F825

W123

W178

2

F683

942.29

942.11

940.75

W135

F682

940.90

L179

W176

941.95

W145

W133

W212

W126

940.95

W120

L740

W138

W124

F672

1

3

F659

W125

W118

942.14

941.18

L508

F591

W134

L548

L681

W122

F674

W127 941.62

W187

W144

L552

W126

F706

5

W213

940.46

941.17

940.65

F589 W112 940.92

W113

940.48

940.97 941.68

940.84

L604 W102

4

W101 W158

941.04

W110

W119

941.64

L514

942.36

L558

W125

F705

L644

F675 W107

W110

F674

W106

F685 L545

W108

941.07

W132

W115

W114

5

F638

W101 W161

W105

943.08

W103

W101

6

W143 940.22

L724

F758 F718

W184

Miqweh 1

W186

941.03

W149

F314

941.44

941.98

940.59

941.91

W42

W201 W157

F719

W152

W153

F746

941.78 939.99

L311

11

940.44

L308

943.05

W2

940.20

6 W200

W148

F820 W150

9 W16

W152

W118

F646

W173

942.49

W151

0

1

Fig. 5. Kh. ed-Duweir, detailed plan.

[65]

10 m

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1-1 944 00

W150

W153

943 00 942 00

F646

F718

F719

940 00

F686 F622

F820

L724

939 00

F825

2-2

944 00 942 00

W120

W166

941 00

943 00

W143

W151

W110

W119 W120 F672 L749

941 00 940 00

W104

W101

W127 F685

F705

F706

F824

939 00 3-3 943 00 942 00

W120

W118

W142

W176

W202a

W137 W203

941 00 940 00

F730

L179

939 00

L632

938 00 4-4 946 00 945 00

W176

W126 L552

W126

W119

944 00 943 00

944 00 943 00

5-5 W118

W103 W114

942 00 941 00

F679 L680

F685

940 00

W115

939 00 944 00 943 00 942 00

W132

F638 L662 F675

F674

W108

W169

F586

W121

941 00 940 00

F715

939 00

W105

W161

6-6

W148

W106

F578

Fig. 6. Kh. ed-Duweir, sections.

[66]

F639

F640

W102

W158 L593

F589

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 D - D U W E I R

Fig. 7. Kh. ed-Duweir, view from the east.

Fig. 8. Tower, view from the west.

[67]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

0

20

The tower’s inner walls, preserved to an average height of seven courses, were built like the structure’s other walls. They were mainly established on the bedrock, certain sections being laid over a leveled fill. The walls consist of courses with two faces of medium-sized fieldstones and rows of small fieldstones between them. In all three walls, the two upper courses represent a later addition, different in construction from the original wall. W152, 13.80×0.90 m, traversed the tower from north to south. An entrance, ca. 1.1 m wide with ashlar doorposts, was established in the middle of the wall, on the bedrock. East of the wall there originally had been a long rectangular room (nos. 1–3), 13.70×3.00 m, paved in irregular stone slabs (F758) that abutted W152 and W148. The area west of the wall was divided by W153 and W150 into three rooms. Rooms 4 and 6 are identical in shape and dimensions, ca. 5.3×3.5 m, and both have corner openings leading to Room 5. The rooms’ floors were originally paved in rectangular stone slabs, traces of which have survived (F719 and F820); these were laid over the bedrock and abut the rooms’ walls. Room 6 has a built-in niche in W143, 0.25×0.50 m.6 Room 5, 5.30×5.00 m, is larger

40

Fig. 9. Lintel, tower entrance.

The northern wall is 11.60 m long; its northern section is ca. 1.5 m thick, its southern section, ca. 1.1 m. The 10-course wall was established on the bedrock, although a layer of partially worked fieldstones, set lengthwise, was laid over the bedrock in some places to even its surface. Its construction mode was identical to that of the tower’s other walls. The tower’s stones and construction mode are very similar to those of other towers dating to the fourth to fifth centuries CE.5

Fig. 10. Room 5 in the tower, view from the east.

[68]

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 D - D U W E I R

tangular hall (nos. 17–19), 10.50×5.00 m, with a 1.00-wide opening in W110. The floor was paved in irregular stone slabs, two segments of which survived (F685 and F675). Room 24–25, 6.00×5.00 m, had a 0.80 m-wide opening in W110, with no hewn threshold or doorposts. Room 20–21, 13.00×2.50 m, also built in this phase, had a floor paved in stone slabs (F824). Rooms 29 and 30 are dated to the end of the fourth century CE, based on a coin found in the foundation of F563, abutting W145 from the east. W138 separates Rooms 29 and 30, of which only the former room survived. Room 29, 4.20×3.50 m, had an entrance set in W145. At the center of the room was a water channel covered by stone slabs. The bedrock served as the floor of Rooms 29 and 30.

than the neighboring rooms, and was paved in stone slabs (F718) that abutted the walls (Fig. 10). At this phase there were two courtyards north of the tower. The Courtyard A floor was paved in stone slabs (F825). That of Courtyard B was paved in irregular stone slabs as well (F674, F672). The main building remains from this phase were found north of the latter courtyard. The rooms north of Courtyard B were formed by the junction of Walls W119, W110, W101, and W104 with the complex’s southwestern wall, W118. The rooms had unworked thresholds, and doorposts and several troughs were found. This area was probably used for storage. The floor of Room 14, 2.80×2.30 m, was paved in stone slabs that abutted its walls (F705). The room’s entrance was in the south, via a 0.60 m-wide opening in W119. Room 15–16, 5.40×2.30 m, was entered via a 0.90 m-wide opening in W107. Its floor (F656) consisted of irregular stone slabs. These rooms had corbelled roofs, the stone slabs overlapping in a stepped arrangement. Adjacent to these rooms to the north, was a rec-

Phase IV—Byzantine Period The fortified complex was converted into a monastery in this phase, dated to the sixth to eighth centuries CE (Fig. 11). Changes were introduced in the tower, and rooms added to the complex, including

Fig. 11. Byzantine monastery, reconstruction.

[69]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

passageway, 2.50×1.40 m, created by the construction of a staircase, 7.00×1.00 m, which adjoined W120 and led to the second story. Courtyard B, established in the previous phase, was now narrowed by the construction of several passageways that issued from the courtyard and led to the rooms surrounding it. Courtyard B was repaved with irregular stone slabs (F659). The same floor continued to Courtyard A. West of Courtyard B are Rooms 12 and 13 (Fig. 12). Room 12, 4.60×4.60 m, is entered through a 0.85 m-wide entrance in W126. Its threshold was found in situ and its doorposts are of ashlar. In the middle of the room was the rubble of an arch that had extended between W120 and W127 and was contemporaneous with them. This room revealed an accrual of collapse layers identical to that in the tower; at its bottom was F672, of the complex’s third construction phase. The same floor continued to Room 13 to the north. North of Courtyard B, a second story was added to Rooms 14, 15, 16, 20–21 and Hall 17–19. Excavation of Hall 17–19 and Room 20–21 to its north yielded dining vessels, indicating that the rectangular hall served as the complex’s kitchen.7 In Hall 17–19, three ashlar arches (2.50 m apart) supported the new upper story. The arch pillars stood on the earlier floor, F674, while a new irregular stone slab, F638, abutted them. A refectory, 10.50×5.00 m, was apparently established on the second story (Fig. 13). A staircase (L552), 6.00×l.10 m, to the upper story was found west of the courtyard. It rested on the courtyard floor against the outer face of W126 (Fig. 14). Its four steps were found in situ. Another staircase (L558), 3.70×0.60 m, leading to the second story of Hall 17–19, was discovered in the northeast of the courtyard, next to W117. Three of its steps were found in situ. An arch (W111) was added to Room 20–21 for buttressing the upper story. The large quantity of vessels found in the east of the room suggests the room was used for storage. In the west of the room, an installation (L602) whose clay tiles were found in the debris may have been a cooking oven. South of the hall, in W110, an opening was introduced to Room 14, which now had two rectangular stone basins. An arch was also built in the center of Room 15–16.

one with an oven, suggesting the establishment of the monastery’s refectory in the rooms north of Courtyard B. A chapel was established on the second story, most likely above the water system of the previous phase, which continued in use. The height of the tower’s outer walls was raised by the construction of new courses. W101 was rebuilt, its inner face thickened. A number of changes were made in the tower in this phase. The central opening in W148 was rebuilt; it now measured 0.80 m in width and incorporated ashlars in secondary use. The threshold was constructed of an ashlar stone laid on its side over F758, in disregard of the square socket for the door bolt. Bossed ashlars in secondary use were also incorporated randomly into the entrance’s doorposts. W200 and W201 were added east of W152, dividing the room into three. Room 2, 4.70×2.30 m, was paved with F746, which abuts W200 and W201. All of the tower rooms, except Room 5, revealed a sequence of collapse layers comprising, from top to bottom: a layer of tiles, the remains of white mosaic floors (36 tesserae per sq. dm), building stone rubble, a beaten earth floor, and a stone slab floor. This indicates that the structure had an apparently residential second story paved in mosaic. The lower story had a beaten earth floor and was evidently used for stabling animals. A staircase adjoining the tower’s northeastern corner led to the second story of the tower. It was supported by W168, W169, and W177. The staircase consisted of two sections. One consisted of seven stairs; the other apparently consisted of five stairs adjacent to W148. The 0.80 m-wide monastery entrance was set in W118. The wall’s foundation course served as the entrance threshold, for which no doorposts were found. Remains of a lintel found a few meters outside the entrance probably belong to it. The entrance led to a roofed corridor (nos. 7–8), 3.50×2.50 m, created in this phase by the construction of W166 and W156 in the north. This construction resulted in the enclosure of Courtyard A, which now measured 7.00×5.50 m. Two entrances allowed access to Courtyard A (nos. 9–11). An entrance in W166 enabled access to the courtyard from the complex’s entrance corridor. Access from the north was through a roofed

[70]

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 D - D U W E I R

Fig. 12. Rooms 12 and 13, view from the south.

Fig. 13. Hall 17–19 and Room 20–21, view from the west.

[71]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

the oven room. It has a leveled bedrock floor and an opening to the west in W117. The walls of these rooms cut the previous phase Courtyard B floor (F674), while the courtyard floor of this phase (F659) abuts Rooms W133 and W117 (Fig. 16). The oven itself is not well preserved. Oval in plan and its inner surface comprised a fill of beaten earth surmounted by a baked clay covering. The oven’s interior was lined with clay tiles (Pl. 6:19), rising to a dome shape, as indicated by the tile impressions on the walls. Fieldstone walls buttressed the oven from outside. The space between the oven dome and the outer walls was filled with a layer of plaster, 10 cm thick, which served as insulation and strengthened the juncture between the two.8 However, the oven rested directly on the inner face of W133 and W122. Its northern opening, in W144, was positioned ca. 0.7 m above the room’s bedrock floor and was paved with stone slabs, which were found amid the debris found in the vestibule. It can be assumed that the oven possessed a flue, although one was not discovered in the excavations. A coin dated to the fifth century was recovered from the bottom of the earth fill in the oven. Room 26, 7.00×1.80 m, was created by the

Fig. 14. Courtyard B and staircase to the second story, view from the south.

Numerous grinding stones, probably connected with flour production, were found on the lower story (Fig. 15). All the rooms of this dining complex revealed an accrual of collapse layers with the same sequence as that in the tower. A segment of a colorful mosaic was revealed in the debris in Room 15–16. An oven (L681) was constructed in Room 22, 2.25×1.90 m, on the previous phase Courtyard B. Room 23, 5.30×2.20 m, served as a vestibule to

Fig. 15. Grinding stones from Room 16, on the lower story.

[72]

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 D - D U W E I R

Fig. 16. Oven, view from the north.

which had rested on stone slabs used for roofing the room. Room 33 is L-shaped; its walls—especially W202, W142, and W175—are massive. W202, ca. 2 m wide, was built as a double wall— W202a and W202b, and constitutes a technical stage. W202a, 9.50×0.80 m, was built first. It was constructed of an external side of middle-sized fieldstones worked on the outer face and an inner side of small rectangular stones laid irregularly. W202b was built by the same method. A fill that included Persian and Byzantine material was set between the two walls. These walls survived to a height of some seven courses. The upper course served as a base for a corbelled roof laid over Room 33 and the roofing above Cistern 1 in the northwest. Room 34, 4.50×2.00 m, located east of Room 33, had a vault overarching Cisterns 3 and 4. The room had three entrances, one from the south, 1.00×0.60 m, between W121 and W177. A second entrance, 1.00×1.00 m, of which a threshold in situ and doorposts were discovered, was located in the east. The third entrance, 1.00×0.70 m, was set in W175 in the north, connecting to Room 33.

construction of W213. Its entrance, 1.00×0.70 m, was located in the addition built to W106. The entrance incorporated a doorstep in secondary use. An arch was found in situ in the room. Rooms 27 and 28 were built as parts of one unit, 5.30×3.00 m, whose opening, through W113 in the south, is only partially extant. Room 31–32 was built as a single room, measuring 4.60×2.90 m; an arch crossing over it supports an upper story. The room’s construction is dated to the sixth century CE, when Courtyard B was repaved with F659, which abuts the room’s walls. A coin and several glass vessels dated to this period were discovered on the room’s stone floor (F682 and F683). Access to the room was through an entrance in the eastern wall (W212). The entrance threshold and doorposts were of stones in secondary use. The threshold is 1.35×0.65×0.35 m, while the room’s entrance is narrower, measuring 0.88×0.40 m. Rooms 33 and 34 were built in the cistern area, providing a platform for an upper story, where a chapel was probably established (Fig. 17). Excavation of the debris (L632) revealed the second story floor,

[73]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

Fig. 17. Rooms 33–35, view from the northeast.

Excavation in the rooms surrounding the water system area yielded a number of marble artifacts, supporting the assumption that the chapel was situated in the second story above Rooms 33–34. A marble slab fragment has been identified as the base of an altar table, judging by its thickness and shape. A number of marble fragments from the altar table colonnettes were found in the chapel area. The upper section of the colonnette, ca. 6.1 cm in diameter, illustrated here, is decorated with four metopes having a floral design with branches that is a schematic representation of lotus leaves, and appears on most altar table colonnettes from churches of this period (Fig. 18:1).9 Another colonnette from a chancel was found with a base, 0.28 m in diameter, and a shaft, ca. 0.26 m in diameter (Fig. 18:2). A liturgical bowl was discovered as well as chalices, whose decoration implies Christian ritual use (see below). Fragments of stone shafts and a lintel adorned with a cross inscribed in a circle were also uncovered. During the Byzantine period, Miqweh 1 was converted into a cistern. Its roof was breached with a hole for a bucket, and the stairs providing access to the immersion room were now blocked by a plastered stone wall.

1 0

5

10

2 0

10

20

Fig. 18. Colonnettes, probably from chapel on the upper story.

[74]

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 D - D U W E I R

A hewn winepress was discovered west of the monastery. The winepress has a treading surface, 5.00×4.50 m and an oval collecting vat, 3.00×1.50×0.40 m deep. In a later fill in the collecting vat a coin dated to the first half of the first century CE was found.

Phase V—Early Islamic Period The phase is characterized by minor structural additions. Based on pottery analysis it dates to the eighth century CE. The chapel apparently continued in use until the complex’s destruction in the seventh or early eighth century CE.10 None of the artifacts postdate this century, with the exception of a few Mamluk coins recovered from the surface. Sections of some of the complex’s walls were thickened and repaired; for example, the upper courses of W118. The opening in W118, next to the tower, was now blocked, and W165 was built opposite it, dividing the entrance corridor into two rooms. Room 7 was paved by a beaten earth floor (F622). Room 8, no longer in use at this phase, was filled with earth. W171 was also constructed in this phase. In Room 34 the openings in W175 and W177 were blocked. Changes undertaken in the tower area during this phase include the addition of a beaten earth floor in Room 2, and the erection of W173 in Room 6, which is abutted by a beaten earth floor (F646). In the opening to Room 4, a lintel, 0.80×0.44×0.34 m, was found in secondary use as a doorpost.11 It was decorated with a cross in a circle, 0.32 m in diameter (Fig. 19). Room 36 was erected east of the tower. Its walls rested against W148 and on a stone slab floor. The new walls were uniform in thickness, ca. 0.7 m, and incorporated architectural elements in secondary use, including shafts and ashlars from Byzantine arches. The room’s 1.20 m-wide entrance was positioned in front of the tower entrance. This room was possibly employed as an animal pen. Courtyard A (nos. 9–11), established in the Byzantine period, was now divided into three rooms by W176, 5.70×0.80 m, and W178. Room 9 is ca. 6×3 m, and its 0.65 m-wide entrance was located in the southeastern end of W176. Its doorposts consisted of ashlars in secondary use. Above the stone slab floor of the previous construction phase a floor of beaten earth (F686) was laid.

0

20

40

Fig. 19. A cross-adorned lintel in secondary use as a doorpost.

The main entrance to Room 10, 4.30×3.30 m, was through a passage from Courtyard B. The erection of W176 replaced part of the staircase adjoining W120. Another staircase (L179), 1.10 m wide, was carelessly constructed in its stead, of which four steps were found in situ. A platform (L180) with a crushing installation was built in the room’s eastern corner, blocking the entrance to Room 8. Room 10 was roofed, as attested by the irregularly sized ashlar pillars in secondary use resting against L179 and L180 (Fig. 20). Room 11, measuring 4.60×2.40 m, had an entrance set in W178. A stone bench, 2.10×0.40 m, was built along the room’s eastern wall. The room was paved

[75]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

Fig. 20. Room 10, view from the southwest.

Fig. 21. Hall 17–19, view from the northeast. Note the blocked arches.

[76]

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 D - D U W E I R

is adorned with: three Maltese crosses, uniform in size; a temple facade; a bird; and a fish.14 The excavations yielded a second chalice in Room 21 (Fig. 22:4), its extant dimensions 7 cm high and 7.8 cm in diameter. It is also adorned with incised decorations. However, due to its poor state of preservation, only one bird, the legs of another, and a partially preserved fish in the lower register can be discerned.

with a beaten earth floor (F730) covered in debris, including fragments of marble colonnettes originating from the chapel. Minor changes were introduced in the north of the complex in this phase, including the construction of walls blocking the arches in Hall 17–19, Room 20–21, and Room 31–32 (Fig. 21). W161 and W158 (nos. 25, 28) were built incorporating architectural elements and domestic grinding tools in secondary use. The oven in Room 22 remained in service during this phase.

Pottery

The ceramic finds at the site reveal a period of about 1,000 years of occupation, dating from the Persian to the Early Islamic periods (Pls. 1–7). The ceramic finds from the Persian and Hellenistic period (sixth to second century BCE) are almost the sole evidence for the presence of these periods at the site. The majority of ceramic assemblages dated to this period were found outside the fortified complex. A storage jar handle with a rosette imprint dated to Late Iron Age III to the beginning of the Persian period, was found in L303, outside the fortified complex. Persian finds located outside the complex and adjacent to its walls were also found in Loci 604, 753 and 755. Within the complex, finds from this period were found in Loci 548 and 664. Finds from the Hellenistic period were found in W146. It is clear that pottery found in the loci within the complex originates in fills brought to the complex during the Byzantine and Early Islamic period. An exception is L684, a sealed locus from the Persian and Hellenistic period, found in the complex and not damaged by the construction of later walls. The Early Roman period pottery dates from the first century BCE until the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Finds from the first century BCE were found in mixed assemblages in the east of the site, outside the later complex i.e. Loci 311, 604, and W42. Vessels dating to the first century CE were found in L504, located in the northwest of the complex and cut by later construction, as well as in the aforementioned loci. Second century CE pottery was found in L801 and L802, in the hiding complex. The ceramic finds from the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period (third to fifth century CE) is scant. W102, W105, and W119 are dated by the ceramic and other finds to the fourth to fifth centuries CE.

MOSAIC FLOORS Excavations yielded numerous mosaic fragments that originated mainly in the upper stories of the complex. Most of the mosaics are crude and white, composed of relatively large tesserae (36 per sq. dm). The fragments were usually backed by a bed of bonding material including small fieldstones. Room 16 contained a fragment of a colorful mosaic with tesserae in black, red, and ocher (ca. 100 per sq. dm). Its pattern, insofar as it was extant, includes a frame consisting of one outer row in black and two in red, and an inner decoration of black and ocher tesserae.

FINDS

Liturgical Vessels Fragments of two liturgical bowls of different types, both of fine-grained white marble, were found amid the rubble of the upper floor of Room 32. One bowl has a polished interior; its bottom is carefully carved and its base has a prominent ring (Fig. 22:1). The base is 0.36 m in diameter.12 The thin rim of another bowl with a rounded wall was recovered from the same basket (Fig. 22:2).13 Two stone chalices engraved with decorations reflecting Christian iconography were recovered from the refectory area, but should probably be classified among the monastery’s liturgical objects. A chalice with a high, narrow base adorned with crosses was found in Room 13 (Fig. 22:3). Its base is 5.50 cm in diameter, its extant middle section, ca. 10 cm. The base is incised with diagonal lines, creating a rope decoration. The preserved decorated frieze on the body of the chalice

[77]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1

2

0

5

10

0

2.5

5

3

4

Fig. 22. Liturgical vessels.

[78]

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 D - D U W E I R

Assemblages dated to this period were also found in L514 and L653, which were attributed to the first construction phase roof of the complex; and in open courtyards not damaged by later construction. Assemblages were also found outside the constructed area in Loci 301, 304, 311, 502, 508 and 527. The majority of the pottery assemblages at the site are dated to the Byzantine and Early Islamic period (sixth to eighth centuries CE). The examination of the stratigraphy and pottery aided in distinguishing the upper story, which was built in the Byzantine period. The assemblage is characterized by many domestic vessels as well as quite a few imported vessels. The assemblage included many FBW and various types of rouletted bowls. There are no ceramic finds beyond the eighth century, except for a fragment of a Mamluk vessel found on the surface.

0

2.5

5

Fig. 23. Ball-shaped stone weights.

second type is the so-called donkey mill, of which a fragment of the upper millstone was found. Similar objects have been recorded at sites of this period throughout the Land of Israel.

Ceramic Tiles Most of the rooms contained broken roof tiles amid the rubble. Some of the fragmentary floors that survived from the upper stories have ceramic tiles, 0.45×0.45 m. L545, which represents the upper story of Room 14, yielded a large concentration of such tiles, as well as their impressions in the bedding. Ceramic tiles of a different shape lined the oven’s interior walls. Only a few were discovered (measuring 0.34×0.34 m and ca. 4 cm thick; Pl. 6:19), but their impressions are visible on the walls.

Metal Objects and Other Small Finds Fragments and objects, mainly of bronze and some of iron, were discovered at the site. Most were found in stratigraphic contexts that enabled dating them from the Late Roman to Early Islamic periods. It should be noted that fragments of a candelabra and candlesticks were retrieved from the rubble in the chapel area. In addition, the excavation produced some small artifacts in stone, bone, and ivory (Pl. 9).

Stone Artifacts

Coins

Numerous stone artifacts were found during the excavations, including ball-shaped weights found on the surface (Fig. 23).15 A number of stone mugs were dated to the Second Temple period; however most of the stone artifacts are ascribed to the main occupation of the site during the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. Among the artifacts are crushing and grinding stones, storage jar stoppers and two types of installations for grinding cereals (Pl. 8). Several stone basins were discovered during the excavations, some of which were used as troughs (see Room 14). One stone basin measures 0.70×0.50×0.40 and 0.14 m deep. Two lower hand millstones were found in Room 16, and another millstone, found in Room 2, is 1.25 m in diameter and ca. 0.35 thick. The

The complex yielded 51 coins, most of which were identified, representing the different periods of occupation at the site. The earliest coin is Seleucid, dating to the reign of Demetrius II Nicator (145– 138 BCE); it was found in a late fill in Room 25. Six coins dating to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE) were discovered in the east of the site, next to the miqwaʾot. This area also produced a single coin from the second year of the Great Revolt. Five coins retrieved from later fills date to the second and third centuries CE: one each from the reigns of Caracalla (211–217 CE), Elagahal (218–222 CE), Probus (276–282 CE), Galerius Maximianus (293–305 CE), and another that has not been identified.

[79]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

Summary

A fourth century coin dating to the reign of Constantine I the Great (306–337) was discovered in the bed of stone slab Floor 824 in Room 20, together with a coin dating to the reign of Constantine II (337–361). Another coin dating to the latter’s reign was found near Cistern 4. Two coins date to the reign of Valentinian II (375–392), one retrieved from the base of W119, the other from the area of the miqwaʾot. Seven coins date to the second half of the fourth century, of which one was found in F746, one in F659, and one at the base of W127. A coin from the reign of Theodosius II (402–450) was recovered in a robber’s trench in the area of the tower. Fifteen coins date to the fifth century. These include one from the foundation of W149, one from L627 in Room 32, and one in L613, above the stone floor in Room 21. A coin from the reign of Anastasius I (491–518) was found in the fill of F646 in Room 6 in the tower and two from the reign of Thrasamund (496–523), one of these from the bed of the Courtyard B floor (F659). Coins from the sixth to seventh centuries include: a coin dating to the reign of Justin II (565–578) from a late occupation layer in Room 12; a coin dating to the reign of Mauricius (582–602) from an occupation level in Room 30; and a coin from the reign of Heraclius (610–641) found on the floor in Room 8. Two Mamluk coins were discovered. One of them was found in the blockage of the southern opening in W118.

The excavations at Kh. ed-Duweir revealed five main periods of occupation at the site, from the Persian to Early Islamic periods. Evidence for the existence of a settlement at the site already in the Persian and Hellenistic period is found in the pottery and coin finds that were recovered. The second phase, dating to the Early Roman period, is represented by miqwaʾot, a hiding complex, and an abundance of finds including pottery, stone mugs, glass vessels, and coins. These finds indicate that the site’s inhabitants were Jewish, and that the site was in use until the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. In the Late Roman period, late fourth to early fifth century CE, a fortified complex with a tower was built. In the sixth century a cenobitic monastery was established at the site, resulting in considerable changes to the fortified complex. The monastery continued to serve until the seventh or eighth century. The site’s fifth and final period of use is ascribed to the Early Islamic period, probably during the eighth century. It appears that a local, non-Christian population occupied the complex at this time, probably after the 749 CE earthquake. This period is characterized by the reuse of existing structures that underwent alterations, the addition of walls, and the secondary use of stones, some bearing crosses. Few sherds and two coins dating to the Mamluk period were also recovered and attest to a short-lived occupation of the site during that period.

[80]

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 1. Imported Ware No. 1

Locus L508

2

L311

3

L525

4

L311

5

L528

6

F758

7

L578

8

L538

9

L507

10

L510

Type ARS bowl

LRC bowl

CRS bowl

Description Light red ware 2.5.YR:7/8, black grits. Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip 10R:5/6. Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip 10R:5/6. Red ware 10R:5/8, red slip 10R:4/8. Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip 10R:5/6. Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip 10R:5/6. Light red 2.5YR:7/8, red slip 10R:5/8. Red ware 10R:5/8, red slip 10R:4/8. Light red 2.5YR:7/8, red slip 10R:5/8. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6.

Parallels Date Hayes 1972: Fig. 19, Form 67:28; Jerusalem (Hayes 360–450 CE 1985: Fig. 61:13); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:33) Hayes 1972: Fig. 40; Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:35) Hayes 1972: 159, Fig. 31, Form 104B 500– 600 CE Hayes 1972: Fig. 65, Form I:A2; Jerusalem (Hayes 450–550 CE 1985: Fig. 63:3, 6) Hayes 1972: Fig. 69:23; Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 9:15); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:37) Hayes 1972: Fig. 69:32 Samaria (Crowfoot 1957: Fig. 84:23–24); Hayes 1972: Fig. 71:12A, parallel to the cross motif: Fig. 79:i Hayes 1972: 344, Form 10:6A; Kh. Handoma (Sion 1997a: Fig. 5:1–3) Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:D13; Ramat ha-Nadiv (Calderon 2000: Pl. XXVI:84)

6th–8th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE

(Hayes 1972: Fig. 82:11)

580–700 CE

[81]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

3 1

2

6 5 4

8

9

7

10 0

5

Plate 1.

[82]

10

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 2. Early Rouletted Bowls No. 1

Locus L538

2

L311

3

L542

4

L538

5

L538

6

L707

7

L538

8

L538

9

L538

10

L538

11

L538

Type Description Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, LRJ bowl, rolled rim gray core 10YR:5/1, dark with a ridge brown slip 7.5YR:3/2. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, gray core 10YR:5/1, very dark brown slip on outer face 10YR:2/2, red slip on inner face 10R:5/8. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, red slip on outer face 10R:5/8, very dark brown slip on inner face 10YR:2/2. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, gray core 10YR:5/1, yellowish-red slip 5YR:5/6. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8, red slip on outer face 2.5YR:4/6. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8, brown slip on outer face, red slip on inner face. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, reddish-brown slip on outer face 2.5YR:4/3. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, reddish-brown slip on outer face 2.5YR:4/3. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, dark brown slip on outer face 7.5YR:3/3. Light gray ware 5YR:7/1, dark brown slip on outer face 7.5YR:3/3. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8, very dark gray slip on outer face 7.5YR:3/1.

Parallels Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 187, Form 1, No. 9)

Date 350 CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 5:8)

Mid-4th– mid-5th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 5:15); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:43)

Second half of 5th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 5:15); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:44) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 186, Form 1, No. 4)

Up to 550 CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 6:14–15) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 187, Form 1, Nos. 9, 11) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 187, Form 1, No. 12)

[83]

4th–6th cent. CE

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

11 0

5

Plate 2.

[84]

10

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 3. Late Rouletted Bowls No. 1

Locus L304

2

L569

3

L538

4

L508

5

L615

6

L544

7

L538

8

L632

9

L538

Type LRJ bowl, smooth folded rim

LRJ bowl, grooved folded rim LRJ bowl, folded rim LRJ bowl, simple grooved rim

Description Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 5Y:5/1. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 5Y:5/1. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, very dark gray slip 10YR:3/1. Reddish-yellow ware 7/5YR:6/6, gray core, white grits. Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/4, black grits. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, very dark brown slip 10YR:2/2. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/4, dark grayish-brown slip 10YR:4/2. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, red slip 2.5YR:4/6. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3, very dark brown slip 10YR:2/2.

Parallels Jerusalem (Magness 1992: Fig. 8:3–4); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:47) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 188, Form 2A); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:45) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 188, Form 2A); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:50) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 189, Form 2B); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:51)

Date 6th cent. CE

Jerusalem )Wightman 1989: Pl. 38:13)

7th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 192, Form 4, No. 6)

Up to 550 CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 192, Form 4, No. 7)

[85]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1

2

3 4

6

5

7

8

9 0

5

Plate 3.

[86]

10

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 4. Closed Vessels No. 1

Locus L527

Type Jar

2

L607

3

L723

4

L643

5 6

L646 L505

7

L742

8

L737

9

L576

10

L579

11 12

L707 L618

13

L649

Jug

14

L749

Juglet

15

L543

Jar

Description Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8.

Parallels Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 236, Form 2, No. 1)

Date 3 rd–5th cent. CE

Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6.

Ramat ha-Nadiv (Calderon 2000: Pl. VI:9)

5th–7th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 226, Form 5A, No. 2); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:96) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 228, Form 6A, No. 2); Kh. Handoma (Sion 1997a: Fig. 6:3) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 228, No. 3) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 229, No. 5)

6th–7th cent. CE

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white grits. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8. Inscribed decoration on outer face. Jar handle Pink ware 7.5YR:8/3.

Holemouth jar

Reddish-yellow ware. 7.5YR:7/6 Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:8/3. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3. Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, black grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, gray core Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, gray core. Combed and painted decorations.

6th–8th cent. CE

5th–6th cent. CE 6th–8th cent. CE 5th–8th cent. CE

Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Figs. 8:13; 24:7); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.143:19) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 234, Form 2); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.130:11); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:110) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 234, Form 2) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 234, Form 2); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:109) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 243, Form 2A) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 246, Form 6A); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 9:132) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 42:17)

[87]

6th–early 8th cent. CE

2nd–5th cent. CE 3rd–8th cent. CE Mamluk

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1 2

4

3

5

6

10

11 8 7

0

1

9

2

12

13 14 0

5

Plate 4.

[88]

15 10

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 5. Open Vessels and Cooking Vessels No. 1 2

Locus L707 W166

3

L714

4

L714

5

L538

6

L737

7

L511

8

W177

9

L714

10

L574

11

L510

12

L689

13

L528

14

L544

15

L594

Type Cooking jug Cooking pot

Casserole

Lid

Description Yellow ware 10YR:7/8. Red ware 2.5YR:4/6.

Parallels Date Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 245, Form 5, No. 2) 6th–7th cent. CE Caesarea (Adan–Bayewitz 1986: Fig. 3:24); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 2:2) Black ware 2.5Y:2.5/1, white 6th–8th cent. CE grits. Red ware 2.5YR:5/8. Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 219, Form 4A, No. 2) Red ware 2.5YR:4/6. Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, Form 1, 300–550CE Nos. 5, 7) Reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:4/4. Black ware 2.5Y:2.5/1. Red ware 2.5YR:5/8.

Casserole handle Krater

Bowl

Red ware 2.5YR:4/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, Form 1, 6th–7th cent. CE Nos. 9–10) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 215, Casserole 3rd–9th cent. CE Lids, No. 3); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.132: 10) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 215, Casserole Lids, No. 4) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 213, Form 2) 6th–7th cent. CE

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 203, Rilled-Rim grits. Basins, Nos. 1–2) Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4. Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 206, Form 2A, No.1); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 5:70) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 209, Form 3); North Pink ware 7.5YR:8/3, gray core, white grits. of Jerusalem (Sion 1997b: Fig. 6:6) Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4. Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 5:74–77)

Up to mid-6th CE 6th–7th cent. CE

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2, light brown slip. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4, glazed.

8th cent. CE

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 12:1, 3) Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 2:12); Kh. elMafjar (Baramki 1944: Pl. XVI:4–5)

[89]

6th–8th cent. CE

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1

3

2

4

7

6

8

5

10

9 0

1

2

11

12

13

14

0

5

Plate 5.

[90]

10

15

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 6. FBW Vessels and Miscellaneous No. 1

Locus L548

Type FBW jug

Description Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3.

2

L524

3

L633

4

L538

5

L623

6

L742

7

W101

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6, brown slip. FBW juglet Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. FBW bowl Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, light gray core.

8

L723

9

L715

10

L544

11

L744

12 13

W125 L714

14

L560

15 16 17

L632 L538 L701

18

L528

19

L521

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, light gray core.

Parallels Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 28:34); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:119) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 238, Form 1B, Nos. 1–2); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 9:126) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 240, Form 2A)

Date 6th–early 8th cent. CE

Mid-6th–8th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 240, Form 2A); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 9:133–135)

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 197, Form 1F, No. 3)

7th–8th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 201, Form 2D); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 4:62)

Mid-7th–10th cent. CE

Reddish-yellow ware Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 200, Form 2C, No. 4) 5YR:7/8, light gray core. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 28:16; Magness light gray core. 1992: Fig. 8:15; Magness 1993: 194, Form 1A, Nos. 4–5) Reddish-yellow ware Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 195, Form 1B, No. 1) 5YR:6/8. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/8. Pink ware 5YR:7/4. Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 8:24); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 199, Form 2A) Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4. Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 199, Form 2B) Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4. Figurine Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. Reddish-yellow ware Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.158:4–5) 5YR:7/8. Ceramic tile Dark brown ware, grits.

[91]

8th cent. CE Late 6th–7th cent. CE

8th cent. CE 6th–8th cent. CE Late Roman period 7th–9th cent. CE

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

3

2

4

1

5

7

6

9

8

10

14 11

12

13

16

15 0

17

5

10

18 0

1

2

19 0

Plate 6.

[92]

10

20

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 7. Lamps No. 1

Locus L692

Type Ovoid lamp with large filling hole

2

L524

3

W105

4

L653

5

F683

6

W122

7

W177

8

L544

9

L554

10

L524

Wheel-made lamp

11

L538

Candelabrum Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4. fragment Similar to glass candelabrum fragments.

Small candlestick lamp

Description Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/2, brown slip. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/2. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6.

Large candlestick lamp

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6. Handle fragment. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6. Handle fragment. Pink ware 7.5YR:8/4. Red ware 2.5YR:5/6.

Parallels Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 100, No. 404) Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 100, No. 402) Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 101, No. 408) Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 114, No. 460); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 251, Form 2) Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 113, No. 452); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 251, Form 2); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 10:136)

Date 3rd–4th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252, Form 3A); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 5:3) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 253, Form 3C)

6th–early 8th cent. CE

350– 550CE

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 254, Form 3D); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.136:5) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 254, Form 3D) Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal–Heginbottom 1988: 123, No. 508); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 5:4)

6th–7th cent. CE 5th–8th cent. CE

[93]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1

3

2

5

7

6

8

9

10 0

4

1

Plate 7.

[94]

2

11

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 8. Stone Vessels No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Locus F314 L606 L737 L632 L533 L730 Survey Survey

Description Mug Mortar Grinding bowl

Stone Type Chalk Limestone Basalt

Parallels Ḥ izma (Magen 2002: Fig. 2.33) Ḥ . Raqit (Ayalon 2004: Fig. 2:9) Ḥ . Raqit (Ayalon 2004: Fig. 2:1) Ḥ . Raqit (Ayalon 2004: Fig. 2:3–4)

Pestle Stopper Upper millstone Donkey mill

Limestone Basalt Limestone

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 74:2) Avitsur 1976: 77–78, Nos. 216–218

[95]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

1

3

2

5 6 4

0

5

10

7 0

20

8 40

0

Plate 8.

[96]

10

20

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 D - D U W E I R

Plate 9. Metal Objects and Other Small Finds No. 1

Locus L507

2 3

L620 F697

4 5 6 7 8

F758 Surface L567 L609 L525

9 10 11 12 13 14

L525 L737 Survey L541 L701 L627

16

Object Inlayed finger ring Earring Bracelet Kohl stick Tweezers Ring Lamp hanger hook Bell Tang Hand cymbals

Parallels Kh. ed-Deir at Hebron (Baruch 1997: Pl. 8:11)

Samaria (Kenyon 1957: Fig. 105:10); Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XXIII:18) Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XXIII:5–6) Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XXII:13) Corinth (Davidson 1952: Pl. 88:1465) Oboda (Negev 1997: Pl. 5:53) Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XXII:16)

Date Byzantine period Late Roman–Early Byzantine period

Byzantine period

Sumaqa (Dar 1999: Fig. 27:5) Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XXII:34) Samaria (Kenyon 1957: Fig. 108:6, 8); Luzit (Avni and Dahari 1990: Fig. 11)

Jug Bone button

Corinth (Davidson 1952: Pl. 52:559) Hammat Gader (Coen Uzzielli 1997: Pl. I:8–17)

Surface

Bone handle

15

L614

Bone die

Nessana (Colt 1962b: Pl. XXI:25); Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 68:11) Corinth (Davidson 1952: Nos. 1739–1752); Hammat Gader (Coen Uzzielli 1997: Pl. I:6)

17

L545

Stone tablet for makeup powder

Mamluk Byzantine period Byzantine–Umayyad period

Late Roman–Byzantine period

[97]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

2 3

5

1 4

7 8

10

6

9

12

11

13

14 17 15

Plate 9.

0

1

2

[98]

16

3107

3176

3258

3078 3127

1501

3501

3

4

5 6 7

8

9

3039

1

2

Bas. No.

Cat. No.

[99] 0.34

1.44

1.54

2.42

?

101

2.60

1.97

15

10

9 10 13

8

13

12

12 ↑

Reverse

Star with crude rays.

Star with eight rays, surrounded by a diadem.

Star. Same. Effaced. ROMAN PROCURATORS OF JUDEA Under Nero: Festus 59–62, Prutah NE / PWNO / C LE KAICAPOC Within wreath. Palm branch, around. THE JEWISH WAR AGAINST ROME 66–70, Prutah Amphora, Vine leaf, Around: ‫שנת שתים‬ Around: ‫חרת ציון‬

Anchor. Same. Effaced.

Anchor, surrounded by a circle.

ALEXANDROU BASILEWS Anchor, around.

SELEUCIDS Demetrius II, 1st reign 146–144 BCE, Dilepton Head r. Veiled and draped goddess stg. Facing, holding long scepter. HASHMONEANS Alexander Jannaeus 103–76 BCE, Prutah Within wreath, legend (Illeg.). Double Cornucopiae.

Weight Diam. Axis Obverse (Gm.) (Mm.)

Surface 0.40 525 0.80 533 1.92

571

525

525

513

Locus

References

K No.

Same Same –

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Year 2 (=67 Jerusalem CE)

24598

24570

AJC 2: 260, No. 11

24067 24593 24595

24579

24600

24577

AJC 2: 285, No. 35a

Cf. AJC 1: 122, No. Ce5 Same Same –

Cf. AJC 1: 123, No. Ea5 Cf. AJC 1: 119, No. Ca4

Ake–Ptolemais Cf. SNG IS 24559 1998: 234, No. 1734

Mint

Year 5 (=59 Jerusalem CE)

Date (CE)

All the coins are bronze unless otherwise noted. They are listed chronologically, according to type.

Ariel Berman

CATALOGUE OF THE Coin Finds AT KHIRBET ED-DUWEIR 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 D - D U W E I R

[100]

3385

3762

16

3333

13

15

3109

12

3156

3282

11

14

3107

10

720

601

543

514

525

578

525

3.78

2.35

9.07

2.80

7.90

8.20

7.83

21

23

22

20

20

23

18

↑

↑

↑

↑

↑

Elagabalus 218–222 IMP C M A ANTONINVS COL AELIA CAP COMM Bust of Elagabal laur. and dr. r. PF Quadriga with stone of Elagabal and parasols. UNCERTAIN PROVINCIAL Bust r. (effaced). Effaced, rectangular countermark within bust r. IMPERIAL ISSUE Probus 276–282, Antoninian IMPCMAVR PROBVS PF AVG RETITVTOR ORBIS Bust of Probus rad. r. Emperor stg. l., receiving wreath from woman stg. r. In exergue: XXI Galerius Maximianus, Caesar 295–305, Antoninian MAXIMIANVS NOB CAES GENIO POPVLI ROMANI Bust laur. r. Genius stg. 1., holding cornucopia and patera, in field r.: G THE HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE Constantine I, the Great 307–337, follies [IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG] SOLI INVICTO COMITI Bust of Constantine laureate r. Sol. Nude l., raising r. and holding globe. In field r.: F (Mint mark effaced) Constantius II 337–361 DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG FEL TEMP REPARTIO Bust of Constantius l., holding Virtus, head turned back globe. l. holding spear in l. hand leading barbarian to r., from hut beneath tree; spear held transversely. In exergue: CONS

Bust r.

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Caracalla 198–217 Temple facade, showing four gateways. 24599

24573

Cf. RIC (2): No. 925

24555

24603

Constantinople LRBC 2: 86, No. 2012 346–350

24567

34597

–

Kadman 1956: 24574 109, No. 48

Cf. Rosenberger 1972 (1): 61, No. 199

Cf. RIC (4): 90, No. 128

Antioch

–

Aelia Capitolina

Ascalon

317–320

2nd–3rd centuries

Year 301 (=197/8)

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

[101]

32 33

26 27 28 29 30 31

25

3283 3204 31831 31832 3621 3305 1505 3819 3386 34991 3446 3363

3203

20

22 23 24

3290

19

3897

3141

18

21

3384

17

613 591

659 W127 103 714 563 613

554

563 564 554

746

?

577

524

600

0.52 0.40

1.05 1.02 1.13 0.90 0.90 1.20

0.70

0.78 0.56 0.68

0.65

0.90

1.36

1.24

0.73

9 8

14 14 10 11 11 12

13

12 13 13

11

12

12

12

15

Same. Same.

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Effaced.

Same.

Same. Same. Same.

Same. Same.

Same. Same. Cross in wreath. Same. Same. Effaced.

Same.

Same. Same. Same.

FEL TEMP REPARATIO Virtue l. with shield on arm, Spearing fallen horseman (mint mark missing). THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE Valentinian II 375–392 DN VALENTINI ANVS PF AVG VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX Bust r. (mint mark missing). Same. VICTOR IA AVGGG Victoria l., holding wreath and palm (mint mark missing). Theodosius II 402–450 [DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG] [GLORIA ROMANORVM] Bust of Theodosius r. Emperors, three, facing; center figure is smaller and holding spear in r. hand; Emperor on 1. holding spear and rests 1. hand on shield; Emperor on r. rests r. hand on shield and holdingspear in 1. (mint mark missing). UNCERTAIN Bust r. Effaced.

Bust r.

Same Same

Same Same 5th Century Same Same Same

Same

– –

– – – – – –

–

– – –

–

–

402

End 4th century Same Same Same

–

–

–

383–392

383

351–354

– –

– – – – – –

–

– – –

–

Cf. LRBC 2: 90, No. 2216

24564

LRBC 2: 101, No. 2734 Cf. LRBC 2: 75, No. 1575

24551 24556

24586 24590 24572 24583 24553 24554

24584

24571 24578 24582

24560

24558

24587

24552

LRBC 2: 100, No. 2632

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 D - D U W E I R

3445 3674 3846 3579 3559 32901 3539 3544 3543 3580 3618

3622

3281

3617

3538

40 41 42 43 44

45

46

47

48

34 35 36 37 38 39

[102]

624

646

577

659

630 W103 637 613 ?

613 681 W149 613 627 577

12.34

8.90

1.00

1.00

0.56 0.82 0.74 0.47 0.29

0.43 0.23 1.02 0.42 0.93 0.70

24

22

11

9

9 10 9 8 7

8 8 10 9 8 10

↓

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. VANDALS Thrasamund 496–523, nummus Victoria stg., holding wreath.

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

496–523

Same Same Same Same Same

Same Same Same Same Same Same

Bust r.

UNCERTAIN Figure stg., in exergue: – ORN? BYZANTINE Anstasius I 491–518, follies (Small module) Large M, above cross, to l. 498–518 DN ANASTASIVS PP AVG and r. * Bust of Anastasius, diad. and (officinal letter and mint cuir. r. effaced) Justin II 565–578, follis 573/74 Large M, above cross, DN IVSTIN [VS PP AVG] Justin and Sophia, seated, facing, between A/N/N/O and the ninth regnal year numeral, on double throne. beneath officinal letter A, in exergue: NIKO

Bust r.

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

Same. Same. Same. Same. Same. Same.

Nicomedia

DOC 1: 229, No. 99a

24563

24602

24566

24568

BMCV: 21, No. 37 –

24589 24591 24592 24601 24604

24557 24569 24575 24576 24580 24585

– – – – –

– – – – – –

Constantinople DOC 1: 15, No. 20a

–

Carthage

– – – – –

– – – – – –

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

[103]

3609

3239

3526

50

51

52

53

3128

49

632

576

686

517

4.08

2077

11.34

10.96

18

14

24

31

↑

↓

Dimashq

Iskandariya

AH730 (=1329)

Undated

Cf. Balog 1964: 265, No. 587

Balog 1964: 162, No. 261

24554

24588

24594

24562

DOC 1: 342, No. 164a1 (Maurice); DOC 2: 382–383, Nos. 313–315 (Heraclius)

(593/4) 610/13

Theoupolis (Antioch)

24596

Constantinople DOC 1: 306, No. 30e1

588/89

PALESTINE Under British Mandate 1922–1948, Cu-Ni- Ten mils PALESTINE \ ‫ﻔﻠﺴﻃﻴﻦ‬ ‫ מילים‬10 TEN MILS ‫ ﻤﻼﺖ‬۱۰ 1927 )‫פלשתינה (א”י‬ ۱۹۲۷

Maurice 582–602, follis Large M, above cross, DNmAVRC TlbER PP AVG between A/N/N/O and the Bust of Maurice, facing, helmeted and cuirassed, holding seventh regnal numeral, Beneath official letter E in globe cross. exergue: CON Heraclius 610–641, follies Countermark over Maurice Large M, above cross, DNmAVRC TlbER PP AVG Between A/N/N/O and the Bust of Maurice, facing, in twelfth regnal year numeral, consular robes and crown with beneath officinal letter G. trefoil ornament, holding in r. In exergue: tHEuP., beneath mappa and in l. eagle-toppedround counter mark within scepter. monogram of Heraclius (Class E). MAMLUKS AI-Nāsir Muhammad I Nāsir ad-Din, 3rd reign AH 709–741/1310–1341 CE, Fals ‫ﺍﻠﻤﻠﻚ ﻠﻧﺎﺼﺮ‬ Five petaled rosette, legend Above and below floral around: ornaments. [...] ‫ﻀﺮﺐ ﺒﺪﻤﺸﻖ‬ AI-Zāhir Barqūq Sayf ad-Dīn, 2nd reign AH 792–801/1390–1399 CE, Fals ‫ﻀﺮﺐ \ ﺴﻜﻨﺪ \ ﺮﻴﺔ‬ ‫[ﺒﺮﻘﻮﻖ] \ ﺍﻠﺴﻠﻃﺎﻦ \ ﺍﻠﻤﻠﻚ‬ ‫ﺍﻠﻈﺎﻫﺮ \ ﻋﺰ ﻨﺼﺮﻩ‬

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 D - D U W E I R

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

Notes Kh. ed-Duweir was excavated in 1995–1996 (License Nos. 724, 742) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria under the direction of I. Sharukh and A. Aronshtam, prior to the construction of the road passing Ḥ alḥ ul. 2 This hiding complex was discovered after the Miqweh 2 northeastern wall was breached by robbers. Only the central room, L803, was cleared. 3 Similar construction was observed at the fortress in ʿEn Boqeq, dated to the fourth century (Gichon 1993: Taf. 2). 4 A similar lintel, with a cross in the middle of a lozenge, was found in the excavations of Mampsis and dated to the fourth century (Negev 1988: 94, Fig. 8:92). 5 Magen 2008. 6 Similar niches have been found at a number of sites, including Shivta, where their lower sections included ashlars identical to those in the niches at Kh. ed-Duweir (Segal 1983: Fig. 12). 7 Such construction is known from desert monasteries like Kh. ed-Deir, which similarly features a kitchen surmounted by a dining hall (Hirschfeld 1999: 62–80), and Kh. alMakhrum, east of Bethlehem (Corbo 1955: 150–155). 8 Ovens of this type are characteristic of Byzantine complexes like Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 74–77) and Kh. el-Qaṣ r (Magen, Har-Even, and Sharukh, “A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr,” in this volume). 9 The lotus leaves motif appears on altar table colonnettes at, e.g., Kh. el-Shubeika (Avshalom-Gorni and Tacher 2002: 1

249, Fig. 36: 1); for discussion, see Acconci 1998: 479, Nos. 26–29. 10 The persistence of Christian activity on the edges of the Hebron Hills in the eighth century is evidenced, for instance, by the presence of a church at Kh. Istabul (Aristobulias), where an inscription from 701 CE commemorates the erection of the church (Peleg and Batz, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias),” in this volume). 11 Lintels with identical decorations have been found at Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: 105, Fig. III.151), Mampsis (Negev 1988: Fig. 3:158), and Umm er-Rasas (Bagatti 1971a: 232, Fig. 102). 12 An identical bowl was found in the large church at Petra and dated to the first half of the sixth century (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Fig. 46). 13 Bowls of this type were found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 496, Nos. 75–77), where they are called “circular plates with borders à bec de corbin.” 14 A glass chalice, probably of Syrian provenance and sixth century in date, resembles the chalice from ed-Duweir in decoration: the division into registers and the identical motifs, such as the temple facade and cross (Ross 1962: No. 96). Concerning the symbolic meaning of the niche motif, see: Bagatti 1971b: 198–199; Ross 1962: No. 87; and Patrich 1988: 107–109, Pl. VII:23. Concerning the symbolic meaning of the dove and fish motifs, see Bagatti 1971b: 212–216. 15 Ball-shaped weights were found in Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 74:17).

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. Adan-Bayewitz D. 1986. “The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building and Its Implications (Stratum 4),” in L.I. Levine, and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 90–129. Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome. AJC: Meshorer Y. 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage, New York. 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. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery of Khirbet el-Bireh,” in Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai and J. Schwartz, Hikrei Eretz. Studies in

the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat-Gan, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Avitsur S. 1976. Man and His Work. Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land, Jerusalem. Avni G. and Dahari U. 1990. “Christian Burial Caves from the Byzantine Period at Luzit,” Christian Archaeology: 301–314. Avshalom-Gorni D. and Tacher A. 2002. “Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika 1991, 1993: The Settlement,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 220–254 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 186*–187*). Ayalon E. 2004. “The Stone and Metal Implements from Horvat Raqit,” in S. Dar, Raqit. Marinus Estate on the Carmel, Israel (BAR Int. S. 1300), Oxford, pp. 268–296. Bagatti B. 1971a. The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. History and Archaeology (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Smaller Series 4), Jerusalem.

[104]

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 D - D U W E I R

Bagatti B. 1971b. The Church from the Circumcision. History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Smaller Series 2), Jerusalem. Balog P. 1964. The Coinage of the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt and Syria (Numismatic Studies 12), New York. Baramki D.C. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Baruch Y. 1997. “A Site of the Early Roman and Byzantine Periods at ed-Deir, Hebron,” ʿAtiqot 32: 109–118 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 44*). BMCV: Wroth W. 1911. Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards and the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum, London. 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. Coen Uzzielli T. 1997. “Marble Decorations, Wall Mosaics and Small Finds,” in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader. Final Report, Jerusalem, pp. 442–455. Colt H.D. 1962a. “Metal,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 52–55. Colt H.D. 1962b. “Ivory and Bone,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 51–52. Corbo C.V. 1955. Gli scavi di Kh. Siyar el-Ghanam (Campo dei Pastori) e i monastery dei Dintorni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 11), Jerusalem. Crowfoot G.M. 1957. “Pottery: Hellenistic and Later. Late Roman A, B and C Wares,” in J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, Samaria—Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London, pp. 357–360. Dar S. 1999. Sumaqa. A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel (BAR Int. S. 815), Oxford. Davidson G.R. 1952. Corinth. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens XII: The Minor Objects, Princeton. DOC 1: Bellinger A.R. 1966. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dunlbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection I: Anastasius I to Maurice, 491–602, Washington, D.C. DOC 2: Grierson P. 1968. Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection II: Phocas to Theodosius III, 602–717, Washington, D.C. Fischer M. and Tal O. 1999. “Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ʿIra. A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv, pp. 300–345. Gichon M. 1993. En Boqeq. Ausgrabungen in einer Osae

am Toten Meer Geographie und Geschichte der oase das Spätrömisch-Byzantinsch Kastell, Maiz am Rhiem. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes J.W. 1985. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto, pp. 181–194. 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. Kadman L. 1956. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina (Corpus Nummorum Palestinensium I), Jerusalem. Kanellopoulos C., and Schick R. 2001. “Marble Furnishings of the Apses and the Bema, Phase V,” in Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski, and R. Schick, The Petra Church, Amman, pp. 193–215. Kenyon K.M. 1957. “Miscellaneous Objects in Metal, Bone and Stone,” in J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, Samaria—Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London, pp. 439–468. LRBC 2: Carson R.A.G. and Kent J.P.C. 1965. “Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498,” Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498), London, pp. 41–114. Magen Y. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period. Excavations at Ḥ izma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount (JSP 1), 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. Magness J. 1992. “The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Areas H and K,” in A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh (Qedem 33), Jerusalem, pp. 149–164. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Negev A. 1988. The Architecture of Mampsis. Final Report II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (Qedem 27), Jerusalem. Negev A. 1997. The Architecture of Oboda. Final Report (Qedem 36), Jerusalem. Patrich J. 1988. “Architectural, Sculpture, and Stone Objects,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-inthe-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 97–133. Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zeʾev East A),” ʿAtiqot 38: 171–203. RIC 4/3: Mattingly H., Sydenham E.A., and Sutherland

[105]

S . B at z a n d I . S h a r u k h

C.H.V. 1949. The Roman Imperial Coinage IV, Part III, London. Rosenberger M. 1972. The Rosenberger Israel Collection. Containing Aelia Kapitolina, Akko, Anthedon, Antipatris & Ascalon, Jerusalem. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1988. “The Pottery,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 78–96. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Ross M.C. 1962. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection 1: Metalwork, Ceramics, Glass, Glyptics, Painting, Washington, D.C.

Segal A. 1983. The Byzantine City of Shivta (Esbeita), Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 179), Oxford. Sion O. 1997a, “Mishor Adummim (Khirbet Handoma),” ʿAtiqot 32: 149–158. Sion O. 1997b. “Farms to the Northeast of Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 32: 159–166 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 48*). SNG IS: Houghton A. and Spaer A. 1998. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Israel I. The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins, New York. Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I, Toronto. Wightman G.J. 1989. The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Excavations by C.-M. Bennett and J.B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964–66 (BAR Int. S. 519), Oxford.

[106]

A BYZANTINE ROCK-CUT TOMB EAST OF KHIRBET Eṭ -ṭ AYYIBE YUVAL PELEG

Kh. eṭ-Ṭ ayyibe (map ref. IOG 15326/10725; ITM 20326/60725) is located on a hill, south of the HebronIdhna road, 780 m above sea level and approximately 3 km southeast of the village of Tarqumiya (see Site Map on p. XIII). The site was surveyed several times during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1 In 1982, during widening of the main road from QiryatGat to Hebron, a rock-cut tomb was discovered several hundred meters east of this site, and subsequently excavated in 1984.2 The tomb was located north of the road, on the southern slope of a hill, and was unfortunately destroyed before it was photographed or drawn.

THE TOMB According to the unpublished excavation report, the tomb had a single rectangular entrance from the south that led to a square central room (ca. 2×2 m). Three rectangular rooms were exposed to the west, north, and south of this room. Each room had a vaulted ceiling and contained three parallel hewn burial troughs (each 2.00 m long) divided by walls ca. 0.15 m wide.3 The finds in the tomb, including pottery, glass, beads, and jewelry, are significant for dating and understanding the tomb, since the architectural remains were not documented. These finds attest to two phases of use: the first century CE and the forth–sixth centuries CE.

Lamps The pottery recovered in the tomb comprised mainly lamps (Pls. 1–3) and a number of sherds.4 The lamps found are representative of the second phase. Eight lamps represent the fourth century CE, three of which are presented here. An additional 37 lamps

(25 of which are presented below), represent the fifth– sixth centuries CE. These lamps are divided into two types: candlestick lamps and wheel-made lamps.

Beit Nattif Lamps Three of the eight Beit Nattif lamps found at the site are published here (Pl. 1:1–3). These lamps have a round body, a large central filling hole surrounded by a ridge, an upcurved rim, a rather wide, bowshaped nozzle, a ring base, and a pyramidal handle with concentric triangles. They are decorated with a variety of geometric patterns. Beit Nattif lamps are dated from the second half of the third century CE through the fourth century CE.5 1. 2. 3.

Reg. No. 5000/1 Buff ware with red slip. Decorated with a row of dots on the shoulder.6 Reg. No. 5000/2 Buff ware with red slip. Decorated with a herring-bone pattern on the shoulder.7 Reg. No. 5000/3 Buff ware with red slip. Decorated with a row of dots and a row of pellets on the shoulder.8

Candlestick Lamps This is the most common type at the site; 16 lamps are presented here, of which 7 are decorated with a variety of crosses. They are divided chronologically into two subtypes: earlier small lamps and later large lamps.

Small Candlestick Lamps (Pls. 1:4–9; 2:10–16) These lamps are biconical in section. The nozzle is an integral part of the body, surrounded either by a ridge or a line; the large central filling hole is surrounded by a raised ridge, the base is a raised ring and the nub handle is pellet shaped. These lamps appear in

[107]

Y. P E L E G

the middle of the fourth century CE and, according to R. Rosenthal and R. Sivan, do not seem to have been used beyond the fifth century CE.9 J. Magness, on the other hand, suggests that they continued up to the mid–sixth century CE.10 4.

Reg. No. K-8689 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a cross.11 5. Reg. No. K-8686 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a cross. 6. Reg. No. K-8683 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a cross. 7. Reg. No. K-8688 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a cross. 8. Reg. No. K-8682 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern. Nozzle decorated with a cross. 9. Reg. No. K-8685 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder, two branches on either side of the pellet. Nozzle decorated with a cross.12 10. Reg. No. 5000/4 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with palm branches on either side of the filling hole. Nozzle decorated with unclear motif, perhaps a goblet or a tree, flanked by two large crosses. 11. Reg. No. K-8679 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a herringbone pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a ridge flanked by two palm branches; there are two additional ridges between this decoration and the wick hole. 12. Reg. No. K-8674 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a small palm branch.13

13. Reg. No. 5000/5 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a small palm branch. 14. Reg. No. K-8673 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a palm branch and a single ridge between the palm branch and the wick hole.14 15. Reg. No. K-8677 Yellowish-red ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with double volutes. 16. Reg. No. 5000/6 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with three ridges.15

Large Candlestick Lamps (Pl. 2:17–19)

As in the small lamps, the nub handle is in the shape of a pellet, stroke, crescent, or other decoration, and there is a raised ring base. The filling hole is surrounded by two ridges: the inner one is higher, and the outer ridge extends onto the nozzle in a straight line terminating in a ridge around the wick hole. Rosenthal and Sivan propose that these lamps were produced from the early fifth to early eighth centuries CE16; however, Magness suggests that they did not appear before the sixth century and were in use until the end of the seventh century CE.17 17. Reg. No. K-8672 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a palm branch. 18. Reg. No. K-8690 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a palm branch. This is a very common decoration in the Byzantine period.18 19. Reg. No. K-8684 Buff ware. Decorated with a radial pattern and a pellet on the shoulder. Nozzle decorated with a palm branch. This is a very common decoration in the Byzantine period.

[108]

A B Y Z A N T I N E R O C K - C U T T O M B E A S T O F K H I R B E T E ṭ - ṭ AY Y I B E

Wheelmade Lamps

GLASS VESSELS

These lamps have a circular reservoir and a projecting nuzzle with a gradual upward slope, a flat or convex base, and a loop handle higher than the rim (Pl. 3). Two variants of this type were found in the tomb under discussion: lamps with a ribbed body tapering upwards (20–22), and plain lamps with a flat flaring rim, a wide lower part, narrower upper part, and a ridge at the juncture (23–28). These lamps reveal Mesopotamian influence and their appearance in the Land of Israel was a result of trade relations.19 They date from the fifth century CE to the Islamic period.20 20. Reg. No. K-8687 Red ware. Circular body with fine ribbing. Wellformed nozzle. Flat base.21 21. Reg. No. K-8675 Brownish-red ware. Circular body with fine ribbing. Well-formed nozzle. Flat base. 22. Reg. No. K-8681 Brownish-red ware. Circular body with fine ribbing. Well-formed nozzle. Flat base. 23. Reg. No. K-8679 Brownish-red ware. Circular body. Flat flaring rim to which the loop handle is attached. Flat base.22 24. Reg. No. K-8691 Brownish-red ware. Circular body. Flat flaring rim to which the loop handle is attached. Flat base. 25. Reg. No. K-8676 Brownish-red ware. Circular body. Flat flaring rim to which the loop handle is attached. Flat base. 26. Reg. No. K-8692 Brownish-red ware. Circular body. Flat flaring rim to which the loop handle is attached. Base slightly convex in center. 27. Reg. No. K-8680 Brownish-red ware. Circular body. Flat flaring rim to which the loop handle is attached. Flat base. 28. Reg. No. K-8678 Brownish-red ware. Circular body. Flat flaring rim to which the loop handle is attached. Flat base. A stamped decoration of triangles on the rim and leaves on the body.

Analysis of the glass vessels, mainly fragments, also indicates that the second phase of use in the tomb lasted from the fourth–sixth centuries (Pl. 4). However, two candlestick bottles (Nos. 1–2) represent the first phase of the tomb during the first century CE. The largest group of vessels in the assemblage dates to the fourth century CE (Nos. 3–13). Three bottles (Nos. 14–16) represent the fifth–sixth centuries CE. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

[109]

Reg. No. 5000/7 Candlestick bottle. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 2.5 cm. Light bluishgreen glass. Infolded rim. Long narrow cylindrical neck. First–third centuries CE.23 Reg. No. 5000/8 Candlestick bottle. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 3.5 cm. Light bluish-green glass. Infolded rim. Long narrow cylindrical neck. First–third centuries CE.24 Reg. No. 5000/9 Globular bottle. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 4.6 cm. Bluish-green glass. Rim with rounded end. Wide, cylindrical, slightly flaring neck with constriction at the conjunction with the body. Fourth–fifth centuries CE. Reg. No. 5000/10 Globular bottle. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 3.2 cm. Light green glass. Flaring rim with rounded end. Short, narrow cylindrical neck. Very thin walls. Fourth century CE.25 Reg. No. K-8643 Globular bottle. Complete profile. Height 8.2 cm; rim diam. 3.3 cm; base diam. 3.0 cm. Light bluish-green glass. Flaring rim with rounded end. Short, narrow cylindrical neck. Globular body. Flat base with small concavity in center. Fourth century CE.26 Reg. No. 5000/11 Amphoriskos. Two fragments of the same vessel: lower part of cylindrical neck with rounded shoulder and one of two handles, from neck to shoulder. Base diam. 3.5 cm. Yellowish-green glass. Lower part of pear-shaped body and base with pontil mark. Fourth century CE.27

Y. P E L E G

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

Reg. No. 5000/14 Amphoriskos. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 4.0 cm. Light green glass; large oval bubbles throughout vessel walls. Flaring rim with rounded end. Cylindrical neck decorated with green spiral trail. Two strap handles, each separated into two loops, from upper part of neck to shoulder. Fourth century CE.28 Reg. No. 5000/15 Amphoriskos. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 2.8 cm. Bluish-green glass; small oval bubbles near the rim. Rim with rounded end. Cylindrical, slightly flaring neck decorated with blue spiral trail. Two strap handles, each separated into two loops, from upper part of neck to shoulder. Fourth century CE.29 Reg. No. 5000/12 Jug. Rim, neck, and upper part of body. Rim diam. 5.2 cm. Bluish-green glass. Simple funnelshaped rim. Ridge below rim. Wide, flat handle from rim to shoulder. Cylindrical neck widening towards shoulder. Pear-shaped body. Fourth century CE.30 Reg. No. 5000/13 Jug. Base and lower part of pear-shaped body. Base diam. 3.2 cm. Light purple glass. Ring base with pontil mark. Fourth century CE.31 Reg. No. 5000/16 Flask. Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment. Rim diam. 3.2 cm. Light green glass. Funnel-like, infolded rim. Short, narrow cylindrical neck. Two handles from rim to neck. Sloping shoulder. Fourth–fifth centuries CE.32 Reg. No. 5000/17 Conical beaker. Base and lower part of body. Base diam. 1.0 cm. Light green glass. Body is decorated with a protruding blue blob. Small flat base. Fourth–fifth centuries CE.33 Reg. No. 5000/18 Globular bottle. Jug shaped Pendant. Height 2.0 cm. Blue glass. Almost complete, base missing. Yellow and red trails encircling the body. Rim and neck fragment. Rim diam. 5.4 cm. Green glass. Simple rim with rounded end. Wide cylindrical neck decorated with lines of thin spiral trails. Fourth century CE.34

14. Reg. No. 5000/20 Globular bottle. Complete profile, part of body missing. Height 11.7 cm; rim diam. 5.5 cm; base diam. 4.3 cm. Bluish-green glass. Slightly flaring rim with rounded end. Wide cylindrical neck. Globular body. Base with concavity in center. Fifth–seventh centuries CE.35 15. Reg. No. 5000/19 Globular bottle. Rim and neck fragment. Rim diam. 5.4 cm. Green glass. Simple rim with rounded end. Wide cylindrical neck decorated with lines of thin spiral trails. Fifth–seventh centuries CE.36 16. Reg. No. 5000/21 Decorated bottle. Lower part of a bottle. Base diam. 4.2 cm. Light green glass; long oval bubbles at base. Tapering walls. Thick line of spiral trail decoration encircles the middle of the body. Concave base with pontil mark. Faint and shallow spiral decoration reaches the base and probably covered the entire body. Fifth–seventh centuries CE.37

BEADS Ninety-three beads were retrieved from the tomb, most made of glass (Pl. 5:1a–b), others of resin (Pl. 5:2). Five of the glass beads are decorated with thin glass lines: two of them in a feather design (Pl. 5:3–4), two with straight lines (Pl. 5:5–6), and one with a wavy line (Pl. 5:7). One large, white glass bead (2.6 cm long) is hexagonal in shape (Pl. 5:8), a blue glass bead is square (Pl. 5:9), while 13 black glass beads are long, narrow, and cylindrical (1.6 cm long; Pl. 5:10). The remaining glass beads are small, of various colors (blue, green, red, and white) and in a variety of shapes (round, oval, biconical, square). Thirteen small round resin beads are poorly preserved.

METAL FINDS Most of the metal items in the tomb consisted of jewelry such as bracelets, a necklace, bronze bells, earrings, bronze pins, and rings, as well as hand cymbals and two iron nails (Pl. 6). Four complete bracelets and fragments of another five were found in the tomb.

[110]

A B Y Z A N T I N E R O C K - C U T T O M B E A S T O F K H I R B E T E ṭ - ṭ AY Y I B E

1–3. Reg. No. K-29959, 29966–29967 Bracelets of bronze/copper wire with thickened ends. No. 1 diam. is approx. 6.0 cm; No. 2 diam. is approx. 4.8 cm; and No. 3 diam. is approx. 2.9 cm.38 4. Reg. No. K-29968 Bracelet composed of three twisted, bronze/ copper wire strands (approx. diam. 5.4 cm).39 5. Reg. No. 5000/22 Necklace of bronze/copper wire with thickened ends (approx. diam. 14.5 cm).40 6. Reg. No. 5000/23 Part of a silver earring (approx. diam. 2 cm), with two small silver rings attached for decoration (approx. diam. 0.5 cm); found together with several fragments of bronze earrings (not illustrated). 7–8. Reg. Nos. K-29970–29971 Two bronze bells (approx. diam. 2.5 cm each) with an iron clapper,41 which may have been used as decorations on bracelets.42 9–10. Reg. Nos. K-29964–29965 Five bronze pins were found, two are intact and presented here. No. 9 is 10.8 cm long with a ball-shaped top (diam. 0.8 cm); No. 10 is similar in shape but slightly longer (11.8 cm).43

11.

Reg. No. 5000/24 A plain bronze ring (diam. 3.0 cm), flat in section.44 12a–b. Reg. Nos. K-29960–29963 Two pairs of bronze hand cymbals were found in the tomb, one of which is illustrated. Each cymbal is in the shape of a flat bell (diam. 5.6 cm; height 1.1–1.3 cm) with a small round hole in the center, probably to tie the pair of cymbals together.45

Summary The pottery and the glass vessels from this tomb indicate two phases of use. Two glass candlestick bottles from the first century CE represent the earliest use of the tomb. In the fourth century CE, the inhabitants of the area, probably those who lived in nearby Kh. eṭ-Ṭ ayyibe, re-used the tomb. Attributable to this phase are the glass vessels and the three Beit Nattif lamps that date to the fourth century, and the lamps and three glass vessels that date to the fifth– sixth centuries CE. The crosses on the lamps suggest that the inhabitants of the area who used the tomb in the Byzantine period were Christians.

[111]

Y. P E L E G

1

4

2

5

7

8

Plate 1. Beit Nattif lamps and candlestick lamps.

[112]

3

6

9

A B Y Z A N T I N E R O C K - C U T T O M B E A S T O F K H I R B E T E ṭ - ṭ AY Y I B E

10

13

11

12

15

14

17

18

Plate 2. Candlestick lamps.

[113]

16

19

Y. P E L E G

21

20

23

26

24

27

Plate 3. Wheelmade lamps.

[114]

22

25

28

A B Y Z A N T I N E R O C K - C U T T O M B E A S T O F K H I R B E T E ṭ - ṭ AY Y I B E

4

5 3 1

2

7

8 9

6

13 11

10

12 14

15 16

Plate 4. Glass vessels.

[115]

Y. P E L E G

1b

1a

2 1b 1b

1a 1a

3

3

37

3 1a

33

1b 1b

4

1a

7

5

4

1a 1a

4

1b

1a

3 8 577 5

1b

4 8

84

8

2

6

5 97

55

1b

10 5

5

9

10

Plate 5. Beads.

[116]

99

10 10

9

10

6

10 9

8

66

2

2

8 6 106 10

95

9

6

4 9 868

4

8 7

44

2

1b

3

7

2

2

1a

73

22

10

6

A B Y Z A N T I N E R O C K - C U T T O M B E A S T O F K H I R B E T E ṭ - ṭ AY Y I B E

2

1

3 4

5

8

7

6

11

12a

9 10 Plate 6. Metal finds.

[117]

12b

Y. P E L E G

notes Guérin 1869: 352–353 (Khirbet Thayebeh); SWP III: 379; Mader 1918: 118; Kochavi 1972: 57, Site No. 115. Mader reported a Corinthian capital inside the mosque at the site (1918: Ph. IIIb). In the site file in the British Mandatory Record, this capital, as well as part of a cornice from the same building, are mentioned (IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 181, Kh. eṭ Taiyiba). Kochavi identified the site with Beth Ophrah, mentioned in Micah 1:10 (Kochavi 1972: 29). 2 The site was excavated on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of A. el-ʿAziz Rajub, director of the Hebron office. 3 Tombs with a similar plan, but with six burial troughs, were excavated near Beit Fajjar (Husseini 1935) and at Bethany (Saller 1957: Fig. 15). 4 The descriptions of the lamp types are based on Rosenthal and Sivan 1978. 5 Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 105. 6 Similar lamps were found at Givʿat Sharet near Beth Shemesh (Seligman, Zias, and Stark 1996: Fig. 14:4) and appear in the Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection (Israeli and Avida 1988: 121, No. 341). 7 Similar lamps were found in a tomb near Beit Fajjar (Husseini 1935: Pl. LXXXVI, 2:8), in the Akeldama tombs in Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh and Cohen-Uzzielli 1996: Fig. 4.11:2), at Givʿat Sharet near Beth Shemesh (Seligman, Zias and Stark 1996: Fig. 14:1), and appear in the Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection (Israeli and Avida 1988: 119, No. 335) and in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 106, No. 426). 8 Similar lamps appear in the Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection (Israeli and Avida 1988: 123, No. 349) and the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 105, No. 424). 9 Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 112–113. 10 Magness 1993: 250–251, Form 2. 11 Similar lamps were found at the Akeldama tombs in Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh and Cohen-Uzzielli 1996: Fig. 4.13:2), and appear in the Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection (Israeli and Avida 1988: 147, Nos. 413–414) and in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 113, Nos. 453–455). 12 A similar lamp was found at Bethany (Saller 1957: Fig. 16:8). 13 Similar lamps were found at Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 10:5) and appear in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 114, No. 464). 14 A similar lamp was found at Bethany (Saller 1957: Fig. 17:2). 1

Similar lamps appear in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 113, No. 452). 16 Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 116. 17 Magness 1993: 251–255, Form 3. 18 Similar lamps were found, for example, in a tomb near Netiv ha-Lamed-He (Barag 1974: Pl. XXVII:8–9), in the monastery at Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 5:1–3; Figs. 3–5), at Bethany (Saller 1957: Pl. 57:a), and appear in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 117, Nos. 478–479). 19 Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 122. 20 Israeli and Avida 1988: 177, No. 500. 21 Similar lamps were found at Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 5:4, Fig. 6), and appear in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 122–123, Nos. 506–507). 22 Similar lamps appear in the Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 123, Nos. 508–509). 23 Similar bottles were found at Hurfeish (Gorin-Rosen 2002a: 160*–161*, Fig. 12:52), and at War Abu eş-Şafa (Baramki 1935: Pl. LXXX:1–2). 24 For parallels, see note 23. 25 A similar bottle was found at Samaria (Crowfoot 1957a: Fig. 94:9). 26 For parallels, see note 25. 27 A similar amphoriskos was found at Ḥ . Rimmon (GorinRosen 2004: Fig. 3:24). 28 A similar amphoriskos was found at Kh. el-Shubeika (Gorin-Rosen 2002b: 312–313, Fig. 5:30–31). 29 For parallels, see note 28. 30 A similar jug was found at Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997: Pl. V: 3–4). 31 A similar jug was found at the Eastern Mediterranean area (Israeli 2003: No. 196). 32 Similar flasks were found at Beit Fajjar (Husseini 1935: 176, Pl. LXXXV, I:4); Kfar Dhikerin (Rahmani 1964: 52–53, Fig. 2:4–5, Pl. 15:D–E); Netiv ha-Lamed-He (Barag 1974: 81, Fig. 2:1). 33 A similar beaker was found in the Eastern Mediterranean area (Israeli 2003: Nos. 229–230). 34 A similar bottle was found at Kh. el-Shubeika (Katsnelson 2002: 323–325, Fig. 1:23). 35 A similar bottle was found at Kh. el-Shubeika (GorinRosen 2002b: 297–298, Fig. 6:39). 36 A similar bottle was found at Kefar ʿAra (Sussman 1976: 99, Pl. XXVIII:12). 37 A similar bottle was found at Ashqelon (Katsnelson 1999: Fig. 4:16). 15

[118]

A B Y Z A N T I N E R O C K - C U T T O M B E A S T O F K H I R B E T E ṭ - ṭ AY Y I B E

Similar bracelets were found at Beit Fajjar (Husseini 1935: 177, Pl. LXXXVI, I:1, 3, 8). 39 Similar bracelets were found in a tomb near Netiv ha-LamedHe (Barag 1974: 87, Pl. XXVII:11), at Givʿat Sharet near Beth Shemesh (Seligman, Zias, and Stark 1996: Fig. 18:2), and at ʿEin Yabrud (Husseini 1938: 54, Pl. VI:3). 40 Similar necklaces were found at Beit Fajjar (Husseini 1935: 176, Pl. LXXXVI, I:4, 6). 41 Similar bells were found in a tomb near Netiv ha-Lamed-He (Barag 1974: 87, Fig. 3:5–6; Pl. XXVII:12) and at Givʿat Sharet near Beth Shemesh (Seligman, Zias and Stark 1996: Fig. 18:1). 38

Crowfoot 1957b: 429, Fig. 100:22. Similar pins were found at Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XXIII:3–4) and in the cemetery of Karm esh-Sheikh in Jerusalem (Baramki 1931: Pl. IV:7). 44 A similar ring was found in the cemetery of Karm eshSheikh in Jerusalem (Baramki 1931: Pl. IX:11). 45 Similar hand cymbals were found at ʿAnab el-Kabir (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume), and at Hama in Syria, where the object was identified as an “undetermined disk” (Ploug and Oldenburg 1969: Fig. 9:3). 42 43

references Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome. Barag D. 1974. “A Tomb of the Byzantine Period Near Netiv Ha-Lamed He,” ʿAtiqot 7: 81–87 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 13*). Baramki D.C. 1931. “Note on a Cemetery at Karm al-Shaikh, Jerusalem,” QDAP 1: 3–9. Baramki D.C. 1935. “An Ancient Tomb-Chamber at Waʿr Abu eş Şafa, Near Jerusalem,” QDAP 4: 168–169. Ben-Arieh R. and Cohen-Uzzielli T. 1996. “The Pottery,” in G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs (IAA Reports 1), Jerusalem, pp. 73–95. 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. Cohen E. 1997. “Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Glass,” in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader. Final Report, Jerusalem, pp. 396–431. Colt H.D. 1962. “Metal,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 52–55. Crowfoot G.M. 1957a. “Glass,” in J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, Samaria—Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London, pp. 403–422. Crowfoot G.M. 1957b. “Roman Tombs,” in J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, Samaria—Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London, pp. 423–438. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002a. “The Glass Vessels from Burial Cave D at Hurfeish,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 140*–166*. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002b. “Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika 1991, 1993: The Glass Vessels,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz

Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 288–321 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 186*–187*). Gorin-Rosen Y. 2004. “The Glass Vessels from the Cemetery at Ḥ orbat Rimmon,” Atiqot 46: 113*–124*. Guérin V. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée III, Paris. Husseini S.A.S. 1935. “A Fourth-Century A.D. Tomb at Beit Fajjār,” QDAP 4: 175–177. Husseini S.A.S. 1938, “A Rock-Cut Tomb-Chamber at ʿAin Yabrūd,” QDAP 4: 54–55. Israeli Y. 2003. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum. The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts, Jerusalem. Israeli Y. and Avida U. 1988. Oil Lamps from Eretz Israel. The Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection, Jerusalem. Katsnelson N. 1999. “Glass Vessels from the Painted Tomb at Migdal Ashqelon,” ʿAtiqot 37: 67*–82*. Katsnelson N. 2002. “Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika 1991, 1993: The Glass Ornaments,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 322–331 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 186*–187*). Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Mader A.E. 1918. Altchristliche Basiliken und Lokaltraditionen in Sӥdjudäa, Paderborn. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology. Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Ploug G. and Oldenburg E. 1969. “Les objets en métal sauf les monnaies,” in G. Ploug, E. Oldenburg, E. Hammershaimb and R. Thomsen, Hama. Fouilles et recherches 1931–1938 IV:3, Copenhagen, pp. 13–88.

[119]

Y. P E L E G

Rahmani L.Y. 1964. “Mirror-Plaques from a Fifth-Century A.D. Tomb,” IEJ 14: 50–60. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Saller S.J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953), Jerusalem.

Seligman J., Zias J., and Stark H. 1996. “Late Hellenistic and Byzantine Burial Caves at Givʾat Sharet, Bet Shemesh,” ʿAtiqot 29: 43–62. Sussman V. 1976. “A Burial Cave at Kefar ʿAra,” ʿAtiqot 11: 92–101.

[120]

THE CENTRAL CHURCH AT BEIT ʿANUN YITZHAK MAGEN

A large Byzantine church was unearthed at the eastern edge of Beit ʿAnun (map ref. IOG 16211/10788; ITM 21211/60788), a Palestinian village in the Hebron Hills (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 Two additional churches had been discovered at the site2 and a large cemetery from the first and second centuries had been discovered in the area.3 The site is identified with the biblical settlement of Beth Anoth (Josh. 15:59).4 The valley of Beit ʿAnun is one of the most fertile regions in the Hebron Hills, and numerous vineyards cover the area till today. The site is located on the eastern road between Bethlehem, Teqoaʿ, and Zif. The area was important from the First Temple to Byzantine periods. The two most sacred sites of the Hebron Hills, the Cave of Machpelah and Elonei Mamre, lie south of Beit ʿAnun. The numerous graves from the end of the Second Temple and the Roman periods testify to the existence of a flourishing settlement during that

period. The names on the graves suggest that the settlement was Edomite.5 Surveys undertaken at Beit ʿAnun revealed that the site was first occupied in the Chalcolithic period and then from the Iron Age to the Byzantine period (Fig. 1).6 At the center of the site there is a spring, and cisterns and numerous building remains are visible. There was a large urban settlement at the site from the end of the Second Temple period to the Byzantine period. The archaeological finds suggest that it was one of the most important settlements in the Hebron Hills. A Christian community was settled at the site in the Crusader period, followed by a large Muslim settlement.7 Five building phases were distinguished: a Roman phase from the fourth century CE that preceded the construction of the church; a Byzantine phase divided into two stages; a Crusader phase, and a final phase, dating to the Late Islamic period (Figs. 2–4).

Fig. 1. Beit ʿAnun, church before excavation, view from the south.

[121]

Y. M A G E N

98.13

99.75

98.12

W13

W14

W17

98.45

98.85

98.27

W16

98.50

97.37 96.20 96.21

98.44

97.64

98.58

W10

98.50

98.12

98.38

W12

W15

98.47

98.45

98.64

98.42 98.15 96.15

98.62

97.34

98.36

98.98

W11

98.93 98.62

98.47

98.44

98.59

98.74

99.60

98.15

98.33

97.69

98.43

98.40 98.45

97.80

98.38

97.25

96.79

98.65

W18 97.75

97.77

96.70 98.05

98.08

97.69

97.69 98.21

W22

98.43

98.24 98.21 97.57 98.40

98.40

99.67 101.20

98.40

98.37

99.52

98.40

99.87

W7 98.59

98.58 99.64

98.07

98.60

98.21

100.69 101.50

98.37

W6

98.47

W8

99.09 98.49

W9

99.06

100.15

100.45

W5

W21

98.85

99.07

100.52

98.89

68.68

98.29

98.49

100.19

W1

98.54

99.35

W2

98.35 99.39

W3

W4

98.38 99.00

98.55

98.55 98.75

0

Fig. 2. Beit ʿAnun, detailed plan of the church.

[122]

5

m

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 3. Beit ʿAnun, church, aerial photograph, view from the southwest.

Fig. 4. Beit ʿAnun, church, aerial photograph, view from the south.

[123]

Y. M A G E N

THE ROMAN TOWER A tower, possibly a fortress, with thick walls and an elaborate locking mechanism was found at the site. Only its eastern section has been exposed so far, and it possibly formed part of a larger complex. The structure is attributed to the Late Roman period (late fourth to early fifth century). The structure is 9.10 m wide and of unknown length. Its walls are straight, its corners, precisely wrought. The walls, ca. 1.2 m thick, comprise two faces of well-dressed ashlars with a fill of small fieldstones bonded with mortar. The excavated section revealed no internal division, and no floor. The structure’s entrance locking method was notable (Fig. 5). The 0.80 m-wide entrance was narrow for such a large structure, but characteristic of Late Roman fortresses. A channel in the northern doorpost continued along the middle of the wall. It was 1.40 m

Fig. 5. Part of the fourth century Roman tower.

long and 13 cm deep. A square socket opposite the channel in the southern doorpost was ca. 20 cm deep, its other dimensions identical to those of the channel. The bolt, almost certainly a wooden beam with metal reinforcements, slid along the channel.8 The bolt needed to be installed while the doorposts were being built, since the entrance was only 0.80 m wide while the bolt was ca. 1.4 m long. The threshold was specially designed; it did not include a socket for pivoting the door; instead, a 10 cm-wide channel was carved along it to accommodate the wooden door that was lowered from above, apparently by means of ropes and weights. In times of need, the defenders on the roof were able to lower it quickly and fasten it with the bolt. This mode of closing and locking the door clearly implies that this was not an ordinary building; rather it was part of a military structure—a fortress or watchtower, many of which have been observed in the Hebron Hills.9 The tower orientation does not relate to that of the church established at the site in the next phase, and clearly predates it. Furthermore, as the church’s “Inscriptions Hall” adjoins the tower’s eastern wall, it is clear that the tower precedes the hall, which belongs to the first stage of the church. A water cistern covered with stone slabs was discovered east of the tower. The cistern was clearly installed without taking the ecclesiastical structure of the next phase into account. The narthex mosaic floor of the first stage church abuts the stone slabs covering the cistern; i.e., the cistern and its slab covering predate the narthex (Fig. 6). Another cistern was located south of the former, and not in the center of the later courtyard. This suggests that it too dates to the Late Roman phase. Beneath the floor of the first stage church, a fragment of a Late Roman lamp and two fourth century coins from the reign of Emperor Constantius II (355–361 CE) were found, confirming our conclusion that the tower and cistern predate the church’s erection.

THE CHURCH COMPLEX

Fig. 6. Water cistern predating the church.

The church was situated on a steep slope at the eastern edge of the settlement, removed from the densely populated area and near the late fourth century CE

[124]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Roman fortress, described above, which guarded the main road to Hebron and the eastern approaches to the city. As the eastern and southern sections of the church were built at the foot of the slope, it proved necessary to construct thick walls to a great height from especially large building stones. The central church of Beit ʿAnun served the Christian populace intermittently for centuries. Erected in the first half of the fifth century, it apparently continued in use until the Crusader period. The two construction stages in the Byzantine period are represented by two churches built one over the other. The first stage church was erected in the first half of the fifth century CE; the second stage church was erected in the sixth century CE, continuing in use until the end of the Umayyad period. Their overall plans are similar, but new elements were added to the second stage church.

The hall floor is of white mosaic. In the middle is a rectangular carpet, 4.10×2.60 m, comprised of a grid of squares framed in black and red. In the center of each square is a crosslet composed of four buds (Figs. 9–10). This form of decoration is identical to the one employed in the narthex of the first stage church, only there the squares are set diagonally, forming diamonds. There are two Greek inscriptions in the east and west of the carpet. The one in the east measures 2.40×0.40 m, and consists of three lines, all of which were intact. The letters, ca. 8 cm high, were of red tesserae on a white background (Fig. 11). The inscription reads10: † Lord, remember Thy servants Thaimon and John and John, the priests. Amen.

The inscription in the west consists of one line. It is 2.40 m long, and its letters, ca. 8 cm high, were also of red tesserae (Fig. 12). The inscription reads:

First Stage Byzantine Church

† Lord, remember the deacon Salaon, the steward.

The courtyard west of the church was covered by a layer of white plaster (Fig. 7). The water cistern in its south, dated to the late fourth century CE, continued in use. The level of the plastered floor coincides with that of the “Inscriptions Hall” and the first stage narthex (see below). The first and second stage churches lacked a feature common in other churches, an atrium with a peristyle. The “Inscriptions Hall” was exposed north of the courtyard, with interior dimensions of 8.20×4.60 m; it adjoins the tower’s western side. Its walls, 0.76 m thick, are of good quality ashlars (Fig. 8). There is a considerable similarity between the hall’s mode of construction and that of the walls of the first stage church. The foundations of four arch-bearing pillars adjoined the longer walls. The hall had two openings, one in its eastern wall (W6) from the narthex, the other in its southern wall, from the plastered courtyard. Technically, the hall was built after the establishment of the first stage church. The hall’s eastern wall adjoins the row of columns in the narthex of the first stage church. Nevertheless, the decorative style of the mosaic and inscriptions (see below) indicate that the hall and first stage church were constructed almost contemporarily and served together.

The first stage narthex, 15.00×2.80 m, was paved in a mosaic carpet divided into three panels of equal size: 4.50×1.80 m (Fig. 13). The carpet margins contained diagonally laid rows of white tesserae. The carpet frame consisted of two rows of black tesserae with two rows of white on either side. There was a row of black triangular tesserae between the frame and the carpet margins with a decoration of black and red buds on a white background. The northern panel was decorated with five rows of eight crosses, alternating in black and red. The central panel was decorated with a grid of diamonds, in red and black (Fig. 14). In the center of each diamond is a red bud decoration. As mentioned above, the mosaic pattern is identical to that of the mosaic discovered in the “Inscriptions Hall,” only here it was laid diagonally, creating a diamond pattern. The southern panel, only partially preserved, was demarked by a broad black frame. The carpet field was adorned with black and red circles, six circles across the mosaic and fifteen along its length. In the center of each circle was a small diamond (E*, Diamond), the area between the circles being adorned with small squares (Fig. 15; E*, Square).11 An inscription set in a 1.50 m-long tabula ansata was found in the center of the panel. Few letters were extant, not allowing the deciphering of the inscription.

[125]

Y. M A G E N

0

5

m

Fig. 7. Beit ʿAnun, first stage church and the “Inscriptions Hall,” general plan.

[126]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 8. “Inscriptions Hall,” view from the west. Note that the stone slabs of the courtyard floor adjoin the southern wall of the “Inscriptions Hall” and are higher than the latter’s mosaic floor.

Three square soft limestone pillars were observed along the west of the first stage narthex (Fig. 16). These pillars bore its roof-supporting arches. They also bore arches crossing to the east, apparently supported on the other side by pilasters in the church facade. The roof tiles possibly leaned on wooden beams, not on the arches themselves. The mosaic along the narthex’s west was not laid down in straight rows, but was adapted to the large slabs covering the cistern. The constructors of the mosaic did not wish to damage the cistern ceiling. The cistern was re-plastered and continued in use until the final phase of the church. The cistern’s location under the narthex is unequivocal evidence that it predates the first stage church. The prayer hall measures 23.50×14.50 m. Its eastern and southern walls (W10 and W13) were established on the bedrock of the steep slope. The outer face of these walls consists of large, very hard, limestone ashlars that reach a maximal length of 1.40 m. Some

ashlars feature drafted margins and a single boss; others are smooth, with two bosses in their corners. The southeastern corner has very large stones with prominent bosses, placed in a head-and-stretcher arrangement. The center of the wall is a fill of small stones bound by mortar. The inner faces of the walls consist of rows of small cemented fieldstones. Signs of kochla (plaster) were discerned between the stones of the outer face. It is worth noting that the walls’ building technique is practically identical in the first and second stage churches. In the Crusader period, however, the walls were thickened significantly (see below). The northern wall (W11) underwent numerous changes over the various stages. The first stage wall, 0.76 m thick, did not require thick, high supporting walls. It consisted of small, soft limestone ashlars most with a smooth surface, although some with a prominent boss were integrated into the wall (Fig. 17). The church walls were straight, their stones, carefully set.

[127]

Y. M A G E N

0

1

m

Fig. 9. “Inscriptions Hall” mosaic floor. Note the Crusader pillars; view from the east.

Fig. 10. “Inscriptions Hall,” mosaic carpet field, illustration.

Only the western wall (W9) foundations of this stage, which jutted slightly above the mosaic of the first stage narthex, remained in situ (Fig. 18). However, the church facade of this stage was probably very similar to that of its successor, which included three entrances: a wide main entrance, with narrower ones to either side. This seems probable as the two inscriptions found in the mosaic in the church hall of this stage were located, respectively, opposite the main entrance and the entrance to the southern aisle of the second stage church. The threshold of the main entrance, of hard white limestone, was found in secondary use in the central courtyard entrance of the second stage church. Adjoining the facade of the earlier church were pilasters bearing arches that extended to the square pillars running along the west of the narthex.

The first indications of an earlier mosaic beneath the later one arose in the initial excavation stages. A white mosaic floor was discovered east of the northeastern Crusader pillar, 1.00 m below its successor (Figs. 19–20). A sounding revealed that it continued underneath the northern aisle of the second stage church. Our initial assumption was that this represented an agricultural installation, possibly a winepress from the period preceding the church’s erection. It did not occur to us that a mosaic floor of an earlier church would be found at such a depth. Once the church was uncovered, however, it emerged that the white mosaic segment joined the northern aisle and chancel. The excavation revealed the mosaic floor, decorated with crosses, of the earlier stage northern aisle.

[128]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

0

20

40

Fig. 11. “Inscriptions Hall,” Greek inscription on the east of the mosaic floor.

0

20

40

Fig. 12. “Inscriptions Hall,” Greek inscription on the west of the mosaic floor.

Two rows of columns on stylobates were set in the prayer hall. The stylobates were later dismantled and reused in the second stage, a wall being built in their stead (see below). On either side of the wall’s foundations were parallel rows of tesserae belonging to the first stage prayer hall floor; they had originally

been laid along the sides of the stylobates. This attests to their exact position, whereby one can also appraise the width of the earlier nave and aisles. The church’s column bases, Corinthian capitals, and stylobate slabs were found in secondary use in its second stage. The classical design of the bases, capitals, and other

[129]

Y. M A G E N

architectural elements attests to the first stage church dating to the fifth century CE (Figs. 21–22). The first stage aisles were 19.70 m long and 3.30 m wide. Both had white mosaic floors adorned with an identical pattern of realistic crosses that were unlike the more abstract representations of crosses found in the late mosaics (Fig. 23). The crosses in the aisles and nave had been planned together, creating straight lines of crosses across the entire breadth of the church. In the southern aisle mosaic, opposite the entrance, was an inscription inside a tabula ansata. It measured 1.70×0.62 m from handle to handle, but was only partially preserved. Just a few letters of the four-line inscription were extant, making it almost impossible to decipher (Fig. 24).12 The northern aisle had no inscription, and the cross pattern reached its entrance threshold. The first stage nave, 19.70×7.20 m, is paved in a mosaic carpet. As in the aisles, its edges are decorated with alternating black and red crosses. The carpet itself, 11.40×5.80, contains a multicolored pattern surrounded by a black frame (Fig. 25). Only segments of this carpet have been uncovered, to avoid damaging the upper mosaic floor. At the carpet’s east, a probe was undertaken within a limited

Fig. 13. First stage narthex, view from the south.

Fig. 14. First stage narthex, northern and central carpets.

[130]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 15. First stage narthex, southern carpet.

Fig. 16. First stage narthex pillar, above which is the foundation for the second stage columns.

Fig. 17. First stage church, W11, view from the north.

area; it allowed reconstruction of the entire length of the nave mosaic. A pattern of squares in black, red, and white was revealed. The squares were of red and two shades of white, and the diamonds were black (Fig. 26). The mosaic, though simple in pattern and use of color, is of superior craftsmanship and is not inferior

in quality to the richer mosaic floor of the second stage. Opposite the opening is a totally intact inscription in a tabula ansata, measuring, 1.50×0.60 m. The letters, of black tesserae, were 8 cm high and each line was separated by a row of red tesserae (Fig. 27). The inscription reads:

[131]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 18. The western wall of the church (W9); Note the lower course of stones of the early wall, view from the west.

He who enters, let him pray for Probatius the priest.

Fig. 19. Prayer hall, first stage mosaic floor revealed under second stage mosaic floor.

The apse, 6.10 m in diameter, was in service throughout the existence of the churches, perhaps even into the Crusader period (Fig. 28). The apse is internal, and was built after the establishment of the church’s eastern wall (W13). Adjoining the apse were two 0.67 m-wide built steps, coated in a layer of white plaster, separating the prayer hall from the bema. One was 0.10 m high, the other, 0.25 m. The apse was built of well-dressed soft limestone ashlars. The interstices were filled with binding material and the stones were then coated in a layer of mortar, as were most of the church walls. Traces of multicolored plaster were observed in the apse, suggesting that the apse walls, and possibly also those of the nave, were covered in frescoes. The middle of the apse wall revealed large cracks and extensive damage. Such damage was not evident in the outer eastern wall, which was totally intact. Excavation of the apse foundations down to the bedrock revealed the cause of the disparity. The eastern wall was built of large stones established on the bedrock. This was also true of the corners of the apse, designed to sustain the considerable weight of

[132]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 20. Northern aisle second stage mosaic floor, and underneath it, the early church nave mosaic floor.

0

10

20

Fig. 21. Capital bearing a cross, from the first stage church.

0

10

20

Fig. 22. Corinthian capital from the first stage church.

[133]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 23. The northern aisle first stage mosaic floor, decorated with alternating black and red crosses.

0

20

40

Fig. 24. Inscription discovered on the west of the southern aisle.

the dome. But the foundations of the apse’s curve wall were built on a carelessly laid fill of earth and loose stones (Fig. 29). Thus the flow of underground water or an earthquake caused the wall, and probably parts of the dome, to collapse. A built step jutted out along the apse wall on the floor level of the first stage church, to support the paving slabs of the bema. The apse floors of both stages were not discernible, evidently having been robbed. A large limestone paving slab measuring 1.80×1.00 m lay in the middle of the first stage apse. It was similar to those in the western courtyard and the stylobates. There was a round socket at its center and a square socket in each of its corners (Fig. 30). It bore the offering table, most probably of marble. The four square sockets were designed to accommodate the table’s colonnette legs, which were square at the base; the round socket possibly secured the central pillar supporting the table top. We cannot say definitively how the first stage bema and apse floors were paved. However, the discovery of the above-mentioned stone suggests

[134]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 25. Nave, first stage church mosaic floor, view from the west. Note the second stage mosaic floor.

0

Fig. 26. Nave, first stage church, motif from the mosaic floor.

[135]

5

10

Y. M A G E N

0

10

20

Fig. 27. Nave, first stage church, an inscription discovered in the mosaic floor opposite the main entrance.

they were paved with hard limestone slabs that were conceivably dismantled and reused in the second stage in the western courtyard. Support for this conjecture is provided by the substratum of the first stage apse, which consisted of layers of beaten earth, characteristic of beddings for floors with large, heavy slabs. The substratum does not include mortar, which was used in mosaic or marble slab floors. Adjoining the northwestern end of the first stage apse, a white mosaic extended from the apse to the first column in the row. There were no mosaic intercolumniations between the columns but a stylobate, of large stones.

North and south of the apse were two small square rooms, 3.20×3.20 m. Excavations in the northern room did not proceed beyond exposing the second stage church; thus details of it in this stage remain obscure. While the southern room’s floor did not survive, its threshold did. A square ashlar opening in the middle of the floor led to a vaulted room, constructed of fine ashlars (Figs. 31–32). Some 2.00 m high, it was traversed by a fieldstone partition (Fig. 33). The room looks like a crypt but yielded no bones, and was evidently not in use. Judging by its construction, it belongs to the church’s early stage.

[136]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 28. The church apse, view from the northwest. Note the stone on which the altar table stood, and the cracks in the apse.

Fig. 29. Apse, foundations of the curved wall. As these were not laid on the bedrock, cracks developed and the wall eventually collapsed.

[137]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 31. Crypt entrance in the southern room.

Fig. 30. Stone slab on which the alter table was placed.

Fig. 32. Crypt entrance from within.

Fig. 33. An ashlar-built vault beneath the western room.

[138]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Second Stage Byzantine Church In this stage the courtyard in front of the church, ca. 12×8 m, was paved with dressed limestone slabs and raised 0.60 m above the first stage courtyard floor (Figs. 34–36). The slabs, in secondary use, were probably dismantled from the late fourth century CE Roman fortress. The slabs had been damaged while in transport and were carelessly laid (Fig. 37). The level of the courtyard floor coincides with that of the second stage narthex, and the stone slabs adjoin the wall of the “Inscriptions Hall.” It is clear that the floor was laid after the construction of the latter and was contemporary with the second stage church. The courtyard’s south and west were not preserved, owing to agricultural activities on the site. In the south, the courtyard was delimited by a wall (W8) of well-dressed stones with a prominent boss; only its foundations were extant. In the west lay a dressed threshold in secondary use. Set opposite the church’s main entrance, it was ca. 2 m wide, and was evidently the threshold of the first stage church’s main entrance. Opposite the opening to the courtyard especially large stones were laid, 1.40×0.50 m, creating a kind of path between the entrance and the main entrance of the second stage church. The “Inscriptions Hall” continued to serve in the second stage church into the Crusader period. The entrance to the narthex was raised and a step built, due to the elevation of the second stage narthex floor. The hall’s southern entrance now led to the paved courtyard. In fact, it is the sole element from the first stage church that continued in use in the second stage and possibly in the Crusader period church as well. The second stage narthex, only partially preserved, was 0.70 m higher than the earlier one, and its dimensions are exactly the same (Fig. 38). The narthex floor was raised by means of a fill of stones and earth covered by a layer of medium-sized stones bonded by mortar, over which a mosaic floor was laid. The square pillars of the first stage narthex were replaced by round columns, two of whose bases were preserved in situ (Fig. 39). The columns might originally have served the first stage church in a different location. Large stones were set between the bases, serving as a kind of stylobate. The mosaic narthex floor was rich in terms of shape

and color. It apparently consisted of two panels of equal size, but the southern one was not preserved. Judging by the symmetry characteristic of such mosaics, one can assume that its design was identical (Figs. 40–41). In the space between the two carpets opposite the main entrance, a mosaic amphora was depicted in red-brick, brown, and black. Vine tendrils bearing grape clusters emanated from it. The northern panel, 6.60×2.10 m, had a lustrous multicolored mosaic in red, black, ocher, and white. Along the carpet edges were diagonally set rows of white tesserae, while the frame was bordered with a band of closely spaced black and red buds (F*). The frame included three designs: the outermost was a row of red dentils outlined in black and bordered by rows of black and white tesserae. The middle band was a guilloche whose strips consisted of red-and-white and ocher-and-white against a black background. The innermost band was a wave pattern consisting of red circles both surrounded and joined by a row of white tesserae against an ocher background. The carpet field was apparently adorned with a grid of red and black diamonds. The narthex mosaic was crudely repaired with large tesserae and bits of marble. However the repairs do not seem to be the result of iconoclastic defacement. North of the narthex was a square room, 2.75×2.75 m, paved in white mosaic. The doorposts and threshold in its south were well made (Fig. 42); the northern wall (W7), by contrast, was crudely built. An inscription inside a partially preserved tabula ansata was found near the threshold (Fig. 43). The surviving portion reads: Lord, remember those who have offered and - - This room formed an integral part of the second stage church. The closing direction of the entrance from the outside suggests that initially, there was an opening to the narthex from the north that was later blocked. The first stage church prayer hall’s eastern, southern, and the northern walls remained unchanged in this stage. This indicates that the church alterations at this time were not the result of an earthquake ruining the structure. Unlike the other walls, the western wall was dismantled, its foundation and entrances rebuilt to a greater height. This was necessary because the

[139]

Y. M A G E N

0

Fig. 34. Beit ʿAnun, second stage church, general plan.

[140]

5

m

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 35. Beit ʿAnun, second stage church, sixth century CE, reconstruction.

Fig. 36. Church facade, courtyard floor, and the “Inscriptions Hall” on the left, view from the northwest.

[141]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 37. The courtyard floor, paved of stone slabs in secondary use.

Fig. 38. Second stage narthex; Note that it abuts the second stage courtyard floor. View from the northwest.

[142]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 39. Narthex, second stage, columns in situ. Note the stones of the stylobate laid between the columns.

Fig. 40. Narthex, second stage, northern carpet.

[143]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 42. Entrance to the room north of the narthex, second stage.

0 0

0.5

1

Fig. 41. Narthex, second stage, northern carpet, illustration.

20

40

Fig. 43. Greek inscription in room north of the narthex, second stage.

[144]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

church floor was raised by 0.70 m, resulting in the necessity of adjusting the entrance heights. The wall, 16.50 m long, consisted of large, smooth white limestone ashlars in secondary use, found nowhere else in the church complex (Fig. 44). The facade was elevated by a foundation of relatively small ashlars. The first course visible above the narthex mosaic floor consists of large ashlars, 0.87×0.69 m. They probably derive from the lowest course of the earlier facade. The thresholds of the three first stage entrances had been dislodged, and were not restored in this stage. Instead, the doorposts and thresholds were carved into the stones of the walls, which was unusual. The main entrance to the church is 2.16 m wide, the northern entrance, 1.20 m wide, and the southern one, 1.26 m wide (Figs. 45–46). The disparity in the widths of the northern and southern entrances stems from the secondary use of building stones, which did not permit exactitude. The arches and pilasters that adjoined the facade in the first stage were supplanted by bases for

round pillars that bore the wooden beams and tiles of the narthex roof. The dimensions of the nave and aisles of the second stage church were identical to those of the first stage church. The most complex stage in the church renovation involved raising the level of the mosaic floor and especially of the stylobate, on which the column bases rested. The columns had to be secure, since they bore the roof-supporting arches. The stones of the original stylobate were dismantled and replaced by a stone wall of the same width, 0.71 m, over which the new stylobate was established (Figs. 47–48). This wall increased in depth as the surface of the bedrock sloped eastward. The wall was ca. 0.7 m high in the west and reached 1.00 m in the east. It consisted of two ashlar faces, crudely dressed on the outer surface and bonded with concrete, lending the wall maximal stability. A fill of concrete and stone was spread over these two faces, and the new stylobate, composed of its predecessor’s stones, was laid on top (Fig. 49).

Fig. 44. Western wall of the church (W9), view from the west.

[145]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 45. Northern aisle, blocked entrance.

Fig. 46. Southern aisle, blocked entrance.

[146]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 47. Second stage church wall that replaced the first stage stylobate.

Fig. 48. Second stage church wall that replaced the first stage stylobate. Note the upper second stage mosaic.

[147]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 49. Second stage stylobate of the northern aisle and the foundation of the second stage mosaic floor.

These stones were of different lengths. Those on which the column bases rested were especially large, ca. 0.9×0.7×0.4 m, while the intercolumnar stones were smaller, ca. 0.7×0.5×0.15 m. The columns were topped by Corinthian capitals removed from the previous stage church. These capitals are in the Roman architectural style that was characteristic of the beginning of the Byzantine period, rather than in the Late Byzantine style that was characteristic of the sixth century. After the stylobate had been raised, the area of the nave and aisles was filled with a layer of dressed stones, earth, and fieldstones. Over this layer of fill, a thick black layer of mortar and pebbles was spread to stabilize the area beneath the mosaic floor. This layer in turn was covered by another, of stoneless cement, over which the tesserae were arranged. In the southern aisle, the fill layer was thickened to prevent the fill from pressing unduly against the southern wall. The mosaic floor of the second stage prayer hall was identical in size to its predecessor. It consisted of a carpet in the nave, and two carpets in the aisles. The

central carpet, 15.70×6.73 m, contained a geometric design (Figs. 50–51). The carpet margins were of white tesserae laid diagonally in a herringbone pattern, the center of which was emphasized by red buds. A delicate row of triangular tesserae runs along the margins, next to the frame. The frame itself, 0.80 m wide, comprises a number of decorative bands (Fig. 52). The central band is a guilloche consisting of six strips (B6*). The entire guilloche employs a color combination of ocher-and-white, red-and-white, and gray-and-white. The guilloche is bordered by bands of a wave pattern (B7*) in black; the bands are followed by two rows of white tesserae and another of black. The carpet field is adorned with a colorful geometric pattern consisting of pairs of elongated hexagons with two concave ends that interlock. They produce geometric shapes of circles, octagons and lozenges; triangles and semicircles face the frame. In the carpet corners are quarter-circles adorned with conches. Each hexagonal pair is formed of a guilloche whose strips consist of tesserae in two shades of ocher and white, two of gray and white, and two of red

[148]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 50. Second stage nave mosaic floor, view from the west.

and white; and from a strip bounded by black lines, the colors within gradually changing from black to two shades of gray, white, and two shades of red. The octagons, circles, and semicircles contained zoomorphic depictions that were later replaced in the Umayyad period by carelessly made floral designs, following the edict of 721 CE (Figs. 53–54).13 In the vestiges of the original mosaic various faunal parts like a beak, legs, and so forth, can be discerned as well as olive and grapevine branches that appeared at either side of the animals and were not defaced. The animals were replaced by crosses, rosettes, lozenges, circles, branches with fruit, including pomegranates, vines and grape clusters, as well as intertwining vines and pomegranates. The lozenges were adorned with geometric elements and various designs (Fig. 55). Prominent among them, in the middle of the carpet, was a lozenge in whose center were volutes surrounded by a circle, with axes at either side (Fig. 56).14 The mosaic was of small tesserae, 100 per sq. dm. The dominant colors

were white, gray, black, and red; but use was made of additional colors like yellow, green, and orange. The carpet in the northern aisle was almost totally intact and it, too, had a geometric pattern. It measured 20.50×3.30 m. Diagonally laid rows of white tesserae along its edges created a herringbone pattern whose spine consisted of a line of squares (E*, Square) set at even intervals. The carpet frame was a guilloche whose strips were shaded in ocher-and-white and redand-white against a black background (Figs. 57–58). The carpet field featured a scale pattern (J3*); in the middle of each scale was a bud in black and red. The southern aisle was only partially preserved. Its margins were of white tesserae laid diagonally in a herringbone pattern, the center of which was emphasized by buds. The carpet is framed by a guilloche whose strips were shaded in ocher and white against a black background and bordered by rows of white and black tesserae. The carpet field was adorned with a grid of diamonds outlined with buds in red and black. The middle of every diamond was

[149]

Y. M A G E N

0

1

2

Fig. 51. Second stage nave mosaic floor, illustration.

adorned with a cross formed of four buds in red and black (Figs. 59–60). The apse, like other sections of the prayer hall, underwent numerous changes and repairs. There was a thick layer of rock and earthen debris above the

substratum of the first stage apse floor. It, in turn, was surmounted by layers of beaten earth and stone debris. The floor of the second stage church was established over this layer. This indicates that the earlier church was destroyed and stood desolate until the erection of the later church. The bema was possibly paved with marble slabs that were later robbed. The room north of the apse was now separated from the aisle by means of a screen (Fig. 61). A hexagonal baptistery was set in the middle of a crude mosaic floor, set in the Early Islamic period. As stated, the second stage prayer hall floor was laid 0.70–1.00 m over the first stage mosaic floor. The outer and inner dimensions of both churches were identical. Why was it deemed necessary to dismantle parts of the early church? In general, far-reaching structural changes are undertaken in the aftermath of destruction wrought by an earthquake, hostile action, or as a result of changes in the structure’s plan and function. In the present instance, however, no damage to the church’s outer walls obligating their disassembly and rebuilding was discerned, nor was the structural plan appreciably altered. The church’s second stage gives no hint of an attempt to repair or thicken its external walls, including those that rose to a considerable height. Thus, it does not appear that its destruction was occasioned by an earthquake or other forms of destruction, but rather was a result of the problematic choice of the building location of the first stage church.15 The church was erected on a steep slope on the southeastern edge of Beit ʿAnun. As the church stood along the very course of the rains and floods that visited the area, one can assume that water infiltrated its foundations. The prayer hall and narthex, lower than the western courtyard, were inundated with every downpour. This probably explains why the church floor was raised, which could only be achieved by dismantling the structure’s interior and facade to elevate the entrances. The facade stones and other architectural elements of the first stage church were reused in the later church. These changes were apparently undertaken only after the earlier church had stood abandoned for some time. As the stones from the stylobate, column shafts, bases, and capitals, and possibly also the arches, were reused, it appears that the church height, from floor

[150]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 52. Second stage nave mosaic floor, frame.

to roof, was restored. The outer walls were raised, while the facade was dismantled to the foundations to elevate the entrances. These foundations were lifted by means of small building stones, after which the facade’s ashlars were restored, but without the thresholds, which were evidently broken in the removal process. In their stead, new doorposts and thresholds were carved into the stones of the wall. At the northern side of the church is a chapel, 13.50×5.10 m, of which only its western section is extant. The chapel’s mosaic floors evince two phases. Judging by the floor level, the chapel was apparently added during the church’s second stage. Our sounding revealed no traces of an earlier phase that can be ascribed to the first stage church. Only the chapel’s western wall was exposed, built of precisely set large smooth ashlars. Their interstices were filled with thick bonding material that protruded from the stones’ surface (Fig. 62).

Two mosaic floors were unearthed. The lower level mosaic floor was the most impressive in the church (Fig. 63). At the carpet edges were diagonally set rows of white tesserae. The edges of the mosaic were adorned with two bands. The first comprised a row of black tesserae with buds at regular intervals. On each size, in the middle of the row, are crosslets with four buds. Near the frame is a thick band of closely placed buds (like a garland). The mosaic carpet measures 5.70×4.20 m. The wide frame consists of two bands adorned with red lozenges against a yellow background, with a band of guilloche between them. Its strips are red-and-white and ocher-and-white against a black background. The carpet field is adorned with a diamond grid. The grid consists of buds, and there is a crosslet composed of four buds at the points of contact and inside each lozenge. The mosaic pattern and style are identical to those in the southern aisle of the second stage church.

[151]

Y. M A G E N

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

4

3

4

3

4

5

6

5

6

5

6

Fig. 53. Animal depictions replaced with floral depictions due to iconoclasm.

[152]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 54. Nave mosaic floor, semicircles at the edge of the mosaic; animals depictions were replaced by diamonds.

1

Fig. 56. Nave mosaic floor, diamond with a volute in its center and an axe in each end.

2

Fig. 55. Nave mosaic floor, diamond pattern between the medallions.

At the center of the mosaic is a medallion, 1.25 m in diameter, containing a variant of a crimson (a star composed of crossing ρ and χ). The medallion is surrounded by several frames: one row of red tesserae, two of ocher, a row of teeth in ocher outlined in black, and two rows of red tesserae bordered by a row of black tesserae. The outer frame had a grid design in white, black, ocher, and red, ending in small dentils (A12*).16 A floor was set 0.30 m above the earlier floor, apparently in the church’s final phase, in the

[153]

Y. M A G E N

0

0.5

1

Fig. 57. Northern aisle, view from the east.

Fig. 58. Northern aisle, motif.

Umayyad period, when the zoomorphic figures were defaced in the prayer hall mosaic floor (Fig. 64). The new mosaic floor was crude and consisted of a frame and various geometric designs. The mosaic in the small room north of the apse had similar designs.

were later robbed for use in constructing the village houses. The structure was now roofed using a different method. Instead of columns supporting arches that bore wooden beams and tiles, massive vaults rested on pilasters and broad walls. Thus the most noticeable change in this phase was the thickening of the church walls. The thickness of the northern wall was doubled from 0.76 to 1.50 m, some of the addition built over the mosaic. Building stones from the Byzantine church were found in the Crusader foundations, e.g., Corinthian capitals, column bases, stylobate stones, and other architectural elements. The northern wall

The Church Complex in the Crusader Period In the Crusader period the church was rebuilt in the typical architectural style of this period. It is unclear whether it was revamped for religious or secular purposes. No Crusader architectural elements were observed, since all upper remains of the structure

[154]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 60. Southern aisle, diamond motif.

Fig. 59. Remains of the southern aisle, view from the east.

was extended to the east, where it joined the church’s eastern wall. The western wall was also thickened. The entrances from the Byzantine stage were blocked, and a new entrance, ca. 0.5 m wide, was opened at a higher level, being shifted slightly north of its predecessor (Figs. 65–66). The floor of the entrance, as well as that of the church, was raised and covered in a thick coat of white plaster. Opposite the entrance in the western wall, some 5.5 m east of the church’s western facade, a massive wall was built over the Byzantine mosaic. It was ca. 1.7 m thick and contained an entrance, ca. 0.5 m wide. Here, too, earlier architectural elements in secondary use were integrated into the construction. The wall created a

kind of vestibule in front of the church. The southern wall was thickened by only 1.40 m, since unlike the northern wall, it did not have to bear heavy pressure. Four massive square pillars, 1.80×1.80 m, were installed in the middle of the church. Their foundations were built from column bases and stone slabs removed from the stylobate (Fig. 67). Pits were dug in the prayer hall for these foundations, in an attempt to minimize damage to the mosaic floor. The pillars were spanned by arches, creating a crossvaulted roof. The distance between the pillars and the northern wall was 8.10 m, and it remains unclear how the arches could bridge such a wide expanse. However, no additional pillars or walls were discerned in this space. In the south, by contrast, the arches extended over only 2.70 m. The Byzantine floor was raised and covered in a thick coat of white cement. The northern chapel and the “Inscriptions Hall” remained in service during the Crusader phase. Although it is unclear whether the Crusader structure built over the church was religious in function, we surmise that it was, for there is evidence that Beit ʿAnun’s populace was Christian at this time. In the middle of the “Inscriptions Hall” floor, a square pillar was established, cutting into the mosaic. Furthermore, the four lateral pilasters were removed and replaced by two pillars placed at the eastern and western sides of the hall. These pillars were joined to the central pillar by two arches that spanned the hall lengthwise. The hall’s mosaic floor was covered in a thick layer of white plaster.

[155]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 61. Northern room, adjacent to the apse.

Fig. 62. Western wall of the northern chapel (W12), view from the east.

[156]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

0

10

20

Fig. 63. Chapel, second stage mosaic floor with a cross in its center.

[157]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 64. Chapel, second stage mosaic floor, in the corner of which is a segment of the Umayyad mosaic.

Fig. 65. Entrances and walls from the Crusader period, view from the west.

[158]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Fig. 66. The Crusader building entrance in W9.

Fig. 67. Secondary use of Byzantine columns in a Crusader pillar.

[159]

Y. M A G E N

POTTERY The pottery finds from the site attest to four main occupation periods: Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk. The Roman pottery is poorly represented; however several common vessel types of the period appear (Pl. 1:1–8). Most of the pottery found at the site is late Byzantine, from the sixth to seventh centuries CE (Pl. 1:9–18, Pl. 2:1–12) and is of the vessel types characteristic of pottery found in sites in the south and in the area of Jerusalem. A few finds are Early Islamic (Pl. 2:13–18), and are dated to the eighth century CE, including a lamp of a shape common in the Ummayad period (Pl. 2:18). Vessels dated to the Crusader period are represented by a variety of glazed wares and a saucer lamp (Pl. 3:1–9). Mamluk pottery is represented by common types vessels, some handmade (Pl. 3:10–18).

COINS Six coins were recovered during the excavation, two of which were unidentifiable.17 Two coins from the second year of the “Great Revolt” (67 CE) were found in the narthex, adjacent to the “Inscriptions Hall.” A coin from Alexandria of Constantine II,

dated to 355–361 CE, was recovered beneath the floor level of the apse. An additional coin found east of the apse was dated to the fourth century.

Summary Beit ʿAnun was one of the main settlements in the Hebron Hills during the Roman-Byzantine period. It achieved dominance owing to the agricultural land surrounding it and the nearby water sources. In the Byzantine period, one of the largest and earliest churches of the Hebron Hills was erected at the eastern edge of the settlement. Ascription of this church to the fifth century is based on its construction mode, architectural elements, stylobate, mosaics, and early inscriptions. Its mode of construction follows the Roman tradition, in general practice in the Land of Israel at the end of the fifth century. The church was rebuilt in the sixth century, which entailed raising its floor. The church continued to serve the Christian community of Beit ʿAnun into the eighth century, as can be inferred from the defacement of figures in the mosaic floor. Iconoclasm was ordained by the Umayyad caliphs in the middle of the eighth century, and affected most Christian sites in the Hebron Hills.

[160]

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Plate 1. Roman and Byzantine Pottery Vessels No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Locus/Basket #211/4 #14 #75/1 #60/1 #129/1 #149/1

Type Bowl Cooking pot Cooking pot Jar Jar Jar Hole-mouth jar

Description Orange. Reddish brown. Reddish brown. Orange. Brown. Red, white wash. Brown, white inclusions.

Parallels Calderon 2000: 98, Pl. IV:61 Johnson 2007: 434, Pl. 6:81 Calderon 2000: 93, Pl. II:33 Johnson 2007: 433, Pl. 5:64 Johnson 2007: 433, Pl. 5:65 Calderon 2000: 93, Pl. I:24 Calderon 2000: 93, Pl. I:18

Date 1st–2nd cent. CE 1st–2nd cent. CE 1st–2nd cent. CE 1st–2nd cent. CE 1st–2nd cent. CE 1st–2nd cent. CE 1st–2nd cent. CE

8

Discus lamp

Pink, black paint.

1st–2nd cent. CE

9

ARSW 140c

Red, red slip.

De Vincenz 2007: 265, Pl. 51:1; Hadad 2002: 16–20 Hayes 1972: 160–166

10

#116/1

LRC 10a bowl

Red, red slip.

Hayes 1972: 343–346

11 12 13 14

#227/1 L539 #180/4 L503 #101/1

CRSW 9b Roulette bowl Roulette bowl Bowl

Hayes 1972: 379–382 Rapuano 1999: 174, Fig. 3:42 Rapuano 1999: 174, Fig. 3:44 Rapuano 1999: 174, Fig. 3:47

15 16

L530 #150/1 #227/2

FBW cup Arch rim bowl

Orange. Pink, red paint. Pink, red paint. Red, gray core, red slip, roulette decoration. Orange. Pink.

17

#54/1

18

L534 #180/5

Bowl with piecrust decorated rim Rilled-rim bowl

Mid-6th–early 7th cent. CE Late 6th–early 7th cent. CE End of 6th–7th cent. CE 3rd–5th cent. CE 3rd–5th cent. CE. 6th–7th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE

Pink, black paint.

De Vincenz 2007: 245, Pl. 13:8 De Vincenz 2007: 246–247, Pl. 15:2–3 Rapuano 1999: 176, Fig. 5:73

Pink, white slip.

De Vincenz 2007: 275, Pl. 60:8

6th cent. CE

[161]

6th–7th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N

1

3

2

5

4

7

6

9 8

10

11

13

12

15 14

17

16

18 0

5

Plate 1.

[162]

10

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Plate 2. Byzantine and Early Islamic Pottery Vessels No. Locus/Basket 1 L534 #168/1 2 L530 #150/3

Type Late roulette bowl Late roulette bowl

3

#146/2

Cooking pot

4

L517 #118/1

Jug

5

#57/1

Jar

6

L528 #145

Jar

7

#184/1

Jar

8 9

L515 #115/2 L528 #145/1

Gaza jar Gaza jar

10

Ll543 #209/8

Hole-mouth jar

Description Light brown, pink self slip. Pink, pink slip, incised decoration, black on rim. Reddish brown, white grits. Brown with white grits, pink self slip. Reddish yellow, white grits. Reddish brown with white grits. Light brown, reddish brown core. Brown. Brown.

12

#116/2

Hole-mouth jar

13 14 15

#205 #233/1

Casserole Jar Jar

Light brown with white grits. Light brown, gray core with white grits. Light reddish brown, gray core with white grits. Red. Light brown. Reddish brown.

16

#57/1

Jar

Light brown.

17

#168/1

Jar

Red.

18

#72/1

Channel-nozzle lamp Pink.

11

Hole-mouth jar

[163]

Parallels De Vincenz 2007: 245, Pl. 12:17 De Vincenz 2007: 245, Pl. 60:18

Date 6th cent. CE 6th cent. CE

De Vincenz and Sion 2007: 25, Fig. 2:14 De Vincenz 2007: 276, Pl. 60:16

6th cent. CE

Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:101

5th–6th cent. CE

Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:100

5th–6th cent. CE

Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:106

5th–6th cent. CE

Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:108 De Vincenz and Sion 2007: 25, Fig. 3:4 De Vincenz 2007: 251, Pl. 23:26

5th–6th cent. CE 5th–6 cent. CE

Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:112

5th–6th cent. CE

De Vincenz 2007: 251, Pl. 23:27

5th–6th cent. CE

Avissar 1996: 139, Fig. 13.99:6–10 De Vincenz 2007: 259, Pl. 34:1 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Fig. 5:1 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Fig. 5:8,11 Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Fig. 5:8,11 Hadad 2002: 95–106, nos. 439–443

7th–9th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE

6th cent. CE

5th–6th cent. CE

7th–8th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N

1

2

3

5

4

7

10

6

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

0

5

Plate 2.

[164]

0 10

1

2

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Plate 3. Crusader and Mamluk Pottery Vessels No. Locus/Basket 1 L529

Type Glazed bowl with double slip Bowl with gritty green glaze

Description Red, white slip, glaze inside.

Parallels Date Avissar and Stern 2005: 6, Fig. 1 11th–12th cent. CE

Red, green glaze inside and on rim.

Late 12th–mid13th cent. CE

Light brown, white slip, brown paint, colorless glaze.

Avissar 1996: 91, Fig. 13: 23:1–3; Avissar and Stern 2005: 8, Fig. 2:6–8 Avissar and Stern 2005: 35–36, Fig. 13:5–8

Light brown, white slip, brown paint, turquoise glaze.

Avissar and Stern 2005: 35–36, Fig. 13:5–8

Late 11th–late 12th cent. CE

Red, point of colorless glaze inside. Light brown, white grits.

Avissar and Stern 2005: 91, Fig. 39:20 Avissar 1996: 169, Fig. 13.156:1; Avissar and Stern 2005: 105, Fig. 44:2; Stern and Thatcher 2009: 138, Fig. 3.22:9 Avissar and Stern 2005: 124, Fig. 520:1, 2 Avissar and Stern 2005: 12, Fig. 4 Avissar and Stern 2005: 12, Fig. 4 Boas 2006: 76, Fig. 5:28

Mid-12th–mid13th cent. CE 12th–13th cent. CE

2

L542

3

#30/2

4

#109/1

5

#96/1

Bowl with underglaze painting Bowl with underglaze painting Cooking pot

6

L528

Amphora

7

#5

Brown.

8

L534 #147/5 L534

Unglazed saucer lamp Monochrome glazed bowl Monochrome glazed bowl Handmade painted bowl Handmade painted bowl Handmade cooking pot handle Handmade cooking pot Handmade cooking pot Handmade painted jug with strainer Flask Flask Handmade painted jar

Yellow buff, white slip, red paint.

Buff jar Jar lid

Very light brown. Grey.

9 10 11 12

#6

13

#1

14

L534 #147/7 #2

15 16 17

#37

18

#2

19 20

#24/2

Red, white slip, green glaze inside and on rim. Red, white slip, yellow glaze inside. Light brown, white slip, red paint. Brown, white slip, red paint.

Late 11th–late 12th cent. CE

Mid-12th–13th cent. CE Mid-13th–15th cent. CE Mid-13th–15th CE Mamluk

Boas 2006: 76, Figs. 5: 27, 6:32, Mamluk 34 Mamluk Gray with white grits, white slip, Boas 2006: 76, Fig. 20:8; Dered paint. Vincenz and Sion 2007: 47, Fig. 15:12–14 Light brown, grey core. Boas 2006: 76, Fig. 20:8 Mamluk Brown. Grey, pink slip, red paint. Pink. Brown.

[165]

De Vincenz and Sion 2007: 47, Fig. 15:2 Avissar and Stern 2005: 113, Fig. 47:5, 6

Mamluk

Avissar 1996: 169, Fig. 13.157:2 Kletter and Stern 2006: 185, Fig. 15:4 Avissar and Stern 2005: 113, Fig. 48:2; Boas 2006: 76, Fig. 3:15 Boas 2006: 83, Fig. 7:41–42 Avissar 1996: 132, Fig. 13.87:6

Mamluk Mamluk

Mamluk

Mamluk 13th–15th cent. CE Mamluk

Y. M A G E N

1

3

2

4

5 6 8

0

7 1

9

10

11

14 13

12

17

16

18

15

19

20 0

5

Plate 3.

[166]

10

2

T H E C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Notes The Central Church of Beit ʿAnun was excavated in 1993 and in 1997 (License Nos. 577, 771) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen, M. Abu Sakur, and Z. Shavit. 2 Magen 1990: 275–285; Magen and Baruch 1997: 339–355; see also Magen, “The Northern Church at Beit ʿAnun,” and Magen and Baruch, “Khirbet Abu Rish,” in this volume. In 1920, some 10 m south of the church, a mosaic of geometric patterns was discovered (see IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 28; Avi-Yonah 1934: 26). 3 Magen 2001; Magen 2008a. 4 Eusebius mentioned Beth ʿAnoth, which appeared in Josh. 15:59 (Onomasticon 50:17). He did not give a precise location, but placed it in the district of Judea. Eusebius did not recognize the connection between Beth ʿAnoth and Beit ʿAnun, which was a large and prominent settlement in his day. Hieronymus, who wrote about 100 years after Eusebius, added no further details about the identification of Beth ʿAnoth. Several other sites with similar names were mentioned by Eusebius and subsequently caused some confusion concerning the identification of Beit ʿAnun. Eusebius suggested that Enaim, in Genesis 38:14, and Enam, in Josh. 15:34, were the same site, located in the Judean Shephelah on the Timnah road. He identified it with the village of Bethennim, located in the Judean Shephelah, near Elonei Mamre. He possibly meant to identify them with Beit ʿAnun, located north of Elonei Mamre. Eusebius also confused ʿAenon of the New Testament (John 3:23; Onomasticon 40:1). His misidentification of these sites caused confusion in the research. Nonetheless, various scholars realized that Beth ʿAnoth should be identified with Beit ʿAnun (Guérin 1869: 152; SWP III: 311; Albright 1925: 9; Kochavi 1972: 21). Bagatti (2002: 71–73) gives a full account of the series of mistaken identifications; and see: Thomsen 1907: 38; Alt 1925:20; Abel 1938: 267; Avi-Yonah 1976: 38; Robinson and 1

Smith 1857: 28; Guérin 1869: 151–152; SWP II: 311, 351; Mader 1918: 38–47, Able and Barrios 1929: 580–583, Pl. XIX; Ovadiah 1970: 107, no. 101; Kochavi 1972: 56–58 (Site Nos. 110, 118); Wilkinson 1977: 149, 151; Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 148 (No. 320); Avi Yonah 1984: 170; Tabula: 82. 5 Magen 2008b; 2008c. 6 Kochavi 1972: 57–58 (Site No. 118); for identification, see p. 27. 7 Frankel 2011: 32. 8 Similar bolts have been discovered in Late Roman fortresses and towers: Mt. Gerizim (Magen 2008d: 265); Deir Samʿan (Magen 2012a: 46); Deir Qalʿa (Magen and Aizik 2012: 114); Kh. el-Kiliya (Magen 2012b: 270). 9 Magen 2008e; 2008f. 10 Concerning the inscriptions found in the church, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Central Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume. 11 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 12 For a reconstruction of this inscription, see “Inscription 2,” in Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Central Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume. 13 For a full discussion on iconoclasm in the Land of Israel, see Peleg, “Iconoclasm in Churches and Synagogues in Judea,” in this volume. 14 Axes represent an important motif in the New Testament (Matt. 3:10 and Luke 3:9) and are known from other churches in the Hebron Hills; e.g., another church at Beit ʿAnun (Magen, “The Northern Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume) and ʿAnab el-Kabir (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume). 15 The church at Shiloh was probably reconstructed for the same reason; see Magen and Aharonovich 2012: 167. 16 A similar medallion, also decorated with a cross, was found at Shavei Zion (Avi-Yonah 1967: Pl. XXVIII). 17 The coins were identified by G. Bijovsky.

References Abel F.-M. 1938. Geographie de la Palestine II (Etudes Bibliques), Paris. Abel F.-M. and Barrios A. 1929. “Sculptures du sud de la Judeé,” RB 38: 580–589. Albright W.F. 1925. “Topographical Researches in Judea,” BASOR 18: 6–11. Alt A. 1925. “Die Ausflüge,” PJ 21: 9–29. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali, Yoqneʿam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172.

Avissar M. and Stern E. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 26), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” QDAP 3: 26–74. Avi-Yonah M. 1967. “The Mosaic Pavements,” in M.W. Prausnitz, Excavations at Shavei Zion, Rome, pp. 47–63. Avi-Yonah M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem.

[167]

Y. M A G E N

Avi-Yonah M. 1984. Historical Geography of Palstine. From the End of the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest, Jerusalm (Hebrew). Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev, Jerusalem. Boas A. 2006. “The Medieval Ceramics from Khirbet Kaʿkul,” ʿAtiqot 54: 75–104. Calderon R. 2000. Roman and Byzantine Pottery, in Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat HaNadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, Jerusalem, pp. 91–165. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Frankel J. 2011. “Hebron—An Islamic Sacred City (634– 1099),” Qathedra 141: 24–52 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 189). Guérin V. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée III, Paris. Hadad S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Beth Shean (Qedem Reports 4), Jerusalem. Hayes 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Johnson B. 2007. “The Pottery from the Roman Bathhouse (Area E) and Metzad ʿArugot (Area B),” in Y. Hirschfeld, En Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2000), Jerusalem, pp. 428–454. Kletter R. and Stern E. 2007. “A Mamluk-Period Site at Khirbat Burin in the Eastern Sharon,” ʿAtiqot 51: 173–214. Kochavi M. (ed.). 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Mader A.E. 1918. Altchristliche Basiliken und Lokaltraditionen in Südjudäa. Archäologische und topographische Untersuchungen (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 8 (5–6)), Paderborn. Magen Y. 1990. “A Byzantine Church at Beit ʿEinun (Beth Anoth) in the Hebron Hills,” Christian Archaeology: 275–286. Magen Y. 2001. “The Cemetery at Beit ʿAnun in the Hebron Hills,” Qadmoniot 34 (121): 53–59 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2008a. “Tombs and Burial in Beit ʿAnun in the Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 115–140. Magen Y. 2008b. “Elonei Mamre—A Cultic Site from the Reign of Herod,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 59–94. Magen Y. 2008c. “The Cave of Machpelah in the Second Temple Period,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 95–114. Magen Y. 2008d. Mount Gerizim Excavations II. A Temple City (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008e. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–216.

Magen Y. 2008f. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246. Magen Y. 2012a. “A Roman Fortress and Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Deir Samʿan,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 9–106. Magen Y. 2012b. “A Roman Fortress and A Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 261–296. Magen Y. and Aharonovich E. 2012. “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 161–208. Magen Y. and Aizik N. 2012. “Late Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Deir Qalʿa,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 107–156. Magen Y. and Baruch Y. 1997. “Khirbet Abu Rish (Beit ʿAnun),” LA 47: 339–358. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Theophaneia, Beiträge 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. Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zeʾev East A),” ʿAtiqot 38: 171–203. Robinson E. and Smith E. 1857. Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions. A Journal of Travels in the Year 1852, Boston. Stern E. and Thatcher A. 2009. The Early Islamic, Crusader, and Mamluk Pottery, (IAA Reports 42), pp. 118–175. Thomsen P. 1907. Loca Sancta. Verzeichnis der im 1. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. erwaehnten Ortschaften Palästinas, Halle. Vincenz A. de. 2007. “The Pottery,” in Y. Hirschfeld, En Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2000), Jerusalem, pp. 234–427. Vincenz A. de. and Sion O. 2007. “Two Pottery Assemblages from Khirbat el-Niʿana,” ʿAtiqot 57: 21–52. Wilkinson J. 2002. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster.

[168]

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CENTRAL CHURCH AT BEIT ʿANUN LEAH DI SEGNI

Three building stages were discerned in the church. In the first stage, the building consisted of a central nave and two aisles, preceded by a portico that functioned as a narthex. The whole complex was paved in mosaic, in which Inscriptions 1 and 2 were inserted (see below). A third inscription apparently belonging to this stage was set in the southern part of the narthex mosaic floor, in a tabula ansata, but only a remnant of the frame survived. These inscriptions were covered when the church was repaved in the third building stage, seemingly in the sixth century. After the church had existed for some time, a side room was built north of the atrium (Stage 2). Two inscriptions, nos. 3 and 4 below, were set in the mosaic floor of this room, which remained in use throughout the occupation of the church. During the third stage, the church was restructured, a side room (probably a diaconicon) was erected north of the northern aisle, and the nave, aisles and narthex were repaved, raising the floor level by 70 cm. Only one inscription (no. 5) belongs to this stage: it is located in a small room created north of the narthex.1

Inscription 1

The inscription is framed in a tabula ansata set at the western end of the mosaic floor of the central nave, in front of the main entrance. The rectangular frame consists of two rows of black tesserae alternating with two rows of white, and enclosed by an indented black border. Its length is 93 cm (153 cm including the handles), its height, 60 cm. The same type of frame encloses the triangular handles, which are decorated with a checkered pattern in black and white. The four lines of script are separated by rows of red tesserae. The characters are traced in black tesserae and belong to the square alphabet. They are tall, narrow, and beautifully regular, and though their height varies slightly from line to line (9.4 cm in l. 1, 8.1 cm in l. 2, 8.7 cm in l. 3, 10 cm in l. 4), in each line the letters are of identical height and perfectly aligned, at an identical distance from the rows of tesserae above and beneath them. The general impression is of extreme neatness and elegance, although the characters are not calligraphic. Based on the shape of the letters, as well

[169]

L. DI SEGNI

as on the lack of abbreviations, the inscription cannot be later than the late fourth–mid-fifth century. The text reads:

OEICERCOMENOC 2 EUXACQWUPER PROBATIOUTOU 4 PRECBUTEROU `O e„sercÒmenoj 2 eØx£sqw Øpr Probat…ou toà 4 presbutšrou.

completion and dedication, and those who entered it were requested to reward his efforts by giving him their prayers. The name Probatius is of Latin origin, a variant of Probatus, which means “approved.” Names with moral-religious significance were popular from the late third to the early fifth century, especially in the Latin-speaking West: among them Probatius, also spelled Probacius.4 The name seemingly went out of fashion in the beginning of the fifth century: at least several Probus, Probinus, and Probianus appear in the prosopographies of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, but no Probatus or Probatius.5

Inscription 2

He who enters, let him pray for Probatius the priest. Inscriptions containing a request for prayers are usually associated with tombs or memorial monuments, where the visitor or passer-by is asked to pray for the dead buried or commemorated there.2 However, in the dedicatory inscription of a memorial chapel, seemingly dedicated to victims of an attack against Christians in the early seventh century, the dedicator invites those who read the inscription to pray for him.3 This is probably the case in the present inscription. Rather than the church being in memory of Probatius, it is more likely that he was the priest in charge of the building at the time of its

The inscription is framed in a tabula ansata set at the western end of the mosaic floor of the southern aisle. The four lines of script are traced in black tesserae and are separated by rows of red ones. The border enclosing the tabula and handles consists of two rows of black tesserae enclosing a white strip with a running pattern of red rhombs. As in Inscription 1, the characters belong to the square alphabet and are tall, narrow, and very regular. Their height varies slightly from line to line (11.2 cm in l. 1, 10.6 cm in l. 2, 10 cm in l. 3, 11.2 cm in l. 4), but it is identical in each line, as is their distance from the upper and lower border. In l. 3 and still more in l. 4, the letters are narrower and more crowded than in the first two lines—as far

[170]

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 E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

as can be judged by the scanty remains of script, for unfortunately most of the inscription is lost. Only the right side of the tabula remains, together with its triangular handle. However, the lower corner of the left handle is preserved, so that it is possible to reconstruct the length of the tabula ansata with fair certainty: it was 179.4 cm long, including the handles, 117.5 cm without them. Its height is 62.5 cm. The surviving text reads:

2 4

- - - - - - - - - - - ỊNTHC - - - - - - - - - - - - - ỊC - - MENỌ - - - - - - - TH - - EY - - - - - ỊṆ C̣ Ṭ OAN

In ll. 1 and 2 the vertical stroke may be iota, or part of omicron, omega, or eta. The inscription is too fragmentary to be restored in its entirety. The assumed frame length leaves enough space in the first line for about 12–13 letters before the vertical stroke, a total of 16–18 letters per line, except in the last line, in which the characters appear to be squeezed, at least toward the end, and which could therefore have accommodated more letters. One would be tempted to restore in the first line [KEMNHCQHTITW]N (with or without a cross at the beginning), which is the opening formula of three other inscriptions in the church, nos. 3–5. The following group of letters is probably the feminine article in the genitive. A blessing upon the community is not unusual in sacred buildings: at the entrance of the Early Church at Shiloh an inscription invokes Christ’s pity for the village and its inhabitants,6 and in the mosaic floor of the Samaritan synagogue at Ẓ ur Nathan the village inhabitants ask to be remembered.7 Another example can be found in a fragmentary inscription from Hanitha in Upper Galilee.8 The following reading is tentatively suggested, based on the remains of letters, on the probable number of characters per line, and on common formulas:

2 4

[K(Úri)e mn»sqhti tî]n tÁj [kèmhj o„ketÒrwn] æj [eÙx£]meno[i Øpr sw]th[r(…aj) aÙtîn] ™y[»fwsan t]¾n sto£n.

[Lord, remember the inhabitants of] this [village], for [pray]ing [for their salvation] they paved the aisle with mosaics. The word swthr…aj would have had to be abbreviated at the beginning of l. 4, perhaps with a horizontal stroke across the rho, a method of truncation already in use in the third century.9 It must be stressed that the restoration above is hypothetical, except for the last words of l. 4 with the mention of the mosaic floor of the aisle, which is certain and also fits the location of the inscription. The term sto£, portico, is used to describe the aisle of a basilical building in a Greek inscription in the fourth century floor of the synagogue of Hammat Tiberias (Phase II A),10 and in Aramaic transcription in the synagogue of Chorazin, also from the fourth century.11 In later inscriptions another word, also meaning portico, is used for the aisle of a basilica: œmboloj.12

Inscription 3 After the church had been in existence for some time, a side room was built north of the atrium. Its eastern wall obliterated two of the pillars of the porticonarthex; one of the entrances of the room opened in it. The mosaic floor had a rectangular panel at its center, with a pattern of squares enclosing small crosses, and bordered by two inscriptions on the east and west. Both inscriptions were oriented to the west and could be read by people entering the room from the narthex. Inscription 3 occupies the eastern border of the carpet and is set in three lines: line 1 is 236 cm long; line 2 is 241 cm; and line 3 is 229 cm. The outer border of the panel, consisting of a row of black tesserae and a row of red, frames the inscription on three sides, while its upper edge is bounded by the first row of squares. The script is made up of a mixture of round and square characters, slightly varying in size, the average height being 8 cm. They are traced in black tesserae on a white background, and are consistent with a date in the fifth century— perhaps in the second rather than first half of it. Only the nomen sacrum is abbreviated, with a horizontal mark covering only the last letter. This mode of abbreviating a nomen sacrum, which is repeated in

[171]

L. DI SEGNI 0

20

40

0

20

40

last row of squares and the outer black and red frame. It consists of a single line 241 cm long, in the same mixture of round and square letters that characterizes Inscription 3. The size of the characters varies: from 10 cm in straight letters to 6 and even 5 cm in round ones. Besides the nomen sacrum, a second abbreviation appears in the text: the word o„konÒmou is truncated and the abbreviation is marked with an inverted S-sign, lifted above the last letter. The text opens with a cross and reads:

Inscription 5 on the same panel, is unusual: as a rule, the horizontal stroke covers the entire abbreviation.13 The text opens with a cross and reads:

+ KEMNHCQHTITWNDOULWNCOU 2 QAIMWNOCKAIIWANNOUKAIIW ANNOUTWNPRECBUTERWNAMHN L. 3 is not aligned with ll.1–2, and the placement of the white tesserae in the space gives the impression that a correction was made here: possibly, the omega was repeated at the beginning of the line, and deleted by exchanging black tesserae with white ones when the mistake was discovered.

+ KEMNHCQHTITOUDIAKONOUCALAWNOCOIKONO + K(Úri)e, mn»sqhti toà diakÒnou Calawnoj o„konÒ(mou). (cross) Lord, remember the deacon Salaon, the steward.

+ K(Úri)e mn»sqhti tîn doÚlwn soà 2 Qa…mwnoj kaˆ 'Iw£nnou kaˆ 'Iw ¦nnou tîn presbutšrwn, ¢m»n.

Salaon is certainly a Semitic name, possibly derived from the Arabic SLYW or SLY, usually transcribed in Greek as Salioj, Salaeoj, Solleoj or Sulla‹oj.16 However, an Aramaic origin cannot be excluded: the root SʾL produces Greek solutions like Saaloj, Saolaj, Salloj, Salè.17 A Salawn is known from an epitaph in St. George’s Monastery in Wadi Qelt.18 The title o„konÒmoj in ecclesiastical context applies to three different offices: the steward in charge of the revenues and property of a diocese on behalf of the bishop, the administrator of an individual church, and the steward of a monastery (in Palestine, only a hermits’ monastery or laura).19 The latter is not relevant in our case, for the church of Beit ʿAnun obviously did not belong to a laura. A diocesan steward is sometimes mentioned in building inscriptions of churches, for the bishop’s

(cross) Lord, remember Thy servants Thaimon and John and John, the priests. Amen. Thaimon is the Hellenized form of an Arabic name, TYM or TYMW, meaning “servant,” usually of a god (e.g., Thaimallos, “servant of Allah,” Thaimodousaros, “servant of Dushara,” etc.). The common Greek transcription is Qaimoj, Qemoj or Qaimhj: all these variants appear in inscriptions and papyri, especially in the Negev and in the Hauran.14 The form Qa…mwn seems to imitate the Greek name Qšmwn.15

Inscription 4 The inscription is inserted in the western border of the geometric panel described above, between the

0

20

[172]

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 C E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

financial help may have been required for the erection of ecclesiastical buildings in villages20; but this is not the case here, since the church was already in existence when this room was paved. On the other hand, the mention of at least three priests (Inscription 3) indicates that this was something more than a modest parochial church, and as such it may have had property and a steward to administer it. It is therefore likely that Salaon was the steward of the church of Beit ʿAnun itself.

Inscription 5 In the third phase of occupation, the church was restructured: a side room, probably functioning as diaconicon, was erected north of the northern aisle, and the nave, aisles and narthex were repaved, raising the floor level by 70 cm. The only inscription belonging to this phase is located in a small room created beside the narthex, between its northern end and the western wall of the supposed diaconicon. The inscription is set in a tabula ansata, 75 cm long without the handles. The left handle is broken, as well as the lower part of the tabula, with one line of script. The inscription is oriented to the north and could be read by people entering the room from the narthex. The characters are traced in black tesserae on a white background; the frame—a single row of tesserae—is also black. The letters belong to the square alphabet and are rather rough; their height varies from 4 to 6.5 cm. The

nomen sacrum is abbreviated with a long horizontal stroke, and twice a stigma is used as an abbreviation mark. The text reads:

KEMNHCSTWNPR 2 - Ẹ Ṇ EKANTSKAI ----------- K(Úri)e mn»s(qhti) tîn pr2 [os]ene(g)kant(wn) ka… -------------Lord, remember those who have offered and - - The misspelling of the participle aorist of prosfšrw, prosenšgkaj, plural prosenegkantej, without gamma, is not uncommon21; The participle of prosfšrw, in the present (prosfšrontej), first and second aorist (prosenšgkantej, prosenšgkontej), in the sense of “donors,” is common in Transjordan, while inscriptions in Western Palestine prefer the synonymous verb, karpoforšw.22 After ka…, the third line might have contained another participle, prosferÒntwn, “those who have offered and offer,” as in the pattern of karpoforhs£ntwn kaˆ karpoforoÚntwn,23 or another invocation, e.g., bo»qi aÙtoÚj, ¢m»n,24 or another object, e.g., tÁj kèmhj taÚthj, as in the pattern of kaˆ tÁj tapeinÁj pÒlewj taÚthj, “and of this humble city,” at Madaba.25

[173]

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, M. Abu Sakur, and Z. Shavit excavation (License Nos. 577, 771), see Magen, “The Central Church at Beit ʿAnun”, in this volume. 2 See, e.g., an epitaph from Jerusalem containing the formula “The reader will pray for...” followed by the name of the deceased (Thomsen 1921: 50–52, no. 98; SEG XLII: no. 1437). A similar invitation to pray for the deceased on another tombstone from Jerusalem (Thomsen 1921: 48, no. 88) was probably misinterpreted. In an epitaph from the Negev, it is the dead woman who is invited to pray for her children (Abel 1904: 269, no. 5). Epitaphs requiring prayers from passersby are not exclusive of our region; see, e.g.: IGRom IV, no. 696, an early Christian funerary epigram from Hierapolis in Phrygia; IK Sestos, no. 16 from Thracia; Lefebvre 1907: 12, no. 51 from Egypt. 3 Saller 1972: 159–168. The last lines of the inscription, with the formula `O d ¢nagignèskwn eÜxeta… mou (“He who reads, let him pray for me”), were incorrectly interpreted by Saller. In another inscription, on a lintel at the entrance of a church in Beersheva, the patron saint, St. Stephen, is asked to pray for the dedicator (Alt 1921: 14, no. 9). 4 A Flavius Aelius Victorinus, also called Probatius, was governor of Numidia between the third and fourth centuries (Jones 1971: 964). A Probatius of unknown origin was governor of Euphratensis in 359; another was probably praepositus sacri cubiculi of Emperor Jovian in 363; and a Probatus was praefectus urbis at Rome in 351 (Jones 1971: 733). A Probacius preached Christianity in Provence, perhaps in the third century (Mathon 1968), and two clergymen named Probantius are known from Africa in the fifth century (Mondouze 1982: 922). In the late third and early fourth century the names Probus and Probianus were also popular (Jones 1971: 733–741). 5 Martindale 1980: 908–914; Martindale 1992: 1058–1059. 6 See Di Segni 2012: 209. 7 The inscription was incorrectly interpreted in Magen 1993: 222–223, Mathews 1994 and Pummer 1999: 134. The corrected reading is given in SEG XLII: no. 1474: 1

Mnhstoàsin (= mnhsqîsin) Ø (= oƒ) t[o]à cwr…ou [p]£ntej Ø oÙkit éti ™k[tisan?] etc., that is, “May all the inhabitants

of this village be remembered, for they built (?)...” 8 Partial reading by Lifshitz 1970: 63; a more likely reading is suggested by Prausnitz 1961. 9 Avi-Yonah 1940: 35. 10 Dothan 1983: 60–62. The inscription is located in the eastern hall of the synagogue, which is separated from the eastern aisle of the basilical hall of the synagogue by a row of columns. It is worth noting that the characters of

this inscription are similar to those of Inscriptions 1–2 in Beit ʿAnun, though the script at Hammat Tiberias is more decorative and presents some early characteristics (small letters, especially omicron, alternating with the regular size) that are absent in Beit ʿAnun. 11 The inscription mentions a benefactor “who made the stoa and the staircase” (Naveh 1978: 36–37, no. 17). For the date of the synagogue in Chorazin, see Yeivin 1993: 302–304; 2000: 30*–31*. The Aramaic transcription of the Greek word sto£ appears in the Tosefta and in the Jerusalem Talmud (Jastrow 1950: 972). 12 For œmboloj in the sense of church aisle, see: Cohen 1980: 21–23 (= SEG XXX: no. 1690: Kissufim, 578 CE); Savignac and Abel 1905: 598, no. 6 (Jize, west of Bostra, 590 CE); Jo. Moschus, Pratum 92, PG 87, col. 2952. 13 Avi-Yonah 1940: 26–28. 14 Wuthnov 1930: 52–54; Negev 1991: 67–68, nos. 1211– 1224; 134, nos. 2144–2145. There are occurrences also in Samaria (Avi-Yonah 1946: 94, no.10) and beyond the Jordan at Kh. es-Samra (SEG XXXI: no. 1470) and in Moab (Milik 1959: 357, no. 9; SEG XLII: no. 1490). 15 This name appears in an Attic inscription of the fourth century BCE (SEG XXXV: no. 178). It is a rare name and unlikely to have been used in our inscription: it is only the Hellenic form of the name, with the ending -wn, that is imitated. 16 Wuthnov 1930: 111, 113; Negev 1991: 64, nos. 1137– 1138; 136, no. 2207; 139, no. 2632; Prausnitz 1961 (Salaeos in Galilee); Di Segni 1998: 459, note 19. Syllaeus was the minister of the Nabataean king Obodas III and Herod’s archenemy: Strabo XVI, 4, 23–24 (780–782); Jos. Ant. XVI, 220–228, 271–299; XVII, 54 ff. 17 Wuthnov 1930: 99, 103; Di Segni 1998: 461, note 56. 18 Schneider 1931: 324, no. 133. 19 On the office of o„konÒmoj, see: Meimaris 1986: 256–259; Di Segni 1998: 440. The office of steward of a bishopric was made obligatory for every diocese by Canon 26 of the Council of Chalcedon, but Justinian’s legislation deals also with o„konÒmoi of single churches or religious institutions; see, e.g., CJ 1, 3, 45. In Palestine and its vicinity, only laurae had an o„konÒmoj, while in the coenobia the task fell upon the deputy of the hegumen (deuter£rioj; Patrich 1995: 174–177). 20 A possible case is that of Alphius the deacon and church steward mentioned after the bishop and the chorepiscopus in the dedicatory inscription of the church at Ḥ . Gerarit (Di Segni 2004: 57–58). 21 See, e.g.: SEG XXXVI: no. 1352, from Kh. Futeis in the Negev; IGLS VI, no. 2888, from Heliopolis (Baalbek in Lebanon).

[174]

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 E N T R A L C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

Examples from prosfšrw at Rihab (SEG XXX: no. 1716), Gerasa (Welles 1938: 482, no. 314; 486, no. 333), Yadoudeh near Amman, Masuh, Mekhayyet, Madaba, and Mekawer (IGLS XXI, nos. 56, 57f, 97, 106, 135, 146, 177). Examples from karpoforšw: Hanita in Upper Galileee (Lifshitz 1970: 63); ʿEvron (SEG XXXVII: nos. 1511, 1518); Haditha near Lod (Avi-Yonah 1972: 120); ʿEin Samye in southern Samaria (Abel 1907); Kh. Beiyudat near Jericho (SEG XL: no. 1477); the monastery of St. George in Wadi Qelt (SEG XXXVIII: no. 1648); Jerusalem (Avi-Yonah 1955: 23); ʿEin Fattir near Beth Shemesh (SEG XLII: no. 1421); Kh. Abu Rish near Beit ʿAnun (SEG XLVII: no. 2053); Beit Shaʿar in southern Judea (SEG VIII: no. 238); Herodion (SEG XL: no. 1473); 22

Kh. ed-Deir in the Hebron Hills (SEG XXXVII: no. 1494); Nessana (Kirk and Welles 1962: 173, no. 94); northern coast of Sinai (Lifshitz 1971: 160, no.17); in Transjordan only Rihab (Piccirillo 1981: 68), Hesban and Madaba (IGLS XXI, nos. 62, 131, 143). 23 E.g., Haditha (Avi-Yonah 1972: 120), Wadi Qelt (SEG XXXVIII: no. 1648), Madaba (IGLS XXI, no. 131). At Mekhayyet (IGLS XXI, no. 106) we also have the formula prosenegkÒntwn kaˆ mellÒntwn prosenegke‹n, but the third line of our inscription is too short for that. 24 On the pattern of the inscription of Kh. Futeis (SEG XXXVI: no. 1352). 25 IGLS XXI, no. 146.

References Abel F.-M. 1904. “Chronique. Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Bersabée,” RB 13: 266–270. Abel F.-M. 1907. “Document épigraphique sur le patriarche Eustochios,” RB 16: 275–276. Alt A. 1921. Die griechischen Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia westlich der ʿAraba, Berlin–Leipzig. Avi-Yonah M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (Supplement to QDAP 9), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M.1946. “Newly Discovered Latin and Greek Inscriptions,” QDAP 12: 84–102. Avi-Yonah M.1955. “Christian Archaeology in Israel, 1948– 1954,” CNI 5, 3–4: 20–26. Avi-Yonah M. 1972. “The Haditha Mosaic Pavement,” IEJ 22: 118–122. Cohen R. 1980. “The Marvellous Mosaics of Kissufim,” BAR 6: 16–23. 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. 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 Early Northern Church at Shiloh and the Baptistery,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 209–218. Dothan M. 1983. Hammat Tiberias: Early Synagogues, Jerusalem. Jastrow M. 1950. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York. Jones A.H.M. 1971. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I, Cambridge.

Kirk G.E. and C.B. Welles 1962. “The Inscriptions,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana I, London, pp. 131–197. Lefebvre G. 1907. Recueil des inscriptions grecqueschrétiennes d’Égypte, Le Caire. Lifshitz B. 1970. “Notes d’épigraphie grecque,” ZPE 6: 57–64. Lifshitz B.1971. “Inscriptions du Sinaï et de la Palestine,” ZPE 7: 151–163. Magen I. 1993. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 193–230. Martindale J.R. 1980. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II, Cambridge. Martindale J.R. 1992. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire III, Cambridge. Mathews E. 1994. “The Mosaics of Zur Natan”, in Reports on TFAHR Excavations at: Zur Natan, Israel; Silistra, Bulgaria; and Ulanci, Macedonia (Texas Foundation for Archaeological and Historical Research), Houston, Texas, pp. 16–19. Mathon G. 1968. “Probacio,” Bibliotheca Sanctorum, Vol. X, Rome, Col. 1131. Meimaris Y.E. 1986. Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Church of Palestine, Athens. Milik J.T. 1959. “Nouvelles inscriptions sémitiques et grecques du pays de Moab,” LA 9: 330–358. Moundouze A. 1982. Prosopographie chrétienne du BasEmpire I. Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303– 533), Paris. Naveh J. 1978. On Stone and Mosaic, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Negev A. 1991. Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm (Qedem 32), Jerusalem.

[175]

L. DI SEGNI

Patrich J. 1995. Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, no. 32), Washington, D.C. Piccirillo M. 1981. Chiese e mosaici della Giordania settentrionale (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 30), Jerusalem. Prausnitz M. 1961. “Ha-knesiah ha-bizantit be-Hanita,” in E. Gil and M. Yedaaya (eds.), Maʿaravo shel Galil, Haifa, pp. 68–69 (Hebrew). Pummer R. 1999. “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” in S. Fine (ed.), Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction in the Graeco–Roman Period, London, pp. 118–160. Saller S.J. 1972. “The Byzantine Chapel Found in Bethlehem in 1962,” LA 22: 153–168.

Savignac R. and Abel F.-M. 1905. “Chronique. Inscriptions grecques et latines,” RB 14: 596–606. Schneider A.M. 1931. “Das Kloster der Thetokos zu Choziba im Wadi el Kelt,” Römische Quartalschrift 39: 297–332. Thomsen P. 1921. “Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihren nächsten Umgebung,” ZDPV 44: 1–108. Welles C.B. 1938. “The Inscriptions,” in C.H. Kraeling, Gerasa. City of the Decapolis, New Haven (Conn.), pp. 355–615. Wuthnow H. 1930. Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des vorderen Orients, Leipzig. Yeivin Z. 1993. “Chorazin,” NEAEHL I: 301–304. Yeivin Z. 2000. The Synagogue at Korazim: The 1962–1954, 1980–1987 Excavations, Jerusalem.

[176]

T H E N O R T H E R N C H U R C H AT B E I T ʿA N U N

THECHURCH NORTHERN CHURCH BEIT ªANUN A BYZANTINE AT KHIRBET A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET BEIT ªANUN AT BEITANOTH) ʿANUN (BETH (BETH ANOTH) YITZHAK MAGEN YITZHAK MAGEN The Arab settlement Beit ªAnun preserves the biblical name Beth Anoth (Josh. 15:59). The handing The Arab settlement Beit ªAnun preserves the biblidown of the original name to this day indicates that cal name Beth Anoth (Josh. 15:59). The handing the settlement was inhabited and retained its name down of the original name to this day indicates that during the Second Temple, Roman–Byzantine, and the settlement was inhabited and retained its name Islamic periods. during the Second Temple, Roman–Byzantine, and Three churches uncovered at the site so far testify Islamic periods. to a large Christian population during the Byzantine Three churches uncovered at the site so far testify period: one of them is the subject of this paper (see to a large Christian population during the Byzantine Site Map on p. ).1 The two others are located in the period: one of them is the subject of this paper (see center of Beit ªAnun and in the south of the settleSite Map on p. XIII).1 The two others are located in the ment on a slope (Kh. Abu Rish).2 center of Beit ªAnun and in the south of the settleThe church is located on a hill overlooking Beit ment on a slope (Kh. Abu Rish).2 ªAnun (map ref. IOG 16220/10807; ITM 21220/ The church is located on a hill overlooking Beit 60807). It was discovered when the foundations of a ªAnun (map ref. IOG 16220/10807; ITM 21220/ house were being dug. Unfortunately, the church 60807). It was discovered when the foundations of a was badly damaged by the digging, so that it was house were being dug. Unfortunately, the church impossible to document it completely. A large cemewas badly damaged by the digging, so that it was tery is located southwest of the church. Its rock-cut impossible to document it completely. A large cemetombs are typical of the Second Temple period, and tery is located southwest of the church. Its rock-cut according to finds discovered within, they were in tombs are typical of the Second Temple period, and use during the first and second centuries CE. The according to finds discovered within, they were in church itself was built on one of the old tombs, use during the first and second centuries CE. The which was transformed into the church crypt. church itself was built on one of the old tombs, which was transformed into the church crypt.

THE CHURCH The church measures 22.50×12.60 m and is divided THE CHURCH into two main sections: the prayer hall, measuring The church measures 22.50×12.60 m and is divided 17.80×12.60 m, and a large narthex, 12.60×4.70 m into two main sections: the prayer hall, measuring (Figs. 1–2). The prayer hall is divided into a nave, 17.80×12.60 m, and a large narthex, 12.60×4.70 m chancel and two aisles. (Figs. 1–2). The prayer hall is divided into a nave, The narthex was only partially excavated; chancel and two aisles. however its western wall can be observed between The narthex was only partially excavated; the later terraces. A probe near the church main however its western wall can be observed between entrance revealed that the narthex was paved with the later terraces. A probe near the church main colorful mosaic. entrance revealed that the narthex was paved with Three entrances led from the narthex to the colorful mosaic. Three entrances led from the narthex to the

church. Two narrow ones led to the aisles and were later blocked, probably during the Mamluk period. church. Two narrow ones led to the aisles and were The central entrance, finely built of ashlars, was later blocked, probably during the Mamluk period. 1.80 m wide and closed by two wooden doors. The central entrance, finely built of ashlars, was Ashlars and architectural elements found nearby 1.80 m wide and closed by two wooden doors. indicate a highly decorated church facade. Ashlars and architectural elements found nearby The prayer hall was divided into a nave and two indicate a highly decorated church facade. aisles, set apart by two rows of columns, and a raised The prayer hall was divided into a nave and two chancel. The few sherds found among the debris aisles, set apart by two rows of columns, and a raised dated later construction in the church to the Mamluk chancel. The few sherds found among the debris period. At that time, much of the church had dated later construction in the church to the Mamluk collapsed and most of the mosaic floors were period. At that time, much of the church had damaged. North of the northern aisle are remains of collapsed and most of the mosaic floors were walls and of a white mosaic floor, probably belongdamaged. North of the northern aisle are remains of ing to service rooms annexed to the church. The walls and of a white mosaic floor, probably belongchurch walls are poorly preserved and only the ing to service rooms annexed to the church. The southern wall and part of the eastern one could be church walls are poorly preserved and only the found, preserved to a height of 0.30–0.60 m. Built of southern wall and part of the eastern one could be ashlars, they were covered in a thick layer of white found, preserved to a height of 0.30–0.60 m. Built of plaster on the interior. Only the foundations of the ashlars, they were covered in a thick layer of white northern wall and most of the eastern one were plaster on the interior. Only the foundations of the uncovered. northern wall and most of the eastern one were The columns, fragments of which were found at uncovered. the site, stood on square bases; four of them The columns, fragments of which were found at remained in situ. The nave was separated by a row of the site, stood on square bases; four of them five columns from each of the two aisles, which remained in situ. The nave was separated by a row of were 2.20 m wide. The northern aisle was almost five columns from each of the two aisles, which completely destroyed, while the southern one was were 2.20 m wide. The northern aisle was almost well preserved, including parts of its mosaic floor completely destroyed, while the southern one was (Fig. 3). well preserved, including parts of its mosaic floor The chancel is raised above the church floor level (Fig. 3). and clearly underwent several changes (Fig. 4). A The chancel is raised above the church floor level limestone chancel screen, fragments of which were and clearly underwent several changes (Fig. 4). A found in the church ruins, enclosed the bema. Some limestone chancel screen, fragments of which were plaster remains found at the east of the church may found in the church ruins, enclosed the bema. Some have decorated the apse wall. The bema foundations plaster remains found at the east of the church may contain tesserae waste, evidence that tesserae were have decorated the apse wall. The bema foundations cut at the site. A 12 cm-thick layer of stone and contain tesserae waste, evidence that tesserae were cut at the site. A 12 cm-thick layer of stone and

[ 21 ]

[[177 21 ]]

Y. M A G E N y. M a g e n

5 m

0

Fig. Kh. ʿAnun, Beit ªAnun, general plan the church. Fig.1.1.Beit general plan of theofnorthern church.

22 ]] [[178

T HAT E R NK H CH UB RE CH ʿAUN N U N( B E T H A N O T H ) A B Y Z A N T I N E TCHHE UNROCRH IR T AT B E IBTE IªTA N

Fig. ʿAnun, northern church,view viewfrom fromthe thewest. west. Fig. 2. 2. Beit Kh. Beit ªAnun, the church,

cement lie above. The remains of a white mosaic floor were traced above this layer. In a later stage, the chancel was enlarged to the west and measured 4.83×3.10 m. The spaces between the columns were blocked by walls in their eastern part. The southern wall was exposed; it rests on the earlier mosaic floor. This wall is built of ashlars on the inner face and of roughly dressed fieldstones on the outer one. The bema was raised 0.55 m above the church floor. This layer rests on earlier mosaic floors.

MOSAIC FLOORS The church’s mosaic floors were partially preserved. A black mosaic frame was found in the narthex, in front of the nave entrance. The mosaic carpet within was absent. The nave’s mosaic floor was mostly ruined, the only remaining segment being a wide band paralleling the chancel outline. This floor is of tesserae of varying sizes and colors, the smallest of which measure 0.8 cm. The craftsmanship is excellent.

Fig. 3. The southern aisle, view from the west.

[[179 23 ]]

y. M MA ag Y. G eEnN

Fig. 4. The chancel, view from the west.

The band (Fig. 4) is decorated with a swastika pattern of alternating square panels and swastika meanders (variant of A19*)3 and is bordered by two bands containing wave patterns in shades of black and gray. It is divided into at least six equal square spaces, three of which are identical and bear a motif of four entwined swastika meanders in black, red, and ocher. Alternating with the swastika meander squares are three square sections bearing different motifs, only one of which is well preserved (Fig. 5). The motif, placed at the center of the band, consists of a rare design of a fruit with a stalk emanating from it. Its color consists of two shades of red, two of ocher, and one of green. Stripes and dots in a dark shade are scattered within it. A branch, apparently of an olive tree, appears on each side of the fruit. The southern square panel is poorly preserved, and only traces of branches, resembling those in the previous section, remain (Fig. 6). The use of multiple shades of color in this floor produces an exquisite pictorial effect. Between this band and the chancel is an expanse of white mosaic, 2.30 m wide, which led to the steps ascending to the chancel.

Fig. 5. Unidentified fruit depicted in the center of the surviving band of the nave mosaic floor.

Fig. 6. Southern panel of the surviving band of the nave mosaic floor.

[[180 24 ]]

T HAT E R NK H CH RE CH ʿAUN N U N( B E T H A N O T H ) A B Y Z A N T I N E TCHHE UNROCRH I RU B T AT B E IBTE IªTA N

The northern aisle mosaic was completely destroyed, while that in the southern one was perfectly preserved. The carpet edges are of diagonally set white tesserae and decorated with buds in black and red. The field consists of an elongated carpet with a wide frame flanked on either side by two rows of black tesserae and two of white, enclosing a guilloche of red and black tesserae. The carpet field is decorated with a grid of diamonds formed of red and black buds. At the center of each diamond is a smaller diamond, also in black and red.

Between the columns were four rectangular mosaic carpets, one perfectly preserved, the others only partially so (Fig. 7). The western intercolumnar carpet measures 1.40×0.70 m (Fig. 8). It is framed by two rows of black tesserae. This mosaic carpet is decorated with a floral grid of diamonds (H7*) in black and red, resembling those in the southern aisle’s field carpet. In its center is a medallion, 65 tesserae per sq. dm, with a rosette at its center. The colors used here are red, black, green, white, and light red.

Fig. 8. Western intercolumnar mosaic carpet of the southern row.

Fig. 7. Southern row of intercolumnar mosaic carpets.

East of the previous intercolumniation is a mosaic carpet measuring 1.50×0.73 m (Fig. 9). It is framed by two rows of black tesserae. In its center is a large lozenge, with 80 cm-long sides. It is divided into nine smaller lozenges, four filled with entwined swastikas, the other five with a pattern of concentric lozenges. The lozenge’s inner decoration is colored in red, black, ocher, white, green, and light red. At the rectangle’s four corners are double-edged axes. The axe heads are in shades of green and gray, the

[[181 25 ]]

y. M MA ag Y. GeEnN

handles made of two rows of ocher tesserae. The axe motif is widespread in Byzantine mosaic floors in the Hebron Hills.4 East of the previous intercolumniation is a less preserved mosaic carpet, 1.40 m long. Within it is a lozenge made of two rows of black tesserae. An unidentifiable design, whose colors are red, black, white, green, ocher, and pink, lies in the center of the lozenge. The easternmost mosaic carpet that survived is partially preserved (Fig. 10). Its dimensions are ca. 1.35×0.70 m. At the center is a so-called “harmony circle” design in a variety of shades (I10*). In a corner of the rectangle, a cornucopia-shaped fruit emanates from a floral motif. Despite the painstaking depiction of the fruit, its identity is unclear. The floral decoration is in green, black, and gray, while the fruit is in ocher. A similar decoration possibly occupied each corner of the rectangle. Fig. 9. Central intercolumnar mosaic carpet of the southern row.

THE CRYPT

Fig. 10. Eastern intercolumnar mosaic carpet of the southern row.

A few meters southwest of the church is a large cemetery, which extends to the top of the hill. Although most of the tombs were found open and robbed, they produced some pottery sherds and ossuary fragments. The finds are mostly dated to the first century CE. At least one tomb continued in use until the early second century. An unrobbed tomb discovered at the top of the hill yielded several richly decorated limestone ossuaries that bore Hebrew and Greek inscriptions mentioning both Jewish and Edomite names.5 Beneath the church, a rock-cut tomb was found that was similar to those found on top of the hill; it was later refitted as a crypt for the church (Fig. 11).6 The crypt has two entrances, from the south and west. The southern entrance is from outside the church walls, while the western entrance is from the narthex. Both entrances have descending steps and are connected to the central chamber through rockcut corridors. The central chamber is almost square, measuring 2.60×2.40 m. It leads to another burial chamber that includes two trough tombs with arcosolia. These were probably added during the Byzantine period, as deduced from their similarity to the Byzantine

[[182 26 ]]

T HAT E R NK H CH CT H AT ʿAUNNU N( B E T H A N O T H ) A B Y Z A N T I N E TCHHE UNROCRH I RUBR E B E IBTE Iª T AN

1

2

2

1 1-1

2-2

0

3

m

Fig. 11. The crypt, detailed plan and sections.

burials found in churches and monasteries. Small finds like those that usually appeared in burial contexts in the Byzantine period were found within (Fig. 12). Thus it follows that the tomb was restored and adapted for reburial in that period. The question arises whether the church’s location was random or designed to have the tomb at its center. The absence of buildings surrounding the

church and the latter’s erection on the hillside suggest a connection between the building of the church and the cemetery. The church was possibly erected to commemorate a tomb whose tradition of holiness was handed down from the Second Temple to Byzantine periods. This interpretation is offered tentatively, since further excavations might uncover settlement remains not obvious on the surface.

[[183 27 ]]

y. M MA ag Y. G eEnN

Fig. 12. Metal finds and beads from the Byzantine tombs in the crypt.

SUMMARY The erection date of the church at Beit ªAnun has not been determined, as most of the finds are from a later period. The excellent craftsmanship of the mosaic

pavements; the mosaic motifs and patterns; and the building methods, especially the combination of dressed stones and fieldstones; all suggest a date towards the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh century CE.

NOTES 1 The church was excavated in 1986 (License No. 412) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen with the assistance of A. el-ªAziz Rajub and Z. Shavit. 2 Concerning these churches see Magen 1990; Magen, “The Central Church Church asatBeit BeitªAnun,” ʿAnun,”and and“Khirbet Magen Abu and Rish,” Baruch, Central in “Khirbet Abu Rish,” in this volume. this volume. 3 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk.

4 The axe motif was found in mosaic floors in the central church of Beit ªAnun (Magen, “The Central Church as Beit ªAnun ,” in this volume), in the church of Kh. ¨awas (Peleg, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet ¨awas,” in this volume), and in the church of ªAnab el-Kabir (Magen, Peleg , and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Chur ch at ªAnab elKabir,” in this volume). 5 Magen 2008: 115–123, Tomb A. 6 Magen 2008: 124–126, Tomb F.

REFERENCES Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Magen Y. 1990. “A Byzantine Church at Beit ªEinûn (Beth ªAnoth) in the Hebron Hills,” Christian Archaeology: 275–286.

Magen Y. 2008. “Tombs and Burial in Beit ªAnun in the Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 115–140.

[[184 28 ]]

khirbet abu rish

KHIRBET ABU RISH YITZHAK MAGEN AND YUVAL BARUCH

Kh. Abu Rish,1 also referred to as Kh. Beit ªAnun (map ref. IOG 16278/10787; ITM 21278/60787), is situated in the east of the ªAnun Valley, northeast of Hebron, near the intersection of two ancient roads: Teqoaª–Hebron Hills and Elonei Mamre–Bani Naªim (see Site Map on p. XIII ).2 The ªAnun Valley separates the Hebron Hills from the Judean Desert, and is one of the most fertile areas in the Hebron region, with several large springs. Numerous rockcut water cisterns attest the agricultural character of the settlement there. Archaeological surveys in the valley revealed a continuum of settlement from the Chalcolithic period to the present time.3 The settled population there reached its peak in the Byzantine period, when three churches were built.4

THE SITE Excavations at Kh. Beit ªAnun, which preserves the biblical name Beth Anoth (Josh. 15:59), revealed a large structure with three building phases; a large courtyard adjacent to it to the south, with a water cistern that at some point was converted into a cellar; on the east, a large wine-pressing installation delimited by walls, and several tombs that predated the foundation of the building and countinued functioning for the duration of the building’s use; a second winepress, east of the structure; and a water cistern, about 50 m south of the courtyard (Figs. 1–3).

THE BUILDING The large building was built on a slope, directly on the bedrock, without foundations. The slope was leveled in several places with earth fill or fieldstones. Three building phases were observed, all dated to the Byzantine Period (Fig. 4). The building walls, preserved to a height of 2.10 m, are

between 0.60–1.00 m thick. From the first building phase, two rooms remain (nos. 1–2), with outer walls measuring 15.00×4.80 m, as well as an open courtyard (nos. 7–8), a water cistern, caves, and tombs. Building stones in secondary use in the second phase walls hint that the first phase building had additional rooms. It appears that in this first phase, natural caves to the north had already been fitted to serve as storage spaces. The walls of rooms 1–2 had two faces, the outer ones of ashlars with marginal drafting, the inner ones of fieldstones bound with mortar. Both sides of the wall were originally covered in plaster; however, it was only preserved on the outer face of W100 in its south. A rock-cut, plastered channel, parallel to the wall, was discovered in L4. The walls of Room 2, measuring 10.00×3.00 m, continued in use in the subsequent phases—except for W100, which was dismantled (Fig. 5). Only a few paving stone slabs of the room’s floor remained. Entrance to the room was through a door that opened into the courtyard, in the western part of W100. This is attested by a 1.40 m-wide threshold, discovered in a sounding pit dug along the course of the wall, beneath the mosaic floor level. It had an angular recess along its outer edge and sockets for door hinges. Room 1 in the west, which measured 3.40×3.40 m, had a similar threshold in the southern wall. Large water cisterns were cut in the courtyard, most probably in the first phase. In the second building phase, several rooms were added and the water cisterns were apparently used as cellars. The building was extended and received its final outer dimensions, 19.00×9.00 m. Rooms were added on the east (no. 3) and south (nos. 4–5), and the courtyard was encompassed by walls. Room 2— the large room of the first phase—was extended southwards over the debris of its original southern

[[185 3 ]]

Y. M A G E N A N D Y. B A R U C H y. M a g e n a n d y. b a r u c h

L19

2

L15

6

98.17 97.61

L4 W110

4

97.82

W100

98.32

97.62

98.18

W25

L8

100.10

3 L9

100.00 99.52

97.18

8

96.60 98.47

7 L12

L11

96.84

95.12

W21

96.67

L13

96.29 96.88

97.07

W23

96.60 96.36

95.96 96.42

9

93.42 97.33

5

0

m

1-1 W130

W70

W90 L2

L22 W40

2-2 W25

W140

W50

W110 W100 L4

Fig. 1. Kh. Abu Rish, detailed plan and sections.

4 ]] [[186

L22

1

98.69

2

97.40

97.27

97.15 95.19

99.27

98.37

97.92

97.80

W18

W32

W24

C6

97.82

96.71

96.90

98.27

L14

89.23

W140

W190 98.27

L10

W70

98.89 98.25 98.77

5

L6

98.69 99.67

L3

98.92

C5

97.12

L5

L22

W26

L16

2

W22

C4

W100

L7

98.40

97.15 96.12

C1

98.42 98.27 L2 99.00 99.36 98.38

C2 1

96.15 97.01

1

96.41

W40

96.90

W170

L17

W90

W130

95.92

C3

L1

100.20

W60

W50

W120

95.81

100.53

100.32

W80

L18

99.71

C7

W160

99.08

L20

W80

t a KkHhI iRrBbEe T AbBuU rRi sI Sh H

Fig. 2. Kh. Abu Rish, view from the east.

Fig. 3. Kh. Abu Rish, view from the northwest.

[187 [ 5 ]]

aN nd ch Y.y.MMAaGgEeNn A D y. Y. bBaArRu U CH

C7 C7

C1

2

1 C3

3

C2

5

6

C4

4

C5

8

7

C6

5

0

m

Phase I

9

Phase II Phase III

Fig. 4. Kh. Abu Rish, construction phases.

wall (W100). This room was probably adapted for use as a chapel hall; its outer dimensions were 10.00×4.60 m (Fig. 6). Five pillars and pilasters

stood along the longitudinal axis of the chapel. The stone floor of the earlier phase (L3) was completed to the east and west with a mosaic floor (100 tesserae

[[188 6 ]]

t a KkHhI iRrBbEe T AbBuU rRi sI Sh H

Fig. 5. Room 2, view from the northwest.

Fig. 6. Room 2, view from the west.

[ 7 ]] [189

aN nd uU ch Y.y.MMAaGgEeNn A D y. Y. bBaArR CH

per sq. dm), of which only a few sections survived (in L2 and L22). The mosaic floor was laid over Tomb C1 in the west of Room 2. A bema was built at the east of the room, with one step leading up to it. The bema (L22) was elevated by a foundation consisting of a layer of earth and small stones, lime, and tesserae. South of the chapel, an entrance room (no. 5) measuring 3.50×3.50 m, and a corridor (no. 4) were added. The walls of these rooms survived to a height of 2.10 m; many building stones in secondary use, including ashlars, were integrated into the walls. Column bases and fragments were discovered in the rubble fill of Room 5, along with capitals and parts of a carved frieze. Two columns bore capitals with a frieze decorated with a geometric pattern; one of the capitals was decorated with carved crosses. All these attest a sumptuous entrance, apparently built into the first phase W100.

The corridor floor (no. 4) was laid over a layer of small stones and earth. The opening leading to Room 3 is constructed of stone slabs and a doorpost over a foundation of flat stones; there is a recess in one of the doorposts. The threshold is 0.40 m above the floor. Room 3, measuring 7.20×3.10 m (Fig. 7), is identical in size to the expanded Room 1 (see below). The walls survived to a height of 1.80 m. The floors were not preserved, except for the remains of plaster leveling the rock surface—perhaps the floor foundation. Another pilaster, adjacent to the room’s eastern wall (W70), was found along the axis of the pillars and pilasters in the chapel. It was built of fragments of chalk ashlars, roughly worked stones, and fieldstones. Room 6 was an expansion of Room 1 to the south. Both rooms together measured 7.00×3.20 m. The expansion was achieved by adding walls of

Fig. 7. Room 3 and Corridor 4, view from the east.

[[190 8 ]]

KkHhI iRrBbEeTt a A bBuU rRi sI ShH

fieldstones and ashlars in secondary use, bound together with mortar. In the center of W90 the opening between Rooms 5 and 6 was preserved. The opening consisted of two finely worked doorposts; the direction of the recesses indicates that the door opened into Room 5. The remains of the early wall (W100), one course high, separated Rooms 1 and 6 into two levels, with

a height differential of 0.70 m. At the lower (southern) level, several sections of a white plaster floor survived. A mosaic floor was uncovered on the upper level of Room 1 (Fig. 8). The stratigraphic relation of the mosaic floor to W100 could not be determined because the mosaic floor margins did not survive. In the center of the white mosaic floor (81 tesserae per

Fig. 8. Rooms 1 and 6, view from the north.

[[191 9 ]]

aN nd uU ch Y.y.MMAaGgEeNn A D y. Y. bBaArR CH

Fig. 9. Room 1, the inscription.

1

2

Fig. 10. Capitals decorated with crosses, illustration.

[[192 10 ]]

t a KkHhI iRrBbEe T AbBuU rRi sI Sh H

sq. dm), an inscription was found measuring 1.00×1.00 m, and encompassed by several frames of red and black tesserae. Rows of little crosses are parallel to the bottom and sides of the inner frame. A pattern of scattered crosses decorates the mosaic floor around the inscription (Fig. 9), which reads5: Lord Jesus Christ [remember your servant…] the priest and all the pilgrims to this place (or: those who pray at this place) and those who contributed to this place. In the southwestern corner of the mosaic floor, a depression was made for collecting dirt when the floor was washed. A column base and two chalk capitals were found in the rubble on this level of the room. The capitals were carved with crosses and geometric patterns identical to those in Room 5 (Fig. 10). At this phase W21 was constructed in the courtyard area; it was preserved to a height of one course

(possibly the foundation course) and a length of ca.13 m. Both faces of the 0.80 m-thick wall were carefully built of dressed stones with fieldstone and mud interstices. The remains of a threshold were observed in this wall, 1.20 m south of the building’s southern wall (W140). A channel cut along the threshold with sockets hewn into it, attest that the door opened into the courtyard. The courtyard (no. 7), east of W21, was delimited by W22, W23 and W24 (Fig. 11). In the courtyard, the junction between W18 and the continuation of W90, created the corner of a well-constructed room or building; a channel was found next to it. The west of the courtyard is carelessly paved with rectangular stone slabs, some of which were broken. The paving stones represent the third phase of the building. They were laid on a thin bedding of up to 10 cm of earth. The floor of the second phase was reconstructed rather poorly. In the building’s third construction phase changes were minor, mostly the addition of a new massive

Fig. 11. Courtyard 7–8, view from the south.

[[193 11 ]]

nD d y. cC hH Y.y.MM AaGgEeNn Aa N Y. bBaArRuU

wall, bounding the courtyard, and another wall in the burial area. In this phase,W25, W26, and W32 were built in a slovenly manner, from different kinds of stone, in a crooked line of uneven thickness up to 1.50 m. A square platform, 1.50 m high, was now created in the courtyard’s west (W32). The floor was repaired and the broken paving stones reused, some laid over the remains of W18 and W22 of the preceding phases. A limestone column, ca. 1.8 m high, decorated with architectural elements, was discovered in the courtyard area. The water cistern and subterranean spaces (no. 9), 3.50 m deep, with an area of 30 sq. m, apparently date to the first construction phase. The cistern opening is on the bedrock level (Fig. 12). Two interconnected, rectangular troughs were cut into the bedrock, north and west of the cistern mouth. They were probably intended for cleaning the water of silt and other impurities before it flowed into the cistern. At a later phase, the cistern was adapted as a cellar. South of the cistern, a stepped court, cut into the rock, measuring 3.20×2.80 m, with walls up to

2.80 m high, and an underground system were discerned, but not excavated. Neither the installation nor its access, from Cistern 9, were excavated. Access was through a large, arched opening in the installation’s north. A niche, measuring 0.60×0.20 m, was cut in the installation’s southwestern wall. The courtyard walls were covered in several layers of white plaster. The underground passages have smoothened walls bearing traces of a thick layer of gray hydraulic plaster imbedded with many pottery fragments and gravel. Another underground element was identified about 4.00 m southeast of the cistern, but was not examined. Around the installation are poorly built walls of large fieldstones; only the lower course, set directly on the bedrock, survived.

TOMBS Several rock-cut tombs were discovered west of the original building and under its northern part. A crypt was found beneath the floor of the central room. These tombs, robbed in the past, were partially destroyed.

Fig. 12. Underground entrance to the water cistern, view from the south.

[[194 12 ]]

KkHhI iRrBbEeTt a A bBuU rRi Is ShH

Fig. 13. The stairs to Crypt C7, view from the north, illustration.

Tombs C1, C2, C3, and C5 were shaft tombs (1.50 m deep). Their burial space was rectangular: C1 (1.70×0.90 m); C2 (1.90×0.60 m); C3 (1.80×0.70 m), and C5 (1.20×0.80 m). Tomb C1 was sealed with stone slabs, as is typical of this kind of tomb. A hole found in one of the slabs covering Tomb C1 was left exposed to permit the tomb’s reopening as required. Tombs C4 and C6 are also shaft tombs, containing deep shafts of over 2.00 m, from which narrow passageways branch off. In these are small burial troughs lined with rectangular stone slabs. In the third phase, the burial area was encompassed by walls (see above) partly built over Tombs C3, C4 and C6, but still maintaining access to the tomb openings. Intersecting walls formed several spaces between the western encompassing wall and the building. Crypt C7 is cut into the soft rock beneath W50. Two rock-cut staircases—one to the west and the other to the east—descend to the tomb’s front courtyard, which measures 1.50×1.00 m. Supporting walls were built around the courtyard and staircases. The crypt was entered through a facade whose lintel

was carved with three crosses (Figs. 13–14). The doorpost and threshold have recessed edges. In the burial hall are four troughs, 0.30–0.50 m deep, in each of which the remains of one human skeleton was found.6

[[195 13 ]]

Fig. 14. Crypt C7 entrance, illustration.

nD d y. cC hH Y.y.MM AaGgEeNn Aa N Y. bBaArRuU

CAVE A rock-cut cave with two openings was discovered about 40 m north of the burial area. The southern opening (L19) was arched; the northern one, some 17 m away, was destroyed.

WINEPRESS East of the building is a rock-cut winepress that includes treading floors, a settling pit, and a collecting vat (Figs. 15–16). The ashlar-built walls, 0.60 m thick and up to 0.40 m high, which encompass the winepress, are partially preserved. At the northern

part of the winepress are two treading floors. Surface 10 is paved with a white mosaic floor that partially survived; its surviving edges were coated with white plaster containing potsherds. Surface 12, which is smaller, is also only partially preserved. Plaster remains on a bed of small stones show that this surface, too, was paved in mosaic. A thin wall, 0.30 m wide, separated the two surfaces. Treading Floor 11, measuring 1.80×1.60, was higher than the rest of the treading floors and was paved in white mosaic. Treading Floor 13, measuring 3.80×3.30 m, is covered in a white mosaic floor, in the center of which is a rock-cut pit (no. 14) measuring

10

101.15

12 15 17

17 13

99.25

11

16

17 18

99.52

14

97.46

97.90

17

98.55

98.55

99.20

0

Fig. 15. The winepress, detailed plan.

[[196 14 ]]

3 m

t a KkHhI iRrBbEe T AbBuU rRi sI Sh H

POTTERY The pottery found in two sounding pits (L7 and L22) reveals that the building dates to the early sixth century CE (Pls. 1–2). The rest of the pottery, uncovered in the rooms, courtyard, and winepress attests to continuous occupation in the sixth and seventh centuries CE. The many rooftiles found in the fill of the structure, all of them of brown clay and rectangular in form, may help in reconstructing the roofing: a clay tile gabled roof laid over wooden rafters, supported by walls and pillars. A 0.25 cm rosette imprint was found on two of the roof tiles.

SUMMARY

Fig. 16. The winepress, view from the west.

1.10×1.00 m and 0.70 m deep. Inside it was a big square stone with a square recess for supporting a wooden beam anchored in Niche 15, on the treading floor’s northern wall. A channel drained liquids from the treading floor into Collecting Vat 16. Four niches (no. 17) cut into the northern and western sides of the treading floor were paved in a poorly preserved white mosaic. A second collecting vat (no. 18), measuring 2.00×2.00 m and 0.70 m deep, is rock cut and covered in white plaster containing potsherds. The floor is of white mosaic. In its northwestern corner is a conical settling pit, its walls covered with white plaster containing potsherds.

All phases of Kh. Abu Rish date to the Byzantine period, apparently from the late fifth or early sixth century on, as attested from analysis of the pottery. The building’s construction with large, well-worked, smoothed ashlars, some with marginal drafting; the roof tiles (two with typical manufacturer signs); and the plaster containing potsherds found in the winepress—all are characteristic of the Byzantine period in the Hebron Hills. The agricultural or industrial complex built in the first phase, in the fifth century, included the large building, water cisterns, and a large improved winepress. In the second phase, perhaps with some connection to the tombs and as part of the flourishing Christian settlement in the Hebron Hills, the place became a pilgrimage site. The building was expanded and the mosaic floor with the inscription was added, attesting to the site’s sacredness. The religious and sacred nature of Kh. Abu Rish, reflected in the mosaic inscription, chapel and crypt C7, are possibly related to the tombs in the area.

[[197 15 ]]

aN nd ch Y.y.MMAaGgEeNn A D y. Y. bBaArRu U CH

Plate 1. Pottery: Open Vessels No. Location

Type

Description

1 2 3

Bowl

Reddish well-levigated ware, reddish core. Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 22:1–5) Reddish well-levigated ware, reddish core. Light brown well-levigated ware.

4

L7 L7 Courtyard 7–8 L7

5

L7

LR bowl

6

L22

7

L22

8 9 10

L22 Bowl Burial area L22

11

L22

12

Room 2

13

17

Courtyard 7–8 Room 2 Room 2 Courtyard 7–8 L22

18 19

Surface Room 1

20

Courtyard 7–8

14 15 16

Parallels

Light brown well-levigated ware.

Krater

Red well-levigated ware, red burnished slip. Rouletted decoration on outer rim. Reddish and porous ware, red slip. Rouletted decoration on outer wall below rim. Reddish well-levigated ware, red slip, burnished. Light brown porous ware, white grits. Yellowish ware, brown core. Reddish ware, white grits. Rouletted decoration on outer wall. Reddish porous ware, black grits. Traces of soot. Light brown ware, red core.

Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 17:1; Aharoni 1964: Fig. 22:13)

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 29:2)

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 31:29)

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 26:29) Similar decoration: Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 26:36–37) Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 63:5)

Brown porous ware, black grits.

Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 34:15, 17) Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 7:14)

Light brown ware, small white grits. Reddish ware, gray core, few white grits. Light brown porous ware, white grits.

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 36:19)

Brown ware, brown core, white grits. Combed decoration below rim. Base fragment. White well-levigated ware, red core. Thumb-impressed decoration and wavy incised band below it. Reddish, sandy, porous ware. Wavy combed decoration on outer face.

[[198 16 ]]

Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 22:22)

Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 20:7)

kh aB bU u rRiIsShH KH I Ri rBbEeTt A

Plate 1.

[[199 17 ]]

nD d y. cC hH Y.y.MM AaGgEeNn AaN Y. bBaArRuU

Plate 2. Pottery: Closed Vessels No. Location

Type

Description

1 2 3 4

L22 Room 1 Surface Room 1

Jar

5 6 7 8

Surface Room 1 Room 1 Room 2

Reddish, sandy, porous ware, white grits. Reddish ware, red core, brown grits. Light brown ware, red core, white grits. Light brown porous ware, brown grits. Wavy combed decoration around neck. Light brown well-levigated ware. Light brown ware, white grits. Light brown ware, white grits. Light brown porous ware.

9

Burial area

Light brown ware, black grits.

10

Courtyard 7–8 Surface

Light brown ware, red core. Combed decoration below rim. Yellowish ware, brown core. Decorated with wavy combed band bounded by two horizontal ones. Reddish, sandy, porous ware. Wavy and horizontal combed bands on body. Reddish-brown ware, brown core. Whitish, sandy, porous ware. Light brown porous ware. Reddish porous ware, black grits. Traces of soot. Reddish, sandy, porous ware, black grits. Reddish porous ware, brown core, black grits. Reddish porous ware, black grits. Reddish ware. Decorated with impressed rosette.

11

12 13 14 15 16

Courtyard 7–8 Burial area Jug Burial area Burial area Juglet Burial area Cooking pot

17 18

Burial area L12

19 20

L12 Room 2

Lid Roof tile

Parallels

[[200 18 ]]

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 33:1) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 30:37) Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 9:3)

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 31:5–7) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 27:12) Tell Farah (Tubb 1986: Figs. 3–4, 5:1–2, 7–10) Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 4:7); Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 32:25) Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 9:2)

Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 7:25)

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 30:37) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 2:2)

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 28:31)

t a hH KkHhI iRrBbEe T AbBuU rRi sI S

Plate 2.

[[201 19 ]]

aN nd uU ch Y.y.MMAaGgEeNn A D y. Y. bBaArR CH

NOTES 1 The site was excavated in 1990 and 1992 (License No. 544) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen and Y. Baruch. 2 About this area, see Hirschfeld 1979. 3 Kochavi 1972: 56–58. 4 4 See See Magen Magen and and Baruch Baruch1997a; 1997a;1997b; 1997b;See SeeMagen, Magen,“The “A Byazntine Church at Khirbet Beit ªAnun (Beth Anoth),” and

Northern Church at Beit Central Church at “The Central Church of ʿAnun,” Khirbet and Beit“The ªAnun in The Hebron Beit ʿAnun,” this volume Hills,” in thisinvolume. 5 Tzaferis 1997. 6 This tomb, like the others, was robbed and the skeletal material disturbed. The number of skeletons is estimated to be at least six. They were buried as soon as they were discovered, and thus could not be subject to anthropological examination.

REFERENCES Aharoni Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Ra¢el. Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome. Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Ra¢el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome. Hayes J. W. 1985. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto, pp. 181–194. Hirschfeld Y. 1979. “A Line of Byzantine Forts Along the Eastern Highway of the Hebron Hills,” Qadmoniot 12 (46–47): 78–84 (Hebrew). Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan.

Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. and Baruch Y. 1997a. “Khirbet Abu Rish,” ªAtiqot 32: 135–146 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 46*). Magen Y. and Baruch Y. 1997b. “Khirbet Abu Rish (Beit ªAnun),” LA 47: 339–358. Tzaferis V. 1997. “Appendix: The Greek Inscription from Kh. Abu Rish,” LA 67:55–58. Tubb J.N. 1986. “The Pottery from a Byzantine Well near Tell Fara,” PEQ 118: 51–65. Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto.

[[202 20 ]]

A ROMAN TOWER AND A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT QAṢR KHALIFE YITZHAK MAGEN

Qaṣr Khalife is a site located south of the village of esh-Shiukh (map ref. IOG 16420/10840; ITM 21420/60840), on the route that branches off from the main road between Hebron and esh-Shiukh and passes below the site of Ras et-Tawil (see Site Map on p. XIII). From Qaṣr Khalife, this route proceeds northeast to Rujm el-Qaṣr and Kh. ez-Zaafran, finally joining the main road connecting Ḥalḥul, Siir, and Teqoa. The site is surrounded by fertile land on which olive groves and vineyards have been cultivated until today (Fig. 1). The excavation was held following the planning of the Ḥalḥul bypass road.1 The site consists of two parts that were neither related to one another, nor in simultaneous use. Alongside the road is a square fieldstone tower, dating

to the Second Temple period. Known as Qaṣr Khalife, it lent its name to the entire site.2 Some 80 m to its east, are Second Temple period caves, above which a building and an adjacent tower were erected in the fourth or fifth century CE. During the sixth century, a monastery was built that incorporated the structures of the previous phase.

The Roman-Byzantine Compound The compound, 31×21 m, is encompassed by a large wall, carelessly built. Various structures were discovered at the site. Not built according to an overall architectural plan, they do not necessarily relate to one another (Figs. 2–3). They were built

Fig. 1. Qaṣr Khalife, with the olive groves of Ras et-Tawil in the background, view from the north.

[203]

Y. M A G E N

98.49

98.58

99.04

98.32

99.69 98.24

98.87

L14

L13

L12

96.51

99.45

97.16 98.03

99.81 98.96 98.72

98.67 96.72

L11

98.69

98.81

L1

98.63 98.99

L9

99.25

99.64 99.81

98.74

98.51

98.69

99.25

98.72

L2

99.69

98.89

98.75

99.74

98.98

98.73

L10

L3 98.57 99.74

99.35

100.00

98.66 99.40 99.08 98.80

99.54

L6

L7

98.50

98.84

99.99

98.82

L15 L8

99.37

L4

L5

99.72

98.84

99.61 98.78

99.03 99.49 99.68

99.40

L22

99.14

99.39 97.93

99.24

97.88

99.16

L20 99.39

99.58

L17

97.61

L21

98.78

98.74 99.56

98.19 98.84

L18

99.15 99.54

L16 L19

99.60 99.55

99.75

99.12

99.55

0

Fig. 2. Qaṣr Khalife, detailed plan.

[204]

5 m

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

III BuildingBuilding III

I BuildingBuilding I

II BuildingBuilding II

IV BuildingBuilding IV

0

Fig. 3. Qaṣr Khalife, general plan.

[205]

0

5

m

5

m

Y. M A G E N

in different periods and several of them underwent numerous changes through time (Fig. 4). Two main construction phases were discerned. The first phase, from the late fourth to the early fifth century CE, included a few structures: part of a military facility, intended to control the use of the natural caves beneath the site, as well as to guard the road. In the second phase, the sixth to early seventh century CE, a monastery was established at the site (Fig. 5).3 In the first phase Building I, the main structure, situated to the southeast, and part of Building II adjoining it, were erected.4 A cistern located in the courtyard is also dated to this phase. In the second phase, the site was surrounded by a defensive wall that was carelessly built of fieldstones. Building III was erected next to the compound entrance, and Building IV, consisting of an improved winepress adjoined by a stable. Alterations were also undertaken in the first phase buildings.

The compound entrance was through the northern wall. The route to the compound entrance apparently traversed the vineyards and was therefore marked by two-stone walls that served as terraces (Fig. 6). Outside the compound, in front of the entrance, a large courtyard was hewn into the bedrock. The entrance, 1.20 m wide, was closed by means of a wooden door (Fig. 7). It led into a small oblong courtyard, partially hewn into the bedrock and partially paved with irregular flagstones (L15). West of the entrance, a staircase descended to Cave L8 (Fig. 8).

Building I In the southeastern corner of the compound, Building I, 12.50×7.50 m, is divided into three sections: a central hall (L1), a vestibule (L2), and a narrow corridor (L3). North of the building is a large courtyard 10×8 m (L14), hewn into the bedrock. The building’s southern and eastern walls were incorporated into the Byzantine wall raised around

Fig. 4. Qaṣr Khalife, view from the north.

[206]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

Fourth–Fifth Century CE Sixth–Seventh Century CE Fig. 5. Qaṣr Khalife, main construction phases.

[207]

0

5

m

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 6. Qaṣr Khalife, the road leading to the site from the north. Note the two retaining walls demarking it, view from the south.

Fig. 7. Main compound entrance, in the northern wall.

the compound. These walls, 0.70 m thick, were set into foundation channels hewn into the bedrock. The walls consisted of two faces. The outer face was of large hard limestone ashlars quarried at the site; they are 0.90 m long and up to 0.60 m high. The spaces between the stones were filled with cement and sand. The inner face comprised a fill of stones and mortar coated with a layer of white plaster. The

ashlars in the outer face of the walls in Hall L1 were smooth, while those of the vestibule (L2) featured a prominent boss. Although the walls of L2 abut those of L1, this was only a technical difference (Fig. 9). The entrances were narrow, and the doorposts were comprised of large stones into which bolts were inserted. All this suggests that the building’s purpose was defensive. Two entrances leading to the hall were established in the first phase: one, from the central courtyard in the north, was 0.80 m wide, with large dressed ashlar doorposts with bolts (Figs. 10–11). The other, 0.70 m wide, also had a doorposts with bolts, led from Vestibule L2 in the west (Fig. 12). The central hall (L1), almost square in plan, measures 6.30×6.10 m. It was built of large smooth ashlars coated with a thick layer of white plaster (Fig. 13). The hall ceiling was supported by two arches, north-south in orientation and borne by pillars. These arches apparently date to the first stage of construction. The floor was paved in a white mosaic of large tesserae (1.5 sq. cm). A large cross, 1.50×1.15 m,

[208]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

Fig. 8. The inner courtyard, to which the main compound entrance led. On the left, the staircase descending to cave L8; on the right, Building II, view from the west.

Fig. 9. Building I, southern wall, view from the south. The walls are founded on the bedrock. Note the difference between the building stones of the Hall L1 and those of the vestibule L2.

[209]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 10. Northern entrance to L1, view from the north.

Fig. 11. Northern entrance to L1, view from the south from inside the hall. Note the bolt sockets.

[210]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

Fig. 12. Hall L1, western entrance, view from the east.

Fig. 13. Hall L1, view from the east. On the right is the northern entrance, and across is the western one.

[211]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 14. Hall L1, cross at the center of the mosaic floor.

of red and black tesserae, was in the middle of the mosaic floor (Fig. 14). A section of mosaic paved with red and white tesserae was found abutting the eastern wall; an altar possibly once stood there. Remains of a mosaic decorated with red tesserae were discerned in the south of the room. It was impossible to determine whether the mosaic floor was laid in the first or second phase. However changes were clearly made in the mosaic floor during the second phase, when the hall was converted into an extemporary chapel. The colored segments and the cross were apparently integrated into the existing mosaic floor. A chapel devoid of the formal components of a church building, e.g., a bema, an apse, etc., is also present at the site Rujm Jureida.5 The room west of the hall (L2–L3) measured 6.20×3.75 m. It was erected after Hall L1, but during the same stage of construction. Its outer face consisted of relatively small ashlars with a prominent boss (Fig. 15). In the east, the room was paved in white mosaic resembling that in the hall, while in the west it was paved in irregular stone slabs (Fig. 16). In the first phase, access to the room was provided only through L1. Two pillars supporting arches east–west in orientation stood on either side of the entrance. The

Fig. 15. Southern wall of L2, view from the south.

[212]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

Fig. 16. L2, view from the east.

Fig. 17. Northern entrance to the vestibule (L2–L3).

[213]

Y. M A G E N

pillars in the west were not found, but were plausibly removed in the second phase, when the floor was paved in stone slabs. With the establishment of a monastery in the second phase, a 1.00 m-wide entrance was created in the northern wall (Fig. 17). At a later stage during the same period, a wall traversing the room, as well as a narrow staircase to the second floor, were built (Fig. 18). The traversing wall created a narrow corridor (L3) and an entrance, 0.70 m wide, connecting it with L2. The wall, entrance, and staircase, rest on the mosaic floor, covering part of a cross that had been integrated into the mosaic floor during an earlier stage of this same period.

Building II

Fig. 18. Vestibule, staircase leading to the second story.

Building II, northwest of Building I, is almost square, measuring 8.00×7.60 m, and was apparently erected in the first phase. It was divided into three rooms. Part of the eastern wall is missing, making it impossible to determine whether there was an opening to the courtyard (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19. Building II, view from the northwest.

[214]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

The building walls were constructed of two faces. The outer face was composed of large ashlars of hard limestone, crudely dressed like those in Hall L1 of Building I. The inner face consisted of small fieldstones bound by mortar. The walls varied between 0.7–0.9 m in thickness. As no roof-supporting arches were found, it can be assumed that the rooms were covered with wooden beams. Access to the building was afforded from the north into the western room (L4–L5) via an entrance, 0.90 m wide. The area in front of the opening was paved in irregular stone slabs. The entrance was closed by a double mechanism consisting of a wooden door and a rolling stone. The western doorpost was of a massive stone with a hewn slit, 0.40 m wide, into which the rolling stone was incorporated (Fig. 20). On the inner side of the entrance, a flat limestone channel on which the rolling stone moved, demarked by two walls, was found (Fig. 21). The rolling stone was not recovered; however, its dimensions are estimated to be 2.20 m in diameter and 0.35 m thick. Rolling stones at tower or monastery entrances were common at the fringes of the Hebron Hills during the Byzantine period.6 Room L4–L5, measuring 5.50×2.20 m, had a floor partially

Fig. 21. Building II, entrance, the rolling-stone channel demarked by two walls.

Fig. 20. Building II, entrance, view from the north. Note the rolling-stone channel.

[215]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 22. Building II, view from the east.

hewn into the bedrock and partially paved in irregular stone slabs. An opening led from Room L4–L5 to Room L7, which was oblong in plan, 4.00×2.00 m, and paved in irregular stone slabs. Another opening led from Room L7 into Room L6, which was almost square, 4.00×3.50 m, and partially paved in irregular stone slabs; the rest of the floor consisting of bedrock (Fig. 22). We interpret the building as a tower established in the first phase. The absence of doors between rooms and the indirect entrance into the central room (L6) are characteristic of fortified sites from this period. The rolling stone was apparently added at a later phase, with the founding of the monastery.

Building III Located east of the compound’s main entrance, Building III consisted of two small rooms adjacent to the compound’s northern wall (Fig. 23). The rooms, built of fieldstone, with floors hewn in the bedrock, opened onto a courtyard to the south. This building was erected during the compound’s Byzantine

phase. The purpose of the rooms is unclear. They may have served as storage rooms or monks’ cells, or possibly as stables at a later stage. The western room (L10) measured 2.70×2.50 m. Its western wall was adjoined along its eastern face by another wall, which conceivably served as a feeding trough. East of this room was Room L11, 3.30×2.20 m, which was adjoined by another small room (L12). Near this room was a rock-hewn unplastered pool (L13), 3.30×1.70 m, with narrow steps descending into it in its north (Fig. 24). The pool’s function is unclear. South of Rooms L10–L11 was a large cistern (L9) coated with two layers of plaster: a light-colored layer beneath another of reddish hue. The cistern was apparently initially hewn in the first phase, and replastered when the monastery was built.

Building IV—Winepress In the northwestern corner of the compound, Building IV comprised an improved winepress, 7.00×6.50 m, built on two levels (Fig. 25). Adjacent to it from the north is an elongated room that served as a storeroom

[216]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

Fig. 23. Building III, view from the east.

or stable. The winepress’s main treading floor on the lower level (L16) was paved in white mosaic. A collecting vat (L17), located in the east of the floor, measuring 1.50×1.50 m and 0.60 m deep, was also paved in white mosaic (Fig. 26). West of the vat was a device for additional pressing of the grape skins. South of the main treading floor were two elevated treading floors (L18 and L19; Fig. 27), also paved

in white mosaic and each having a small plastered collecting vat. Winepresses of this type were characteristic of the Byzantine period, and the present example was installed as part of the monastery during the compound’s second phase.7 As mentioned above, north of the winepress was an oblong room paved in irregular stone slabs (L20). The room, 7.50×3.50 m, probably served as a stable or storeroom. An additional wall, whose function is unclear, extended along its southern wall. It may have been the base of a drinking or feeding trough, but might possibly also have served to buttress the wall. Adjoining the northern wall was a cistern opening (L21).

Cave

Fig. 24. Pool, L13.

The northern, natural cave (L8), 8.00×7.50 m, had partially collapsed. The area’s inhabitants apparently made use of the cave in later periods (Figs. 28–29). Access to it was afforded by a staircase hewn into the bedrock near the compound’s main opening (Fig. 30). Building II was erected above it. The absence of residential rooms

[217]

Y. M A G E N

Fig. 25. Building IV, improved winepress of the monastery.

Second Temple Tower The tower, 8.00×8.00 m, is built of fieldstones gathered in the vicinity (Fig. 31). Its outer walls were ca. 1.10 m thick, its center traversed by a wall consisting of a row of roof-supporting pillars (Figs. 32–33). The floor was partially hewn into the bedrock and partially paved in irregular fieldstones. A few sherds from the Second Temple period were retrieved from inside the tower. As stated above, the tower is not connected with the Late RomanByzantine compound. Fig. 26. Collecting vat, paved in white mosaic floor.

in the monastery and early farmhouse suggests that the monks dwelled in the cave. This cave was possibly already in use in the Second Temple period, and a tower (see below) was built west of it to protect it and the nearby road.

Summary The site was occupied from the Second Temple period. Two main building phases were discerned: the fourth and early fifth century CE and the sixth to seventh centuries.

[218]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

Fig. 27. Elevated treading floors south of the main treading floor.

Fig. 28. Cave L8.

[219]

Y. M A G E N

3

2

2

1 1

3 1-1

2-2

Fig. 30. Staircase descending to Cave L8.

3-3

0

Fig. 29. Cave L8, detailed plan and sections.

3

m

During the Second Temple period the caves may have been occupied by Jews who fled Jerusalem or Judea in the aftermath of the Great Revolt––a phenomenon widely observed in the Hebron Hills.8 The few ceramic vessels from this period retrieved from the compound probably originated in the later clearance of the caves, and the few sherds found in the western tower suggest that this occupation was brief. It is arguable that the tower on the main road was built to protect the caves’ inhabitants, although there may have been no connection between them. In the fourth and fifth centuries, Buildings I and II were constructed over a cave. Judging by the scarcity of pottery deriving from this period, one can infer a limited military presence, possibly cavalry patrols. Four coins dating to this period were found: one dates to 395–408 CE, another to the fifth century, and two were unidentifiable. The main evidence for the date of this phase is afforded by the architecture. Buildings

[220]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

102.58

101.58

Fig. 32. Second Temple tower west of the compound, view from the west. 102.81

0

3 m

Fig. 31. Second Temple tower west of the compound, detailed plan.

I and II were ashlar built, following the Late Roman tradition and characteristic of towers and fortresses in the southern Hebron Hills. The installation of massive defensive provisions in the openings, such as bolts, rolling stones, etc., suggests that these structures served a military purpose. They served as barracks for soldiers whose purpose was to thwart occupation of the caves by unwelcome elements like Saracens, who had begun infiltrating the region during this period. The dearth of finds indicates that the soldiers’ presence was of short duration. The compound was not occupied continuously, and only later, in the sixth century CE, was the monastery erected. The monastery was only a small laura occupied by a few monks dwelling in the caves. Although a church is the most important edifice for any Christian community or convent, none was established on the site, owing to poor resources and the paucity of monks. The inhabitants merely transformed one of the rooms into a chapel, incorporating a large cross

Fig. 33. A row of pillars supporting the tower roof.

into the mosaic floor. It is to this stage that Buildings III and IV, as well as the compound’s defensive wall linking the various structures, should be ascribed. The monks tended vineyards for the production of wine, and the wine jars were stored in the caves. The compound was abandoned at the end of the Byzantine period. Unlike many other sites in the Hebron Hills, it did not remain in use during the Early Islamic period. It would appear that this small Christian community was unable to defend itself, and with the Arab conquest either left the region entirely or joined one of the larger Christian communities in the area.

[221]

Y. M A G E N

Plate 1. Pottery Vessels No.

Type

Description

Parallels

1

LRC bowl

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:6/8.

Hayes 1972: 325, Form Ia

2

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:6/8.

Hayes 1972: 330, Form IIIc

3

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:6/6.

Hayes 1972: 334, Form IIIf

4

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/8.

Hayes 1972: 344, Form Xc

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 194, Form 1a:4)

6

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 200, Form 2c)

7

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/4.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 199–200, Form 2c–d)

5

FWB bowl

8

Rouletted bowl

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 206, Arched rim basins, Form 2a)

9

Arched-rim basin

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 204–205, Form 1)

10

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 206, Form 2a)

11

Pale brown ware 10YR:6/3, pale yellow slip 2.5YR:8/2.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 207, Form 2a)

12

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/8, yellow slip 10YR:7/4.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 207, Form 2a)

13

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, yellow slip 2.5YR:8/3.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 209, Form 3); el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: 110, Fig. 19:1)

14

Incurved-rim basin Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, gray core.

[222]

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 210)

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

1

2

3

4

5 7

6

9 8

10

11

12

13

14 Plate 1.

[223]

Y. M A G E N

Plate 2. Pottery Vessels No.

Type

Description

Parallels

1

Storage jar

Pale yellowish-brown ware 10YR:6/4.

Herodium (Loffreda 1996: 25–30, Figs. 1:6,13; 3:37, Anfore Group 1)

2

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 225, Form 4c)

3

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 226, Form 5a)

4

Pale yellowish-brown ware 10YR:6/4.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 228–230, Form 6a–b)

5

Brown ware 7.5YR:5/4.

Rehovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal Heginbottom 1988: 86, Form 3, Pl. II: 96, 115); el Bireh (Avissar 1997: 114, Fig. 5:2)

6

Pale brown ware 10YR:7/4.

Yokneam (Avissar 1996: 149, Fig. 114:5, Form 4)

7

Pale reddish-brown ware 7.5YR:6/3, pale yellow slip. Yokneam (Avissar 1996: 150, Fig. 115:2–4, Form 4)

8 9

FBW jug

10 11

Flask

12

Pale reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 238, 1–2, Form 1b)

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 239, 1–2, Form 1c)

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 241, Form 2b)

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/8.

Mount Nebo (Bagatti 1985: Fig. 18:7); Herodium (Loffreda 1996: 65, Fig. 25:3 Group 31)

Pale brown ware 7.5YR:6/4.

Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: 34, Type A10); Herodium (Loffreda 1996: 65, Fig. 25:2 Group 31)

13

jug

Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/6.

14

jug base

Pale brown ware 10YR:6/3.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 246, Form 6b)

15

jug

Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4.

Mount Nebo (Bagatti 1985: Fig. 18:9a); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 243, Form 2a)

16

Casserole lid

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 215)

18

Casserole

Reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/4.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, 12–13, Form 1)

19

Globular cooking pot

Reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/4.

Rehovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: 91, Form 1c, Pl. IV:197)

20

Cooking pot

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:4/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 220, Form 4c)

21

Large candlestick lamp

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:6/8.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252–253, Form 3)

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:7/6.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252, Form 3a)

17

22

[224]

A R O M A N T O W E R A N D A B Y Z A N T I N E M O N A S T E R Y AT Q A Ṣ R K H A L I F E

1

3

2

4

5

7

6

10

11

13

12

9

8

14 15

19

16

17

18

20

21 22 Plate 2.

[225]

Y. M A G E N

Notes Qaṣr Khalife was excavated in 1995–1996 (License Nos. 726, 743) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen, with the assistance of A. el-ʿAziz Rajub, A. Aronshtam, and Y. Peleg. 2 Kochavi 1972: 56 (Site No. 112). 3 Note that most towers and later, monasteries, built in the eastern and southern desert fringe of the Hebron Hills and southern Samaria were built above caves; see Magen 2008a: 220–222; 237–241. 1

Magen 2008a: 237–241. See Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Rujm Jureida,” in this volume. 6 Tal 1997. 7 See winepress at Mt. Gerizim (Magen 2008b: 270, Figs. 375–376). 8 See Qumran discussion (Magen and Peleg 2008: 414–418). 4 5

References Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery of Khirbet el Bireh,” in Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai, and J. Schwartz, Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat-Gan, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Bagatti B. 1985. “Nouva ceramic del Monte Nebo,” LA 35: 249–278. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Kochavi M. (ed.). 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Loffreda S. 1974. Cafarnao II: La ceramica (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 19:2), Jerusalem. Loffreda S. 1996. La ceramica di Macheronte e dell’Herodion (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 39), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008a. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246.

Magen Y. 2008b. Mount Gerizim Excavations II. A Temple City (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. and Peleg Y. 2008. “The Qumran Excavations 1993–2004. Preliminary Report,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 353–426. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Rosenthal Heginbottom R. 1988. “The Pottery,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot in the Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 78–96. Tal N. 1997. “Rolling Stones—Evidence of Insecurity during the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting—1996, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 271–290 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XXXV).

[226]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT k hirbet Ṭ a wa s

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET ¨AWAS YUVAL PELEG

Kh. is located located on on the the western western slopes slopes of of the the Kh. Ṭawas ¨awas is Hebron Mountains onsloping a spur gently sloping gently from Hebron Hills on a spur from northeast northeast to southwest, 450 sea m above level to southwest, 450 m above level sea (map ref. (map IOG ref. IOG 14598/09925; ITM 19598/59925). It lies ca. 14598/09925; ITM 19598/59925).1 It lies 1ca. 1 km 1northeast km northeast the village of el-Majd 2.5 of theofvillage of el-Majd and and somesome 2.5 km km south of village the village of Beit Kh. ªAwwa Beit ʿAwwa (seeMap Site south of the of Kh. (see Site Map XIII). site,has which has suffered much site,The which suffered much destrucon p. on **).p.The destruction over the years and was further damaged tion over the years and was further damaged by by antiquity robbers, containsremnants remnantsof of buildings buildings antiquity robbers, contains and numerous caves. caves. It It was was surveyed surveyed several several times times and numerous in the nineteenth nineteenth and and twentieth twentieth centuries.2 centuries.2 All the in the All the surveys church building building on on the the site’s site’s surveys mention mention the the church southeastern now been been partially partially southeastern edge, edge, which which has has now excavated. excavated.

THE CHURCH The church is basilica shaped with a central apse protruding to the east. Its overall length (including the atrium and narthex) is 33.80 m, its width, 12.10 m (Figs. 1–2). The atrium was not excavated; however, its northern wall (W209) and part of its western wall (W210) can be observed. West of the atrium’s western wall and adjacent to it, a parallel wall was found whose nature remains unknown. Remnants of a rough, white mosaic floor west of this wall may belong to rooms located west and south of the atrium, which were part of the church complex. A sounding along the width of the presumed narthex failed to uncover its western wall, leaving its dimensions unknown; nor indeed can we be certain of its very existence.3 However, the sounding did reveal the foundation of a mosaic floor that did not survive. The foundation consists of small fieldstones and bonding material, 3 cm lower than the level of the threshold stone of the main entrance leading from the presumed narthex into the nave. In the

sounding, a keystone was found, 60×45×50 cm, engraved with a circle, 27 cm in diameter, containing a cross (Fig. 3). The internal dimensions of the prayer hall are 13.20×10.50 m. The northern wall (W200) is 0.75 m thick, its exterior face made of ashlars, some with marginal drafting, its interior face made of small fieldstones. This wall survived to a height of five courses (2.31 m). The continuation of this wall to the west (W209) clearly formed a corner with the western wall of the prayer hall (Fig. 4). The foundations of both these walls were hewn into the bedrock. The wall that encloses the prayer hall from the west (W202) separates it from the presumed narthex and the atrium. This wall, 0.60–0.80 m wide, has an exterior face of ashlars and an interior one of fieldstones on which traces of white plaster remain. The wall survived to a height of three courses (1.90 m). Three entrances in the wall were discerned: a wide main entrance leading into the nave and two narrower ones leading into the aisles. The main entrance (Fig. 5), 1.18 m wide, has survived to a height of three courses (1.84 m). It has a threshold with a square socket on each side and a socket in the center, indicating that the entrance had a double-winged door. A stone lintel, 1.80×0.60 m, found near the main entrance, probably belonged to it. It is decorated with a carved circle, 0.39 m in diameter, containing a Maltese cross in its center; and to the right a schematic palm tree is engraved (Fig. 6). The northern entrance, 0.85 m wide, survived to a height of three courses and its threshold indicates that it too had a double-winged door. Only the northern doorpost of the southern entrance survived, but it can be assumed that its dimensions were identical to those of the northern one. The wall enclosing the prayer hall from the south (W201) is 0.90 m thick and has survived to a height

[[227 53 ]]

Y. P E L E G y. P e l e g

475.88

476.79

476.73

W203

W203

W213

475.70

475.41

L1 L9

L4

L12 475.76

475.35

475.55

W201

W212 W205

476.98

L2 L8

L7 L15

W204

W200

475.38

L11

475.36

476.37 475.39

475.75

L6 L14

L13

L3 L10

475.55

W208

W202 475.55

475.39

476.45

W207

475.55

477.45

L16

W209

L5

477.68

W210

0

Fig. 1. Kh. ¨awas, detailed plan of the church.

54 ]] [[228

105 m m

A YBZYAZ N AT N ITN I NEE CCHHUU R RC CH Ṭ a¨wa s S A B H AT AT kKhirbet HIRBET A WA

Fig. 2. Kh. ¨awas, view from the west.

of two courses (0.75 m). Like the other walls, it has two faces. In the western part of the wall, both doorposts of a 0.90 m-wide entrance were uncovered. This entrance led to an annex wing containing several rooms that were not excavated. Colonnades separated the nave from the aisles on either side. Each row consisted of four columns and two pilasters, one attached to W202 on the west, and

Fig. 3. Keystone containing a cross.

another attached to W203 on the east. The column bases, each measuring 0.60×0.60 m, stood on a stone stylobate, except for the westernmost base of each row, which was separated from the adjacent pilaster by a mosaic carpet. The stone pilasters on the west measure 0.60×0.50 m, those on the east, 0.65×0.35 m. Parts of shafts, bases, and capitals were found throughout the building, some in secondary use. Only one base in the southern colonnade was found in situ. The shafts, 0.55 m in diameter and 2.60 m high, were placed on well-carved bases and crowned with decorated capitals. The height of the columns, including bases and capitals, appears to have been some 3.50 m. One capital with dimensions of 0.61×0.45×0.56 m, found lying on top of the western pilaster of the northern colonnade, appears to be a variant of an Ionian capital (Fig. 7).4 The nave, 10.50 m long and 4.80 m wide, is paved with a colorful mosaic floor (see below). In its

[[229 55 ]]

y. PP E e lL eEgG Y.

Fig. 4. Northwestern corner of the prayer hall, view from the north.

Fig. 5. Main entrance to the nave, view from the east.

southwestern corner, next to the narthex wall and the western pilaster of the southern colonnade, a 0.12 mdeep depression, 0.35 m in diameter, was made in the floor for collecting the dirt when the floor was washed. The northern aisle, 13.15 m long and 2.20 m wide, is completely paved in mosaic that reaches the northern, eastern, and western walls and the stylobate separating the aisle from the nave. The southern aisle, 2.10–2.25 m wide and 13.30 m long, is poorly preserved and no mosaic floor was found. The chancel ends in an apse with an interior diameter of 3.60 m, and continues another 2.75 m into the nave, up to the line of the easternmost column of the colonnades; the total length of the chancel is 4.85 m, its floor level being 0.45 m higher than that of the prayer hall floor (Fig. 8). Two ashlar steps separate the chancel and nave. The bottom step is 0.20 m high and 0.20 m wide, the upper one, 0.21 m high and 0.50 m wide. Along the upper step, a 7 cm-wide channel for affixing a marble chancel screen was cut. An 80 cmlong discontinuance of this channel indicates there was an opening in the screen between the chancel and nave. [[230 56 ]]

A B H AT AT kKhirbet HIRBET A WA A YBZYAZ N AT N ITNI NEE CCHHUU R RC CH Ṭ a¨wa s S

Fig. 6. Lintel with cross decoration.

Only the chancel floor bed was preserved, with a few limestone slabs remaining. A probe conducted in the northern part of the chancel unearthed a wall

Fig. 7. Variant of an Ionian capital found on top of the western pilaster of the northern colonnade.

of ashlars (W213), 1.90 m long and 0.30 m wide, which reaches the apse wall (W203) in the east. A white mosaic floor abuts this wall on the north. The chancel seems to have had two phases: in the earlier phase it was narrower than the prayer hall and in the later one, it was widened to the north and south up to the colonnade. The eastern wall of the church (W203) has two faces and is similar in construction to the other walls (Fig. 9). It forms an apse that juts eastward, with an external diameter of 5.70 m. The thickness of the wall on either side of the apse is 0.90–1.00 m, increasing to 1.15 m at the apse to support the semidome above. The apse wall’s inner face is of ashlars, unlike its continuation on either side, which is of fieldstones. This wall survived to a height of three courses (1.30 m). In a later phase of the building, apparently in the second half of the eighth century CE, a number of walls were constructed inside the nave and aisles, and ashlar walls replaced the colonnades. The wall that replaced the northern colonnade was preserved

57 ] [[231

y. PP E e lL eEgG Y.

Fig. 8. Chancel, view from the west.

Fig. 9. The church, view from the east.

[[232 58 ]]

AT N ITNI NE E CCHHUURR C CH H AT s S A BAYBZYAZN AT kKhirbet H I R B E TṬ a¨wa A WA

along its entire length to a height of three courses (1.05 m). In the western part of this wall a 1.10 mwide entrance was revealed, its threshold being 0.25 m higher than the mosaic floor level. The wall that replaced the southern colonnade (W214; dismantled during excavations) was preserved only in its western part, to a height of two courses (0.64 m). Another wall (W206; dismantled during excavation), 0.65 m thick and containing column bases and ashlars in secondary use, was built upon the mosaic floor of the northern aisle (Fig. 10), dividing it into two rooms: the western room measuring 6.30×2.20 m and the eastern one, 6.20×2.20 m. In the middle of this wall was a 0.85 m-wide entrance with neither doorposts nor a threshold; it is preserved to a height of two courses (0.80 m). It seems that the northern entrance leading from the narthex to the aisle was blocked at this stage, and a stone basin was found in situ within the blockage. An upside-down column base and an elongated trough, placed at the eastern end of the aisle, next to the eastern wall of the church

(W203), indicate that these two rooms were now used for housing animals. Another wall, built of ashlars, was constructed on the top step leading to the chancel. This wall is preserved to a height of two courses (0.75 m); it was impossible to determine its length or whether it had any openings. A fragment of a large basalt millstone was found in the northern aisle, additional proof of the agricultural nature of the building after the church had been abandoned.

MOSAIC FLOORS The nave and northern aisle are covered with slightly damaged mosaic floors. The southern aisle was probably also paved in mosaic that did not survive. The mosaic floor of the nave (see Fig. 2) is divided into two colorful carpets with geometric patterns, the western carpet measuring 4.45×3.65 m, the eastern one, 5.05×3.65 m. In front of these carpets is an inscription set in a

Fig. 10. Column bases in secondary use in the northern aisle, view from the west.

[[233 59 ]]

y. PP E e lL eEgG Y.

Fig. 11. Inscription located east of the main entrance to the prayer hall.

tabula ansata (Fig. 11). Only its northern part is preserved. Its original size (excluding the handles), as deduced from the remains of the southern part of the frame, was 1.35×0.54 m. The inscription is surrounded by a frame consisting of a row of white and a row of black tesserae. The handles on either side of the inscription contain a black and white checkerboard decoration. The four-line inscription is made of black tesserae on a white background and begins with a cross. The letters are 11 cm high. The inscription reads5:

† Under the most [illustrious] Stephen [- - - and] Peter [- - - was done] all [the work. Amen (?)]. The western carpet (Fig. 12) is framed with black and white tesserae (A1*),6 beyond which is a broad band with a double guilloche pattern (B12*) composed of two-color strips of ocher and white, brick-red and white, and gray and white tesserae. The carpet field is decorated with an endless pattern of intertwined circles, each circle interlaced with

[[234 60 ]]

A YBZYAZ N AT N ITNI NEE CCHHUU R RC CH Ṭ a¨wa s S A B H AT AT kKhirbet HIRBET A WA

Fig. 12. Western mosaic carpet in the nave, view from the west.

four spindles (Fig. 13). This pattern is composed of strips of ocher and white and brick-red and white.7 The center of each circle is decorated with a diamond of white, black, and brick-red tesserae (E*). At the center of the carpet, a rectangle measuring 65×55 cm frames a Greek inscription (Fig. 14). Only its upper part has been preserved. The inscription consisted of four or five lines of 10 cm-high letters of black tesserae on a white background. It reads:

For the For the the salvation salvationofofOrestes Orestesthe thelandowner landlord the work work was wasdone. done. The eastern carpet is bordered by the chancel steps on the east and the stylobates on the north and south. The edges of the carpet are formed by diagonally set white tesserae dotted with small schematic diamonds of black tesserae, up to the frame. This frame consists of a 0.30 m-wide band of diagonally

Fig. 13. Pattern of intertwined circles from the western carpet field of the nave.

[[235 61 ]]

y. PP Ee L l eE gG Y.

Fig. 14. Greek inscription in the center of the western mosaic carpet in the nave.

set white tesserae defined by two rows of black tesserae. The main pattern in the carpet field of the eastern mosaic is a grid of diamonds formed of brick-red and black tesserae (H1*). In the center of each diamond is a smaller one made of black tesserae. Between the eastern and western carpets, a two-line Greek inscription extends the entire width of the nave (Fig. 15). It is preserved almost in its entirety. It measures about 3.85×0.30 m and has no frame of its own. The inscription is preceded by a small cross of black tesserae, and the 10 cm-high letters are of black tesserae on a white background. It reads:

† For the salvation of the bishop Zacharias and of - - the chorepiscopus, and of those who have offered and offer. Colorful mosaic carpets were also found between the pilasters of the western wall (W202) and the westernmost columns of the colonnades. The northern intercolumnar carpet is preserved in its entirety (Fig. 16). It is rectangular, measuring 1.60×0.63 m, surrounded by a frame consisting of rows of white and black tesserae (A1*). Inside the frame is a lozenge containing an interlocked circle. The pattern is composed of two-color strips of brick-red and white, gray and white, and ocher and white. In the

15

0

16

20

40

Fig. 15. Greek inscription0 located 10 20 between the eastern and western carpets of the nave. 0

20

40

[[236 62 ]]

AT N ITNI NE E CCHHUURR C CH H AT s S A BAYBZYAZN AT kKhirbet H I R B E TṬ a¨wa A WA

20

15

40

0 0

10

20

20

0

0

20

40

40

16

Fig. 16. Northern intercolumnar carpet.

0 10 20

20

0 10

0 0

20

middle of the circle is a crosslet composed of four buds (F6*). The northwestern and southeastern corners of the rectangle are decorated with axes consisting of a handle made of a row of ocher tesserae and a stylized double axe-head made of black tesserae.8 In the other two corners are leaves 40 formed of ocher tesserae (J6*). Only the northern part of the southern intercolumnar carpet has been preserved; its full dimensions were probably 1.80×0.68 m (Fig. 17). The decoration is identical to that of the northern carpet, except for the corners, which are decorated with a checkerboard pattern in white and gray. The edges of the mosaic floor of the northern aisle are of diagonally set white tesserae, while the carpet field is of the same tesserae, set horizontally. This carpet is framed with one row of black tesserae, two rows of white, and another row of black (A1*). The mosaic floors were laid on a foundation of small fieldstones and white bonding material. The tesserae are composed of five shades: white, black, brick-red, ocher, and gray, and were laid using 64 tesserae per sq. dm.

20

40

20 40 Fig.

17

17. Southern intercolumnar carpet.

Pottery The ceramic assemblage found in the church includes pottery from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, up to the tenth century CE (Pl. 1).

SUMMARY Kh. ¨awas of the late seventh century CE seems to have been a settlement of the thriving Christian community that built a large basilica-shaped church decorated with colorful mosaic floors, a marble chancel screen, and stylized capitals. The Christian community apparently continued to exist here even after the Islamic conquest, as demonstrated by the pottery from the Early Islamic period. At a later date, the colonnades were replaced by two longitudinal walls, perhaps following the collapse of the columns in the earthquake of 749 CE, and the building ceased to serve as a church.

[[237 63 ]]

0 10

y. PP Ee L l eE gG Y.

Plate 1. Pottery Vessels No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L12

Bowl fragment

Beth Shean (Fitzgerald 1931: Pl. XXXIV:48); Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: Fig. 26:1–2)

Byzantine period

2

L16

Glazed bowl

L11

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. A:2–5); Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Pl. XVI:4–5); Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.2); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 2:11)

Early Islamic period

3

4

L15

5

L1

6

L4

Bowl

7

L2

Krater

Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 2:9) Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 2:8)

Late 8th–early 9th cent. CE Late 8th–10th cent. CE

8

L1

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, red slip, burnished on outer face. Decorated with impressed cross. Typical of Christian sites. Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/4, light yellow glaze on inner face and rim, partial glaze on outer face. Inner face decorated with green-glazed stripe and brown-glazed spots. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4, green glaze on entire inner face and rim. Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/3, light yellow, green, brown and yellow/orange glaze on inner face. Decorated with glazed spots on outer face. Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/4, dark green glaze on inner face and rim. Decorated with yellow and brownglazed spots. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/4. Simple rim. Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/6, reddish-yellow core 7.5YR:6/6. Thickened inturned rim. Brown ware 7.5YR:5/4. Wavy combed decoration on outer face.

9

L6

Jar

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4.

10

L7

Casserole

11

L15

Mold-made jug

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 210, incurved rim basin); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 1:19); Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 2:1) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 225, Form 4C, No. 1) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, Form 1, Nos. 3–4) Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 14:2–3, Pl. XX:1–2)

12

L7

13

L12

14

L12

15

L5

Red ware 10R:5/8, traces of soot near the rim. Body sherd. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8. Decorated with molded bands. Body sherd. Pink ware 2.5YR:8/3. Decorated with molded bands. Pink ware 2.5Y:8/3. Molded floral Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 258, decoration. Form 5, No. 2); Kh. el-Bireh Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, gray (Avissar 1997: Fig. 3:8) core 5YR:6/1. Molded decoration of stylized grape cluster. Gray ware 10YR:6/1, traces of soot on the nozzle.

Late 6th–7th cent. CE Late 3rd–9th cent. CE 8th–10th cent. CE

Channelnozzle lamp

[[238 64 ]]

7th–9th cent. CE9

A ZBAYN ZA I NC E HCU HR UC RC AT KkH hirbet sS A BY TN I NT E HHAT I R B E T Ṭ¨aAwa WA

2

3

1

5 4

7

6

9 8

10

12

11

13 14

Plate 1.

[ [65 ]] 239

15

y. P e l e g

Notes The church of Kh. Ṭawas was excavated in September 1999 (License No. 879) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Peleg and I. Sharukh, with the participation of A. Aronshtam. The excavation focused on the prayer hall and no other parts of the church were excavated, except for a sounding through the narthex. 2 Guérin 1869: 345; SWP III: 368 (Khrbet Tâûwâs,); Mader 1918: 156–157 (Chirbet Tauwās), and Kochavi 1972: 64, Site No. 165, who published a schematic plan of the church. The church is also mentioned in other publications: Avi-Yonah 1933–1934: No. 245 (Kh. Tāws); Ovadiah 1970: 126, No. 128 (Kh. Tawus); Ovadiah and de Silva 1982: 152–153, No. 39 (Kh. Tawus); Tabula: 240 (Kh. Tawas), and Bagatti 2002: 82 (Kh. Tawas). 3 Mader 1918: 156–157 suggested that this church had an atrium but no narthex. However, only further excavation will provide a definitive answer. 4 Similar capitals were noted in surveys at the site and published by Mader (Mader 1918: 108, 156–157, Fig. 4c) 1

and also by Kochavi, who published a photograph of one (Kochavi 1972: 64–65). 5 For more about the inscriptions, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at Khirbet Ṭawas,” in this volume. 6 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 7 A similar pattern was found on the floor of the refectory and other rooms in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 101, Fig. 14) and on the second stage floor of the southern aisle of the church at Shiloh (Dadon 2012). 8 The axe motif is also found in the northern church at Beit ʿAnun (Magen 1990: 278, Fig. 4; “The Northern Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume), in the central church of Beit ʿAnun (Magen, “The Central Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume), and in the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume). 9 J. Magness (1993: 258) dates these lamps from the eighth to tenth centuries CE.

References Avi-Yonah M. 1933–1934. Mosaic Pavements in Palestine (QDAP 2–3). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokne‘am I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery of Khirbet el-Bireh,” in Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai, and J. Schwartz, Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat-Gan, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev, Jerusalem. Baramki D.C. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Corbo V.C. 1955. Gli scavi di Kh. Siyar el-Ghanam (Campo dei Pastori) e i monastery dei Dintorni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 11), Jerusalem. Dadon M. 2012. “The ʽBasilica Churchʼ at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 223–234. Fitzgerald G.M. 1931. Beth-Shan Excavations 1921–1923. The Arab and Byzantine Levels, Philadelphia.

Guérin V. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée II, Paris. Kochavi M. (ed.) 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Mader A.E. 1918. Altchristliche Basiliken und Lokaltraditionen in Südjuda. Archologische und Topographische Untersuchungen, Paderborn. Magen Y. 1990. “A Byzantine Church at Beit ʿEinun (Beth Anoth) in the Hebron Hills,” Christian Archaeology: 275–286. 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. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, 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. Vaux R. de. and Steve A.M. 1950. Fouilles à Qaryet el-ʿEnab Abū Ġôsh, Palestine, Paris.

[240]

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CHURCH AT KHIRBET ṬAWAS LEAH DI SEGNI

the floor indicate that the church was in use in the early Arab period. Since the nave was seemingly never repaved, nor are there notable signs of mosaic repairs, the floor could hardly have been in use for more than eighty years,2 which strengthens the assumption that the church was erected in the seventh century.

The rich mosaic floor in the church nave consisted of two carpets. The western one, almost square, is separated from the western wall by a wide strip of white tesserae: Visitors saw Inscription 1 on entering the church, right in front of the main entrance to the prayer hall. Inscription 2 is set in a square frame in the center of the western panel. The second panel, rectangular in shape, occupies the east of the nave; the white strip separating the two carpets contains a long, unframed inscription, Inscription 3.1 The characters, similar in all the inscriptions, present some characteristics of a late date. They are well spaced, with rounded, plump bodies; the omicron is pointed. Round characters rest on a flattish base, and perpendicular lines, on a small horizontal foot. Serifs and curls abound. Nu has a knotted middle bar; the stem of hypsilon is adorned with “collars”; rho has a curling loop. These characteristics began to appear in the late sixth century, but are more common— especially all together—in the seventh and eighth centuries. Byzantine and Umayyad sherds found on

0

Inscription 1 Inscription 1 is framed in a tabula ansata, more than half of which is missing on the right side. Its width is 54 cm, its preserved length, 53 cm. Its original length, ca. 132 cm excluding the handles, can be calculated with relative precision, assuming that the tabula ansata was situated on the entrance axis. Moreover, part of the triangular handle on the right side is preserved. The frame and letters are traced in black tesserae on a white background. The letters are 11 cm high. That the approximate number of missing letters in each line can be calculated with fair certainty is confirmed by the almost certain restoration of l. 1. The text begins with a small cross and reads:

10

[241]

20

L. DI SEGNI

+ EPITW - - 7–8 letters - TASCTEF̣ - - 8–9 letters - PETROU - - 9–10 letters - 4 TOTOPA- - 9–10 letters - -

Ctef[£nou kaˆ] filled the whole l. 2, and the gap in l. 3 was occupied by a title (e.g., prwtokwmhtîn, “village elders”) or an epithet (e.g., ¢delfîn, “brothers”). If so, the title or epithet should have been drastically abbreviated.

+ ’Epˆ tî[n lampro -] t£(twn) Ctef[£nou - - k(aˆ)] Pštrou [ - - - ™gšne -] 4 to tÕ p©[n œrgon. ’Am»n].

Inscription 2

(cross) Under the most [illustrious] Stephen [- - and] Peter [- - - was done] all [the work. Amen (?)]. Given the length of the gap in l. 1, the desinence TAS, which can only indicate a superlative, and the fact that the attribute must apply to two persons of equal rank, the restoration lamprot£(twn] seems most likely. We can almost certainly exclude religious attributes— e.g., qeofilšst£(twn) or eÙlabest£(twn)—that would identify members of the clergy, for as a rule a village church would have only one priest; and deacons, who would be mentioned in a dedicatory inscription if there were no resident priest in charge of the church, rarely had attributes attached to their names.3 On the other hand, in the late Byzantine period the honorific title lamprÒtatoj was extended to a large group of citizens who held no official position in state or city administration, but could claim social status and local importance due to their wealth. The persons so designated in the inscription were thus in all likelihood among the leaders of the village. In the inscription of the church of Aristobulias, dated 701 CE, we see this attribute applied to a village leader in the early Arab period.4 The two names are introduced by the preposition ™p…, indicating that the men were not benefactors or executors of the work, but rather those under whose authority the work was done. It is worth noting that these are the only figures presented in a role of responsibility in this church: though Inscriptions 2 and 3 mention other personages of importance, none of them is ascribed a position of authority. It is possible, of course, that a priest or a paramonarios (warden of an ecclesiastical building) was mentioned in an inscription situated in some other part of the church, and is now lost. The gaps in ll. 2 and 3 may have been occupied by Stephen’s and Peter’s patronymics, or less likely,

Inscription 2 is set in a frame of red and black tesserae, in the middle of the western carpet. The frame was almost square, each side being 57 cm long. Its bottom part is missing and its preserved height is 44 cm. The original height—ca. 60 cm—can be established in relation to the decoration of semicircles adjoining the frame. The letters are 10 cm high and are of black tesserae on a white background. Two ligatures, one of tau and eta, the other of rho and eta, appear in l. 2. Of the five lines of script, the fourth holds only some remains of letters, and the fifth is completely lost; however the text can be reconstructed with fair certainty.

0

UPERCO THRỊACORH CTOUGEO 4 Ụ C̣ . . . . . Ṛ ----- ‘Upr so thr…aj ’Or» stou geo4 Ụ́c̣ [ou tÕ œ]r [gon ™gšneto.]

[242]

10

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 Ṭ A WA S

For the salvation of Orestes the landowner the work was done.

and public aspects are often indistinguishable.7 Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in the mid-fourth century, indeed contrasts the geoàcoi, the rich landlords, with the gewrgo…, the simple farmers8; on the other hand, a fifth century anecdote of Abba Isaias, an Egyptian monk who lived for many years in southern Palestine, first near Eleutheropolis, later near Gaza, portrays the geoàcoj standing on his threshing floor at harvest time, apportioning the corn. This is no city magnate, whose estate is run by stewards, but a village landholder who manages his land by himself.9 Consequently, Orestes may not have been the landlord of a village of metayers, but a local farmer of some prominence in a village of free landholders, who had his name inscribed in the church floor thanks to some help in financing it. In sum, the lack of sufficient documentation of the term in this area in the late Byzantine and early Arab period makes it impossible to clarify either Orestes’ station in life, or the status of the village. This also reflects on the interpretation of the role of Stephen and Peter in Inscription 1. If Kh. Ṭ awas was a village of free landholders, they were probably village elders; if, on the other hand, the village was privately owned, they were most likely stewards acting on behalf of the landlord, Orestes.

The term geoàcoj, “landowner,” is common in Egyptian papyri of the Roman-Byzantine and early Arab periods; it also appears in early Byzantine literary sources pertaining to our region.5 In Egypt, where the term is very well documented, its meaning changes with time. In the fourth century it is still found referring to middle-class peasants who owned their farmland and sometimes let out part of it to lessees; while in the sixth century it comes to refer to urban magnates, the wealthy and powerful owners of large rural estates (™po…kia) that were sometimes divided into parcels of land leased to farmers or to entire villages, where all the inhabitants were tenants of the same landlord.6 In light of the above-described reality, we might be led to view Kh. Ṭawas as a privately owned village (ktÁma), with Orestes as its landlord. Indeed, the name Orestes testifies to the man’s station in life: classic names were no longer common at this time, and the choice of one indicates that Orestes’ family was rooted in the culture of the upper class. If he was the landlord of the village rather than a resident in it, the phrasing of the inscription—“for the salvation of Orestes,” not “by his care” or “through his offering” or “under his authority,” all common formulas in dedicatory inscriptions of churches—could be explained as tenants flattering their landlord. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the term geoàcoj developed along the same semantic lines in Palestine as in Egypt, especially since Palestine, unlike Egypt, does not present us with any evidence of the development of enormous latifundia held by great houses, under whose administration the private

Inscription 3 Inscription 3 is located between the two mosaic panels in the nave; it is unframed, though its upper and lower borders are marked by rows of black tesserae belonging to the exterior frames of the two carpets. The width of this strip is 30 cm. The characters are of black tesserae on a white background. The first line begins with a cross and is 390 cm long; the second is slightly shorter, 383 cm. The letters are 11 cm high. The text reads:

+ UPERCWTHRIA . . OUEPICKsZAC - - ca. 10-11 ll. - - - DOUCW 2 REPICKsKsUPERTWNKARPOFORHCA - - ca. 10-11 ll. - - UNTON

0

20

[243]

40

L. DI SEGNI

+ ‛Upr swthr…a[j t]oà ™pisk(Òpou) Zac[ar…ou k(aˆ) - -]dou cw2 repisk(Òpou) k(aˆ) Øpr tîn karpoforhs£[ntwn k(aˆ] karpoforo]Úntwn. (cross) For the salvation of the bishop Zacharias and of - - the chorepiscopus, and for those who have offered and offer. The restoration of l. 2 is certain, but as it contains 14 characters—15 counting the abbreviation mark of k(a…) —it must necessarily have been abbreviated, most likely by truncating the ending of the participle aorist. Two personages are mentioned in the inscription. The first is a bishop called Zacharias—certainly the bishop of Eleutheropolis, in whose territory Kh. Ṭ awas was located.10 The name Zacharias is especially common in this area.11 The last known bishop of Eleutheropolis was Anastasius, who attended the Synod of Jerusalem in 536. Obodianus, “the blameless and gentle priest” mentioned in the dedicatory inscription of the mosaic floor of a church excavated at el-Maqerqesh, near Beth Guvrin, was probably a bishop too: the style of the mosaic and the palaeography of the script point to a date in the second half of the sixth century.12 Zacharias probably held the episcopal see in the seventh century. The second man was a chorepiscopus whose name ended in -doj or -dhj/daj. It must have been a short name, for there is no place for more than three or four letters, after we restore the name of the bishop and an abbreviated k(a…). The choice is too large to risk a restoration: Abdos, Obedos, Aedos, Saddos,

Zabdos, Zaidos are the commonest possibilities. All are Semitic; no Greek or biblical names seem to fit the available space, with the possible exception of typical Jewish names like ’IoÚdaj or ’I£ddoj, or ‛HrÒdhj, none of which would be fitting for a clergyman. The chorepiscopus was the highest-ranking member of the church after the bishop, whom he helped by supervising the rural Christian communities. For this reason it is not uncommon for the name of a chorepiscopus to be found after that of a bishop in building inscriptions of village churches13: probably the chorepiscopus helped the rural community build the church by providing instructions, technical assistance, and possibly financial support. His role is interchangeable with that of the periodeutes or visitor, whose task was periodical inspection of the communities situated too far from the city for the bishop to visit them frequently; and thus it was especially vital in a bishopric like Eleutheropolis, which extended over a very large territory, from the Shephelah to the Dead Sea, and from Beit Jimal to the southern Hebron Hills. A chorepiscopus is mentioned in an inscription from Ramot (Jerusalem) dated 76214; clearly the church hierarchy had not collapsed under Muslim rule, at least in the largest and strongest bishoprics.

[244]

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 Ṭ A WA S

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. Peleg excavation (License No. 879), see Peleg, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ṭ awas,” in this volume. 2 It is not easy to establish how long a mosaic floor can remain in use without needing repairs: it must have depended on the quality of the work and the intensity and roughness of usage, and perhaps on other considerations too. In the church of ʿEvron (Tzaferis 1987), there is only a 28-year gap between the first and second floors in the nave and aisles (from the date the church was founded, 415 CE, to the date of the second floor, 443), and a gap of 75 years between the first floor of the atrium and the repavement of part of the atrium, which was transformed into a narthex in 490. In Shavei Zion (Prausnitz 1967), the first floor was assigned a date shortly prior to 427, based on historical considerations; the second was dated by an inscription to 486—a gap of 60 years or a little more. In a church in Yattir (Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2000) the gap between the first floor (dated 682) and the second (dated 725) is 43 years. For a new dating of the inscriptions in this church, see Di Segni 2003: 253–256. 3 In a list of 78 inscriptions mentioning deacons (Meimaris 1986: 165–175, nos. 807–884), only 3 (nos. 878, 879, 883, all from Jordan) have the attributes eÙlabšstatoj or qeofilšstatoj attached to their names. Two other deacons (nos. 853 from Gerasa and 868–869 from Kissufim) owed one or the other attribute to other ecclesiastical offices they held besides the deaconry. 4 See Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from the Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias),” in this volume. 5 E.g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechesis XV, 23, PG 33, col. 901; Apophthegmata Patrum: Esaias 5, PG 65, col. 181. 1

Preisigke 1925: cols. 289–290; 1944: cols. 395–397; Bagnall 1993: 159–160, 215–218, 227. 7 We do indeed know of landlords who lived in the cities, and of their rural tenants, as well as of privately owned villages (see, e.g., Procopius of Caesarea, Anecdota XI, 29– 30; XXX, 18–19; ed. Dewing 1935: 138–139, 352–355), but in Palestine, the only landowner on a scale comparable to the latifundia in Egypt was apparently the imperial household. The Church, especially the See of Jerusalem, also owned much land (cf. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 54, ed. Schwartz 1939: 145; transl. Di Segni 2005: 186), but this would have been divided between different bishops and different churches and monasteries. 8 Cyril explains that God does not judge man by status or wealth, and adds: “Even if you are in the fields, the angels will take you. Do not believe that God takes the landlords, and leaves you, the farmer.” See above, note 4. 9 See above, note 4. 10 According to Eusebius, the Daroma (southern Judea) was included in the territory of Eleutheropolis, at least as far as the villages of ʿAnab and Eshtamoaʿ (both situated south of Kh. Ṭ awas). Other villages farther to the south (Thala, ʿEn Rimmon, Iethira, Anaea) are also included by Eusebius in the Daroma, though he does not explicitly say whether they were within the boundaries of Eleutheropolis: Eusebius, Onomasticon, Klostermann 1904: 26, 88, 98, 108. 11 See Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from the Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias),” in this volume, p. 328, note 8. 12 Fedalto 1988: 1021; for the mosaic floor and the inscription, see Abel 1924: 596–598, Fig. 4, Pl. XIII, 1 (= SEG VIII: no. 243); Avi-Yonah 1993. 13 Meimaris 1986: 214–217. 14 Arav; Di Segni and Kloner 1990: 316–318. 6

References Sources Apophthegmata Patrum, PG 65, cols. 72–440. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, PG 33, cols. 369–1084. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae, E. Schwartz (ed.), Kyrillos von Scythopolis, TUGAL 49 ii, Leipzig, 1939, pp. 85–200. Di Segni L. (transl.) Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert. Jerusalem, 2005 (Hebrew). Eusebius, Onomasticon, Klostermann E. (ed.). 1904. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, GCS 11/I, Leipzig.

Procopius of Caesarea, Anecdota, H.B. Dewing (ed.), 1935. Anecdota or Secret History (Historia arcana), in Procopius of Caesarea, with an English translation, VI (Loeb Classical Library), London–Cambridge, Mass.

Studies Abel F.-M. 1924. “Découvertes récentes à Beit Djebrin,” RB 33: 583–604. Arav R., Di Segni L., and Kloner A. 1990. “An EighthCentury Monastery near Jerusalem,” LA 40: 313–320.

[245]

L. DI SEGNI

Avi-Yonah M. 1993. “Beth Guvrin. Mosaics at el-Maqerqesh,” NEAEHL I: 197–198. Bagnall R.S. 1993. Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton. Di Segni L. 2003. “Christian Epigraphy in the Holy Land. New Discoveries,” ARAM 15: 247–267. Eshel H., Magness J., and Shenhav E. 2000. “Khirbet Yattir, 1995–1999: Preliminary Report,” IEJ 50: 153–168. Fedalto G. 1988. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis II, Padova. Meimaris Y. E. 1986. Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Church of Palestine, Athens.

Prausnitz M. W. 1967. Excavations at Shavei Zion, The Early Christian Church (Monografie d’archeologia e d’arte II), Rome. Preisigke F. 1925. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden I, Berlin. Preisigke F. 1944. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, Supplement, E. Kiessling (ed.), Berlin. Tzaferis V. 1987. “The Greek Inscriptions from the Early Christian Church at ʿEvron,” EI 19: 36*–53*.

[246]

A ROMAN TOWER AND A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT KHIRBET EL-QAṢ R YITZHAK MAGEN, BENJAMIN HAR-EVEN, AND IBRAHIM SHARUKH

Kh. el-Qaṣr (map ref. IOG 16786/10010; ITM 21786/60010) is located about 600 m above sea level, on the eastern fringe of the Hebron Hills and some 3 km southeast of the village of Bani Naʿim (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 The site was surveyed several times.2 Five building phases were discovered at the site: Phase I, Second Temple period, represented by miqwaʾot (ritual baths) and by the pottery assemblage; Phase II, Late Roman period (late fourth to early fifth century CE), a tower was built over a cave. Many similar towers were discovered in the Hebron Hills and in northern Judea3; Phase III, the Byzantine period, a monastery was built on the site that incorporated the tower; Phase IV, the Early Islamic (Abbasid) period, an oil press was built4; Phase V, the Mamluk period, represented by sparse remains (Figs. 1–5).

Phase I—Second Temple Period Pottery finds discovered under the floors of later structures and in the cave, along with the miqweh unearthed on the western side, attest to activity at the site in this period. Second Temple period pottery was found in a fill under F2058, which belongs to the second phase tower. A sounding taken in the courtyard east of the tower (no. 9) revealed similar pottery under the second phase plaster floor (F3228; Fig. 6). The pottery was discovered over a thin plaster floor (F3243), and beneath a thick ash layer. The foundation of the Byzantine stylobate (W3028) cuts the floor. A similar floor was revealed under the mosaic floor of the Byzantine chapel (no. 13). The large cave exposed beneath the second phase tower is divided into two elliptical chambers joined by a hewn entrance. The northern chamber measures 8.00×8.00 m, the southern one, 10.00×8.00 m. In this phase the cave entrance was located on its north, facing the wadi. It may be assumed that the cave was used for dwelling.

Some 15 m west of the cave is a rock-cut miqweh reached by a five-step staircase. The staircase is rockcut and coated with two thick layers of dark gray waterproof plaster (Fig. 7).5 A partition that cut the stairs is likewise coated with plaster. Similar ritual baths were discovered at Kh. Hilʾal and at other locations in the Hebron Hills and in the vicinity of Jerusalem.6

Phase II—Late Roman Period A square tower was built over the cave in this phase (W2006, W2007, W2008, W2009), and it had an adjoining stone glacis (W2001, W2002, W2003, W2004, W2005; Figs. 8–9). The external length of the tower sides is 10.70 m, their inner length, 8.20 m. Both faces of the 1.20 m-thick walls are of especially large, smoothed, well-fitting fieldstones (0.80–1.50 m in length, 0.30–0.60 m wide) that are smoothed and well-fitting, with a fill of small field stones without bounding material. The tower is divided by internal partition walls (W2010, W2011, and W2012) into four rooms, arranged into a northern and southern wing (Fig. 10). The construction technique and partition width are identical to those of the tower’s outer walls, except for the inner wall that divides the southern wing (W2010), which is built of only a single face of stones. The internal walls are incorporated with the outer tower walls and are clearly contemporaneous, although some of the internal walls exhibit later repairs. The tower entrance, set in its southeast, consists of a rolling stone in the eastern wall (W2006). The rolling stone (1.65 m diameter, 40 cm thick) moved along a track set in the entrance threshold, and was built of an ashlar with a smoothed upper surface. When the entrance was closed, the rolling stone was moved to the south, resting in a depression fixed in the southern doorpost of the tower entrance. When the

[247]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

2 606.13 606.27

W3117

F3218 W3114

603.01 602.98

L4063

W4001

W3108

606.05

F2058 W2011

605.90

605.30 607.55

606.46

W2010

606.65

F2044

F2019

W2008 W2002

609.70

607.60

607.92

Fig. 1. Kh. el-Qaṣr, detailed plan.

[248]

W3209

W3185 W3211

W1001

W1024

W1023 607.03

0

2

W3187

W3169 W3068

W3082

606.05

F2022

W3209

W3061

W3217

8

F2054

W3212

607.13

W3046

606.10 606.02

W3186

W1013

605.26

608.52

610.33

606.47

W3203

1 F3228

W2005

W2006

606.42

604.98

W1012

W4030

606.57

606.05

93 604.74 604.44 604.30

W4049

602.98

W40

603.88

F4115

606.55

F4030

L4074

F3055

606.15

606.77

602.45

W3006

606.27

605.70

W3003

F3110

F3064

606.61

607.53

L3157 F3139

605.62

W2003 W2009

603.48 603.69

W3039 F3037 0 W303607.53 W3028

W2004

8 W406 W4062

F4116 603.29

W4078

W4002

1

W401

4

W4013 L4114

606.56

606.62

606.60

W3025

W1005

F4025

605.74 605.87

W3035

W3221

W1015

604.88

F3106

607.03

3

W1002

W309

W3174 W3206

606.48

W2001

9

L3259

W3074

7

W3091 L3262 606.05 F3037 L3090

F3144

L3053 L3079 L3122

606.46

W3194

W3094 F3023

W301

L3258

F3170

W301

0 W324 W3225

W3165

W3229 604.75

603.55 603.05

W3073

606.92

605.03

W2007

W3269

606.35 606.51

W2012

605.95

F3125

W3175

F3171

606.75

W3048

605.79 605.11

606.40

L3151 L3150

W3036

F3244

3

W3128

W3025

W3249

605.74

W3242

606.95

W3095

W3103

606.39

605.76

W3116

W3042

606.38

W1014

10 m

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

1-1 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

W2005

W2004 W5030 W4093 W4078

W3046 W3048

L4074

W4014 F4116

W4002

2-2

611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

W2006 W2004

W2002 W2008

W3035 W3082

W2012 W3048 F2022

W3025

W3095

L3163

3-3

611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603

00 00 00 W3187 W3205 00 W3206 W3209 00 W3221 00 00 00 00

W3081 W3058

W3082 W3035 W3035

W3174

F3106

W3095 W3073 F3125

F3171 F3204

Fig. 2. Kh. el-Qaṣr, sections.

[249]

W3242 W3225 W3229 W3269

W3114

W3117 F3218 W3115 W3116

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 3. Kh. el-Qaṣr, view from the east.

entrance was open, the rolling stone was blocked by the inward-opening wooden door. It may be assumed that the wooden door was in everyday use, while the rolling stone was reserved for times of danger. The rolling stone was stopped by a stone at the northern end of the track. The southern wing, 8.20×2.50 m, was used for entry and passage. It was divided into two by a partition wall (W2010), which had an opening connecting the two parts of the wing. A corridor (no. 1), measuring 4.60×2.40 m, led through the glacis to the tower entrance, from which two stairs descended to the eastern room in the southern wing (no. 2; Fig. 11). The corridor floor from this phase was not uncovered. A cistern hewn in the bedrock was discovered in the southeastern corner of the room. The room’s floor level is 60 cm higher than that of the eastern room in the northern wing (no. 4). The room had an upper story, which was not preserved. Its roof was corbelled,

as attested by two rows of stone bosses protruding from the line of the walls, paved by stone slabs (Fig. 12).7 The staircase, 3.00×2.40 m, in the west of the southern wing led to the upper story of the two tower wings (Fig. 13). The northern wing, 8.30×4.50 m, is connected to the southern one by an entrance in W2012. This wing, as well, is divided into two parts. The eastern room (no. 4) is larger, and is square, 4.50×4.50 m; the western room (no. 5) is rectangular, and measures 4.50×2.30 m. The rooms, separated by a massive wall (W2011), are connected through an opening in it, which is preserved in its entirety (Fig. 14). The upper part of the wall is narrower than its lower part (W2030), so that a 30-cm wide stone ledge was created in the western face of the wall. There is a parallel stone ledge (W2028) in the outer western tower wall (W2008). The floor of the entrance connecting the two rooms is partially rock-cut to match the floor levels of the

[250]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Late Roman Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic Period

13

17

18 25

26

12 11

23

22

21

16 10

24

19

15

9

20

14

6 1

27 29

2

4

7

8

3

5 28

0

Fig. 4. Kh. el-Qaṣr, main construction phases.

[251]

10 m

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 5. Kh. el-Qaṣr, reconstruction of the site in the Byzantine period. 1

1 0

1-1 605 00 604 00 603 00 602 00

Fig. 6. Sounding in Courtyard 9.

Fig. 7. Miqweh, detailed plan and section.

[252]

3

m

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

606.55 606.47

603.97

W3050

W3048

602.45

W3046

L2050 F2037

606.64

9

W321

610.15

W2005

606.60

W2004

610.33

1

W100

610.25

W2006

606.05

W2063

W2011

607.55

W2012

F2058

W2009

605.45

W2048

F2054

W2007

F2022 606.02

W2001

606.10

W2010 609.00

606.65

W2030

607.03

F2017

606.25

F2019

605.30

610.35

W1024

605.95

W2003

F2044

605.45

610.25

W2028 607.60

607.92

609.75

W2008 609.50

609.10

W2002

W4001

0

Fig. 8. Tower, detailed plan.

[253]

5

m

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 9. Tower, view from the southeast.

Fig. 10. Tower, inner division into rooms, view from the east.

[254]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 11. Tower, entrance corridor, view from the east.

Fig. 12. Room 2, view from the east.

Fig. 13. Tower, staircase in the west of the southern wing, view from the south.

[255]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 14. Tower, entrance between the rooms of the northern wing. Note that the Phase III floor caused a decreased height of the opening.

rooms on both sides of the wall. A probe conducted in the northwestern corner of Room 4 revealed that the structure originally had a thick plaster floor (F2058) that reached the tower walls. The floor bedding consists of a fieldstone fill. The floor of the western room (no. 5) is of rough stone slabs incorporated into the bedrock. The floors of the rooms in the northern wing were some 60 cm lower than those of the southern wing, and we may surmise the existence of a number of steps in the passage between the wings. The floor of the upper story, probably built over the western room, rested on large stone slabs laid over stone bosses, similar to the upper story in the southern wing (Fig. 15). In Room 4, by contrast, there is no evidence of a roof over the partition walls, leading us to reconstruct light roofing, but no upper story. Access to the upper story was provided by a staircase in the west of the southern wing. The entrance to

the upper story of Room 5 is preserved almost in its entirety, while only the threshold remains of the entrance to the upper story of Room 2 (Fig. 16). The floor level of the upper story of the northwestern room is some 0.80 m lower than that of the upper story of the southeastern room. This height differential, coupled with the size of the staircase, teach of the construction of a staircase that first ascended westward, to Room 5, with a ramp leading from there to an additional staircase in the east, which ascended to the level of the upper story of Room 2. In the total absence of evidence of stone construction, we assume that the latter staircase was wooden. Around and adjoining the tower is an impressive sloping stone glacis. The glacis, some 3.2 wide at its base, is built of extremely large dressed and smoothed stones that were fitted to one another, so that the profile of the glacis from its base upwards was the same for all four sides of the structure. The sections of thick plaster found on the glacis stones in different locations attest that the structure was carefully plastered (Fig. 17). The outer face of the tower walls, where the walls protrude from the line of the preservation of the glacis and alongside the entrance) was carefully constructed; the stones were smoothed and fitted to one another, in striking contrast to the construction of the inner face, which was not similarly smoothed. The courtyard yielded a plaster floor (F3228) from this phase, which was some 5 cm thick and was incorporated with the wall of the Byzantine stylobate (W3028). In this phase the cave entrance was changed. The early entrance of the cave was blocked and fell into disuse, to be replaced by an entrance hewn in its south. A staircase built along the eastern side of the tower glacis led from the new entrance to the cave. The staircase was built later, and was supported by the glacis. Along the eastern face of the cave entrance staircase is a thin wall (W3050), built of two faces of ashlar, which ends in a sort of apse that adjoins the glacis wall. Remains of an arch are evident in the northern third of this wall and opposite it, in the glacis. The arch was built at the same time as the tower glacis and the walls of the cave entrance. A fragment of a thin stone column was discovered in situ, in a sort of shallow cupmark hewn in the highest step of the staircase adjacent to the wall, in the south of the cave entrance (Fig. 18). Most of the step that extended to

[256]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 15. Tower, second story, vestiges of the floor.

the glacis was broken and removed, but its outline is finely preserved in the plaster traces on the glacis. The column and the arch that was incorporated in the glacis probably supported the roof that extended over the staircase to the cave.

Phase III—Byzantine Period

Fig. 16. Room 5, entrance to the second story. Note the ventilation window in the lower story.

In this phase a monastery was built at the site, using structures from the earlier phases. The monastery was composed of four wings: the central wing, comprising the tower structure with the stone glacis; the eastern wing, east of the tower, consisting of a built complex of rooms with an inner courtyard bounded by a wall adjacent to the tower glacis walls to the northeast and southeast; the southern wing, built south of the tower glacis and next to the southwestern wall of the eastern wing, functioning as the entrance wing of the monastery; the northern wing, extending north of the northern tower glacis wall and adjoining the northwestern corner of the western wing. A number of changes and repairs were made to the tower structure. A mosaic floor (F2022), of coarse tesserae (with 35 tesserae per sq. dm), was laid in Room 2. The mosaic is without embellishments, except for a simple frame along its walls, of identical tesserae. A similar mosaic floor (F2054) was laid in Room 4,

[257]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 17. Glacis, plaster remains on the southern wall, view from the southeast.

Fig. 18. Cave, column of Phase II entrance found in situ.

with a noticeable rise in floor level, and an arch was constructed to support an upper story of the structure. The wide arch foundation cut the plaster floor of the preceding phase, while the fieldstone bedding of the mosaic floor adjoins the arch foundation, anchoring and stabilizing it (Fig. 19). A low wall of only two courses (W2063) built in Room 4 spans the entrance to Room 5. The wall, meant to support the fieldstone bedding of the mosaic floor, lowered the entrance height to 1.20 m, and formed a step, some 0.5 m high, between the mosaic and passageway floors. The stones comprising the

wall were laid directly over the plaster floor of the preceding phase, which survived in the northeastern corner of the passageway. The beddings of the structure’s early stone floors were apparently used in Room 5 and in the stairwell (no. 3). The upper story was reached by a staircase in the southwest of the tower. It was constructed over the entire area of the tower’s ground floor. The upper story stone slab floor of the previous phase was replaced by one of mosaic. The floor of Room 4 was supported by an arch. The mosaic floor that replaced the stone slab floor in Room 2 was probably laid over a wooden foundation. The existence of this floor is attested: by the mosaic fragments along the partition wall (W2012) above the bosses in the room’s walls; in the entrance threshold to the upper story, made of white tesserae; and in the large sections of high quality smoothed white plaster that remained on the room’s walls. A similar phenomenon probably occurred in Room 5, as the debris did not include stone slabs. The cave, too, underwent changes in this phase. During the construction of the mosaic floor of the eastern wing courtyard, the thin stone column from the previous phase, discovered at the southern end of the cave entrance wall, was smashed and in its stead a new wall was built (W3048), with an

[258]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 19. Room 4, view from the east. Note F2058 beneath F2054 and the pilaster cutting the plaster floor.

opening that served as the new cave entrance. This wall was probably built to raise the level of the floors and support the mosaic floor (F3055) that abuts it. Additionally, two rows of square depressions (probably for anchoring wooden beams in the stone glacis that were located between the arch and the northern end of the cave entrance wall) attest that only this section of the cave entrance was roofed (Fig. 20). In this phase the cave might have served as a pantry and storage space for monastery produce. In this period, the miqweh space was apparently transformed into a cistern. An opening for drawing water was cut in the roof of the early phase miqweh, and attempts were made to enlarge the cistern volume by quarrying to the west and south. The southern wing functioned as the entrance complex to the monastery. It consisted of a square vestibule (no. 7; 6.00×6.00 m) next to a spacious hall (no. 8; 10.00×10.00 m). To the north, the walls of the wing adjoin the glacis wall, while to the east they

rest against the western wall of the eastern wing. The 1.40 m-wide main entrance to the monastery, in the west of Room 7, is built of two monolithic doorposts incorporated in the arch-bearing walls, parts of which were found in the debris along the entrance (Fig. 21). The arch stones bore a Greek inscription with a blessing common in monastic complexes of the time 8: This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall pass through it. Opposite this entrance is an additional entrance, 0.90 m wide, in W1001, which leads to the courtyard in the eastern wing (no. 9). This door opened inwards to the monastery, and was locked with a bolt set in a rail in the wall. A third entrance, 1.00 m wide and located in the southern wall of the entrance room (W1005), is the only one that leads to the hall. The hall was divided by a row of pillars, placed in its center on a east–west axis. Troughs in secondary use were found in a wall built in the hall in a later phase. The hall’s

[259]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

being connected exclusively to the entrance complex, the row of pillars in the center, and the troughs found in secondary use, attest to the hall serving as a stable in this phase.9 Notwithstanding this, the troughs might have been in use in the Early Islamic period, when the site functioned as an oil press. East of the tower is a complex of rooms bounded by a wall that adjoins the glacis walls to the northeast (W3219) and southeast (W1001). The wing’s rooms are arranged around a courtyard (no. 9), the rooms east of the courtyard comprising a chapel (no. 13). The east of the wing was not fully excavated, but we may assume that the wing continued in this direction, as is indicated by the wall remains visible on the surface. The width of the wing, 35 m, was fully excavated. The complex is built on a spur that extends from east to west. Due to the narrowness of the spur, the wing’s northern and southern walls (W3225 and W3209, respectively) are retaining walls that bridge the height differentials formed by the spur’s incline, thereby enabling the formation of an almost uniform level extending from north to south. The floors in the north of the wing are some 1.5 m higher than the bedrock level north of W3225. This wall was built on a broad foundation (W3240) that is coated with reddish waterproof plaster to prevent water seepage under the wing foundations. The clay drainpipe installed on the wide foundation transported water to the drainage

Fig. 20. Cave entrance, view from the north.

0

10

20

Fig. 21. Arch stone bearing a Greek inscription.

[260]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

system, uncovered in the northwestern corner of the wing (see below). Most of the wing’s walls, which are preserved to a height ranging between 1.00 and 1.50 m, are built of two stone faces with a fill of small stones and plaster, and are some 0.70–1.00 m thick. The stones of the outer face are larger than those of the inner face, and their outer side, for the most part, is finely drafted, while their inner side is only coarsely drafted, and at times with no drafting at all. The complex walls were coated with thick layers of white plaster, sections of it remaining in almost all of the rooms in the wing. The large number of decorated plaster fragments discovered in the excavation seems to indicate that large sections of the plaster were embellished with colorful frescoes (Fig. 22).10 Almost all of the wing floors consist of a coarse white mosaic, most of which is well preserved. The courtyard and the entire wing were entered from the west, through the southern wing. The courtyard (10.00×8.50 m) is paved with a coarse white mosaic and embellished with a simple pattern (some 25 tesserae per sq. dm), in the center of which is a colorful square mosaic carpet (3.00×3.00 m), in a poor state of preservation (see below). The courtyard floor (F3055) extends northward to the tower entrance threshold, to the cave threshold (W3048), and to the massive stone pillar (W3046) abutting the glacis south of the tower entrance. The mosaic floor also reaches a graduated wall (W3030) which adjoins the wall (W3025) that bounds the courtyard to the north. W3025 was apparently the foundation of a staircase that led to the upper story. On its southeast, the floor extends to two stylobates with pillars (W3028, W3194) that form two porticos (nos. 10–11) along the courtyard. The two porticos are separated by an entrance that leads to a small room (no. 12; 3.00×2.50 m), whose floor is paved in a coarse white mosaic (some 25 tesserae per sq. dm) identical to that in the courtyard. This small room is situated south of the eastern portico (no. 11), from which it is separated by a wall (W3042) that bounds the portico to the south (Fig. 23). On its east, the stylobate of the southern portico (W3194) adjoins the western wall of Room 12 (W3066), with a square pillar set at its end. Two additional pillars rise further along the stylobate,

0

2.5

5

Fig. 22. Decorated plaster fragments.

at a distance of about 2.00 m from each other. The westward continuation of the stylobate was not excavated, but its width was 3.70 m. A cistern set in the portico mosaic floor was unearthed in the center of the excavated area. The cistern and the portico stylobate wall are connected by a sort of additional stylobate, under which is a drainage channel that feeds the cistern. The portico is located in front of a large room to the south, measuring 7.60×5.65 m. This room (no. 15) was entered from the portico. The room was not excavated in its entirety; the excavators identified two pairs of pillars that supported arches crossing the room and probably supported an upper story. Most of the southern rooms of the eastern wing were excavated to the height of the wall tops. Room 14 is a large room, 8.20×5.30 m, in the southwestern corner of the wing. Its walls join the outer complex walls, attesting to their contemporaneous construction. It has not been determined whether the southern portico continued in front of this room, as well, or ended at the line of the room’s eastern wall. In the next phase an oil press was installed in this room (see below).

[261]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 23. The courtyard, the eastern portico and Room 12, view from the west.

Corridor 16 is a narrow corridor measuring 8.30×1.35 m, that runs north–south immediately east of the southern portico and comprises its direct continuation. Unlike the portico white mosaic floor, the corridor floor consists of irregular stone slabs. At its eastern end is the entrance to Room 17–18. The corridor extends southward to the southern complex wall (W3209), where it leads to Room 19. Room 17–18 measures 8.20×3.60 m, extending from W3187 in the south to W3061 in the north. The room’s walls are preserved to a height of some 2.5 m. Its floor is composed of smoothed, irregular stone slabs. South of the room entrance is a pillar that seems to have borne an arch that crossed the room and supported an upper story. Although the picture is partial, since the south of the room was not excavated, the fact that its floor is approx. 1.40 m lower than that of Corridor 16 teaches that a staircase should be reconstructed that descends from the corridor to the room. In the north of the room, parallel to the western wall (W3206) and perpendicular to a small wall (W3205), is a wall (W3174) that rises to about 1.00 m above the floor (Fig. 24). This wall seems to be the foundation of a

sleeping bench, thus indicating of the room’s use as a monastic cell.11 Room 19 is trapezoidal and measures 5.50×2.30 m. The south of the room was severely damaged in modern times. Part of the irregular stone slab floor is preserved in the north of the room, adjacent to W3187. W3221 was apparently one of the retaining walls that made possible the formation of a uniform floor level for the entire complex. The room entrance was set in this wall; its threshold was not preserved. The room’s eastern wall (W3175), which abuts the southeastern corner of Room 17–18 on the north, is only preserved to the height of the foundation course. Despite the poor preservation of Room 19, it seems that it functioned as a corridor to the eastern continuation of the complex, and contained a staircase with several steps, which is not preserved, on its east. The eastern portico (no. 11), 7.00×3.00 m, is separated from the courtyard by a stylobate (W3028) with a pillar in its center. The opening width on both sides of the pillar is identical: 3.20 m. This pillar was probably the foundation of a vault that spanned the portico. An entrance in the portico’s eastern wall (W3035) leads to the prayer hall, the portico serving

[262]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 24. Room 18, bench.

as a sort of narthex at the front of the chapel. An additional entrance, in W3025, led to a spacious room (no. 24). The portico floor consists of a coarse white mosaic identical to that in the courtyard. A memorial inscription is set in a tabula ansata in the mosaic floor, facing the prayer hall entrance (Fig. 25). The inscription reads: † For the salvation of Abba Thomas and of [soand-so] who made this work. Amen.

The chapel (no. 13) is a long room with no secondary division; on its east is a built chancel with an internal apse (Fig. 26). Without the apse, it measures 11.50×5.50 m. The apse (7.40×4.00 m) is divided from the prayer hall by a wall (W3114) that served as a foundation for the chancel, which was approx. 0.30 m above the hall floor. The chancel area was severely damaged by modern looting. A chancel screen, not preserved, might have stood on this foundation (Fig. 27). The prayer hall has a uniformly white mosaic floor (F3106; 49 tesserae per sq. dm) at the center of which is a colorful carpet consisting of a composition of vine shoots populated by figures, alongside which is a scale pattern (see below).

Fig. 25. Eastern portico, Greek inscription.

Two 0.50 m-wide benches were installed over the mosaic floor next to the walls along the length of the chapel. A 6.00 m-long section of the northern bench (W3103) is preserved, as well as a 5.50 m section of the southern bench (W3108). The benches are built of

[263]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 26. Chapel, view from the west.

Fig. 27. Apse, view from the south.

[264]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

a row of stones placed at fixed distances along the wall. The space between the row of stones and the wall was filled with fieldstones and bonding material, and thickly coated with white plaster.12 The chapel walls, too, were coated with a thick layer of the same plaster. A large niche (L3138; 1.00×0.65 m) is set in the southwestern corner of the chapel’s southern wall (W3061), about 1 m above the chapel floor. The base of the niche is composed of two ashlars with smoothed tops.13 The chapel has two entrances, the central entrance from the direction of the portico (no. 11), and an additional entrance in the west of the chapel’s northern wall (W3095) that leads to Room 25. Alongside the central chapel entrance is a window that allows light and air to enter the chapel from the narthex. The hall faces the east. This orientation forced the builders to adapt the construction and erect the northern (W3095) and southern (W3061) chapel walls at an obtuse angle to the walls of the adjacent rooms. Room 25, 11.50×3.60 m, has two entrances. In addition to the entrance from the chapel, an entrance from the west connects the room with Room 24

(Fig. 28). The room’s floor differs slightly from that of the courtyard: the tesserae are whiter and smaller (about 49 tesserae per sq. dm). A rectangular carpet (2.40×1.80 m) with a geometric diamond pattern is incorporated in the south of the room. Room 24, 12.60×4.50 m, is a long room north of Room 25. In addition to the entrance in the eastern wall (W3073) leading to Room 25, another entrance in this wall provides access to Room 26. An entrance in the southern wall leads to the chapel narthex (no. 11); and one in the western wall (W3074) connects with Corridor 22, providing access to the northern and central wings (Fig. 29). The room is crossed by an east–west arch, supported by two pillars that adjoin the room’s eastern and western walls. A low bench flanked the western pillar (W3094; 5.70×0.40×0.30 m). The bench is coated in a thick layer of white plaster. At its southern end is a stone base with a wide, shallow cupmark hewn on top (0.35×0.20 m). Above the stone base, at a height of approx. 0.8 m, is a deep niche (L3079; 0.70×0.40 m) in W3074 (Fig. 30). This stone base was apparently for a basin or large jar that stood

Fig. 28. Rooms 25 and 24, view from the east.

[265]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 29. Room 24, view from the north.

in the corner of the room and might have been meant to receive liquids from a container in the niche above it. Additional niches were installed along the length of the room’s eastern wall (W3073). An apsidal niche (approx. 0.5 m in diameter) built at floor level was installed in the room’s southeastern corner, and next to it, an extremely small niche (0.30×0.20 m). Two additional niches were installed in the north of Room 24’s eastern wall, one apsidal (L3150; 0.50 m wide and 0.80 m deep), set 0.70 m above the floor; the other, square niche (L3151; 0.90×0.65 m), was built at floor level (Fig. 31). An installation for decanting liquid is located in the center of the room (see below). The mosaic floor is composed of two different mosaic sections. The southern section (F3144) covers about two-thirds of the room (8.90 m long), while the northern section (F3170) is 3.30 m long. The two sections were joined by ten rows of tesserae that form a 0.25 m-wide band. This suggests an earlier division of the room into two separate rooms by a wall that was dismantled. A small room (no. 26), measuring 3.40×2.70 m, is situated between the north of the eastern wing (W3225) and Room 25, and has a single entrance, from Room 24. The room’s floor consisted of irregular

Fig. 30. Room 24, niche in the southwestern corner, view from the east.

[266]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

stone slabs. A probe conducted in the room indicated that the room’s western wall (W3229) was built on a wide foundation (W3269) incorporated into the wing’s northern wall (W3225). In this phase, Room 21 could be entered only from the courtyard (no. 9; Fig. 32). Room 21 measures 5.50×3.00 m; its walls are preserved to a height of three courses. The room’s eastern wall (W3074), 1.00 m thick, is relatively thicker than the other walls of the complex. It consists of one face of especially large stones laid in a headers and stretchers pattern. The room’s mosaic floor fundamentally differs in color and tesserae size from the other mosaic floors in the complex (see below). The sounding conducted under the floor bedding did not reveal earlier floors. A depression for collecting waste water was installed in the room’s southwestern corner, next to the entrance. Corridor 20 leads from the courtyard to additional dwelling and service rooms in the north of the eastern wing (nos. 21–22), and to the northern wing. This long and narrow corridor (13.50×1.10 m) extends the

length of the entrance to the cave interior (no. 6). The corridor’s coarse white mosaic floor (some 25 tesserae per sq. dm) is identical to that in the courtyard (no. 9). The corridor ends in a small courtyard (2.80×2.60 m) in the wing’s northwestern corner, opposite the entrance. Like this corridor, the courtyard, is paved with a coarse white mosaic (F4025; some 25 tesserae per sq. dm), only a few sections of which have survived. In the passage between the courtyard (no. 9) and Corridor 20 is a sedimentation pit, approx. 1.5 m in diameter; it received runoff water that accumulated on the courtyard mosaic floor. A square stone slab that covered the sedimentation pit was incorporated into the mosaic floor. Two shallow channels, square in section (0.10×0.10 m) and coated with reddish waterproof plaster split off from the sedimentation pit and carried its water to a cistern. The channels, built under the mosaic floor, are covered with small stone slabs. One channel (L3201) extends northward under the floor of Corridor 20 to a cistern hewn in its north. The other channel extends southward

Fig. 31. Room 24, apsidal niche in the eastern wall, view from the west.

[267]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 32. Corridor 20 and Rooms 21–23, view from the south.

under the courtyard floor, channeling water from the sedimentation pit to a cistern in the southern portico (no. 10). An additional channel (L2050) runs the length of the entrance corridor to the central wing, feeding water directly from the courtyard to the cistern in the central wing, which had already been in use in the preceding phase. Corridor 22 is long and narrow and measures 4.70×0.90 m; it connects the courtyard through Corridor 20 to Room 24 (Fig. 33). The corridor floor, preserved in its entirety, consists of coarse white tesserae (some 25 tesserae per sq. dm) identical to those in the courtyard. There is an entrance to the corridor from each of its ends, and a third one in its north that opens outward and connects it and Room 23. Thick sections of the same white plaster that covered the walls remained on the corridor walls. Room 23 measures 4.80×3.40 m, and has two entrances and a beaten earth floor. The room’s main entrance, located in its west, faces Corridor 20. The secondary entrance, from Corridor 22, is extremely

narrow (0.60 m). The niche (L3259; 1.20×0.80 m) in the northwestern corner of the room has a coarse white mosaic floor (some 25 tesserae per sq. dm). It may be presumed that the niche served for storage. The northern wing, constructed as a separate complex, contains different elements that attest to its use as the monastery’s service wing. The wing’s walls on the south adjoin the tower glacis’s northern wall, thereby functioning as the wing’s southern wall. The wing plan is somewhat trapezoidal. The southern wall, along the tower, is 14.00 m long, while the northern wall (W4002) is 12.50 m long. The eastern and the western walls (W4013 and W4001, respectively), likewise, differ in length: 14.50 m and 13.50 m. The wing’s ground floor covers an area of some 200 sq. m. The 0.60–0.70 m thick outer walls are built of two faces of stones with a fill of small stones and plaster. The stones of the outer face are larger than those of the inner one; and their outer side is finely drafted, while their inner side, hidden in the wall, is only roughly drafted.

[268]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 33. Corridor 22, view from the east.

The wing is divided into three units: a courtyard (no. 27), a room in the south (no. 28), that was excavated only to the height of the tops of the walls, and a long hall that extends the entire length of the northern third of the wing (no. 29). Access to the wing was provided by two entrances, built close to each other, in the southeastern corner of Courtyard 27. The southern entrance connects the service wing with the eastern complex, while the northern one leads beyond the monastery walls, through a staircase that has two steps, each some 0.9 m wide. A plastered courtyard was uncovered in front of the threshold outside the monastery. In the courtyard’s southwestern corner is a drainage system (L3246) consisting of a small sedimentation pit in front of a stone drainpipe. This system received rainwater from the roofs of the complex’s northern wing through a clay drainpipe that ran along the length of the foundation of the western wall of the eastern complex (W3240). Courtyard 27, 8.60×6.30 m, contains various cooking installations (Fig. 34). Two entrances, in the northern and western walls of Courtyard 27, lead to the other parts of the wing. Staircases lead from the

entrances in the eastern wall to the courtyard, which is 1.60 m lower than the floor of the eastern wing. The staircase, built on a wide foundation, is composed of two sections. One section, east–west in orientation, descends from the entrance to Courtyard 27. This section has six steps, preserved in their entirety, which average some 2.5 m in length and 0.65 m in width. The entrance lintel stone was discovered fallen on this staircase (Fig. 35). The second section, north-south in orientation, ascends from the southern entrance to the upper story of the wing, most likely over a vault above the northern entrance. Remains of only two steps survive from this section. There is a round entrance (0.60 m in diameter) next to the second step of the staircase that descends to Courtyard 27; it directly connected the service wing with the large cave that extends underneath it. In this phase the cave was probably used as a large storeroom in which the monastery’s produce was stored. A broad foundation (W4068; 2.10 m wide) that supported the cooking installations in the courtyard was built at the bottom end of the staircase. A thin wall of small fieldstones (W4062) that served as the foundation for the water system was built along the

[269]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 34. Courtyard 27, view from the south.

Fig. 35. Lintel found on the Courtyard 27 staircase.

staircase, adjacent to the tower glacis. The wall is built with a slight incline from east to west. On its west, the foundation ends in a large square basin, only half of which is preserved (L4063; Fig. 36). In the southeastern corner of Courtyard 27, in W3219, are the remains of a water pipe (Fig. 37). This water pipe, which brought water to the basin, was apparently connected to the cistern installed in Corridor 20, next to the entrance to Room 23.14 Alongside the stone basin is a plastered work surface, two large ashlars of which survived; these stones bear traces of white plaster, and served as a foundation for the installation. A large round oven of fired bricks is built on a stone

foundation (L4114) in the northeastern corner of the courtyard next to W4013 and W4014. The stone foundation forms a large square, 3.00×3.00 m; it is of ashlars that create a flat surface with a smoothed upper part. The surface is 0.60 m above the courtyard floor level. The bricks forming the dome-shaped oven core were placed on this surface. Of varying thickness, they form a trapezoid measuring 16×18×25 cm. Their wide sides face out of the oven, their narrow sides, inside it; thus they connect to make a perfect circle with an external diameter of 2.80 m and an inner one of 2.20 m. To the east and north, the brick wall of the oven core rested on the wing walls, while to the south and west, the core is enveloped by fieldstone walls built over the foundation. The space between the oven core and the exterior walls was filled with earth and small stones. The oven mouth, 0.60 m in diameter, is in the west, toward the entrance to Room 29, and is built of large ashlars. Room 29 is a long hall measuring 11.60×4.20 m, of which the eastern part was excavated (Fig. 38). A two-step staircase led to the room from Courtyard 27. The room’s floor (F4116, F4115) is some 0.5 m lower than that of the courtyard and is composed of well-

[270]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

fitting irregular smoothed stone slabs.15 A series of three arches, built about 2.5 m apart, crossed the hall and supported the upper story floor. Their reconstruction teaches that they rose to a height of some 2.8 m. A low bench (W4102) was installed in the south of the hall, in the space between the entrance stairs and the middle arch. This section might have been part of a long bench that spanned the entire length of the eastern wall of the room. The proximity of Room 29 to the kitchen installations in Courtyard 27 possibly indicates its function as the monastery refectory.

Fig. 36. Courtyard 27, stone basin, view from the north.

Phase IV—Early Islamic Period

Fig. 37. Courtyard 27, a segment of a clay pipe installed in W3219, view from the west.

In this phase some changes were made in the monastery complex: walls were bolstered, entrances blocked, pillars and partition walls added. For the most part, the latter were built over the mosaic floors, damaging them in the process. Most of the changes were made in the eastern wing of the monastery. An oil press of the pier-shaped weights and screw type was installed in Room 14.16 This installation is composed of two identical rectangular weights (0.90 m long and 0.56 m wide) placed in tandem,1.05 m apart (Fig. 39). The weights were placed diagonally to the room’s walls, to maximally utilize the room’s area. Grooves (0.18 m wide and 0.10 m deep) were

Fig. 38. Room 29, view from the north.

[271]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

chiseled along the entire heights of the front and back sides of the weights, while on their lateral sides a groove (0.72×0.14 m and 0.10 m deep) was chiseled beginning in the upper end of the weight and ending in an depression (0.41×0.27 m) with a square hole (0.14×0.14 m) in its center.17 In this phase the southern wall of the eastern portico was dismantled to the portico mosaic floor level, thereby expanding the portico to the south and canceling Room 12 as a separate room. The entrance to Room 12 from the southern portico was blocked by the construction of a wall. In the southern portico W3186 was built, extending from the entrance to Room 15 to the southern stylobate wall, dividing the portico into two. Room 17–18 from the preceding phase was divided by W3169 into two separate rooms. A new plaster floor, some 25 cm thick, was laid over the stone slab floor from the preceding phase and reached the bench wall (W3174). A well-preserved small tabun (cooking oven), 0.60 m in diameter and 0.40 m high, was uncovered on this floor, alongside the northern wall of Room 18 (Fig. 40).

In this phase a pair of pillars, meant to support a roof, was installed in the chapel (no. 13) at the center of the room. One pillar was installed directly alongside the chapel entrance, while the other stood in the center of the room, at a distance of 6.00 m from the first one. The installation of the pillars damaged the chapel mosaic floor. The eastern wall (W3128) of the room north of the chapel was thickened. At least two pillars were built as part of this alteration. The room (no. 25) was not excavated in its entirety, and there might well have been additional pillars along the eastern wall. The southern pillar was placed 1.70 m from the room’s southern wall, the northern pillar, 2.30 m from the southern one. The room’s western entrance (W3073) was blocked in this phase. The blockage included a pillar that stood opposite the northern pillar in the east of the room (Fig. 41). The southwestern pillar was not preserved. All of these changes and repairs were implemented and built over the mosaic floor of the room without damaging it. Installations found in Room 23 suggest the room was used as a service room in this phase. A basin

Fig. 39. Room 14, oil press weights.

[272]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 40. Room 18, Early Islamic tabun.

Fig. 41. Blocked entrance between Rooms 24 and 25 from the Early Islamic period, view from the west.

[273]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

built of thin stone walls (L3258; 1.20×0.95 m) was installed in the northeastern corner of the room; and a coal-fired stove (L3262) was built alongside the basin. The latter installation was made of a pair of thin partitions, one made of a rectangular stone set on its narrow side, which faced another partition, of earth. The space between these two partitions was coated with concave-shaped plaster that bears soot marks.18 A sort of rectangular platform (L3090) built in the southwestern corner of the room bears traces of thick white plaster. The western wall (W3099) was dismantled to the foundation, the platform installed over it and over the entrance in the wall. We may reasonably surmise that this installation was a shelf or work surface. The installation of the platform also blocked the entrance from the direction of the corridor (no. 22) to Room 23.

Phase V—Mamluk Period Settlement was only partial and for short periods. Parts of the structures were used, while other sections remained in ruins. Testimony to this use was found in Room 21, in which a thick earthen floor (F3111) covered the room’s earlier mosaic one (F3139). A thick ash layer covered the floor. In this phase the room was entered through an opening in the room’s eastern wall. Finds consist of sherds from the Mamluk period (Pl. 7).

Monastery Mosaic Floors Considerable parts of the eastern and central wings (the tower structure) were paved in mosaics that were preserved almost in their entirety. Most of the floors are of simple and coarse construction, of white tesserae, with some 25 tesserae per sq. dm. No mosaic floors, in contrast, were built in the northern wing and in the entrance complex. Decorated mosaic carpets were incorporated in only three areas: the courtyard (no. 9), the prayer chapel (no. 13), and the room north of the prayer chapel (no. 25). There was also a colorful inscription in a tabula ansata set in the eastern portico (no. 11), facing the entrance to the prayer chapel. Although the mosaic carpet in Room 21 is not decorated, it differs from the other mosaic floors in the monastery in the color and

size of its tesserae and its layout (see below). The courtyard (no. 9) mosaic carpet was decorated in simple geometric patterns, with a colorful panel in its center (Figs. 42–43). The carpet margins were paved in white tesserae with a row of alternating schematic buds and squares (D*, second from the left).19 The frame, 7.10×5.95 m and 12 cm in width, consists of five rows of red and white tesserae. Two rows of indented square patterns (E*) were used along the frame, between the margins and the colorful panel. Only scant parts of the panel survived. It consisted of white, black, red, and brown tesserae. The frame comprised a guilloche (B2*) of red-white and brownwhite bands outlined in black. On either side of the guilloche were symmetrically arrayed rows of brown and black tesserae and two rows in red. In the carpet corners, adjoining the frame, were pairs of interlaced ellipses (I4*). A small segment of the circle pattern survived in the carpet’s northeastern corner. The circle’s frame comprised a guilloche (B2*). The mosaic floor consisted of tesserae in white, black, red, and brown. The margins consisted of 25 tesserae per sq. dm, the frame, of 49 tesserae per sq. dm, and the panel, of 81 tesserae per sq. dm. The chapel floor contained two panels that contained only three colors: red, black, and white. The carpet margin consisted of white tesserae arranged in diagonal rows, with a row of buds close to the carpet. The carpet frame is composed of straight rows of white, black, and red tesserae. The eastern panel (3.15×2.70 m) contains a scale pattern with a bud in the center of each scale (J3*). The scales face the western panel (Figs. 44–45). The western panel, 4.00×2.70, is decorated with an amphora, from which grapevines spring and divide the carpet into registers. Badly damaged, only the amphora’s upper part survived. Two peacocks face one another at either side of the amphora (Fig. 46).20 Four animals are depicted above them, in the second register. Two heraldic horned animals, possibly ibex, stand on either side of the vine stalk, and a bird stands behind each (Fig. 47). The head of the left ibex was entirely effaced. The bird on the same side is depicted as walking on the carpet frame. The next register depicts a dog to the left of the vine stalk (see Fig. 47), giving chase to two rabbits, thus creating a hunting scene.21 The upper rabbit, mostly

[274]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

effaced by a repair, is apparently fleeing from the dog, while the lower rabbit appears to be upside-down in a crouching position. This portrayal relieves the composition’s rigid symmetrical heraldic scheme. The upper register, framed by vine tendrils, depicts a bird of prey (most probably an eagle) in a medallion, flanked by two heraldic lions; these motifs are usually shown separately (Fig. 48).22 The bird of prey’s position at the top of the carpet in the chapel is unusual.23 Two lions in red and black are depicted on either side of the medallion. Identical in shape and in their wavy mane, they differ in details. These differences in detail relieve the composition’s symmetrical rigidity. The scene of two lions lifting in their paws a medallion enclosing a standing bird of prey is almost unknown in mosaic floors. The closest parallel is apparently in the Church of St. Peter in Gallicantu on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Here, a lion appears on either side of a bird of prey in the middle of the carpet above the central amphora.24 There is a resemblance in composition and style between the chapel mosaic and the mosaic carpet in the baptistery chapel of the cathedral at Madaba.25 The Madaba carpet, set in the floor in the chapel’s early

00

11

22

Fig. 43. Courtyard 9, mosaic floor, illustration.

Fig. 42. Courtyard 9, mosaic floor, view from the west.

[275]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 44. Chapel, mosaic floor, view from the west.

stage, is dated to the beginning of the sixth century; its composition comprises a grapevine randomly populated by figures. The vine does not evolve into medallions; rather its arrangement divides the carpet into three registers that include zoomorphic figures in heraldic posture. The composition in the chapel mosaic, unlike that of Madaba, has a sense of movement created by the asymmetric arrangement of the zoomorphic figures and their relation to the vine scrolls. The mosaic chapel composition and style suggest it should be ascribed to the second half of the fifth and beginning of the sixth century CE. The mosaic is in red, white, and black. There are 49 tesserae per sq. dm in the margins and frame and 81 tesserae per sq. dm in the carpet field. Repairs made to the mosaic floor can be discerned in five different locations. However, they do not appear to be related to the iconoclastic campaign following the decree of Yazid II in 721. As mentioned above, the amphora and the horned animal on the left were effaced and not repaired.

Fig. 45. Chapel, mosaic floor, illustration.

Room 25 was paved in a crude white mosaic floor whose tesserae were different in type and density (49 per sq. dm) from those of the floors in the courtyard (no. 9) and chapel (no. 13; Fig. 49). A rectangular carpet, 2.40×1.75 m, in the south of the floor was decorated

[276]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Fig. 46. Chapel, mosaic floor, peacocks on either side of an amphora.

Fig. 47. Chapel, mosaic floor, heraldic horned animals and dog giving chase to two rabbits.

Fig. 48. The lions and eagle motif in the chapel mosaic floor.

[277]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

0 0

0.5 0.5

1 1

Fig. 49. Room 25, mosaic floor, view from the west.

with a pattern of rhombi (H1*) in black and white tesserae (49 per sq. dm). In the middle of the carpet’s eastern side, six of the rhombi were adorned with squares in a black and white checkerboard pattern (G1*). The mosaic floor in Room 21 is different from the other white mosaic floors in the monastery. Its tesserae are a uniform pinkish-white, with ca. 100 tesserae per sq. dm. The mosaic abuts the walls in a band of three rows of tesserae. A frame of four rows of pinkish-white tesserae located in the middle of the carpet comprises the floor’s sole decoration. A number of repairs made with white tesserae (25 per sq. dm), identical to those in the walled courtyard, were discerned.

found in the course of the excavations. Both belong to the same type of bowl, characterized by a sharp carinated wall ending in a simple vertical rim at the top and a flat base at the bottom. The relatively thin walls (0.5–1 cm) are distinguished by high quality craftsmanship and polished surfaces. One bowl (Fig. 51:1) is 31 cm in diameter and 3 cm deep, the other (Fig. 51:2), 33 cm in diameter and 3.2 cm deep. These bowls belong to a prominent type of serving vessels. Utilized in liturgical rites, they have been found in sixth century contexts in many of the churches excavated throughout the Land of Israel.26 The fragment of a large, white marble, round basin, 15 cm in diameter and ca. 12 cm deep, was discovered at the site (Fig. 51:3). It is characterized by carefully polished walls, ca. 5 cm thick, and a plain rim. The high quality material and craftsmanship indicate that the basin was an object of value serving some liturgical purpose.27 An unusual installation for decanting liquid was found, not in situ, in the middle of Room 24 (Fig. 52). It was monolithic, of local limestone, and consisted of two attached basins. The first was smaller, with a round opening at the top of a cylinder; its inner diameter was 0.30 m, its outer one, 0.40 m, and its depth was 0.11 m. Next to it was a larger basin, trapezoidal in shape. Its inner dimensions were 0.65 m long, 0.45 m maximum width, 0.35 m minimum width, and 0.22 m deep. Its walls, 8 cm thick, adjoin the smaller basin. A perforation in the wall of the latter links the two basins, allowing the passage of liquids between them.

Finds

Liturgical furniture Fragments of a marble chancel panel were found amidst the rubble in the chapel (Fig. 50). Two fragments of white marble flat serving bowls were

[278]

0

2

Fig. 50. Chancel screen panel.

4

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

1

2

3 5

0

10

Fig. 51. Marble vessels.

0

5

10

Fig. 53. Roof tiles. 0

5 0

1

10 2

0

0

10 20

20

40

Fig. 52. Installation for decanting liquid.

The trapezoidal basin is deeper than the small one, whereby liquid runs from the latter into the former. A cross engraved in high relief on one of the long walls attests to the installation’s liturgical use.

Roof Tiles Scores of ceramic roof tile fragments were found in the course of the excavation. Most were recovered from the area of the cave entrance beneath the tower. The tiles are of the imbrex and tegula types (Fig. 53).28 Six of the tegula tiles bear stamps that can be construed as countermarks. Two fragments

bear only a horseshoe-shaped stamp, whereas the others also have a pair of punctures. At times the punctures are positioned rather carelessly in relation to the horseshoe, indicating that two separate stamps were used. While the horseshoe imprint is common on tiles discovered at numerous Byzantine sites in Judea,29 an imprint of the puncture and horseshoe stamps thus positioned together has not been observed at other sites.

Coins The excavations yielded 13 coins; most were discovered in the service unit. Six were identified, most from the Umayyad period.30 The earliest coin was found in the rubble in the service unit (Courtyard 27; L4061). It dates to the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE). In the tower, a probe undertaken in Room 4 below the monastery’s mosaic

[279]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

floor (F2054) yielded a coin from the Hasmonean period: the reign of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BCE) or Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE). It was discovered in the foundation of the structure’s earlier floor (L2060). Four of the identifiable coins derive from the Umayyad period. One dates to the reign of Constans II (641–668 CE). It was found in a disturbed context (L3200) in the eastern complex. Three coins were recovered from the service unit. A coin dating to 680 CE was found on the beaten earth floor in Courtyard 27 (L4053). Another coin, dating to the Umayyad period, was found on the floor of the unit’s entranceway (L3245). A coin from the end of the Umayyad period, 116 AH (Anno Hegirae or 734/5 CE), was found in Room 29 (L4099), in the debris.

Summary Excavations at Kh. el-Qaṣr revealed five phases of occupation. The first phase, dated to the Second Temple period, is represented by a miqweh and by pottery discovered in probes conducted in the cave and

beneath the tower and monastery floors. In the second phase, the end of the fourth to early fifth century CE, a tower surrounded by a glacis was built above the cave. In the third phase, the Byzantine to Umayyad periods, a monastery was established and the tower was incorporated into the complex. In addition to the tower there were three other wings. The southern wing served as the entrance wing. The northern wing was probably used as a service wing. The eastern wing housed the chapel and narthex. The chapel mosaic carpet and the inscription discovered in the narthex enable us to date the establishment of the monastery to the mid-fifth century CE. The lack of iconoclasm in the chapel mosaic carpet also suggests that the monastery was abandoned some time before Yazid II’s decree of 721. The abandonment of the site in the late seventh to early eighth century CE is further supported by the numismatic finds, as most identifiable coins date to the seventh century CE. In the Early Islamic period, phase four, various changes were made in the monastery’s rooms. Notably, an oil press was introduced in Room 14. During the Mamluk period, the site was only occupied for short periods.

[280]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 1. Second Temple Period Pottery No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L2055

Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, few white grits.

Gezer (Gitin 1990: Pl. 40:6); Dor 2nd–1st cent. (Guz-Zilberstein 1995: Figs. 6.3); BCE Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 16:268)

2

L2055

Local variation of fish plate

3

L2060

4

L2059

Bowl

Well-sifted light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, few white grits, red and dark black slip.

5

L2055

Cooking pot

Sifted reddish-brown ware 5YR:4/4, few white Gezer (Gitin 1990: Pl. 42:23); Jericho 2nd cent. (HS1- HR1. Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 11) BCE–1st cent. grits. CE

6

L2055

7

L3236

Krater

Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, few white grits.

Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 13:175) 2nd–1st cent. BCE

8

L2061

Jar

Rough reddish-brown ware 5YR:4/4, brown core 7.5YR:5/4, a lot of white grits.

Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 5:29)

9

L3230

Sifted pinkish gray ware 7.5YR:6/2, few white Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 7:43) grits.

10

L3236

Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:8/4, pink core 5YR:7/4, few white grits.

Herodium (Bar-Nathan 1981: Pl. 1.3); 2nd–1st cent. Gezer (Gitin 1990: Pl. 39:14); BCE Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 1:1)

11

L3236

Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, few white grits.

Herodium (Bar-Nathan 1981: Pl. 1.5) 1st cent. BCE– 1st cent. CE

12

L3236

Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, white grits.

Gezer (Gitin 1990. Pl. 39:13)

13

L2055

Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, white grits.

Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pls. 10:86–87, 25:443–447)

Sifted reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:8/6, gray core Gezer (Gitin 1990: Pl. 40:7); Jericho 7.5YR:6/1, white grits, red and black slip on (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 16:267) inner face. Drippings of black slip on outer face. Well-sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, pale brown slip 10YR:6/3. Gezer (Gitin 1990: Pl. 38:4, 5; Pl. 43:8); 2nd–1st cent. Jericho (Bar-Nathan 2002: Pl. 14:188) BCE

Rough yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/6, dark gray Gezer (Gitin 1990: Pl. 37:15; Pl. 40:26) 2nd cent. BCE core 5YR:4/1, few white grits.

Jug

Juglet

[281]

2nd–1st cent. BCE 1st cent. BCE– 1st cent. CE

2nd cent. BCE–1st cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

2

4

5

3

6

7

10

9

8

11 0

12 5

Plate 1.

[282]

10

13

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 2. Late Fourth to Early Fifth Century CE and Byzantine Period: Bowls No. Locus 1 L4073

Type CRS bowl

2

L3252

LRC bowl

3

L3252

4

L3254

5

L2043

ARS bowl

6

L2016

Rouletted bowl

7

L2020

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2.

8

L3252

9

L2032

10

L4081

Light reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:7/4 reddish brown, many white and gray grits. Rouletted decoration on outer face. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2. Sifted pink ware 5YR:7/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, few white grits.

11

L4074

12

L2044

13

L2043

Sifted reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/8, light gray core 7.5YR:7/1, burnished.

14

L3166

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, gray core 5YR:5/1, white grits.

15

L2020

16

L4099

17

L4105

18

L2022

19

L2052

Bowl

20

L3156

Krater

FBW cup

Description Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, few white grits, red slip 2.5YR:5/6. Sifted reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/6, few white grits, light red slip 2.5YR:5/8. Sifted light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, few white grits, light red slip 2.5YR:6/8. Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white grits, red slip 2.5YR:5/8. Well-sifted light red ware 10R:6/8, few white grits, burnished on inner face and rim. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3.

Sifted reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, very few white grits. Inscribed wave decoration. Well-sifted light gray ware 10YR:7/1, burnished. Wavy combed decoration on outer face.

FBW bowl

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, reddish-yellow slip 5YR 6/6. Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, few gray grits, burnished band decoration. Well-sifted pale brown ware 10YR:6/3, very few white grits, burnished band decoration. Sifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, few white grits.

Parallels Hayes 1972: Fig. 82:12–13 Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:10 Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 63:8–9) Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 63:10–11) Hayes 1972: Fig. 19; Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: Fig. 61:7–14) Jerusalem (Magness 1992a: Fig. 8:4) Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 30:21)

5th cent. CE Second half of 6th cent. CE Last quarter of 6th cent. CE

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 29:36) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 4th–5th cent. CE 1999: Fig. 3:44) Mid-6th–early Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky 8th cent. CE and Figueras 2004: Fig. 31:15); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 194, Form 1A)

Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 31:11) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 195, Form 1B); Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 31:14) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 4:60); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 197, Form 1F: 3) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 197, Form 1F: 2) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 200, Form 2C) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 201, Form 2D) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 199, Form 2B)

Sifted light red 2.5YR:6/6, light brown core 7.5YR 6/3, many white grits. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6, light red core Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 2.5YR:6/6, yellow slip 10YR:8/6. 1999: Fig. 6.141:4)

[283]

Date Late 6th–7th cent. CE Late 5th cent. CE

Mid-6th–early 8th cent. CE

7th–8th cent. CE Mid-7th–9th cent. CE

6th–7th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

3

2 1

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

11

13

12

15

17

16

18

19

20

0

14

5

Plate 2.

[284]

10

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 3. Byzantine Period: Kraters, Casseroles and Cooking Vessels No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L3252

Arched-rim basin

2

L2020

3

L2032

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: 6.137:5–7) 6th–7th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: CE Fig. 6.145:5) 6th–early 8th Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: cent. CE Fig. 5:70)

4

L3263

5

L2016

6

L4099

7

L4099

8

L2016

9

L2016

10

L2019

11

L2032

12

L2044

13

L2056

14

L4061

15

L3252

16

L4052

17

L3144

18

L3171

Rough pink ware 5YR:7/4, white and gray grits. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, light gray core 10YR:7/2, many white and black grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 5YR:5/1, very pale brown slip 10YR:7/3, white grits. Combed decoration on outer face. Sifted light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, light gray core 10YR:7/2, white and gray grits. Sifted light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, white and gray grits, pink slip 5YR7/4. “Piecrust” rim. Sifted very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4, gray grits. Combed decoration on outer face. Shifted pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, few white and gray grits. Combed decoration on outer face. Light reddish brown ware 5YR:6/4, very pale brown 10YR:8/2. Wavy combed decoration on outer face. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, white grits, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, light gray core 10YR:7/2, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3. Rough reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:4/4, white grits. Rough reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:4/4, white grits. Rough reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:4/4, red core 2.5YR:5/6, white grits. Sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6, white and black grits. Rough reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/3, white and black grits. Sifted reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/4, white grits. Sifted reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:5/4, white grits. Sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6.

19

L3171

20

L4071

21

L4100

22

L3156

Sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6.

23

L2032

Sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6, few white and gray grits.

Casserole

Cooking pot

Casserole

Lid

Sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6. Sifted red ware 2.5YR:5/6, few white grits. Sifted reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:5/4, few white and black grits.

[285]

Date

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 5:69) 6th–mid-8th Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:1); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal cent. CE 1999: Fig. 6.132:14) 6th–7th cent. Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: CE Fig. 6.134:22) Ramla (Sion 2004: Fig. 9:6)

Mid-7th–8th cent. CE

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:9)

Mid-7th–mid8th cent. CE

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.135:24) Caesarea (Magness 1995: Fig. 1:10)

5th–7th cent. CE 6th–mid-7th cent. CE

Caesarea (Magness 1995: Fig. 1:13)

5th–early 8th Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: cent. CE Fig. 6:86) Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.137:17) Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:90) Naḥ al Laʿana (Nahlieli, Israel and Ben Michael 1997: Fig. 9:6); Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 45:8–9) Naḥ al Laʿana (Nahlieli, Israel and Ben Michael 1997: Fig. 9:9); Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 46:1) Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 46:2, 4) 7th cent. CE Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:91); Givʿot Goral (Fabian and Goldfus 2004: Fig. 9:10) Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 46:3) Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 46:6)

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

13

11

12

15

14

16

17 18

19

20

21

23

22 0

5

Plate 3.

[286]

10

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 4. Byzantine Period: Jars No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L2032

Jar

Light brown 7.5YR:6/4, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, very Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 6th–7th cent. CE pale brown slip 10YR:8/2. 1999: Fig. 7:99–102)

2

L2016

Reddish yellow 7.5YR:7/6, light gray core 5YR:7/1.

3

L3055

Pink ware 5YR:7/4, light gray core 5YR:7/1, white grits.

4

L3248

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6 gray core 7.5YR:5/1, white grits, pink slip 2.5Y:8/4.

5

L4061

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2.

6

L3098

Pink ware 5YR:7/3, white slip 7.5YR:8/1.

7

L3258

Light reddish-brown 2.5YR:6/4, pink slip 7.5YR:7/3. Remains of white paint.

8

L3258

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

9

L3258

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, pink slip 5YR:8/3.

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.138:9)

10

L4104

Light reddish-brown 2.5YR:6/4, pink slip 7.5YR:7/3. Remains of white paint.

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.138:7–8, 13)

11

L3171

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/3, white grits.

12

L2052

Rough reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, many white and black grits.

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.130:8)

13

L3098

Light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, gray core 5YR:6/1, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2.

14

L3263

Gaza jar

Rough light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, many white and black grits.

15

L3056

Jar

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, gray core 10YR:6/1. Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 7th cent. CE 1999: Fig. 7:111–112); Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 42:8)

16

L3152

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, very pale brown slip Tel ʿIra (Fischer and 10YR:8/3. Tal 1999: Fig. 6.138:3; 6.150:1–2); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:109–110)

17

L2016

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 5YR:6/1, white grits, pink slip 7.5YR:8/3.

[287]

Date

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:99, 101)

Ḥ . ʿIllin (Upper) (Greenhut 2004: Fig. 10:3)

End of 6th–early 7th cent CE

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.143:19)

6th–7th cent. CE

End of 6th–early 7th cent CE Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.147:11)

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.130:11); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:109–110)

Late 6th–7th cent. CE

6th–7th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

3

2

5

4

6

8 7

10

11

9

13

12

14

15

17 16 0

5

Plate 4.

[288]

10

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 5. Byzantine Period: Amphorae and Jugs No. Locus 1 L4061

Type Table amphorae Amphora

2

L3098

3

L4073

4 5

L3258 L3268

6

L4099

7

L4073

8

L2044

FBW juglet

9

L4099

Jug

10

L4091

11 12

L4045 L4040

Jug FBW jug

Pipe

Description Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, white grits. Light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, gray core 5YR:5/1, white grits, pink slip 7.5YR:8/4. Light reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:7/4, white grits, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, white grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, white grits, light reddish-brown slip 5YR:6/3. Sifted pinkish-gray ware 7.5YR:6/2, reddish brown core 5YR:5/4, few white grits. Sifted light reddish- brown ware 5YR:6/4, gray core 7.5YR:5/1, white grits. Sifted light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, gray core 5YR:5/1, pink slip. Sifted pink ware 5YR:7/4, white and brown grits, pinkish-white slip 2.5Y:8/2. Brownish-red painted decorations. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, white and gray grits, pink slip 5YR:7/4. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 5YR:6/1. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, gray core 5YR:6/1.

[289]

Parallels

Date

Pella (Watson 1992: Fig. 11:96) Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.141:5); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 9:127)

575–620 CE

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.142:12) Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.135:20) Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 4:2–5)

Mid-7th–mid-8th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

3 2

1

6

5

4

9

7 8

10

12 11

0

Plate 5.

[290]

5

10

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 6. Byzantine Period: Lamps No.

Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L3268

Candlestick lamp

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, very pale brown slip 10YR:8/2.

Jerusalem (Magness 1992b: Fig. 12:18)

6th–7th cent. CE

2

L3260

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6.

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 10:139)

3

L3199

Candlestick lamp with inscription

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, pink slip 5YR:7/4. Inscribed.

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 10:140); Ḥ . ʿIllin (Upper) (Greenhut 2004: Fig. 10:16)

4

W3020

Cross-shaped Very pale brown ware handle from 10YR:7/3. candlestick lamp

5

L3258 L4052

Early channelnozzle lamp

Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3.

6 7

L4098

Wheel-made lamp

Reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/4, gray core 5YR:5/1. Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: Pl. I:21); Tel ʿIra (Fisher and Tal 1999: Figs. 6.130:1, 6.136:1); Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 333); Ḥ . Karkur ʿIllit (Nikolsky and Figueras 2004: Fig. 47:6–16);

8

L2007

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, white grits.

9

L4099

Samaritan lamp

10

L3132

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, white grits.

11

L3142

Gray ware 5YR:5/1.

12

L4091

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, white grits, pink slip 5YR:7/3.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 325)

13

L4099

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/6, gray core 5YR:5/1, pink slip 5YR:7/3.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 329)

Pink ware 5YR:7/4, white slip 5YR:8/1.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 385)

1314 L3258

Ovoid lamp

Jerusalem (Shapira and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.17:16; Tushingham 1985: Fig. 32:43)

Dark gray ware 5YR:4/1.

6th–7th cent. CE

Tel ʿIra (Fisher and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.132:17)

Light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, pinkish-gray slip 7.5YR:7/2.

Ramla (Kletter 2005: Fig. 21:2)

7th cent. CE

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 334)

Mid-7th–mid-8th cent. CE

15

L3268

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, reddish-yellow slip 5YR:7/6.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 369)

16

L4042

Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3, white grits.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 440)

17

Surface

Handle. Light brownish-gray ware 10YR:6/2, white grits, white slip 10YR:8/1.

8th–10th cent. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 8:6); CE Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: no. 448); Ramla (Kletter 2005: Fig. 21:3–8);

[291]

8th–10th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

3

2

4

1

5

6 7

9

8

10

11

12

15 14

0

13

16

1

2

Plate 6.

[292]

17

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Plate 7. Early and Late Islamic Pottery No. Locus

Type

Description

1

L3144

Glazed bowl

Light yellowish-brown ware 10YR:6/4, white slip, Tiberias (Stacey 2004: green and brown glaze on inner face and rim. Fig. 5.19); Ramla (Kletter 2005: Fig. 11:7);

9th–mid-10th cent. CE

2

L3037

Casserole

Rough light reddish-brown 2.5YR:6/4, white grits, Jerusalem (Tushingham pale yellow slip 2.5Y:8/2. Thumb-indented band 1985: Figs. 41:39, 42:1, below rim. 45:11)

Mamluk period

3

L3050

Rough light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, white grits. Thumb-indented band decoration below rim.

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 42:3)

Mamluk period

4

L3037

Rough pink ware 7.5YR:7/4.

Dhraʾ el-Khan (Kareem 2000: Fig. 92:1–2)

13th–15th cent. CE

5

L3131

Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/2.

Tiberias (Stacey 2004: Fig. 5.43:1)

750–880 CE

6

L3050

Light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, gray core 5YR:5/1, white slip 2.5Y:8/1.

Acco, Yokneʿam, and Banias (Avissar and Stern 2005: Fig. 45:1–3)

12th–13th cent. CE

7

L3139

Rough very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3, pale yellow slip 2.5Y:8/2. Handmade. Black painted geometrical decoration.

Yokneʿam, Banias, and Beth Shean (Avissar and Stern 2005: Fig. 47)

12th–16th cent. CE

8

L3139

Rough light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4. Gray painted geometrical decoration on inner face.

9

L3139

Rough reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, white, gray and black grits. Black painted geometrical decoration.

Jug

Decorated body sherd

Parallels

[293]

Date

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

2 3

1 4

5 0

5

7

10

9

8 0

1

Plate 7.

[294]

6

2

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Notes Kh. el-Qaṣr was excavated in September 1999 to January 2000 (License No. 863) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen, B. Har-Even, I. Sharukh, and A. Aronshtam. 2 Ḥ A 1971; Kloner and Hirschfeld 1989: 132, 135. 3 Magen 2008a: 229–232. 4 Magen 2008b: 299. 5 Thick hydraulic plaster of a dark grayish hue is characteristic of miqwaʾot and cisterns from the Herodian period (Magen 1985: 22; Porath 1989: 75). 6 For the Hebron Hills area see Amit 1994, and for the Jerusalem area see Shukron and Savariego 1993. 7 This mode of roofing is familiar from Rujm el-Qaṣr (Hirschfeld 1979: 80–83) and Rujm el-Ḥ amiri (Baruch 1995: 140–141), where the tower’s architectural design is identical to that of Kh. el-Qaṣr. 8 Concerning the Greek inscriptions found in the excavation see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr,” in this volume. 9 The hall’s location and plan are characteristic of monastery stables; see, for example, the stable complexes at the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 95–97) and the monastery at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 13–16, Fig. 8). 10 Similar frescoes were discovered in the monasteries at Kh. ed-Deir and Kh. el-Quneitira (Ben-Arieh 1999: Pl. IV:1–2). 11 Excavations conducted by the Staff Officer of Archaeology —Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria in the Euthymius Monastery at Mishor Adummim revealed similar benches in rooms adjacent to the church (Unpublished). 12 Plastered benches are common in churches and chapels from the sixth and seventh centuries. See, for example, in the Jordan Valley: the church at Kh. el-Beyudat (Hizmi 1990: 249); the church at Kh. Beit Sila (Batz 2012); the church at Kh. Huriya (Har-Even and Greenfeld 2012); the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab elKabir,” in this volume); and the northern church at Herodium (Netzer, Birger-Calderon, and Feller 1993: 225–226). 13 A similar niche was found in the monastery church at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 42–44, Figs. 61–62). 14 Installations consisting of basins linked to water channels in monastery kitchens have been found at the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 102–104, Fig. 15), at the monastery at Kh. edDeir (Hirschfeld 1999: 72–73, Figs. 112–114), and at the Euthymius Monastery at Mishor Adummim (Unpublished). 15 An identical floor was found on the lower story of the refectory at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 62–78, Figs. 92–97). 16 See Magen 2008b: 320–323. 1

Kloner and Hirschfeld (1989) mention a crushing basin; however it was apparently later removed from the site and was not found in the excavation. The description given in the survey suggests that it was not in situ when discovered. 18 A similar stove was found in the refectory of the monastery at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 72, Fig. 111). 19 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 20 Similar depictions of peacocks occur in the synagogue at Maʿon – Nirim (Avi-Yonah 1960: 86, Fig. 1); in the church at Shellal (Trendall 1957: Pl. 2); and in the synagogue at Gaza (Ovadiah 1981). 21 Hunting dogs appear on the mosaic floors in the church at Shellal (Trendall 1957: Pl. 2), in the church at Ḥ . Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1985: 108), in the synagogue at Maʿon – Nirim (Avi-Yonah 1960: 86, Fig. 1); in the church at Ḥ . Beʾer Shemaʿ (Gazit and Lender 1993: 276); and in Transjordan, at Kh. al-Mukhayyat, in the church of Lot and Procopius; and in the lower mosaic floor in the Chapel of Priest John (Piccirillo 1998: Figs. 92, 95, 98, 192, 196). 22 The bird of prey motif occurs in mosaics in the Land of Israel, as well as in Syria and Transjordan. Examples of the motif appearing with vines are known from the synagogue at Maʿon – Nirim (Avi-Yonah 1960: 86, Fig. 1); in the Armenian Church in Jerusalem (Hachlili 1987: 48, Fig. 3); in the church at Beth Guvrin (Abel 1924: 594, Fig. 5a, Pl. II); and in the Eastern Church at Herodium (Netzer, Birger-Calderon and Feller 1993: 226–227). The motif is also depicted in geometric and free compositions, for example: in the Church of Saint Peter in Gallicantu it appears in the middle of a freely populated grapevine composition (Germer-Durant 1914); in Transjordan, in the church at Kh. Munyah-ʿAsfur next to Jerash, it appears in the middle of a geometric design (Piccirillo 1993: 299, Figs. 584, 588, 589); and in the monastery church of Deacon Thomas at ʿUyun Musa, it appears in the middle of the northern aisle (Piccirillo 1998: 339, Figs. 150, 186). 23 A bird of prey with outspread wings at the top of a mosaic carpet is known from the Church of St. George in Hawad, Syria. The mosaic carpet in the church is ascribed to the middle of the sixth century. It is a figurative mosaic with zoomorphic depictions, but without a grapevine (DonceelVoûte 1988: 138–144, Fig. 109). 24 The bird of prey in the mosaic floor in the Church of St. Peter in Gallicantu appears without an enclosing medallion, and the lions on either side are not in heraldic posture (Germer-Durand 1914). In the Eastern Church at Herodium a lion is depicted next to a bird of prey in the central row of medallions in the floor (Netzer, Birger-Calderon and Feller 1993: 225–226). One can assume that a similar lion was depicted opposite the one that was discovered. However, 17

[295]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

the compositions at Mt. Zion and Herodium form part of an array of mosaic decorations, while in Kh. el-Qaṣr the motifs are given a place of significance in the upper register. 25 Piccirillo 1993: 118–119, Figs. 120–123. 26 Acconci 1998: 495. Bowls of this type have been found in Transjordan at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 494, no. 73) and at the Northern Wall in Jerusalem (Hamilton 1940: Fig. 10: 4). 27 A similar basin was found in a church dating to the fifth to sixth centuries at Shavei Zion (Prausnitz 1967: Pl. XXVI:g). 28 Vriezen 1995. 29 Tiles bearing a horseshoe-shaped potter’s mark were found: in the monastery at Deir Ghazali (Avner 2000: 46, Fig.

6: 24); in the church at Ḥ . Berachot in Gush Ezion (Tsafrir 1984: 306); in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (unpublished); and at Bethany (Saller 1957: 324, Pl. 130:a). The purpose of these marks is unclear. It has been proposed that the various signs represent the hallmarks of various workshops or are inventory markers connected with payment (Tsafrir 1984: 306). Another possibility is that the workshops manufactured tiles to order for several sites simultaneously, the different stamps denoting the destinations to which they would be sent. 30 For a full numismatic report by G. Bijovsky and A. Berman, see JSRF L-863.

References Abel F.M. 1924. “Décovertes récentes à Beit-Djebrin,” RB 33: 583–604. 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. Amit D. 1994. “Ritual Baths (Mikvaot) from the Second Temple Period in the Hebron Mountains,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceeding of the 3rd Annual Meeting—1993, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 157–189 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XVIII–XIX). Avi-Yonah M. 1960. “The Mosaic Pavement of the Maon (Nirim) Synagogue,” EI 6: 86–93 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Avissar M. and Stern E. J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 26), Jerusalem. Avner R. 2000. “Deir Ghazali. A Byzantine Monastery Northeast of Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 40: 25*–52* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Bar-Nathan R. 1981. “The Finds at Lower Herodium. Pottery and Stone Vessels of the Herodian Period,” in E. Netzer, Greater Herodium (Qedem 13), Jerusalem, pp. 54–71. Bar-Nathan R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations III. The Pottery, Jerusalem. Baruch Y. 1995. “The Roman Castles in the Hills of Hebron,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting—1994, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 137–143 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XIV–XV). Batz S. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 373–408. Ben-Arieh R. 1999. “The Frescoes,” in Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the

Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem, pp. 133–134. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Donceel-Voûte P. 1988. Les Pavements des Eglises Byzantines de Syrie et du Liban, Louvain-La-Neuve. Fabian P. and Goldfus H. 2004. “A Byzantine Farmhouse, Terraces and Agricultural Installations at the Goral Hills near Beʾer Shevaʿ,” ʿAtiqot 47: 1*–14* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 209–210). Fischer M. and Tal O. 1999. “Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ʿIra. A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv, pp. 300–345. Gazit D. and Lender Y. 1993. “The Church of St. Stephen at Horvat Beʾer-Shemaʿ,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 273–276. Germer-Durand J. 1914. “La maison de Caiphe et l’église de Saint-Pierre a Jérusalem,” RB 23: 222–246. Gitin S. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer, Jerusalem. Greenhut Z. 2004. “Early Islamic Remains at Ḥ orbat Illin (Upper),” ʿAtiqot 47: 15*–32* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 210–211). Guz-Zilberstein B. 1995. “The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” in E. Stern, Excavations at Dor, Final Report IB: Areas A and C: The Finds, Jerusalem. Ḥ A 38. 1971. “el-Qaṣr,” pp. 22–23. Hachlili R. 1987. “On the Mosaicists of the ‘School of Gaza’,” EI 19: 46–58 (Hebrew). Hadad S. 2002. The Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Beth Shean (Qedem Reports 4), Jerusalem. Hamilton R.W. 1940. “Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem 1937–8,” QDAP 10: 1–54.

[296]

A R O M A N T O W E R 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 - Q A Ṣ R

Har-Even B. and Greenfeld U. 2012. “A Byzantine Church and Monastery at Khirbet Huriya,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 309–326. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes J.W. 1985. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto, pp. 181–194. Hirschfeld Y. 1979. “A Line of Byzantine Forts along the Eastern Highway of the Hebron Hills,” Qadmoniot 12 (46–47): 78–84 (Hebrew). Hirschfeld Y. 1999. The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem. Hizmi H. 1990. “The Byzantine Church at Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: Preliminary Report,” Christian Archaeology: 245–264. Kareem J. M. 2000. The Settlement Patterns in the Jordan Valley in the Mid- to Late Islamic Period (BAR International Series 877), Oxford. Kletter R. 2005. “Early Islamic Remains at ʿOpher Park, Ramla,” ʿAtiqot 49: 57–100. Kloner Y. and Hirschfeld Y. 1989. “Khirbet el-Qaser, A Byzantine Fort with an Olive Press in the Jerusalem Desert,” EI 19: 132–141 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1985. “The Miqvaot in Kedumim and the Purification Standards of the Samaritans,” Cathedra 34: 15–26 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2008a. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246. Magen Y. 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– 343. 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. 1992a. “The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from Areas H and K,” in A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh (Qedem 33), Jerusalem, pp. 149–163. Magness J. 1992b. “Byzantine and Medieval Pottery from Areas A2 and G,” in A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel (eds.), Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh (Qedem 33), Jerusalem, pp. 164–166. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200– 800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Magness J. 1995. “The Pottery from Area V/4 at Caesarea,” in W.G. Dever (ed.), Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el-ʿUmeiri, the Combined

Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan (AASOR 52), New Haven, pp. 133–145. Nahlieli D., Israel Y., and Ben-Michael Y. 1997. “The Naḥ al Laʿana Site: An Early Islamic Farm in the Negev,” ʿAtiqot 30: 67*–78* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 130). Netzer E., Birger-Calderon R., and Feller A. 1993. “The Churches of Herodium,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 219–232. Nikolsky V. and Figueras P. 2004. “The Pottery: Descriptive Catalogue,” in P. Figueras (ed.), Ḥ orvat Karkur ʿIllit. A Byzantine Cemetery Church in the Northern Negev (Final Report of the Excavations 1989–1995) (Beer-Sheva 16: Beer-Sheva Archaeological Monographs 1) Beer-Sheva, pp. 151–209. Ovadiah A. 1981. “The Synagogue at Gaza,” in I.L. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 129–132. Patrich J. and Tsafrir Y. 1985. “A Byzantine Church and Agricultural Installations at Khirbet Beit Loya,” Qadmoniot 18 (71–72): 106–112 (Hebrew). Piccirillo M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman. Piccirillo M. 1998. “The Mosaics,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations, 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 265–371. Porath Y. 1989. “Hydraulic Plaster of Aqueducts as a Chronological Indicator,” in D. Amit, J. Patrich, and Y. Hirschfeld (eds.), The Aqueducts of Israel, Jerusalem, pp. 69–77 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 25–36). Prausnitz M.W. 1967. Excavations at Shavei Zion, Rome. Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zeʾev East A),” ʿAtiqot 38: 171–203. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1988. “The Pottery,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 78–96. Saller S.J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953), Jerusalem. Sion O. 2004. “An Early Islamic Period Settlement in Ramla,” ʿAtiqot 46: 67–92 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 133*). Shapira L. and Peleg O. 2003. “Pottery Lamps of the Byzantine Period from Area XV,” in 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. 104–108. Shukron E. and Savariego A. 1993. “Pisgat Zeʾev,” Ḥ A 99: 51–53 (Hebrew). Stacey D. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974. The Early Islamic Periods (IAA Reports 21), Jerusalem. Trendall A.D. 1957. The Shellal Mosaic and Other Classical Antiquities in the Australian War Memorial Canberra, Canberra.

[297]

Y. M A G E N , B . H A R - E V E N , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Tsafrir Y. 1984. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest II: Archaeology and Art, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I, Toronto. Vriezen K.J.H. 1995. “A Preliminary Study of the Byzantine Roof Tiles (Tegulae and Imbrices) from Areas I and III in

Umm Qeis (Jordan),” Leiden University, Department of Pottery Technology, Newsletter 13: 26–40. Watson B. 1992. “Change in Foreign and Regional Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century A.D.: The Ceramic Evidence,” in P. Cnivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam. VIIe–VIIIe siècles, Damascus, pp. 233–248.

[298]

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MONASTERY AT KHIRBET EL-QAṣ R LEAH DI SEGNI

the handles, which are black; the letters are also black. Rows of red tesserae separate the lines of script. The inner division of the space is imprecise, so that the letters are different heights in different lines: 10 cm in the first line, 11 in the second, 12 in the third, 10 in the fourth and only 6–7 cm in the fifth and last. The inscription, like the floor in which it is set, is of large tesserae and gives an impression of coarseness, which is strengthened by the vulgar spelling of the text. The characters belong to the round alphabet, except for the omega in l. 5 and probably the broken sigma in l. 4, which are square; two of the four omicrons also tend toward squareness. The ypsilon in l. 3 is of the cursive V-shaped type. The shape of the letters points to a date in the second half of the fifth century.

Two Greek inscriptions were uncovered in the remains of the monastery at Kh. el-Qaṣr.1 One was set in the mosaic floor of the narthex of the small church. The inscription, framed in a tabula ansata, was located in front of the nave entrance and oriented to the east, so that it could be read on entering the church. The other, of which four fragments were recovered, not in situ, was engraved on the arch over the entrance of the building.

Inscription 1 Five lines of script are framed within a tabula ansata, 110 cm long (150 cm including the handles) and 62 cm wide. The frame is traced in red tesserae, except for

0

20

[299]

40

L. DI SEGNI

The text opens with a cross and reads:

4

+ UPERCOTERIA

4

+ ‛Upr soter…a-

the title and name of Thomas, but there is no space for toà in the gap in l. 2, unless it was drastically abbreviated. Seemingly, whoever dictated the inscription, though literate, was not familiar with written Greek. If it was Thomas, his name suggests that he may have been a Semite, and thus more at home with Aramaic than with Greek. The epithet ¢bb©j—a respectful address to a monk or priest— does not necessarily prove that he was the abbot of the monastery, though this is not unlikely. The other man, whose name is lost, may have been the mason or the mosaic layer, or a benefactor who paid for the work.2 The space could hold four letters, so a short name is indicated, or a common one that could be written in abbreviated form, e.g., Ctšf(anoj).3 “The work” may refer to the building itself or to the mosaic floor of the church.

- - - Ḅ AQOMAK - - - - TOVKAM - - - - CTOERG - - - - UTWAMIN [j ¢b]b© Qom© k(aˆ) . . . . toà kam[Ònto]j tÕ œrg[on to]àtw. ’Am…n.

(cross) For the salvation of Abba Thomas and of [so-and-so] who made this work. Amen. In several cases, long and short vowels are exchanged:

Inscription 2

soter…a for swthr…a, toàtw for toàto, Qom© for Qwm© (genitive); ¢m»n is spelled with iotacism. A

Four fragments of an inscription that was engraved over the building entrance, as is evident from its

correct use of Greek would require the article before

0

10

[300]

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 M O N A S T E R Y AT K H I R B E T E L - Q A Ṣ R

contents, as well as from the shape of the blocks that formed part of an arch. The characters, 5–7 cm high, are a mixture of round and square forms, like those of the mosaic inscription, and probably of the same date; the ypsilon is of the cursive, V-shaped type. Though only a small part of the inscription is preserved, its text can easily be reconstructed. Fragment I II /̣ Ṇ HP LII9

III

IV

TOVKV E ENAV

[+ AÛt]h ¹ p[Ú]lh toà Ku[r…ou, d…kaioi e„seleÚsont]e

™n aÙ[tÆ.] Fr. I: diagonal stroke, gap, then a broken letter resembling a nu, but most likely an eta with a sloping middle bar. Fr. II: eta lacking the middle bar, then a mark resembling the digit 9 with an open loop:

perhaps a decorative element or a word divider. Fr. III: five letters, with V-shaped ypsilon. Fr. IV: note the phonetic spelling of e„seleÚsontai. This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter through it. Ps 117 (MT 118):20 is one of the most frequently found Septuagint quotations in inscriptions. It is usually engraved on the lintel or arch of the gateway leading to a sacred building or laid out in mosaic on the threshold. Examples on stone are known from the Hauran,4 the Golan,5 southern Judaea,6 the Negev,7 Moab8; St. Catherine in Sinai9; and in mosaic from Tell Basul in the Beth Shean Valley,10 Jerusalem,11 Bethlehem,12 the Northern Church at Herodion,13 Kibbuz Magen,14 and Main in Jordan.15 Many examples also come from churches in Syria.16

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, B. Har-Even, and I. Sharukh, excavation (License No. 863), see Magen, Har-Even, and Sharukh “A Roman Tower and A Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr”, in this volume. 2 The verb k£mnw designated the artist who actually carried out the work, for example, in the mosaic floor of the synagogue at Beth Alpha (CIJ II, no. 1166); on the other hand, the same verb is used for the initiator of a building project in the bathhouse of Hammat Gader (Di Segni 1997: 235, no. 52). The expression ™k tîn kam£twn usually refers to the financing of a work: cf. Dunand 1933: 246, 248, nos. 196, 206; Piccirillo 1981: 74, 81; Di Segni 1990: 267–268, no. 2 and notes 9–10. 3 Cf. Avi-Yonah 1940: 102. 1

Felle 2006: 84–85, nos. 93, 97; 90, no. 111; 92, no. 117; 16§, no. 308; 163, no. 313. 5 Felle 2006: 127, no. 207. 6 Felle 2006: 112–113, nos. 166–167; 134, no. 232. 7 Felle 2006: 115, no. 172; 123, no. 196. 8 Felle 2006: 88, no. 104. 9 Felle 2006: 135–136, nos. 234, 236. 10 Felle 2006: 118, no. 180. 11 Felle 2006: 125–126, no. 202. 12 Felle 2006: 111, no. 160. 13 Felle 2006: 112, no. 165. 14 Felle 2006: 120, no. 187. 15 Felle 2006: 75, no. 74. 16 IGLS, nos. 271, 1673, 1682, 1683, 1688, 1693, 1694, 1700, 1744, 1841, 1844, 1947, 1966, 1982, 2231, 2524. 4

[301]

L. DI SEGNI

References Avi-Yonah M. 1940. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (QDAP, Supplement to vol. 9), Jerusalem. Di Segni L. 1990. “Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: The Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology: 265–273. Di Segni L. 1997. “The Greek Inscriptions of Hammat Gader,” in Y. Hirschfeld, The Roman Bath of Hammat Gader, Jerusalem, pp. 185–266.

Dunand M. 1933. “Nouvelles inscriptions du Djebel Druze et du Hauran II,” RB 42: 235–254. Felle A.E. 2006. Biblia epigraphica. La Sacra Scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’Orbis christianus antiquus (III–VIII secolo), Bari. Piccirillo M. 1981. Chiese e mosaici della Giordania settentrionale (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 30), Jerusalem.

[302]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT k hirbet I S T A B U L ( A R I S T O B U L I A S )

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT KHIRBET ISTABUL (ARISTOBULIAS) YUVAL PELEG AND SHAHAR BATZ

Kh. Istabul (map ref. IOG 16335/09715; ITM 21335 /59715) extends over the southern and western slopes of a hill in the southeastern Hebron Hills, approx. 850 m above sea level and about 1.2 km southeast of Tel Zif (see Site Map on p. XIII ).1 Among the ruins are the remains of structures, rock-cut caves, agricultural installations and cisterns. The site suffered from looting and much damage was caused by agricultural activities and construction in later periods. It was surveyed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.2 A church with mosaic floors, built in the early Islamic period, was uncovered at the northern end of the site, beyond the residential area at the top of the hill.

THE CHURCH Phase I—The Eighth Century The church is basilical, with an inner central apse (Figs. 1–3). The church complex includes a narthex, which borders the entire structure on the west, a nave and two aisles, an apse flanked by pastophoria at the eastern end of the nave, and a southern wing that contains a row of rooms adjoining the southern wall of the church. Its overall length, including the narthex, is 22.50 m, and its total width, including the southern wing, is 17.80 m. The inner dimensions of the narthex are 16.50×3.60 m. The narthex, to the west, is bounded by a wall, 0.80 m thick (W7). Its outer face is of ashlars, some enhanced by marginal drafting, and its inner face is of small fieldstones; there is an earth fill between them. The wall rests on bedrock and is preserved to a height of two courses (0.75 m). In the south of the wall is an entrance, 0.90 m wide, the threshold of which is preserved in situ (Fig. 4). This stone contains a single round socket in its southern

corner measuring 10 cm in diameter and 7 cm deep, indicating that this entrance had a door hinged on one side. The narthex is bounded in the north by W4 and in the south by W8. In W8 an additional entrance to the narthex was uncovered, 1.30 m wide, whose threshold is composed of three stones. A socket, measuring 10 cm in diameter and 6 cm deep, was discovered on the western side of the entrance, attesting that this entrance also had a door hinged on one side. The narthex is paved in crude white mosaic (see below). Evidence of conflagrations was noted in a number of places on the mosaic floor, especially facing the main entrance from the narthex to the prayer hall. A sounding was conducted in the narthex, along the southwestern corner of the prayer hall, to examine the foundation of the narthex’s mosaic floor (L150). The sounding revealed that below the mosaic is a layer of gray plaster resting on a bed of small fieldstones cemented together. Underneath this bed of stones is a layer of brown earthen fill devoid of finds (0.10 m), resting on the bedrock. A flat stone, 0.90×0.40 m, with a round depression in its center, 10 cm in diameter and 7 cm deep, was revealed opposite the western narthex entrance, adjoining the southwestern corner of the prayer hall. The narthex mosaic floor abuts this stone. A column shaft, 1.05 m long and 0.55 m in diameter, which originally stood in the prayer hall, was found among debris west of W3, between the main and southern entrances to the prayer hall. The collapse of this shaft caused damage to the narthex mosaic floor. An additional column fragment, incorporated in a later construction, was uncovered in the west of the narthex. Three entrances in W3, the eastern wall of the narthex, lead into the prayer hall: a wide entrance facing the chancel, and two narrower ones leading

[[303 67 ]]

AN ZZ Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A ND D SS. . BBAT AT

848.99

848.70

W1

W9

W6

L143 F123

849.03

849.26

848.45

L146 F140

L131 F107

849.80

W10 848.59

849.07

849.14

L148

848.19

W5

W5

848.99 849.20

L120

W15

L104 L121 F107

L113 F123

L147 F141

L102 L111 F108

848.68

W13

W2

W4

848.72

W12

L118 L119

L110 F112 F117

L139 F140

L130

849.20

L137 F141

L129 L133

848.72 848.94

W8

W11

L152

L106 F107

L114 F108 L151

L125

L153

L154 W17

W3 L149 L145

L144

L150

F128 L127 F128

W7 L132

0

Fig. 1. Kh. Istabul, detailed plan of the church.

[[304 68 ]]

3

m

YN Z AT N T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

Fig. 2. Church, view from the west.

Fig. 3. Church, reconstruction of Phase I.

[[305 69 ]]

AN ZZ Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A ND D SS. . BBAT AT

Fig. 4. Threshold of the western narthex entrance, view from the east.

into the two aisles. W3, 0.90 m wide and 12.50 m long, has an outer face of large ashlars averaging 0.80×0.75×0.50 m in size, and an inner face of small fieldstones. It is preserved to a height of three courses (1.25 m; Fig. 5). The main entrance that leads into the nave, 1.60 m wide, is also preserved to a height of three courses (Fig. 6). Two stones comprise the threshold, which is flanked by rectangular sockets, each measuring ca. 25×10 cm and 7 cm deep. In the center of the threshold are two small round sockets used to close the two

Fig. 5. Wall between the narthex and prayer hall, view from the south.

Fig. 6. Main entrance from the narthex to the prayer hall, view from the west.

[[306 70 ]]

A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S )

0

20

40

Fig. 7. Decorated lintel of the main entrance.

doors of this entrance that opened towards the prayer hall. This entrance had a monumental lintel and decorated outer (western) sides of the doorposts (Fig. 7). The lintel, 1.74×0.50×0.58 m, is of local limestone. Its facade has marginal drafting and is decorated in the center with a cross measuring 0.33×0.33 m, to the right of which are the remains of a rosette measuring 0.34×0.34 m, most likely with a matching rosette, not preserved, to the left of the cross. This lintel fit over the main entrance, with recesses for the hinges and doors that were probably of wood.3 The doorposts were fashioned as narrow semicolumns in relief, resting on dressed pilasters, each one measuring ca. 1.40×0.36×0.35 m.4 The southern entrance, 0.90 m wide, has a threshold composed of three stones. It is flanked by round sockets: the southern hole is 12 cm in diameter and 7 cm deep, while the diameter of the northern socket measures 7 cm, with a depth of 4 cm. In the center of the threshold is a rectangular depression, 18×7 cm, used for closing what was apparently a double door hinged on both sides. The simple doorposts of this

entrance are preserved to a height of two courses. The main entrance lintel was found on the surface east of this entrance, where it had collapsed along with one of the stones from the northern doorpost (see below). The northern entrance doorposts, 0.90 m wide, are also preserved to a height of two courses. The threshold, built of a single stone, has a round socket in its corner, 10 cm in diameter and 7 cm deep; and two rectangular sockets at its southern end, each measuring 12×5 cm and 4 cm deep. This entrance most likely had a door hinged on one side only. The inner dimensions of the prayer hall are 17.30×11.00 m. The hall was divided into three parts: a nave ending with a bema; an apse in its eastern part; and a southern and northern aisle, each of which ended with a pastophorium. The nave was separated from the aisles by a row of columns on each side, consisting of three columns and two square pilasters (Fig. 8), one pilaster adjoining W3, the other abutting the apse wall (W6). These limestone pilasters are similar in form to the pilasters

71 ] [[307

AN ZZ Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A ND D SS. . BBAT AT

0

20

40

Fig. 8. Pilaster base in the prayer hall.

fashioned in relief in the main entrance, and measure 0.78×0.49×0.40 m.5 The column bases, each measuring 0.75×0.75 m and 0.35 m high, with a round upper part 0.60 m in diameter, stood on square stone foundations. Three bases, one in the southern row and two in the northern one, were discovered in situ.

Monolithic limestone column shafts, found scattered throughout the structure, stood on these bases. One of the shafts, measuring 2.05 m in length, with a diameter of 0.47–0.50 m, was found whole in the nave. The columns were topped with ornamented capitals, seemingly reaching a total height of ca. 3 m. Parts of limestone columns, the best preserved measuring 0.55 m in diameter and 1.95 m in height, were found scattered throughout the structure, some in secondary use. One Ionic capital was found in secondary use in the wall bounding the bema on the west during the Early Islamic period (W5). Additional capital parts were found in secondary use in the late walls and the apse. Two stone benches, each measuring 1.40×0.50×0.41 m, were built on the mosaic floor between the doorposts and pilasters (Figs. 9–10). The rectangular nave measures 11.00×4.60 m, of which only a section in its center was not excavated. The entire nave was paved with a mosaic that is preserved mainly in its east. A monumental Greek inscription extends the entire width of the hall, framed in a tabula ansata (Fig. 11). The northern aisle, 14.60×2.40 m, excavated in its entirety except for a small section at its eastern end, underneath W5, is entirely covered by a mosaic floor (Fig. 12). The aisle is bounded on the north by the northern wall of the structure (W4), 0.75 m thick, which has two faces: an outer face of ashlars and an inner face of small fieldstones cemented together; the wall is preserved to a height of two courses. A sounding conducted east of the later W5 in line with the northern aisle (L143), revealed the continuation of the aisle’s mosaic floor. Another sounding, conducted in the western part of the aisle below the mosaic floor (L152), revealed the mosaic foundation, which was composed of a layer of small stones and cement laid upon a thin layer of gray earth above the bedrock. The dimensions of the southern aisle, excavated almost in its entirety except for the central part, are identical to those of the northern aisle, and it too was paved with a mosaic (Fig. 13). This aisle is bounded on the south by W2, which demarcates the church to the south. It is 0.80 m wide, preserved to a height of three courses (0.95 m), and has two faces: an outer face of ashlars and an inner face of small fieldstones

[[308 72 ]]

A ZBAYN ZA I NC E HCU HR UC RC AT KkH hirbet AA BB UL S TI O BO U LBIUALS I) A S ) A BY TN I NT E HH AT I R B E T I ISSTT U L( A(RAI R ST

Fig. 9. Remains of the northern bench between the pilaster and the main entrance to the prayer hall, view from the east.

Fig. 10. Southern pilaster and bench between the entrances to the prayer hall, view from the southeast.

[[309 73 ]]

AN ZZ Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A ND D SS. . BBAT AT

Fig. 11. Nave and the chancel, view from the west.

and cement. Two entrances were discovered in this wall. The western entrance, 1.10 m wide, in the center of the aisle, which was blocked by later construction, was most likely the original entrance that provided access to the southern wing. The eastern entrance belongs to a later stage (see below). Excavations east of W5 uncovered the continuation of the mosaic floor and revealed that it abutted the threshold of the entrance leading to the southern pastophorium. The sounding below the mosaic floor at the western end (L151), alongside W3, revealed that the mosaic foundation was identical to that unearthed in the northern aisle. It was comprised of a layer of white plaster, 2 cm thick, over a layer of small fieldstones and cement, 10 cm thick. This layer, in turn, covers a layer of gray earth, 10 cm thick, apparently laid to provide a flat surface; beneath this layer is one of dark earth, 24 cm thick, directly above the bedrock. The chancel ends in an inner apse, 3.70 m in diameter, and two flanking pastophoria rooms.6 The

bema penetrated the nave, adding an area of 4.70×3.80 m. Two ashlar-built stairs ascended from the nave to the bema. Along the length of the top stair a hewn chancel screen channel was discerned. Between the chancel screen panels was an entrance, 0.80 m wide, with flanking square sockets for the chancel screen posts. Two stairs also led to the bema from the northern and southern aisles, and here, too, chancel screens were probably erected. The nave’s mosaic floor abuts the lower stair, flanked by the foundations of the column bases that extended the row of columns to the east. Two decorated stone pilasters, 0.70×0.40 m, discovered between the apse and bema, resemble the pilasters at the western ends of the rows of columns, adjoining the narthex wall. The bema was paved with a mosaic (F117), of which only traces were discovered: one next to the upper stair and another in the north of the bema, under a column found there, not in situ. This mosaic floor, composed of relatively crude, white tesserae (similar to the floor of the nave), abutted the upper stair

[[310 74 ]]

YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

Fig. 12. Northern aisle, view from the west.

Fig. 13. Southern aisle, view from the west.

with three straight rows of tesserae. Above the mosaic floor is a beaten-earth floor (F112) that dates to a later phase of activity in the structure (see below). The apse wall (W6) is built of ashlars and preserved to a height of four courses (1.74 m). The lowest course of this wall, which stood on the bedrock, was some 5 cm thicker than the succeeding courses, apparently in an attempt to provide a solid base for the wall. Traces of plaster discovered on the apse walls attest to the plastering of the walls, which were perhaps also decorated with frescoes, as is indicated by a number of red-colored plaster fragments uncovered in the excavations. A sounding conducted in the chancel below the mosaic floor level revealed a foundation identical to that of the nave mosaic floor, and under this

foundation, directly over the bedrock, was a dirt fill. A sounding in the center of the chancel, below the level of the beaten-earth floor and the surmised level of the mosaic floor, revealed two fill layers. The upper layer (L118), 0.45 m thick, was a fill of dirt, small stones, and a small quantity of ceramic finds. Underneath this layer was a fill of dark brown earth (L119), 0.25 m thick, which contained scorched stones, tile fragments, pottery sherds, mosaic stones, and the burial of a child, with its head oriented towards the west and the body in a fetal position.7 North and south of the apse were two pastophoria. The room on the south, measuring 2.60×2.40 m, was excavated in its entirety (L130). Access to this room was provided by an entrance in the western wall, of which only the socket in the threshold remains. Traces of plaster were preserved on the room’s

[[311 75 ]]

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

Walls W13 and W15. Originally, it was accessed through an entrance in its northern wall (W2), close to the northwestern corner of the room. This entrance, which led from the southern aisle, was blocked by construction dating to the ninth century (see below). The room is paved with a mosaic floor, which abuts the walls on the north (W2), west (W11), and south (W8). Although the sounding in the northeastern corner of the room (L148) did not uncover the floor, it may be assumed that it reached W10, which separated this room from the eastern one. A pottery bowl used for cleaning purposes was set in a depression in the southwestern corner of the room, with the mosaic floor adjoining it. Access to the easternmost room in this wing, 4.70×2.50–2.70 m, was provided by an entrance, 0.70 m wide, from the central room to the west (Fig. 15). The room was paved in mosaic (F140).

Fig. 14. Southern wing, view from the west.

walls, but its floor did not survive. The room’s northern wall is built of ashlars, some with marginal drafting; they might be in secondary use, or perhaps this room and the northern one were created in a later phase. The southern wing, with internal dimensions of 17.20×4.60 m, is comprised of three rooms built along the entire length of the southern church wall (Fig. 14). The westernmost room is square, 4.60×4.10 m. This room was not excavated, and only a sounding was conducted along the length of its western wall (W17; L153 and L154). The sounding did not reveal the room’s floor, but did uncover a decorated stone basin that was apparently the church’s baptismal font, perhaps indicating that one of the rooms in this wing functioned as the baptistery (see below). The central room, the largest of the three, 8.70–9.00×4.60 m, was divided at a later stage by

Fig. 15. Eastern room in the southern wing, view from the west.

[[312 76 ]]

YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

Phase II—The Ninth Century After the church had fallen into disuse, most likely in the ninth century, a number of changes were introduced in the structure that found expression in different parts of the church. The main entrance that led from the narthex to the nave was blocked by a wall of building stones in secondary use (one of them with ornamental carvings). As mentioned above, a wall of east–west orientation extended from W3 to W7, dividing the narthex into two rooms. It was built in the center of the narthex, its eastern end abutting the southern doorpost of the main entrance. This wall was built over the mosaic floor from the first phase, of ashlars in secondary use. Only the eastern section of this wall, 1.50 m long, was unearthed, preserved to a height of a single course. The eastern part of the church was blocked by W5, which extends from W4 to W2 along the line of the stairs ascending to the chancel. This wall, with an average width of 0.95 m, is preserved to a height of four courses (1.19 m). It utilized various ashlars and architectural elements in secondary use that originally belonged to the church, including arch stones and column capitals. Most of this wall was removed during the excavation. Excavations in the nave and southern aisle clearly revealed the foundation trench of this wall, which was constructed after the mosaic floor had been covered with dirt. Two transverse walls divided the eastern section that was formed by W5, into three rooms. In the north, a rectangular room, 5.50×2.50 m, was accessed from the south by a 0.60 m-wide entrance close to its southwestern corner. The entrance doorposts are preserved in situ. Two stairs led down to the beaten-earth floor that covered the northern aisle’s original mosaic floor. The central room, which contained the chancel area, was also covered with a beaten-earth floor (F112). A wall with no opening was built between the central and southern rooms, on the line of the bema to the south. The southern room, measuring 5.50×2.40 m, also has a beaten-earth floor, some 5 cm above the original mosaic. The entrance to this room, 1.00 m wide, was through the eastern wall (W1).

The original entrance that led from the southern aisle to the central room of the southern wing was blocked by a wall, and in its stead a new entrance, 1.20 m wide, was opened west of the junction of W5 and W2. The bottom course of W2, in which two holes were hewn, functioned as the threshold. The western wall of the southern wing’s central room (W11) was thickened in its south by the construction of an additional inner face of small fieldstones over the bowl that was sunken in the southwestern corner of the room. The room itself was divided into three small chambers by Walls W13 and W15, erected over the mosaic floor. The entrance to the eastern room from the west was also blocked. W10 was thickened on the east, and the room was divided into two smaller chambers by the construction of an east–west wall (W12) of ashlars in secondary use, over the mosaic floor. The northern room created by this division (L139), 2.75×1.10 m, was plastered in its entirety. The original mosaic floor (F140) in the southern room was covered by a beaten-earth floor.

MOSAIC FLOORS The mosaic carpets of the church, dating to 701 CE, are decorated with simple geometric patterns. The narthex is paved with a crude white mosaic, set diagonally, with three horizontally set rows abutting the walls (W7 and W3). The nave is paved with a mosaic carpet divided into three panels, preserved mainly in the eastern part. The edges of this floor are composed of horizontally set white tesserae. At the threshold of the central entrance is a single lozenge, each side being 0.20 m long, composed of black and red tesserae. The carpet is encompassed by a band, 0.20 m wide, containing a guilloche in brick-red and white, and brown and white strips (B2*), flanked on both sides by two rows of white tesserae and one row of black.8 The easternmost panel of the nave mosaic floor contains an inscription in a tabula ansata (A16*), set in a large rectangle flanked by two smaller rectangles decorated with a stepped pattern and diagonal lines, which represent the handles of the tabula ansata (Fig. 16). The inscription reads9:

[[313 77 ]]

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

0

20

Fig. 16. Inscription at the eastern end of the nave, view from the west.

[[314 78 ]]

40

A ZBAYN ZA I NC E HCU HR UC RC AT KkH hirbet AA BB UL S TI O BO U LBIUALS I) A S ) A BY TN I NT E HH AT I R B E T I ISSTT U L( A(RAI R ST

† Under the most saintly deacon George, and the most illustrious Samuel, and Abbesombos (son) of Zacharias, all the work of this mosaic was done, in the month of June, [in the year of Eleuthero]polis 502 † .

The inscription mentions the deacon George, in whose time the inscription was made, and the date: the month of June in the year 502 CE of the city of Eleutheropolis—Beth Guvrin (that is, 700/1 CE). The five-line inscription, which begins and ends with crosses, is composed of black tesserae on a white background, each letter averaging 15 cm in height. The central bottom section of the inscription is missing, and a number of repairs may have been made to it while the church was still active. The central panel, most of which was uncovered in the excavations, comprises a floral grid of diamonds made up of buds, with a crosslet composed of four buds (H7*) in the center of each diamond. The buds are of brick-red, red, and black (F19*). The central and easternmost panels were separated by a 0.30 m-wide band containing a pattern of lotus flowers (B9*) composed of color combinations of brick-red, pink and white, and of brown, ocher, and white. This band is bordered on each side by two rows of white tesserae and a single row of black. The westernmost panel, almost completely destroyed, seemingly contained a grid of diamonds composed of black tesserae, reminiscent of the pattern in the aisle mosaics (H1*), with a schematic black cross appearing in each diamond. In the northern aisle, the mosaic edges are of horizontally set white tesserae. The carpet frame is composed of a row of black tesserae, two rows of white, and an additional row of black. The carpet field is decorated with a grid of diamonds composed of rows of white, red, pink, and black tesserae, and in the center of each diamond is a small red and black diamond (see above, Fig. 12). The southern aisle is paved with a mosaic carpet similar to that in the northern aisle. Unusually, a single row of black tesserae separates the southern aisle carpet from the southern intercolumnar spaces.

The carpets in the intercolumnar spaces were decorated with diamonds and lozenges in red, white, and black tesserae. In the southern wing, the edges of the mosaic carpet of the central room (F141) are set diagonally, while along the walls, there are three horizontally set rows. The frame comprises a row of black tesserae flanked on both sides by a row of red or white tesserae (A2*). The carpet field is decorated with rows of buds in red and black (see above, Fig. 14). In the eastern room of the southern wing (F140), the edges of the carpet mosaic are set diagonally, while along the walls there are three horizontally set rows. The carpet frame consists of two rows of white tesserae flanked on either side by a row of black (A2*). The carpet field is decorated with alternating rows of red and black diamonds and squares. The nave mosaic carpet is comprised of six colors: black, white, ocher, brown, brick-red, and pink. It is more delicate than the other mosaics, as 80–90 tesserae per sq. dm were used. The other mosaic floors are of three colors: white, black, and red. The mosaics in the central and eastern rooms of the southern wing (F141) have 49 tesserae per sq. dm, while the narthex and aisle are paved with crude white mosaic, 36 tesserae per sq. dm.

FINDS The rich architectural finds discovered during the course of the excavations included architectural elements, liturgical furniture, and installations.

Architectural Elements Three types of limestone capitals were discovered in the structure, not in situ. One is pseudo-Ionic (Fig. 17); its upper part measures 0.65×0.60 m, its height is 0.55 m, and the lower diameter is 0.45 m. It was found broken in secondary use in the later-phase wall that closed the chancel (W5).10 This capital, which most likely topped the pilaster at the eastern end of one of the rows of columns, has a square recess in its broken part measuring about 10×8 cm and 2 cm deep, which apparently anchored it to the column. The second capital was uncovered in the fill above the mosaic floor of the chancel (Fig. 18). It

[[315 79 ]]

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

has eight lugs and was embellished with a degenerated palm pattern. Its upper part measures 0.41×0.41 m, with a height of 0.31 m and a lower diameter of 0.24 m. The third capital, found in secondary use in W5, is decorated with eight lugs with a schematic pattern; its upper part measures 0.55×0.55 m, with a height of 0.37 m, contracting to a diameter of 0.30 m in its lower part.

Liturgical Furniture Altar Table A marble fragment of an altar table base (sacra mensa) was found in W6 (Fig. 19:1). This 6 cmthick slab has a recessed frame, 10.8 cm long and 8.5 cm wide.11 A fragment (3 cm thick) of a marble altar table top with traces of a depressed frame was discovered in the debris on the nave mosaic floor (Fig. 19:2).

0

10

20

Fig. 17. Pseudo-Ionic capital in secondary use in W5. 1

2

Fig. 19. Fragments of altar tables.

0

10

Liturgical Bowl A fragment of the marble bowl, apparently used in the prothesis ceremony, was unearthed in the southern aisle.12

20

Fig. 18. Capital embellished with a degenerated palm pattern.

Basin A stone basin, measuring 0.70 m high and 0.40 m wide, was uncovered in the westernmost room of the

[[316 80 ]]

YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

church’s southern wing (L153). The basin’s body is octagonal in shape with unequal sides, and the round base is grooved on the side (Fig. 20). A depression measuring 0.30×0.28 m, with a maximal depth of 0.15 m, was hewn into the upper surface. Chancel Screen Panel A number of marble chancel screen panel fragments that came to light during the excavations enabled a reconstruction of the chancel screen panel (Fig. 21). The estimated size of the panel is 1.36×1.00 m, with a maximal thickness of 6 cm. These dimensions correspond to the channel hewn into the upper stair that led to the chancel. The center of the panel was decorated with a cross encircled by a laurel wreath. In the upper corner of the panel, the wreath is flanked by two additional crosses. The entire panel is surrounded by a recessed frame.13

0

Fig. 20. Stone basin.

0

Fig. 21. Chancel screen panel.

[[317 81 ]]

10

20

20

40

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

Decorated Stone Finds One of the building stones discovered in the debris on the chancel floor is inscribed with a simple cross measuring 9×7.5 cm (Fig. 22). An additional stone, found in secondary use in the blockage of the central entrance, is embellished with nine lines emerging from a single point in the center of one of the stone’s sides (Fig. 23).

0

5

Small Finds In the central room of the church’s southern wing (L137), a bronze kohl stick was recovered, dated to the Byzantine period (Fig. 24).14 A fragment of a bone doll in human form came to light at the eastern end of the southern aisle (L131). Dolls of this type are dated to the Umayyad period, continuing in use until the ninth–tenth centuries, and were apparently used as toys.15

10

Fig. 22. Decorated stone discovered in the debris on the chancel floor.

0

1

2

Fig. 24. Bronze kohl stick.

Pottery The pottery assemblage (Pls. 1–2) includes vessel types dating from the sixth century CE to the end of the Early Islamic period (ninth century).16

0

10

20

Fig. 23. Decorated stone found in secondary use in the blockage of the main entrance.

Glass Most of the glass fragments discovered during the excavations represent vessel types that date to the fifth–seventh centuries CE. The majority of these fragments belong to saucer lamps, while other finds include fragments of a goblet, a cup, a small bottle, and a window. A fragment of a small pyramidal bottle found in W5 dates to the ninth–thirteenth

[[318 82 ]]

YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

centuries CE, postdating the period in which the structure functioned as a church.

Coins Two coins were retrieved during the excavations,17 both in upper loci near the surface, thus providing no evidence regarding the dating the church. One coin found above F123 in the northern aisle (L129) dates to the time of the emperor Constantius II (351–361). The second coin discovered above the eastern part of the nave (L102) is a worn Islamic coin that cannot be identified with certainty.

SUMMARY The church dated to the early eighth century, after the Umayyad conquest of the Land of Israel in 638 CE, based on the inscription and the finds discovered in the excavations. The inscription attests to continued contact with the diocese of Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin), to whose territory the site belonged. The establishment of the church during the Early Islamic period raises the question of the essential nature of the Umayyad conquest in this region and

the time required for Islam to penetrate the population. The pottery sherds, glass fragments, and other artifacts represent the various phases of activity in the structure. The first phase is dated to the early eighth century, when it functioned as a church for the local population. Most of the pottery and glass vessels, as well as the bone doll, may be attributed to this phase, and patently, the chancel screen panel, column shafts, capital fragments, baptismal font and liturgical vessel fragments. The inscription unearthed in front of the chancel supports this dating. In the second phase of activity, apparently in the ninth century CE, the structure ceased to function as a church, and internal changes were made. One of the main alterations was the construction of W5, which divided the structure from north to south along the line of the chancel. This wall is dated to the ninth century CE, based on stratigraphic evidence and a glass vessel fragment discovered during the wall’s dismantling. The excavations did not yield any later finds that could be ascribed with certainty to the tenth century or later, thereby attesting that the use of the structure most likely ceased at this time, when it was abandoned and buried under debris of dirt and stone.

[[319 83 ]]

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

Plate 1. Pottery: Open Vessels No. Locus Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L113

Hayes 1972: 13–18; Herodium (Birger 1981: Pl. 13:18)

6th cent. CE

2

L102*

3

L102* LRC bowl

Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip, burnish. Red ware 10R:5/6, burnished rim and inner face. Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip, burnish. Roulette decoration on upper outer rim.

Mid-6th cent. CE

4

L114

CRS bowl

5

L133

6

L145

Wheelburnished bowl

Hayes 1972: Fig. 68 (Form 3H:16); Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 28:6); Herodium (Birger 1981: Pl. 13:13) Hayes 1972: Fig. 81 (Form 9); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 1:15); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 188, Form 2A, No. 2) Shepherds’ Field (Tzaferis 1975: Pl. 12:9–12)

7

L133

Bowl

8

L147

Glazed bowl

9

L104

10

L118

11

L113

ARS bowl

Light red ware 2.5YR:7/8, few small white grits. Impressed decoration on outer face under rim. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, well levigated. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6.

Jerusalem (Hamilton 1944: Fig. 8:13); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 1:6); Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 12:10); Shepherds’ Field (Tzaferis 1975: Pl. 15:3, 5) Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3, Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. A:2–5); Kh. el-Mafjar few small white and red grits, light yellow glaze on inner face, (Baramki 1944: Pl. XVI:4–5); on which are brown, yellow, and Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.2); Kh. el-Bireh green glazed spots. Glazed (Avissar 1997: Fig. 2:11) drippings on rim and upper part of outer face. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3, light yellow glaze on rim and inner face. Decorated with green glazed lines and brown spots. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4, well levigated, light yellow glaze. Decorated with brown glazed lines on inner face and green and yellow glazed spots on outer face. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3, few large gray grits, light yellow glaze with green glazed lines on inner face. Remains of glazed dripping on outer face.

6th–7th cent. CE

Late Byzantine– Umayyad periods, apparently continuing into Abbasid period

Pink ware 7.5YR:8/3, few small gray grits.

[[320 84 ]]

Early Islamic period, 9th–late 11th cent. CE

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT k hirbet I S T A B U L ( A R I S T O B U L I A S ) A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT K H I R B E T I S T A B U L ( A R I S T O B U L I A S )

Plate 1. cont. No. Locus Type

12

L118

13

L127

14

L132

15

L113

16

L100

Description

Parallels

Cup

Light red ware 10R:6/6, well levigated, red slip on outer face. Dark gray ware 10YR:4/1, remains of horizontal burnished lines on outer face. Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, light reddish-gray core 2.5YR:7/1, well levigated. Wavy incised decoration on outer face below rim. Krater Red ware 10R:5/6, well levigated. Combed krater Light red ware 10R:6/6, light brown core 7.5YR:6/4, few large white and gray grits.

[321] [ 85 ]

Date

Late Byzantine to Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Abbasid period Figs. 7:1–3; 22:14); Nessana (Baly 1962: Pl. L:35–36); Kh. edDeir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 4:1–4); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 1:1, 2)

Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:7) Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal: 1999: Fig. 6.129:8, 14); Siyar elGhanam (Corbo 1955: Fig. 19:9)

7th–8th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

1

2

3

4

6

5

8

9

11

10

12

7

13

15

16

Plate 1.

[[322 86 ]]

14

YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

Plate 2. Pottery: Closed Vessels No. Locus Type

Description

Parallels

1

L127

2

L154

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 228, Form Late 6th–8th 6A, Nos. 1–3); Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni cent. CE 1964: Fig. 8:11, 14)

3

L129

4

L118

5

L104

6 7

L110 L120

Thin-walled jar

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, few large white and gray grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, few white and gray grits. Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, gray core 7.5YR:6/1, few small white grits. Variant with short neck. Jar handle. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, few small gray grits. Cross-shaped incision on handle. Body fragment. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/3, few small white grits. Cross-shaped incision on outer face. Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, well levigated. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, light brownish-gray core 10YR:6/2, few small white grits.

8

L133

Jar

9

L113

10

L104

11

L102* Jug

12

L104

13

L113

14

L119

Filter jug

15

L144

Casserole

16

L146

Cooking pot

17

L113

Mold-made lamp

18

L113

High ridgenecked jar

Amphora

Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: Fig. 16:5–7); Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.143:18) Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 8:12–13); Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.143:19) Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 24:7)

Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 5:7–12); Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 30:41); Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.135:32–33) Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, few small white Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: grits. Fig. 6.132:15) Light red ware 10R:6/6, few small Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen white grits. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 6:2) Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3, few Caesarea (Adan-Bayewitz 1986: small gray grits. Fig. 2:5) Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Jug handle. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3, few small white and gray Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 7:5, 8); Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. grits. Knob-shaped decoration on C:23) upper part. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3. Knob-shaped decoration on upper part of handle. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3. Knob-shaped decoration on upper part of handle. Neck fragment. Very pale brown Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: ware 10YR:8/3. Strainer inside neck. Pl. D: 21) Dark reddish-brown ware 5YR:3/2, Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen few small white grits. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 7:21); Ramat Ra¢el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 8:3–8); Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.135:27); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 2:4–7) Red ware 10R:4/6, few small white Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: grits. Soot marks on outer face. Fig. 6.135:13); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 220–221, Form 4C, No. 2) Light red ware 10R:6/6. Lozenge Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Pl. pattern. Soot marks near filling hole. XVII: 9); Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 8:4) Light red ware 10R:6/6. Grape Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen pattern. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 8:2); Kh. elBireh (Avissar 1997: Pl. 3:8–10)

[[323 87 ]]

Date

6th–8th cent. CE

7th–9th cent. CE Late 8th–early 9th cent. CE Mid-7th cent. CE Late 8th–early 9th cent. CE

Mid-7th–mid8th cent. CE

6th–8th cent. CE 7th–9th cent. CE

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

3 1

2

6

5

7

4

8

10

9

12

11

13

16 15

14

17

18

Plate 2.

[[324 88 ]]

YN ZA T IEN E HU AT K kH hirbet AA BU ( A(RAI SRTI O AL S )I A S ) A BA Y ZBA TN IN C HC U RR C CHH AT I R B E T I SI ST T B LU L SB TU O LBIU

NOTES 1 Kh. Istabul was excavated in April–May 2000 (License No. 895) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Peleg and S. Batz, with the participation of I. Sharukh. 2 Guérin 1869: 162–163 (Kh. Esthaboul); SWP III: 315, 354; A.E. Mader (1918: 168–176), who published the site as the “Monastery of Euthymius in Aristobulias,” based on the historical narrative cited by Cyril of Scythopolis. Mader argued that the church belonged to a monastery where monks lived, as in a cenobium, and also served hermits that lived in nearby caves around the site, as in a laura. He dated the establishment of the church to 424 CE. A.M. Schneider published a plan of the church and disagreed with Mader’s dating; based on the architectural structure of the church, he argued for a later date, maintaining that this type of church continued into the seventh century as well (Schneider 1938: 99–102). A. Ovadiah, in his comprehensive study of the churches in the Land of Israel, describes the site and, following Mader, dates the church to the early fifth century (Ovadiah 1970: 105–106). B. Bagatti did not reject the possibility that this was the Monastery of Euthymius and noted that it may have been the village church (Bagatti 1983: 87; 2002: 90, Kh. Istabul, Aristobulias). Y. Hirschfeld discussed the site and objected to its proposed identification by Mader as the monastery of Euthymius (Hirschfeld 1990: 13). He identified the monastery established by Euthymius between Aristobulias and Caphar Baricha (Bani Naªim) with the remains discovered at Kh. Umm Rukba, located some 2 km northeast of Kh. Aristobulias. The site was also surveyed by D.C. Baramki in 1930 and by S.A.S. Husseini in 1936 and 1945 (IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 72, Kh. Istabul) and by M. Kochavi (1972: 70, Site No. 190). 3 Lintels bearing similar motifs, arranged in the same manner, have been found in various churches from the Byzantine period in the Negev: Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XV:3), Mampsis (Negev 1988b: 90–91, Fig. 8:81, Ph. 88, No. 73) and Oboda (Negev 1997: 178, Ph. 286). 4 Similar pilasters were discovered at Mampsis (Negev

1988a: 65, Ph. 30), and in the facade of the synagogue at Korazim (Yeivin 2000: 19, 40, Figs. 31, 87). A decorated entrance is also to be seen in the cathedral at Petra (Smith and Day 1989: 72, Fig. 20; Pl. 14:a–b), and in the southern church at Oboda (Negev 1997: 143, Ph. 222). 5 Similar pilasters were found at Mampsis (Negev 1988b: 78, Ph. 69, No. 10). 6 The room north of the chancel, at the eastern end of the northern aisle, was not excavated. 7 An anthropological examination of the skeleton found in L119 indicates that the child was about two years old. For the full anthropological report, see Y. Nagar, JSRF L®895. 8 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 9 For more information on the inscription and its translation, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscription from the Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristoubulias),” in this volume. 10 Similar capitals came to light at Kh. ¨awas (Kochavi 1972: 64–65) and at Madaba (Piccirillo 1981: Pl. 83, Ph. 36). 11 A similar panel was found at Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: Pl. 9, Ph. 18:4). 12 Comparable bowls were found at Nazareth (Bagatti 1969: Fig. 64:13) and Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 496, Nos. 75–78). 13 Similar chancel screens have come to light at various sites in the Land of Israel and Transjordan: from the northern church at Nessana (Colt 1962a: Pl. XIX:5), from the western church at Mampsis (Negev 1988b: 93, Fig. 9:198), from the northern church at Oboda (Negev 1997: 114, Ph. 164) and from Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 514, No 125). 14 A similar kohl stick was found at Nessana (Colt 1962b: Pl. XXIII:13). 15 For examples at sites near Gaza see Rahmani 1981: 77–80; and at Yokneªam, see Agadi 1996: 237–238, Fig. XIX.1:7–9, Ph. XIX.5–60. 16 Note that loci that designate surface finds or fills are marked by an asterisk and do not appear in the plans. 17 The coins were identified and dated by G. Bijovsky.

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.

Adan-Bayewitz D. 1986. “The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building and Its Implications (Stratum 4),” in L.I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 90–129.

[[325 89 ]]

AN ND Y.y.P PEeLlEeGg A D SS. . BBAT ATZ Z

Agadi S. 1996. “The Bone Objects,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneªam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 236–238. Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Ra¢el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneªam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery of Khirbet el-Bireh,” in Y. Friedman and J. Schwartz, Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat-Gan, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Bagatti B. 1969. Excavations in Nazareth, I: From the Beginning till the XII Century, Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1983. Antichi villaggi crisiani della Giudea e del Neghev (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor 24), Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev, Jerusalem. Baly T.J.C. 1962. “Pottery,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 270–303. Baramki D.C. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Birger R. 1981. “Pottery and Miscellaneous Finds of the Byzantine Period,” in E. Netzer, Greater Herodium (Qedem 13), Jerusalem, pp. 75–78. 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. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ªAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Colt H.D. 1962a. “Architectural Details,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 48–51. Colt H.D. 1962b. “Metal,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 52–55. Corbo V.C. 1955. Gli scavi di Kh. Siyar el-Ghanam (Campo dei Pastori) e i monastery dei Dintorni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 11), Jerusalem. Fischer M. and Tal O. 1999. “Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ªIra. A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv, pp. 300–345.

Guérin V. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée III, Paris. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hamilton R.W. 1944. “Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937–8,” QDAP 10: 1–53. Hirschfeld Y. 1990. “List of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean Desert,” Christian Archaeology: 1–90. Kochavi M. (ed.) 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Mader A.E. 1918. Altchristliche Basiliken und Lokaltraditionen in Südjudäa. ArchŠologische und topographische Untersuchungen (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 8 (5–6)), Paderborn. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Negev A. 1988a. The Architecture of Mampsis. Final Report I: The Middle and Late Nabatean Periods (Qedem 26), Jerusalem. Negev A. 1988b. The Architecture of Mampsis. Final Report II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (Qedem 27), Jerusalem. Negev A. 1997. The Architecture of Oboda. Final Report (Qedem 36), Jerusalem. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, Bonn. Piccirillo M. 1981. “La ‘Cattedrale’ di Madaba,” LA 31: 299–322. Rahmani L.Y. 1981. “Finds from a Sixth to Seventh Centuries Site Near Gaza I: The Toys,” IEJ 31: 72–80. Schneider A.M. 1938. “Südjudäische Kirchen,” ZDPV 61: 96–108. 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. Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto. Tzaferis V. 1975. “The Archaeological Excavation at Shepherds’ Field,” LA 25: 5–52. Vaux R. de. and Steve A.M. 1950. Fouilles à Qaryet elªEnab Abû Gôsh, Palestine, Paris. Yeivin Z. 2000. The Synagogue at Korazim. The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (IAA Reports 10), Jerusalem.

[[326 90 ]]

GREEK INSCRIPTION FROM THE CHURCH AT KHIRBET ISTABUL (ARISTOBULIAS) LEAH DI SEGNI

+ EPHTᴕWCIWTATᴕGEWRG:I:OUDIA KONᴕKAICAMᴕHLᴕLAMPRTO KA:I:ABBEocZACAR:I:ᴕEGENETOTOP 4 ERGONT:I:CY:I:F̣ Ẉ C̣ Ẹ Ẉ CTAUTHC ENMI:I:ᴕṆ - - ca. 11 ll. - - POLe BF +

The inscription is set in the mosaic carpet of the nave, at the foot of the bema.1 The tabula ansata enclosing the script occupies the eastern end of the carpet, and is separated from the geometrical field by a black, pink and white border. The letters and frame of the tabula ansata are of black tesserae; there is a geometric decoration in black, pink and white around the handles. The rectangular frame measures 143×60 cm, not including the handles. The inscription is set in five lines, without separating lines. The letters, an average 15 cm high, belong to the oval alphabet and show several characteristics of a late date, e.g., the flattened base of the beta, of the ligated diphthong OU, and of some of the omicrons; the omega formed of two separate halves; the rho with an open and curling loop; the nu with a knotted bar, and the cursive alpha and zeta. The spelling is vulgar, with iotacism and the exchange of long and short vowels. The text opens and closes with crosses, and reads:

0

4

+ 'Ep¾ toà æsiwt£tou Gewrg…ou diakÒnou ka… Camou»lou lamprot(£tou) ka… Abbeso(mbou) Zacar…ou ™gšneto tÒ p(©n) œrgon t‹j yifèsewj taÚthj ™n mi(nˆ) 'Ioun[ˆou œt(ouj) 'Eleuqero]pÒle(wj) bf' +

L. 3 ABBECO or ABBEOC, in which case the name should perhaps be read Abbeoj. (cross) Under the most saintly deacon George, and the most illustrious Samuel, and Abbesombos (son) of Zacharias, all the work of this mosaic was done, in the month of June, [in the year of Eleuthero]polis 502 (cross).

20

[327]

40

L. DI SEGNI

The date is reckoned by the era of Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin), in whose territory Aristobulias was located. The restoration of the city name exactly fills the gap, and is not in doubt. The era of Eleutheropolis started in January 200 or autumn 1992; therefore June 502 fell in 701 CE. The use of the Julian calendar in this era is not unusual.3 The church was apparently erected at this time, for the mosaic floor with the inscription was the original pavement of the building. The persons mentioned in the dedication must have represented the leading circle of the village. They include a deacon, a man identified only by an honorific title, and another designated by name and patronymic. The mention of the deacon shows that the church had no priest. No bishop is mentioned, and perhaps there was no longer one in Beth Guvrin. Notably, the clergyman is the only one who bears a Greek name: he may have acquired it upon entering ecclesiastical status. Samuel the “most illustrious” was probably the village chief: seemingly the Greek terms for village leaders—prwtokwm»thj, an elder in a village of free landowners,4 ™p…tropoj, the steward of a privately owned village5—were no longer in use, possibly superseded by Arabic terms loaned from the Arabspeaking bureaucracy. In fact, in the eighth century inscription from St. Stephen’s Church in Umm erRasas, a village leader is designated with the vague term ¥rcwn.6 Interestingly, however, Samuel’s status is still expressed with a Greek honorific, the ancient title clarissimus, once reserved for governors, highranking civil servants and municipal magistrates, later depreciated and granted also to minor local officials, and now meaningless in the new order brought about by the Muslim conquest. Apparently, the honorific

was enough to identify Samuel, while the third man mentioned in the inscription had to be identified by name and patronymic.7 Since he is given no title, we do not know why he rated a mention in the dedicatory inscription of the church: possibly he contributed money to finance the work. Zacharias was a very popular name in southern Palestine, possibly because of the cult of the prophet Zechariah, whose tomb was located near Eleutheropolis.8 Samuel, a Jewish name and still in use among Jews in the Byzantine period, was also in common use by Christians.9 About the third name there is some doubt. As the omicron is superimposed on the sigma, it is not quite certain whether we should read ABBEOC or ABBECO. Normally we would read the lower letter first, but ABBECO cannot stand alone as a proper name, and there is no visible abbreviation mark. However, the overwritten letter is in itself a mark of abbreviation: cf. lamprot(£tou) with overwritten tau in l. 2. Therefore we can read Abbeso(mbou), genitive of Abbeso(mboj), one of several variants of an Arabic name which seems to have been popular in Judea, the Negev and southern Jordan.10 However, Abbeoj is also a possibility: it would be a variant of Abbaj, Abboj, the Greek transcription of the Arabic name Abba.11 The late date of the inscription draws our attention to two often overlooked phenomena: one, that Christian communities were still flourishing and building churches in the eighth century (a fact abundantly clear in Transjordan, but still in need of proof for western Palestine), and second, that in spite of the competition of the Muslim era, and of creation eras for the use of the Christians, eras in the Roman-Byzantine tradition were still employed in our region.12

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. Peleg and S. Batz excavation (License No. 895), see Peleg and Batz, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias),” in this volume. 2 Di Segni 1997: 21–23; 2008: 33*–35*. 3 Di Segni 1997: 70–71, Tables VIII–IX. 4 On a protokometes in this same village of Aristobulias, see 1

Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii 12, and in the village of Thecoa, idem, Vita Cyriaci 8 (ed. Schwartz 1939: 22, 227; transl. Di Segni 2005: 88, 242). 5 Di Segni 1995: 314–315. Another term, found in inscriptions from the late sixth to eighth century, is pistikÒj, “trustee”: it is uncertain which village office it represented, but it seemingly applied to villages of free landowners: ibid.: 315–316.

[328]

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

SEG XXXVII: no. 1553, and cf. PNessana 58 (late seventh century): in the latter, a man styled ¥rcwn heads a group of eight village elders who give receipts for the land tax. 7 It would be tempting to view ABBEOC as a misspelling of 'Abb©j, “Abba”, a title of respect given to monks; however there is no example of a phonetic change from a to eo. Moreover, in this context a genitive is needed, which would be ¢bb© (without the final sigma) both in the declined and in the undeclined form of the word (the Aramaic abba). Finally, the overwritten letter indicates that the word or name is abbreviated. 8 For the tomb of the prophet, see Avi-Yonah 1954: 68, nos. 86–87; Di Segni and Patrich 1990: 142–143, 147; 31*, 33*. The name is found in papyri from Nessana (PNessana, nos. 21, 45, 57, 79); and in Christian inscriptions in Judea and in the Negev: in the cemetery of the St. George monastery in Wadi Qelt (Schneider 1931: 323, 328 no. 111, 207; the latter was a man from Ascalon), at H. Qasra (SEG XL: no. 1451), Beit Shaar (SEG VIII: no. 238), Ein Arrub (Avi-Yonah 1932: 154, no. 67), Yattir (twice: Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2000: 158, 162), Shivta (SEG XXXI: no. 1427), Avdat (SEG XXVIII: nos. 1393, 1396), En Avdat (SEG XLI: no. 1542; XLV, no. 1974). Outside this area the name is less common; see examples (only Christian) from Shiloh in Samaria (SEG VIII: no. 149), at el-Kerak and Kh. Ader in Moab (SEG VII: nos. 941–942), and at Umm Sanem, south of Wadi Ram (SEG XL: no. 1514; Sartre 1993: 181–182, no. 149). In the Umm Sanem inscription Sartre read +Zacar…aj Bwtane and could find no explanation for the second word. I suggested an ethnic 6

from Botana or Batnan, the Aramaic name of the Oak of Mamre (Di Segni 1993: 514). Another possible reading could be +Zacar…a Cbwtane = Sbwtana…(ou), “(Signature) of Zacharias from Shivta.” Shivta appears in Greek in the forms Sbaita, Subaita, Sobota. Both my suggestions would place the man in southern Palestine. 9 Jewish examples of the Byzantine period only: Tiberias (SEG XXVI: nos. 1686–1687); Beth Shearim (Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974, nos. 62, 94, 96, 99, 115, 202); Caesarea (Lehmann and Holum 2000: nos. 171, 180,194, 309, 410); Jaffa (CIJ II, nos. 901, 903, 951, 902; Price 2003: 226–227, no. 5); Ascalon synagogue (SEG VIII: no. 266). Christian examples: PNessana, no. 75, and in inscriptions: in Jerusalem (SEG VIII: no. 205; XL, no. 1545), Beersheba (SEG VIII: no. 295), Nessana (Kirk and Welles 1962: 188, no. 130), Umm er-Rasas in Jordan (SEG XXXVII: nos. 1552 C, 1554, 1558, 1562, 1599). 10 Abbosoboj, Abbosoubboj, Abosobeoj, Abesobeoj, Abesomboj occur at Khirbet Beiyudat north of Jericho (SEG XL: nos. 1478–1479), Beit Shaʿar (SEG VIII: no. 238), Masada (on a ring, where the name has been misread: SEG XLV: no. 1957), Nessana (Kirk and Welles 1962: 169, no. 81), Umm er-Rasas (SEG XXXVII: nos. 1556, 1562). 11 Common in the Negev (Kibbutz Magen: SEG XXXV: no. 1556, Mampsis: SEG XXXI: no. 1414, and Nessana: Kirk and Welles 1962: 181, no. 114; PNessana, nos. 37, 102, 143) and in the Kerak region in Jordan (Canova 1954: 370, no. 374). Cf. Negev 1991: 9, no. 2. 12 Di Segni 2006–2007: 120–121.

References Sources Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii; Vita Cyriaci, E. Schwartz (ed.), 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49 ii), Leipzig, pp. 3–85; 222–235. Di Segni L. (transl.), 2005. Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Studies Avi-Yonah M. 1932. “Mosaic Pavements of Palestine,” QDAP 2: 136–181. Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem. Canova R. 1954. Iscrizioni e monumenti paleocristiano del paese di Moab, Rome. Di Segni L. 1993. “Review of M. Sartre, Inscriptions de la Jordanie IV, Pétra et la Nabatène méridionale du Wadi al— Hasa au golfe de Aqaba (Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Tome XXI, Paris 1993),” LA 43: 496–515.

Di Segni L. 1995. “The Involvement of Local, Municipal and Provincial Authorities in Urban Building in Late Antique Palestine and Arabia,” in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA, Supplementary Series No. 14), Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 312–332. Di Segni L. 1997. Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Di Segni L. 2006–2007. “The Use of Chronological Systems in Sixth–Eighth Centuries Palestine,” Aram 18–19: 113–126. Di Segni L. 2008. “The Greek Inscription from Tel Ashdod—A Revised Reading,” Atiqot 58: 31*–36*. Di Segni L. and Patrich J. 1990. “The Greek Inscriptions in the Cave Chapel at Ḥorvat Qaṣra,” Atiqot 10: 141–154 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 31*–35*). Eshel H., Magness J. and Shenhav E. 2000. “Khirbet Yattir, 1995–1999: Preliminary Report,” IEJ 50: 153–168. Kirk G.E and Welles C.B. 1962. “The Inscriptions,” in H.D.

[329]

L. DI SEGNI

Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana I, London, pp. 131–197. 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. Negev A. 1991. Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm (Qedem 32), Jerusalem. Price J.J. 2003. “Five Inscriptions from Jaffa,” SCI 22: 215–231.

Sartre M. 1993. Inscriptions de la Jordanie IV: Pétra et la Nabatène méridionale du Wadi al-Hasa au golfe de Aqaba (Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, XXI), Paris. Schneider A.M. 1931. “Das Kloster der Theotokos zu Choziba im Wadi el Kelt,” Römische Quartalschrift 39: 297–332. Schwabe B. and Lifshitz B. 1974. Beth Shearim II. The Greek Inscriptions, Jerusalem.

[330]

A BYZANTINE CHURCH AT ʿANAB EL-KABIR YITZHAK MAGEN, YUVAL PELEG, AND IBRAHIM SHARUKH

A church was discovered some 300 m east of Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir and some 5 km southwest of the town of Dahariyeh, in the southwestern Hebron Hills (see Site Map on p. XIII).1 It was erected on a bedrock outcrop at an altitude of 610 m above sea level (IOG 14350/08942; ITM 19350/58942). The site consists of structural remains, hewn caves, cisterns, and various agricultural installations, and its northern part is presently occupied by a village. The church was erected in an open area away from the dwellings, and probably served as the religious center for settlements, monasteries, and farms in the vicinity. It was surveyed a number of times in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.2 In the rocky area north of the church, at a distance of up to 50 m, industrial agrarian installations, e.g., a winepress and an oil press, were found, as well as a burial cave.

THE CHURCH The church is basilical. It comprises an atrium, a narthex, a prayer hall, an external apse, two small pastophoria to the sides of the chancel, and a northern wing. Its outer measurements are 38×20 m (Figs. 1–3). Four construction phases were distinguished in the church (Fig. 4). The first two were Byzantine. In the first phase, during the sixth century, the prayer hall and narthex were finely constructed of large ashlars, and apparently only a bedrock surface and a cistern were in front of the church. In the second phase, in the late the sixth century, an atrium and a northern wing were added and alterations were made to the narthex. In contrast with the first phase, the construction was sloppy, as is characteristic of the end of the Byzantine period. Further differences between the two phases are evident in the quality of the mosaics. In the first phase, the mosaics were of small tesserae and included numerous zoomorphic depictions.

In the second phase, the mosaics were of larger tesserae and adorned with simple geometric motifs. In the third phase, during the eighth century (Early Islamic period), there was iconoclastic defacement of the mosaic floors and alternations were made in the atrium. In the fourth phase in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Mamluk period), the church premises were used for habitation.

Byzantine Period In the first phase the church had a leveled bedrock surface courtyard with a water cistern. The atrium, erected in the second phase, measures 19.80×13.30 m (Fig. 5). It was divided into three sections: an entrance hall (no. 1), a central courtyard (no. 2), and a western wing (nos. 3–4). In the north, the atrium is bounded by 0.70 m-wide W222, preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m) and built directly on the bedrock. Its eastern extension (W266) abuts W252, which bounds the northern wing of the church on the west. The atrium‘s western wall (W303), 0.85 m wide, is preserved to a height of two courses (0.40 m). Its southern wall (W213), 0.65–0.80 m wide, is also preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m). Its eastern end abuts the southwestern corner of the narthex, and has a 1.25 m-wide opening that was blocked at a later phase. W235 separates the atrium from the narthex. W252, its continuation to the north, delineates the church‘s northern wing from the west. All these walls consist of two faces encasing a fill of earth and small stones. The main entrance to the church complex is located in the east of W222, opposite the road leading to the church from the north. It was apparently ca. 2.4 m wide, and part of its threshold and western doorpost are preserved. It affords access to the entrance hall, which measures 5.00×4.00 m (Fig. 6). In the west, this room is bounded by W220, 0.65 m wide, which is

[331]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

W201

609.09

607.77

608.32

W209

607.83

607.53

W211

607.91

607.83

607.32

607.91

607.47

607.77 607.82 607.27

W204

607.54

607.65

607.94

W284

608.48

607.73

W208

W283

608.00

W205

W206 608.08

W286

608.57

W295

W212

W315

W207

608.37

607.97

607.35

607.54

W285 607.99 607.30

W218

608.93

W202

W287

607.75

607.98

607.95

W270 W269

607.60

608.13 607.58 607.27 608.25

607.81 608.57

W227 W254

607.39

W214

607.38

W242 W252

607.79

607.71

W262

607.74

W280

607.35

607.55

W313 607.20

607.01

607.37

607.07

607.00 607.21

607.47

606.99

W276

W306

607.06

607.09

606.77 606.48

607.52

Fig. 1. ʿAnab el-Kabir, detailed plan of the church.

[332]

607.25

W319

W316

607.57

W312

W303

607.58

607.22

0

W210

607.04 607.04

W279

607.33

607.25

607.11 607.45

606.94

W297

W259

W215

606.37

607.01

W310

607.77

W318

607.17 607.35

607.67

607.43

607.73

607.40

W273

W298

607.40

W260

W274

607.22

W264

607.34

608.00

W261

607.98 605.61 606.62

608.32

608.38

W305

607.27

W233

607.73

W278

W282

607.10

607.38

W244 W250

606.80

W309

W222

W245 W240

607.26

W220

608.08

607.38

607.24

607.06

608.21

607.42

607.19

W314

1

608.06

607.47

W27

W229

608.29

607.71

W226

607.39 607.37

W235

308.23

W249

608.49

W307

608.45

607.41

607.41 608.04W223 607.37 608.04 607.98

607.99

W277

W266

607.93

607.67

W231

607.89

608.46

W225

608.59

W228

W213

608.46

W236

607.92

W304

W268

W200

607.29

606.96

5

m

607.25

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Fig. 2. ʿAnab el-Kabir, church, view from the southwest.

preserved to a height of two courses (0.60 m). Built on the bedrock, it consists of two faces of roughly hewn stones enclosing a fill of earth and small fieldstones. In the south, it is bounded by W277, whose eastern end abuts the narthex‘s northwestern corner. This wall, 0.75 m wide, is preserved to a height of two courses (0.55 m); it was built directly on the bedrock, and consists of two faces of roughly hewn stones enclosing a fill of earth and small fieldstones. At its western end, W277 terminates in a wide ashlar that had served as the eastern pillar of an arched opening between the entrance hall and courtyard, 1.35 m wide, of which only two pillars have survived. The room was originally paved in stone slabs, some of which were found in situ next to the eastern W252. A water drainage channel traversed the room from north to south beneath floor level leading to the cistern at the center of the atrium (see below).

The courtyard measures 13.50×8.20 m and there is a water cistern in its center (Fig. 7). In the center of the courtyard is a cistern hewn into the bedrock; its circular mouth is 1.00 m in diameter. The cistern was fed by runoff water from the area north of the church, which flowed through a plastered channel, 0.20 m wide and averaging 0.15 m deep, installed beneath the floor. This north–south channel terminates in a square, plastered settling pit, 0.62×0.65×0.55 m, southwest of the cistern’s mouth, which filtered the water. From the settling pit, the water was further filtered through three ceramic pipes, 8 cm in diameter, which led to the central cistern (Fig. 8). Another channel that exited the settling pit probably led to a second cistern, southwest of the structure, and was evidently intended to capture the overflow. However, the cistern in the atrium is unusually large, and it is unclear why the church

[333]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 3. ʿAnab el-Kabir, church, reconstruction of the second phase (late sixth to seventh centuries).

required such a large supply of water. At a later phase, after the church had ceased to function, the cistern remained in service and the northern channel was raised. The courtyard is bounded in the north by W277 and W282, in the east by W235 and W233, in the south by W213, and in the west by W280. W282 is the western extension of W277, west of the arched opening leading from the entrance hall to the atrium. It was apparently 0.75 m wide, and, like the other walls, consists of two faces. Only its southern face is preserved to a height of one course (0.35 m). The western W280, 0.70 m wide, consists of two faces and is also preserved to a height of one course (0.30 m).

On the northern and southern sides of the courtyard are porticos featuring three arches resting on two columns and two pilasters integrated into the western and eastern walls. Three openings in W280 lead to a rectangular hall in the west. The northern opening, 0.90 m wide, has a round socket, 5 cm in diameter, preserved on the southern side of the threshold. Another opening in the middle of the wall is only partially preserved; its estimated width is 0.80 m. The southernmost entrance, 0.80 m wide, opens to the southern portico, and its threshold, consisting of two stones, is preserved in situ. It has two round sockets, 5 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep, one on either side.

[334]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

10

13

12

11

7

14

9

8

5

15

1

6

2

16

Sixth Century CE Late Sixth–Seventh Century CE Eighth Century CE

4

3

Thirteenth–Fourteenth Century CE 0

Fig. 4. ʿAnab el-Kabir, construction phases.

[335]

5

m

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 5. Atrium, view from the southeast.

Fig. 6. Atrium, the entrance hall, view from the southwest.

[336]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Fig. 7. Atrium, the courtyard , view from the northeast.

Fig. 8. Atrium, the cistern, view from the west.

[337]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

On the north of the courtyard a three-arched portico was erected, based on two columns and two pillars integrated into W280 and W235. The column base foundations are preserved in the mosaic floor, and each arch was apparently 2.20–2.45 m wide. Another portico built in the courtyard’s south was also based on two columns and two pillars. A stone stylobate had been constructed between the two columns and the western pilaster. Adjoining W282, a stone bench (W278) was installed, measuring 3.20×0.40 m and 0.30 m high. This bench had apparently been built together with the atrium, since it is abutted by the mosaic floor. In the atrium’s southwestern corner, within the portico, the mosaic floor originally abutted a round installation, which is not preserved. The courtyard is entirely paved in a crude white mosaic floor that abuts the courtyard walls, the column bases of the northern portico, the column bases and stylobate of the southern portico, the bench, the installation in the southwestern corner, and the frame around the cistern. Opposite the central entrance to the narthex is a large, fully intact Greek inscription, measuring 1.76×0.95 m (Fig. 9).3 The inscription reads: † Under our most holy bishop John, and the most God-loving Barachios priest, and Sabinus, deacon and hegumen, this work was done in the month of June of the forth indiction, under the care of Silvanus, for the salvation of the benefactors.

According to the inscription, the construction of the atrium was completed in the June 571 CE or June 586 CE. As mentioned above, three openings in W281 lead to a rectangular hall in the west. This long rectangular hall (no. 3) measures 13.40×3.80 m. Its northern wall, W309, 0.70 m wide, is the western extension of W282. In its eastern section is an opening with a threshold consisting of two large stones, 1.80 m wide, which leads to the northwestern room of the atrium (no. 4; Fig. 10). On either side of the threshold are square sockets, 8×5×5 cm, indicating that the opening had two doors. The west of this wall is built of large, welldressed stones mixed with earth and small fieldstones. This wall was built directly on the bedrock, and is preserved to a height of one course (0.55 m). In the west, the hall is bounded by W308, 0.70–0.80 m wide,

built directly on the bedrock and preserved to a height of two courses (0.50 m). During the Mamluk period, the western hall was partitioned into several rooms by a number of internal walls (see below). In the atrium’s northwestern corner is a rectangular room (no. 4) measuring 7.10×4.90 m. This room is bounded in the north by W222, in the east by W220, in the south by W309, which has an opening connecting the room with the hall to its south, and in the west by W308. The bedrock surface was leveled by a fill of earth and small stones, possibly serving as the foundation of a floor that has not survived. The room’s northwestern corner is bounded by W318, a curved wall creating a raised surface 0.20 m above the bedrock level. The purpose of this surface is unclear. The narthex (no. 5), measuring 13.00×2.80 m, bounds the prayer hall on the west (Fig. 11). Its western wall (W235), 0.80 m wide, consists of two faces: an outer face of ashlars and an inner face of medium-sized and small fieldstones, with an earthen fill between them. This wall is preserved to a height of three courses (0.85 m). Three arches in this wall connected the narthex and the atrium; each arch is 2.00 m long and 0.60 m wide. The arches stood upon two pilasters in the north and south, and two square pillars in the middle. The ashlar pilasters and pillars rested on a stylobate of matching stone slabs. During the Early Islamic period, the two lateral archways were evidently blocked, passage between the narthex and atrium being afforded solely through the central archway. In the north, the narthex is bounded by W209, 0.80 m wide, which, like the western wall, consists of two faces. It was erected on the bedrock, and is preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m). In the south, W200, 0.80–1.00 m wide and preserved to a height of two courses (0.95 m), also has two faces. In the east, the narthex is separated from the prayer hall by W223, 0.80 m wide and preserved to a height of two courses (1.20 m). It consists of two faces: the western face is of ashlars, the largest of which measures 1.10×0.75×0.60 m. Three openings in W223 lead from the narthex to the prayer hall: a wide central entrance leads to the nave, and two smaller openings lead to the aisles. The central one, 1.25 m wide, has a large stone threshold with rectangular sockets on either side, each measuring 15×10×6 cm (Fig. 12). In the middle of the

[338]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

0

10

20

Fig. 9. Atrium, Greek inscription, view from the west.

threshold are small square depressions for bolting the two doors that opened inward to the prayer hall. A cross-adorned lintel that various surveyors observed above the entrance of the mosque on the hill west of the church was conceivably originally located above one of these entrances.4 A fragment of another crossadorned lintel was discovered in the excavations; it, too, apparently belonged to one of these openings (see below, Architectural Elements). The northern entrance, 0.85 m wide, has a stone threshold with rectangular sockets at either side, 20×10×5 cm, indicating that this entrance too had two doors that were bolted by means of a square depression

in the middle of the threshold. The southern entrance is identical in dimensions and shape to the northern one. Adjoining W223 on the west, between the central and northern entrances, is a bench (W249), 2.12×0.38 m and 0.30 m high, erected on the mosaic floor. Built of stone and plastered, its southern end is raised, forming a kind of headrest. This bench was evidently installed in a late phase of the church, and its builders were careful not to damage the inscription in the mosaic floor in front of the hall’s central entrance (see below). In the narthex’s north, adjoining W235, five steps of a staircase have survived (W231). The staircase measures 3.10×1.05 m and is preserved to a height

[339]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 10. Room 4 and Hall 3, view from the north.

Fig. 11. Narthex, view from the south.

Fig. 12. Narthex, the central opening to the prayer hall, view from the east.

[340]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

of 1.11 m (Fig. 13). It begins at the line of the northernmost pilaster in W235, and leads to a second story, atop the northern wing. The steps are of stone and rest upon a fill of stones and earth; each is 0.20 m high on average. The third step is wider than the others, 125 cm, and has a square depression, 6×6 cm, hewn into its eastern end. A railing, probably of wood, was inserted here. The narthex floor is paved in white mosaic with a colorful carpet in its center and a Greek inscription opposite the main entrance to the nave (see below). The mosaic floor abuts the staircase and the walls enclosing the room. A constructed tomb was discovered at the southern end of the narthex, 2.00×0.48×0.73 m, covered by five stone slabs (Fig. 14). In the middle of the central stone is a small hole—a phenomenon common in Byzantine tombs, sarcophagi, and reliquaries. The tomb, adjoining W200, is ca. 0.75 m below the level of the narthex mosaic floor. In the north, it is bounded

by W236, 0.75 m high, which was built of fieldstones, while its upper part consists of four flat ashlars abutted by the mosaic floor. This wall is not parallel to the other walls in the church, and as the narthex floor abuts it, one can infer that the tomb predated the floor, and perhaps even the erection of the narthex. In his report, Y. Nagar mentions that the tomb yielded the remains of at least two adults, one of whom was a male older than fifty.5 The narthex floor is paved in white mosaic with a colorful rectangular carpet at its center. The carpet contains a Greek inscription in front of the central entrance from the narthex to the nave, jutting east from the rectangular carpet and reaching the stone threshold (Fig. 15). The carpet frame follows this deviation, implying that carpet and inscription were contemporaneous. The frame consists of a row of alternating black and red tesserae, while the letters of the six-line inscription are of red tesserae on a white

Fig. 13. Narthex, the staircase, view from the south.

Fig. 14. Narthex, the tomb, view from the west.

[341]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

0

10

Fig. 15. Narthex, Greek inscription, view from the west.

[342]

20

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

background (ca. 80 tesserae per sq. dm). Each letter is 9–11 cm high. The inscription reads: † This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter through it. This work was done under the most God-loving priests George and Anianos, in the month of May of the forth indiction, for the salvation of the benefactors, Silvanus and Zacharias. Lord, save Stephen.

According to the inscription, the narthex is dated to May 556 CE or May 571 CE. The inner dimensions of the church prayer hall, excluding the chancel, are 13.20×12.50 m. The hall is divided into a nave and two aisles, with the chancel and two pastophoria in the east (Fig. 16). In the north, the hall is bounded by W209, in the south by W200, and in the east by W205, W206, and W201. All the church’s internal walls were coated with fine plaster, some of which is preserved. Vestiges in the hall of painted plaster attest to frescoes that once adorned the structure’s walls. Two rows of columns separate the nave and aisles.

Each row includes five columns and two pillars, one of the latter adjoining the western wall, the other adjoining the apse wall. The easternmost column of each row is set in the northwestern and southwestern corners of the chancel, respectively (Fig. 17). The openings between them and the eastern pillars link the chancel and pastophoria. The column bases, set on square stone platforms, are 1.90 m apart, and are abutted by the nave and aisle mosaic floors. Four bases were found in situ in the northern row and three in the southern one. The limestone shafts, 0.52 m in diameter and 2.70 m high, were recovered together with their differently styled capitals. The rows of columns apparently sustained stone arches whose blocks were found in the rubble of the hall (Fig. 18). Reconstruction of the columns indicates that the distance from the hall floor to the apex of the arch was 4.50 m. Rectangular mosaic carpets adorned the spaces between the columns (see below). The nave (no. 9) measures 12.55×6.00 m. In the east it is bounded by W204, the staircase to the chancel, and

Fig. 16. Prayer hall, view from the west.

[343]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

in the west, by W223. The nave and intercolumniations are paved with high-quality mosaic carpets that are almost wholly intact. The mosaic abuts W223, the threshold of its central entrance, the bases of the columns and pilasters, and W204. The nave mosaic carpet measures 12.30×5.80. A wide, elaborate frame surrounds the carpet, displaying a meander containing alternating birds that were later defaced, and a swastika motif. Three of the rectangles on the east of the mosaic frame, in front of the bema, each measuring 0.60×0.49 m, contain three similar Greek inscriptions that immortalize the names of the artisans who laid the mosaic floor. The inscriptions read: † Lord, (give) life to Samuel, mosaic layer. † Lord, (give) life to Thomas, the mosaic layer. † Lord, (give) life to Theophanes, mosaic layer.

Fig. 17. Prayer hall, the column adjoining the chancel corner, view from the north.

These inscriptions are of letters made of black tesserae against a white background. The letters of each of the four-line inscriptions are 9–10 cm high (Fig. 19). The colorful carpet field, 9.70×3.64 m, bears a geometric pattern of pairs of interlocking, elongated hexagons with concave ends that create circles, octagons and lozenges. The 38 circles and octagons are enclosed in a frame, and almost all of them contain depictions of birds. All these birds were defaced, but

Fig. 18. Prayer hall, collapsed arch, view from the north.

[344]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

0 0

20 20

40 40

Fig. 19. Prayer hall, Greek inscriptions in the eastern section of the mosaic floor, view from the west.

it is often possible to discern body parts, mainly legs and beaks. This carpet is bordered on the east by a Greek inscription that extends the carpet’s entire width. The inscription is enclosed by a black tesserae frame whose preserved dimensions are 3.64×0.45 m. It has three lines of 12 cm-high letters, of red tesserae, against a white background. This inscription apparently named the bishop during whose tenure the mosaic was laid (see Fig. 19). The inscription reads: [† Under th]e most saintly and blessed [Anastasius?] the bishop, and the most God-loving

[E]lias [and Serg]ius (?) the chorepiscopi, and Oule[fos and] Anianos priests, the (halls) here were paved with mosaics. The northern aisle (no. 7), 12.70×2.95 m, is entirely paved with a mosaic floor. It is bounded from the north by W209. In the second building phase, a 1.20 m-wide entrance in this wall, near the middle of the aisle, led to the northern wing. Two sockets were hewn into the large stone threshold that lies 0.30 m above the level of the aisle mosaic floor: the western one measures 0.20×0.10×8 cm, and

[345]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

the eastern one, 0.15×0.15×0.10 m. These sockets indicate that two doors were closed from the side of the northern wing and bolted with the aid of a depression bored into the middle of the threshold. In the east, the aisle is bounded by the staircase leading to the northern pastophorium (W208). At a later stage, a short bench was installed on the mosaic floor at the aisle’s end, adjacent to the bottom stair leading to this room. The aisle mosaic floor abuts with three straight rows of tesserae: the northern wall, the western wall and its entrance, the stairs at the eastern end, and on the south, the bases of the columns and the western pilaster. The carpet field contains informally placed floral motifs. A row of four crosslets, each of four buds, crosses the northern aisle carpet in its west. A depression, 0.35 m in diameter and 0.14 m deep, in the northwestern corner of the mosaic floor collected wastewater. The southern aisle (no. 8), 12.70×3.15 m, is also paved with a mosaic floor that contains a design of informally spread floral motifs. In the south, this aisle is bounded by W200, in the east, by the southern pastophorium; the stairs leading to it did not survive. In a later phase a stone bench (W202) was built along W200 (see below). At the southwestern corner of the aisle floor there is a depression identical to that in the northern aisle, for the collection of wastewater. The chancel (no. 10) at the eastern end of the prayer hall is adjoined on either side by pastophoria (Fig. 20). The chancel measures 6.60×3.10 m; its floor is ca. 0.5 m higher than that of the prayer hall and two ashlar stairs afford access to it. A socket of the chancel screen post and the channel into which the screen slid survived in the upper stair; some of the posts and screens were found in the excavation. The socket is hewn 0.65 m south of the chancel’s northern edge. The space between the chancel screen post of this socket and the eastern column of the northern row provides an opening from the chancel to the ambo, which was apparently in the nave’s northeastern corner and did not survive. The chancel was also separated on the north and south from the adjoining rooms by channels for chancel screen panels fixed between the eastern column and pillar of each row (Fig. 21). The panels were held by posts inserted into square sockets. The channels and sockets were found in situ and indicate

that the side chancel screens were 1.35 m wide. An opening between the chancel screen and the eastern pilaster, 0.55 m wide, permits passage between the rooms and the chancel. The apse wall, W201, 0.90 m wide and 5.50 m in diameter, is rounded on the inside and a nonagon on the outside, the length of each rib being 1.20 m. The wall consists of two ashlar faces enclosing a fill of earth, small fieldstones and bonding material. It is preserved to a height of three courses (1.30 m). Only the bed of the mosaic floor in the apse survived, consisting of small stones cemented by bonding material. The chancel mosaic floor contains a colorful carpet. Three rows of white tesserae abut the upper step of the staircase from the nave, the screens to its north and south, and the eastern pilasters. The frame surrounds the carpet field, which measures 4.20×2.10 m, and divides it into three panels. In the carpet’s central panel, whose internal dimensions are 2.00×1.80 m, an amphora flanked by two animals is depicted. Although defaced, the figures were probably of lions (see below). The two panels on either side measure 2.00×1.20 m and contain rows of black and red buds. In the lower section of the carpet’s central panel is a two-line Greek inscription. A Syropalestinian inscription is set between the carpet and the chancel’s upper stair, adjoining the carpet frame (Fig. 22). The upper line of the Greek inscription, of black tesserae, extends to either side of the amphora base; the letters are ca. 8–10 cm high. Below this line is a row of red tesserae that separates it from the lower line, which is also of red tesserae. It begins with a stylized cross followed to the left by a single bud in red and black; its letters are also ca. 8–10 cm high. The inscription reads: † Abba Ulpianus. † Abba Olpianus.

The Syropalestinian inscription is enclosed by a separate frame, consisting of a row of white tesserae and another of black. The inscription contains a request for a blessing made by the priests Hanina and Gorgon, whose names also appear in the narthex inscription. It comprises two lines in black tesserae against a white background, and its characters are 6 cm high.6 In its northeastern corner is a stylized cross, similar to those of the Greek inscription above it. The northern pastophorium (no. 11) measures 3.20×2.20 m. Its floor level is ca. 0.4 m higher than

[346]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Fig. 20. Chancel and pastophoria, view from the northeast.

Fig. 21. Channel for the chancel screen between the northeastern pastophorium and the chancel, view from the north.

[347]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

0

20

10

Fig. 22. Chancel mosaic floor, Greek and Syropalestinian inscriptions, view from the west.

that of the prayer hall, and ca. 0.1 m lower than that of the chancel floor. The floor is paved in white tesserae (ca. 80 per sq. dm) laid in diagonal rows, except for three straight rows where the floor abuts the walls and the stairs from the northern aisle. At a later phase a small bench (W208) was installed on the mosaic floor at the end of the aisle, adjacent to the bottom stair leading to this room. The southern pastophorium (no. 12) is identical in dimensions to the northern one;

however the stairs leading up to it did not survive. The church’s northern wing was erected in the second building phase, along the church’s northern wall (Fig. 23). It apparently had a second story, reached by the staircase discovered in the narthex. This wing, whose inner dimensions are 19.10×4.30 m, includes a chapel in the east and a baptistery in the west. It is bounded in the north by W211, the western continuation of the atrium’s northern wall (W222). The

[348]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Fig. 23. Northern aisle and northern wing, view from the east.

wall is preserved to a height of two courses (0.90 m), and like the other church walls, consists of two faces. However, due to the construction of the second story, the wall is 1.00 m wide, wider than the other walls. In the east, the wing is bounded by W315, which is 0.95 m wide and is preserved to a height of two courses (0.80 m); it also consists of two faces. Entry to this wing is through an entrance in the wing’s southern wall (W209), between the northern aisle and the southwestern corner of the chapel. W252, on the room’s west, separates it from the entrance hall to the atrium. The chapel consists of a rectangular hall with a raised chancel and a chancel screen in the east (Fig. 24). The hall (no. 14), 7.80×4.30 m, is paved in a mosaic floor that abuts its walls, and has at its center a colorful carpet measuring 5.50×2.10 m. The carpet is divided into three panels: the western one is covered in a pattern of ivy leaves; the central one is decorated with a medallion, ca. 1.85 m in diameter, in the center of which is a cross composed of five interlacing circles; the eastern one features a concentric circle pattern, 0.70 m in diameter, interlaced with alternating lozenges, and surrounded by semicircles.

Fig. 24. Chapel, view from the west.

[349]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

The chancel (no. 13) measures 4.40×3.90 m; its floor is higher than that of the hall by ca. 0.35 m, and an ashlar step leads up to it. The step has a hewn channel for inserting the screen panels and posts that separate the hall and chancel. In the middle of the stair, a 0.70 m-wide opening between the screen panels afforded access to the chancel. The chancel is paved in a white mosaic floor that abuts the walls in three straight rows of tesserae; at its center is a colorful carpet, 2.80×1.80 m (see below). At a later phase a bench was built against the chancel’s northern wall. The westernmost room (no. 15) in the northern wing served as a baptistery. It is rectangular, measures 6.40×4.30 m, and has a mosaic floor (Fig. 25). Entry to this room is only from the chapel hall via an opening, 0.60 m wide, in the middle of W269. On each side of the opening are hewn channels into which screen panels were slid to divide the two spaces. The baptistery floor, raised ca. 0.4 m above the level of the chapel hall floor, consists entirely of crude white tesserae (ca. 30 per sq. dm) arranged in diagonal rows, and, like the other mosaic floors, it abuts the room’s walls in three straight rows. Remains of a cruciform baptismal font constructed of stones and plastered were found in the room. In its center was a square pool, 0.50×0.50×0.50 m (Fig. 26). Above the pool, which is sunken into the room’s floor, a cruciform plastered installation was built. Each side of the installation is ca. 0.4 m long, and its height is unknown. It was originally surrounded by an octagonal frame of semicircles, each 0.60 m in diameter, whose imprints are preserved in the mosaic floor. It is similar to the frame built around the cistern opening in the atrium. The font diameter (including the frame) is 2.30 m. This baptismal font is of the church’s second phase. The first phase stone font was found north of the structure.

Early Islamic and Mamluk Period After the church had been completed, various changes were introduced inside it from time to time, until its destruction. These changes include architectural alterations as well as defacement of the mosaic and chancel screen figures (see below), ascribable to the first half of the eighth century CE.

Fig. 25. Baptistery, view from the east.

Fig. 26. Baptismal font, view from the west.

The western section of the atrium’s southern portico was closed by the erection of walls, creating a rectangular room (no. 16) measuring 5.50×2.45 m (Fig. 27). In the north, W262 and W274 were built on the stylobate between the pillars. On the east, W260 was built between the eastern pillar and W213; measuring 0.60 m in width, it was preserved to a height of two courses (0.80 m). Ashlar built, it was erected over the atrium mosaic floor. In the middle of the wall is an opening, 1.45 m wide, with a

[350]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Fig. 27. Atrium, room from the Early Islamic period, view from the north.

threshold, of two stones, that contained round sockets at either end, 10 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep. The opening’s doorposts are of stones in secondary use. Room 16 is divided in two by W215, 0.60 m wide, built over the atrium’s mosaic floor and preserved to a height of one course (0.45 m). It has two faces: its western face is of ashlars, its eastern face, of small fieldstones. There was undoubtedly an opening that connected the two rooms. The room in the east measured 3.25×2.45 m, the one in the west, 2.45×1.60 m. An intact oil lamp found in the eastern room (Fig. 28) enabled us to date its construction to the Early Islamic period. As noted above, the two lateral openings between the atrium and the narthex were blocked by walls, leaving only the middle entrance in use (Fig. 29). The opening in W213 to the atrium from the south was blocked by an ashlar wall. Other alterations include replacement of the screen between the chapel hall and the baptistery in the northern wing by W269, and moving the opening from the center to the north of the wall.

0

1

2

Fig. 28. Intact lamp from the southeastern room of the atrium, dated to the Early Islamic period.

Several benches were constructed in the church. In the prayer hall, a stone bench (W202) was built on the mosaic floor, adjacent to W200. This bench, 0.50 m wide and 0.30 m high, is preserved for a length of 11.50 m, and consists of one course of ashlars connected to the wall by a fill of earth and small fieldstones. A short bench (W208) consisting of one course of ashlars, 0.35 m wide and 0.35 m high, with a preserved length of 2.05 m, was installed on

[351]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 29. Narthex, blocked walls from the Early Islamic period, view from the southeast.

Fig. 30. Chapel, northern bench, view from the southwest.

[352]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Fig. 31. Domestic oil press and crushing stone in situ next to W305, view from the north.

the mosaic floor, at the eastern end of the northern aisle, adjacent to the bottom stair leading to the northern pastophorium. Benches W287 and W218, comprising a single course of ashlars, 0.40 m wide and 0.30–0.40 m high, were built on the mosaic floors along the northern and southern walls of the northern wing chapel hall (Fig. 30). A bench (W212) that consisted of a single course of ashlars was built in the northern wing chapel chancel, against its northern wall. In the Mamluk period (thirteenth to fourteenth centuries), after the church’s destruction, the west of the atrium and the cistern were reused. A number of walls were introduced in the hall west of the atrium courtyard, creating small rooms. The hall was apparently integrated into a residential structure that extended to the west, as attested by the vestiges of walls abutting the atrium’s western W303. The residential structure was not excavated, but finds in the western hall, such as a domestic oil press and a crushing stone found adjacent to W305, might indicate that this area was used for the domestic production of olive oil (Fig. 31). In the courtyard the cistern

remained in use; the northern channel was raised by stones in secondary use, and stone troughs were set next to the cistern.

MOSAIC FLOORS Mosaic floors from both construction phases of the church were revealed. According to the stratigraphic evidence, the floors of the nave, aisles, and chancel are earlier than the atrium and narthex floors. The latter are dated to the second half of the sixth century, based on their inscriptions, so that the earlier floors may date to the mid-sixth century. The earlier prayer hall mosaic floors contain geometrical designs with floral and zoomorphic motifs, while the second phase mosaic floors include geometrical designs only. The chapel floor in the northern wing is contemporary with those of the atrium and narthex or later in date. The atrium courtyard floor is entirely paved in crude white mosaic (9 tesserae per sq. dm). At the edges are three straight rows of tesserae. The floor contains a Greek inscription, fully intact, measuring 1.76×0.95 m (see above). It is enclosed by a frame comprising a

[353]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

row of large white tesserae, with an internal frame of medium-sized tesserae (ca. 25 per sq. dm) comprising a row of gray tesserae, two rows of red, and another of gray. The six-line inscription is of small red tesserae (ca. 65 per sq. dm) on a white background. Each letter is 8–9 cm high. The narthex floor is of white mosaic with a colorful carpet at its center. The floor abuts the staircase narthex walls with three straight rows of white tesserae. The floor edges are paved with large, white, diagonally set tesserae. The frame consists of a row of black tesserae, two rows of white, and another row of black (A1*).7 The main field, 7.30×2.00 m, is decorated with a grid of intersecting octagons that form squares and oblong hexagons (H3*). In the center of each hexagon is a small lozenge (E*, Lozenge) of red and black tesserae, and in the center of each square is a smaller diamond (E*, Diamond) in similar colors. Opposite the central entrance from the narthex to the nave, the carpet contains a Greek inscription that juts eastward from the rectangular carpet and reaches

the stone threshold (see above). As the carpet frame follows this deviation, the carpet and the inscription are contemporaneous. The frame consists of a row of alternating black and red tesserae, while the six-line inscription is of red tesserae on a white background (ca. 80 tesserae per sq. dm). The nave mosaic carpet measures 11.80×5.80 m (Figs. 32–33). The edges on the east, north, and south are of white tesserae, set diagonally in a herringbone pattern. In the center of the herringbone pattern is a row of buds (F3*). The frame consists of a 0.53 m-wide band, bounded on each side by rows of black and white tesserae (A1*) and a wave pattern (B7*) in red and black. Within the band is a swastika meander of brick-red, red and white, and ocher and white tesserae. The meander consists of rectangles containing alternating birds and a fourswastika motif (A19*). Three of the rectangles, in front of the bema, contain inscriptions instead of birds (see above). Most of the birds were defaced during the iconoclastic campaign, and the tesserae

Fig. 32. Nave mosaic floor, view from the west.

[354]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

2 m

0

Fig. 33. Nave mosaic floor, illustration.

[355]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

were reset randomly within the contours of the figures. A bird was left intact only in the rectangle in the northeastern corner, near the edge of the bema (Fig. 34:1). It has a gray body with white spots, its legs are long and its extended beak is ochercolored. This bird probably escaped defacement as it was located where the church ambo was built. The defaced figure of a similar bird can be discerned in the frame’s northwestern rectangle, and other figures can also be identified. There is a rectangle in the north with two birds standing on either side of two

clusters of grapes, and another rectangle contains a peacock. On the south is a rectangle with vestiges of a two-handled basket filled with fruit, to either side of which are defaced birds (Fig. 34:2).8 In another rectangle on the south are traces of a basket with fruit, and here, too, the birds on either side were defaced.9 The carpet field measures 10.05×3.64 m. In its west is a colorful geometric pattern of pairs of interlocking, elongated hexagons with concave ends that produce circles, octagons and lozenges, with triangles and

1

2

3

4

Fig. 34. Motifs from the nave mosaic floor.

[356]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

1

2

Fig. 35. Conch designs in the nave mosaic floor.

semicircles at the frame edges.10 The elongated hexagons contain a guilloche (B2*), lotus flowers (B9*), and a row of small circles and squares. The 38 circles and octagons, almost all of which contain depictions of birds, are enclosed by a frame comprising a row of black tesserae. All the birds were defaced and the tesserae composing the figures were rearranged, but parts of the bodies, mainly the legs and beaks, can be discerned. Although most of the birds can no longer be clearly identified, it appears that some were songsters while others were raptors with outspread wings (Fig. 34:3). One medallion depicts a cage made of ocher tesserae with a small opening in black tesserae and a ring at the top. The bird in the cage was defaced (Fig. 34:4).11 The lozenges contain geometric designs, the triangles include rainbow patterns, and the semicircles contain conch motifs (I8*) in various patterns and hues (Fig. 35). In one instance, two buds in red and

black against a white background (F24*) appear instead of conches. The carpet field is bordered on the east by a Greek inscription that extends over its entire width; and three Greek inscriptions set in rectangles in the carpet frame (see above). The former inscription, enclosed in a frame of black tesserae, is of red tesserae against a white background. The three Greek inscriptions immortalize the names of the artisans who laid the mosaic floor, and are of black tesserae against a white background. The 10 intercolumniations are decorated with rectangular carpets, each measuring 1.65×0.65 m and mostly adorned with geometric motifs. All have similar frames consisting of one row of white tesserae, one of black, two of white, and an additional row of black (A1*). The westernmost carpet in the northern row consists of a rectangular frame enclosing a lozenge. Inside the lozenge is a poorly preserved medallion flanked by two crosses, each composed of four buds. In the carpet’s four corners, between the lozenge and the frame, were four axes (Fig. 36:1).12 The following carpet to the east, only preserved in its eastern section, consists of two circles interlaced with a square. Of the next carpet to the east, only part of the frame survived. The following one consists of a row of three interlacing circles enclosed by a rectangle (Fig. 36:2). In the middle of the central circle is a cross composed of four buds. In the middle of the lateral circles are diamonds (E*, Diamond). Of the easternmost carpet, only the eastern section survived, consisting of a lozenge. The westernmost carpet of the southern row of columns comprises three rosettes of four petals (J4*). The center of the circles and semicircles formed by the rosettes is decorated with a cross enclosed in an eight-pointed star (Fig. 37:1). The following carpet is the only one to feature figurative decoration; a stylized amphora from which vine scrolls with intertwining leaves and clusters of grapes spring is depicted in its western section.13 The scrolls create two round medallions, in the center of each is a bird; the birds have been defaced (Fig. 37:2). The next carpet consists of interlacing circles (Fig. 37:3). The fourth carpet consists of a square interlaced with circles on either side (Fig. 37:4). Inside the central square are

[357]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

two interwoven ellipses, and a bud springs from each corner of the design. The two lateral circles contain a square (E*, Square). The easternmost carpet depicts a lozenge enclosed by the carpet frame. In the center of the lozenge is a cross composed of four buds enclosed by buds. In each of the carpet corners is another cross composed of four buds (Fig. 37:5). The northern and southern aisles are decorated with identical mosaics. The edges consist of diagonally set white tesserae. The carpet field of each aisle is enclosed by a frame comprised of one row of white tesserae, one of black, two of white, another of black, and an additional row of white (A1*). In the west of each aisle, between this frame and the western wall, is a row of squares (E*, Indented Squares) of red and black tesserae. The carpet fields are decorated with semis patterns (a design of randomly placed floral motifs), composed of rows of red and black buds (F3*) against diagonally set rows of white tesserae. A row of four crosslets, each composed of four red and black buds, crosses the northern aisle carpet in its west. As mentioned above, the bema mosaic floor abuts the upper step of the staircase from the nave, the screens to its north and south, and the eastern pilasters with three rows of white tesserae. The carpet edges consist of diagonally set white tesserae

1

0

and are decorated with rows of small squares (E*, Indented Square). The frame consists of two rows of white tesserae, one of black, three of red , and another of black. It surrounds the carpet field, which measures 4.20×2.10 m, and divides it into three panels (Fig. 38). The continuation of the frame to the east, in the direction of the apse, provides evidence of an additional section that was not preserved. In the carpet’s central panel, whose internal dimensions are 2.00×1.80 m, an amphora flanked by two animals is depicted. Although defaced, the figures were probably of lions, their ears and the tips of their claws still distinguishable. The two panels on either side measure 2.00×1.20 m, and contain a semis pattern of rows of black and red buds (F9*). The southern panel has eleven rows, each containing three to four buds, while the northern panel has sixteen rows, each containing four to five buds. There is a two-line Greek inscription in the lower section of the carpet’s central panel. A Syropalestinian inscription is set between the carpet and the chancel’s upper stair, adjoining the carpet frame (see above). The chapel hall floor in the northern wing is paved with of crude white tesserae that surround a colorful carpet that measures 5.50×2.10 m. The carpet edges are of diagonally laid rows of white

20

Fig. 36. Intercolumniation mosaic carpets in the northern row.

[358]

40

2

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

1

3

2

4

5

Fig. 37. Intercolumniation mosaic carpets in the southern row.

[359]

0

20

40

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1 m

0

Fig. 38. Chancel mosaic floor, view from the west.

[360]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

tesserae, except where it abuts the walls in three straight rows. The carpet is divided into three panels by a frame consisting of one row of black tesserae, two of white, and another of black (Fig. 39). The two

lateral panels measure 1.95×1.75 m, the central one measuring 1.95×1.95 m. The western panel is covered by a pattern of ivy leaves in brick-red tesserae (J6*), arranged in rows of five leaves each.

0

Fig. 39. Northern wing chapel mosaic floor, view from the west.

[361]

25

50

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

The central panel is decorated with a medallion, ca. 1.85 m in diameter, with a frame of black tesserae. In its center is a cross composed of five interlacing circles made of black, brick-red, and white tesserae. The central circle contains a smaller circle in black and brick-red, and in the middle of each of the surrounding circles is a crosslet, composed of four brick-red and black buds. The eastern panel features a concentric circle pattern, 0.70 m in diameter, interlaced with alternating lozenges and semicircles surrounding it. The design consists of two-color strips in ocher and white, and red and white. In the middle of the circle is a star made of two squares with an octagon in the center containing a schematic amphora in black, red, and white. The chapel chancel mosaic carpet is enclosed by a frame consisting of two rows of white tesserae, one of black, two of white, and another of black (Fig. 40). The carpet field features a grid pattern of diamonds made of black and red tesserae (H1*). The mosaic floors differed in their refinement. The most delicate carpet in the church is that in the nave (140–160 tesserae per sq. dm), with a palette

of nine colors: white, black, brick-red, red, two shades of ocher, brown, gray, and yellow. Most of the church carpets were laid using 81–100 tesserae per sq. dm: The aisle carpets feature a limited pallet of white, black, and red; the chancel carpet features shades of white, black, brown, and brick-red; and the intercolumniation carpets are comprised of white, black, brick-red, red, ocher, and gray. The chapel mosaic floor is relatively coarse (20–30 per sq. dm), although the medallion in the central panel is more delicate (ca. 80 per sq. dm). The colors used in this floor were white, black, brick-red, red, and ocher. The narthex mosaic floor (35 per sq. dm) is of white, black and red tesserae.

Burial Cave A burial cave, found some 30 m north of the church, probably served the local populace (Fig. 41). The cave was robbed prior to the excavation. The cave entrance was through a rectangular opening, 1.70×1.10 m, breached in the eastern wall of the cave leading to the burial chamber. The burial chamber, measuring

Fig. 40. Northern wing chancel mosaic floor, view from the north.

[362]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

narrowest is 0.55 m across, the widest, 1.05 m. Their depth is uniform, 0.60 m. Of the meager finds in the cave, a small, bronze, cross-shaped pendant is of note (see below).

1 2

Wine and Oil Presses Some 50 m northwest of the church, on the western slope of the ridge, a winepress and an oil press were exposed. The winepress (Fig. 42) has a rectangular treading floor measuring 4.70×4.35 m, with traces of a mosaic floor of large white tesserae (ca. 15 per sq. dm). This surface is surrounded by a stone wall consisting of one course of roughly hewn stones. In the middle of the surface is a square depression

2

2

1 1-1

1

1

2-2 2 1-1

0

3 m

2-2

Fig. 41. Burial cave, plan and sections.

5.40×4.50 m and averaging 1.70 m high, is irregular in shape. Its ceiling is flat, and seven rectangular cist graves had been hewn into its floor. The graves are arranged in two rows, the western one containing four graves, the eastern one, three. The grave lengths vary from 1.50 to 2.00 m. Their widths also vary: the

0

Fig. 42. Winepress, plan and sections.

[363]

3 m

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

with rounded corners, 1.35×1.35 m, which originally affixed the mortise of the winepress. There is a hewn channel, 2.30 m long and 0.15–0.30 m wide, between the depression and the collecting vat, west of the treading floor. The liquid flowed from the treading floor into two plastered rectangular settling pits that adjoined the southwestern corner. These pits are separated by a wall consisting of small fieldstones. The southern pit measures 0.75×0.55×0.40 m, the northern pit, 0.80×0.75×0.50 m. A hewn aperture in the northern wall, 0.15 m in diameter, leads from the northern settling pit to the collecting vat. This vat, 2.15×1.45×1.55 m, is entirely plastered, and in its southwestern corner is a rectangular stair measuring 0.60×0.50×0.44 m. Some 20 m north of the winepress, the crushing basin of an oil press hewn into the bedrock was surveyed; it measured 2.30 m in diameter and 0.60 m in height. In its center, a round depression received the axis of the crushing stone. Both installations should be dated to the end of the Byzantine or beginning of the Early Islamic period.

FINDS

Architectural Elements An abundance of architectural elements was found at the site, on the surface, and in the course of excavations (Figs. 43–44). Several surveyors noted a cross-adorned lintel in secondary use in the mosque on the western hill.14 Another fragment of a crossadorned lintel was found, measuring 78×43×20 cm (Fig. 43:1). The lintel was engraved on its broad side with a Maltese cross in a circle, 32 cm in diameter. Each of the cross arms measures 12 cm. One of the stone’s sides shows signs of later hewing, providing evidence of its secondary use in the succeeding period. Excavations yielded two additional stones with cross decorations. The first is a small piece of limestone, apparently a building stone fragment, featuring a circle in relief enclosing a simple cross (Fig. 43:2). The circle is 13 cm in diameter, while the cross measures 10×10 cm, all its arms of equal length. The second stone (Fig. 43:3) is a complete

fashioned limestone building block, 72×35×32 cm. One side is rectangular, the other, semicircular, and 34 cm in diameter. The rectangular side features a low relief of a Maltese cross inside a circle. The circle is 14 cm in diameter, while the cross is 11 cm tall and wide, all of its arms being of equal length. An iron hook had been fixed in the stone’s broader side. The use of this stone and its position in the church structure are unclear. Three different types of capitals were found in the area of the church. The finest was discovered in the room north of the apse. It is a limestone Corinthian capital measuring 55×55×52 cm, adorned with acanthus leaves and volutes at its four corners (Fig. 44:1). A Maltese cross, 6×6 cm, is engraved at the top center of every side. A volute fragment, apparently belonging to a similar capital, was found in the nave (Fig. 44:2). The second type of capital is represented by an unadorned limestone capital with a round section at the bottom, 24 cm in diameter, and a square upper portion, 36×36 cm; it is 28 cm high (Fig. 44:3). The third type is represented by half of an unadorned limestone capital that probably topped one of the pilasters in the nave. Its lower portion, semicircular, is 24 cm in diameter; its upper portion, decorated with projections, is rectangular in section, measuring 32×17 cm. The entire capital was 0.32 m high (Fig. 44:4). The column bases, of limestone, are square and simply fashioned, measuring 64×64×32 cm; their upper portion is 56 cm in diameter (Fig. 44:5). Monolithic limestone shafts originally stood upon them. Two of these shafts were found lying broken on a southwestern–northeastern axis in the nave. These shafts, together with the remains of arches in the rubble, attest to the church’s destruction in an earthquake. One column had been removed from its original position and was found north of the church. This column is relatively small, its square base measuring 32×32×15 cm, surmounted by an octagonal element, 13 cm high (Fig. 44:6). The continuation of the column is round in section, 26 cm in diameter. Altogether, the column was 75 cm high. On the bottom of the base are several engraved Greek letters. This column was possibly installed in the second story of the church’s northern wing (near

[364]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

2

3 1 0

10

20

Fig. 43. Architectural elements decorated with crosses.

where it was found), or, alternatively, it served as one of the atrium’s portico columns.

Liturgical Furniture

of the post sides are plain, while one has a channel, 89×4×2 cm, to receive the screen. The side facing the hall is decorated with a recessed double rectangular frame measuring 49×10 cm.17

Chancel Screens

Altar Table

Fragments of the church chancel screens, the chapel chancel, and the baptistery entrance, of gray and white marble, were discovered in the excavations. The screens fragments enabled us to determine the nature of the decorations, which included crosses, laurel wreaths, and a variant of ivy leaves (Fig. 45:1a–d). Another screen could be reconstructed almost in its entirety (Fig. 45:2). It is of gray marble, and measures 121×85×4 cm (reconstructed). Its thickness is compatible with the screen channel in the church chancel, as well as the channel in the chancel screen post found in situ. The screen is adorned in its upper right with a cross, and to the left is an animal, of which only the body and parts of the legs are preserved.15 The animal had been purposely defaced, like the zoomorphic figures in the mosaic floors, in the course of the iconoclastic campaign in the first half of the eighth century.16 A chancel screen post of gray-white marble was found in the nave (Fig. 45:3), 107 cm long with a rectangular base, 19×17 cm. It is topped by a stone pinecone, 16 cm in diameter and 14 cm high. Two

Three fragments of gray marble colonnettes, probably belonging to an altar table, were discovered in the excavations. The lower portion of one colonnette is preserved (Fig. 46:1); it is 51 cm long, with a square base, 10×10 cm, and above it, three ridges encircling the shaft.18 A section of the colonnette’s upper portion was also preserved that is 9.6 cm in diameter. Only the upper shaft of the second colonnette survived; it is round in section, 10.6 cm in diameter. The capital of the colonnette, decorated with schematic leaves, is square in section, 12.6×12.6 cm (Fig. 46:2).19 These two colonnettes can be classified as Type B according to the typology of Acconci.20 The third fragment, classified as Acconci’s Type C (Fig. 46:3), is wider in its middle, 10.4 cm, and tapers towards the ends, 7.8 cm. Two ridges encircle its upper and lower ends.21 Excavations also revealed a fragment of the eastern corner of a table base, made of a limestone slab, 55×52×9 cm. In its corner is a rectangular socket, 11×9×2 cm, into which the colonette was fixed (Fig. 46:4).

[365]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

2

3

1

4

5

6 0

10

Fig. 44. Columns components.

[366]

20

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

a

b

c

d 1

3

2 0

10

Fig. 45. Church chancel screen components.

[367]

20

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

3

2 4 0 0

1

2

4

5 0

5

Fig. 46. Liturgical furniture.

[368]

10

10

20

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Liturgical Bowl

Fragments of a flat marble bowl with a ledge rim, 60 cm in diameter, were discovered at the eastern end of the southern aisle (Fig. 46:5).22

Basin

North of the structure is a round limestone basin, 120 cm in diameter and 80 cm high, which probably served as the baptismal font during the church’s first phase, before the northern wing was erected (Fig. 47).23 Its interior is rounded out, producing a hollow 80 cm in diameter and 64 cm deep, and a 20 cm-thick wall. The rim features four round sockets, 10 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep, perhaps for the installation of a canopy over the basin. Between every two sockets a semicircle, 20 cm in diameter, was hewn; these merge with the basin’s round interior to create a cross shape.24

Pottery The ceramic assemblage recovered in the area of the church attests to a prolonged period of service, from the beginning of the sixth century until the Early Islamic period in the eighth century (Pls. 1–4). Several domestic pottery vessels indicate that the site was also occupied in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods (not illustrated).

Glass An abundance of glass vessels was found in the area of the church. The assemblage includes bowls, chalices, bottles, and lamps, in addition to pieces of broken window glass. The fragments illustrated here represent a sampling of the vessel types from the Byzantine to Early Islamic period (Pl. 5).

Metal Objects A number of bronze and iron objects were found at the site (Pl. 6), deriving mainly from the structure itself and the burial cave to its north, which yielded a cross-shaped bronze pendant, rings, and a segment of a chain. Numerous iron nails of diverse sizes were recovered, which probably served to secure the wooden beams supporting the tile roofs over the prayer hall, the atrium portico, and the northern wing.

Fig. 47. Basin found north of the church, possibly the first phase church baptismal font.

Coins Three identifiable coins were found in the area of the church according to the report by G. Bijovsky.25 The earliest coin, dating to the reign of Constans I (337– 339 CE), was discovered while the later W267, built over the channel leading to the cistern in the atrium, was dismantled. A coin from the atrium’s western hall (no. 3) dates to the sixth century. The latest coin, PostReform Umayyad dating to the eighth century, was also found in the water channel.

Beads Thirteen beads were found, deriving mainly from the burial cave north of the church. Most, of glass in different sizes and shapes: round, cylindrical, square, etc., probably belonged to necklaces deposited with the deceased.

[369]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Summary The various phases of the church’s use—from its erection until its abandonment—can be dated approximately, based on the pottery sherds, glass fragments, and other artifacts retrieved in the excavations. The first phase is attributed to the beginning of the sixth century CE––the reign of Justinian I (527–565 CE). The large church was designed for the occupants of the nearby settlement and perhaps for the entire region. Its construction was connected with the flourishing Christian community in the southern Hebron Hills, and was probably undertaken with the support of official religious circles, who attached importance to the Christianization of this area. Most of the pottery, glass vessels, and metal objects, as well as the architectural elements found at the site, can be ascribed to this first phase, as can the burial cave north of the church, and perhaps also the nearby winepress and oil press. The church was enlarged at the end of the sixth century, when the atrium, as well as the chapel and the baptistery in the northern wing, were added. Architectural changes were also introduced in the

original structure. This phase, too, can probably be credited to the initiative of official ecclesiastical personages, such as Bishop John, who is named in the inscriptions. The church continued in service even after the zoomorphic figures in the mosaic floors and marble screen panels had been defaced following the decree of Yazid II (721 CE). One can thus infer that this church, like many others in the southern Hebron Hills, survived as a Christian liturgical edifice in the Early Islamic period (seventh to eighth centuries). It was apparently destroyed towards the middle of the eighth century, perhaps as a result of the earthquake that occurred in the Land of Israel in 749 CE. Use of the structure resumed in the thirteenth century, during the Mamluk period, when the western section of the atrium was reoccupied. The hall west of the courtyard was divided by walls along its length and breadth into a number of small spaces, and another wing (which was not exposed) was probably added further to the west. The structure was apparently part of a farmhouse whose occupants cultivated olives, judging by the domestic oil press and crushing stone. After the Mamluk period, the site was abandoned and never resettled.

[370]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Plate 1. Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

9

LRC bowl

Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip on inner face, well levigated.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 68:15, 28 (Form 3)

5th–6th cent. (Hayes 1972: 337)

2

12

CRS bowl

Pale red ware 10R:6/3, red slip, well levigated.

3

3

Light red ware 10R:7/8, red slip, burnished, well levigated.

Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 4:7)

4

Surface

Light red ware 2/5YR:6/8, red slip, burnished, well levigated.

Mid-6th–end of 7th cent. CE (Hayes 1972: 282)

5

15

6

FBW cup

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, well levigated.

Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon Mid-6th– 1999: Pl. 4:5); Ramat Raḥ el beginning of (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 7:7) 8th cent. CE (Magness 1993: 193)

5

Light red ware 10R:6/8, brownish-gray core 10YR:5/2, well levigated, pattern burnishing on outer face.

7

5

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/8, brownish-green core 2.5Y:5/2, few small gray grits.

Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar End of 7th–9th 1997: Fig. 1:1); Yokneʿam cent. CE (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.65) (Magness 1993: 194)

8

10

9

Surface

Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/3, few small white and black grits. Pale yellow glazing on inner face, covered with lines and flecks of green glazing; flecks of yellow and green glazing on outer face.

10

10

Pale yellow ware 5Y:8/2, few large gray grits. Green and yellow glazing on inner face, streaked with lines of brown glazing.

11

10

Pink ware 7/5YR:8/4, many red and gray grits of diverse sizes. Pale yellow and green glazing on entire vessel, lines of brown glazing on inner face.

12

16

13

Glazed bowl

Bowl

Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:8/3, few small white and black grits. Green and yellow glazing on the rim and inner face; flecks of green and yellow glazing on outer face.

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Steve 1950: Pl. A:2–5); Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Pl. XVI:4, 5); Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.2); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 2:11); Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 3)

Early Islamic period

Light red ware, 2.5YR:7/6, reddish-gray core 2.5YR:6/1, well levigated.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 6th–7th cent. CE 1944: Fig. 8:14); Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 7:12); Jerusalem (Magness 1992a: Fig. 12:5)

10

Brown ware 7.5YR:5/4, few small white grits. Inturned rim.

14

2

Pale yellow ware 2.5Y:7/3. Inturned rim.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 3:2, glazed)

15

10

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, few large white grits. Inturned rim.

16

14

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, few small white and gray grits. Carination on upper part of vessel, comb decoration on outer face.

Jerusalem (Magness 1992a: 6th–7th cent. CE Fig. 12:6)

17

6

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, few small white and gray grits. Triangular rim, comb decoration on outer face.

Shepherds’ Field (Tzaferis 1975: Pl. 14); Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.68:2)

End of 6th cent. CE–Abbasid period

18

10

Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, few large white grits. Flat thickened rim.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 2:5)

8th–9th cent. CE

[371]

7th–8th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

7

10

11

12 13

15

14

16

18 17 0

5

Plate 1.

[372]

10

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Plate 2. Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

10

Krater

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/8, yellowish-brown core 10YR:5/4, few large white grits. Thickened rim, wavy comb decoration on outer face.

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.134:20)

6th–8th cent. CE

2

9

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, few large white grits. Comb decoration beneath rim on outer face.

Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 1:19)

3

3

Yellowish-brown ware 10YR:5/4, few large white grits. Rope decoration on rim.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:1)

4

15

Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, few small white grits. Flaring rim.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 5th–7th cent. CE 203, Rilled-Rim Basin); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.129:13)

5

15

Light red ware 10R:6/6, light gray core 10R:7/1, few large white and gray grits. High ridged neck.

6

2

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, few large white grits. High ridged neck.

6th–8th cent. CE Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 3) Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Figs. 8:11–14, 9:3); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 228, Form 6A); Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 5:2); farm northeast of Jerusalem (Sion 1997: Fig. 6:10)

7

10

Brownish-yellow ware 10YR:6/6, few large gray grits. Low ridged neck.

8

2

Brown ware 10YR:5/3, few large white and gray grits. Low ridged neck.

9

6

10

Jar

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 5:7–11)

7th–8th cent. CE

Red ware 2.5YR:5/8. Triangular rim.

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 31:12, 18–19; Magness 1993: 236, Form 2, No. 1); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.152:3)

6th–7th cent. CE

Surface

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/6, many large and small, white and gray grits. Low neck.

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.138:12)

11

5

Pink ware 7.5YR:7/4, many small gray and red grits. Low neck.

12

2

Light red ware 2.5YR:7/6, many large and small, white grits. Rounded rim and flaring neck.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 6:5)

13

11

FBW jug

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, well levigated, dark gray core 10YR:4/1, wheel burnish on outer face.

6th–8th cent. CE Kh. el-Mafjar (Baramki 1944: Fig. 15:4); Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 7:24–25); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 238, Form 1B); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 2:16)

14

10

Jug

Brown ware 7.5YR:5/4, many white, gray, and black grits of diverse sizes. High cylindrical neck.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 4:7)

15

3

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3, few small black grits. Wide neck.

Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Umayyad period Fig. 2:24)

16

West of Room 3

Dark grayish-brown ware 10YR:4/2, well levigated. Disk base.

Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 8:9); Jerusalem (Magness 1992b: Figs. 7:6; 8:14)

Juglet

[373]

8th–9th cent. CE

7th–8th cent. CE

6th–7th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1 2

3

4

6 5

9 7

8

10 14

11 15

16

13

12 0

5

Plate 2.

[374]

10

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Plate 3. Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

10

Cooking pot

Reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:4/3, few small white grits. Low neck.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 219, Form 4A)

6th–8th cent. CE

2

5

Red ware 2.5YR:4/8, few small gray grits. Low neck.

3

Surface

Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, few small white grits. Infolded rim to support a lid.

Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.145:11)

5th–7th cent. CE

4

Surface

Casserole

Red ware 2.5YR:4/8, few small gray grits. Traces of soot.

Ramat Raḥ el (Aharoni 1964: Fig. 8:5); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.135:27)

3rd–7th cent. CE

5

Surface

Casserole lid

Reddish-brown ware 5YR:4/4, few large and small Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal white grits. Traces of soot. Knob handle. 1999: Fig. 6.129:22); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 2:10)

6

8

Mold-made lamp

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, many small white grits. Traces of soot. Decorated with grape vine pattern.

Kh. Abu Ṣ uwwana (Cohen 8th–10th cent. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 8:7); CE Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 3:10)

7

11

Yellowish-red ware 5YR:4/6, few small white grits.

Warschaw Collection (Israeli and Avida 1988: Nos. 436, 446–448); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.132:17)

8

10

Dark reddish-brown ware 5YR:3/4, few small white grits. Traces of soot.

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 5th cent. CE– Islamic period26 Fig. 3:5); Kh. Jemameh (Gophna and Feig 1993: Fig. 15:12–14); Givʿat Sharet (Seligman, Zias, and Stark 1996: Fig. 21:3); Tel ʿIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.136:1); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Pl. 5:4)

Wheelmade lamp

[375]

Late Roman– Early Islamic periods

6th–8th cent. CE

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

3

2

5

4 0

5

10

7

6 0

1

Plate 3.

[376]

2

8

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

Plate 4. Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date 12th–14th cent. CE

1

South of Table Room 8 amphora

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, few small gray grits, buff slip. High-ridged neck.

Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.153:1)

2

4

Neck and body fragment. Very pale brown 10YR:7/3. Impressed decoration at bottom of neck.

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Mid-12th–midSteve 1950: Pl. G:27–30); 13th cent. CE Emmaus (Bagatti 1993: Fig. 28:7–9); Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.152:1)

3

2

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, many large gray grits. Reddish-brown geometric designs on outer face.

4

2

Filter jug

Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/3, many large gray and brown grits. Red geometric designs on outer face and upper section of inner neck.

Abu Ghosh (de Vaux and Mamluk period Steve 1950: Pl. F:1–3, 5); Kh. el-Bireh (Avissar 1997: Fig. 4:10)

5

11

Pipe

Dark gray ware 2.5Y:4/1, burnished outer face.

6

2

Jug

Gray ware 2.5Y:5/1, burnished outer face.

Acco (Stern 1997: 68, Fig. 19:136–138)

1

2

3

4 0

5

10

5

6 0

1

Plate 4.

[377]

2

Ottoman period

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 5. Glass Vessels No. Room

Vessel

Description

Parallels

Date

1

11

Bowl

Rim fragment. Greenish glass with small round bubbles, silvery weathering. Shallow bowl.

Nazareth (Bagatti 1969: Fig. 237:13); Ḥ . Ḥ ermeshit (Winter 1998: Fig. 2:1, 4)

Byzantine period

2

6

Rim and wall fragment. Bluish-green glass with small and medium-sized round bubbles, silvery weathering. Deep bowl.

3

6

Ring base fragment. Greenish glass with few small round bubbles, silvery weathering. Deep bowl.

4

11

Rim and wall fragment. Violet-colored glass with silvery weathering, lime encrustation. Body warped by fire. Deep bowl.

5

6

7th–early 8th cent. CE

6

6

Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: Fig. 25:4); Kh. Ṭ abalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 84, Fig. 2:10)

7

6

Wine goblet

Base fragment. Pale green glass with silvery weathering. A flat, hollow ring-base bearing a small pontil mark of a glazer’s rod.

Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: Fig. 25:15); Kh. Ṭ abalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 86, Fig. 2:14–15)

Byzantine period

8

2

Bottle

Rim and wall fragment. Bluish glass with small round bubbles, silvery weathering.

9

6

Rim and wall fragment. Bluish-green glass with many small round bubbles, silvery weathering.

10

2

Rim and wall fragment. Greenish glass with few small round bubbles, silvery weathering. Thin glass trail of turquoise hue encircles the vessel ca. 1.4 cm below the rim.

11

2

Rim and wall fragment. Bluish-green glass with medium-sized round bubbles, silvery weathering. The short neck is decorated with encircling glass trails of turquoise hue.

12

6

End of Neck fragment. Pale green glass with small round Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Gorinbubbles, silvery weathering. The neck is decorated Rosen 1999: 210, Fig. 1:20) Byzantine–Early Islamic periods with two thick glass trails of the same color. The lower trail is straight, the upper one, slightly wavy.

13

Surface

Rim and wall fragment. Bluish-green glass with few small round bubbles, silvery weathering, lime encrustation.

14

6

Rim and wall fragment. Greenish glass, silvery weathering.

15

11

16

5

17

6

Bowl-cup

Rim and wall fragment. Pale green glass with small round bubbles, silvery weathering. Rim and wall fragment. Bluish-green glass with small and medium-sized round bubbles, silvery weathering.

Bowl-lamp

Rim and flat handle fragment. Bluish-green glass with many bubbles and black particles, some silvery weathering, lime encrustation.

Ḥ . Ḥ ermeshit (Winter 1998: 6th–7th cent. CE Fig. 2:7); Kh. Ṭ abalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 87, Fig. 2:18)

Kh. el-Shubeika (GorinRosen 2002: 316, Fig. 8:37–38)

Siyar el-Ghanam (Corbo 1955: 75–76, Fig. 25:5); Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988b: Pl. Rim and flat handle fragment. Greenish glass with XII:1–7, 10); Kh. Ṭ abalieh small round bubbles, silvery weathering. (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 91, Candle fragment. Pale green glass with few Fig. 3:31–33) small round bubbles, silvery weathering, lime encrustation.

[378]

7th–8th cent. CE

Byzantine period

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

1

2

5

3

4

6

7

9

10

8

13

11

14

12

15

16 0

1

2

Plate 5.

[379]

17

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 6. Metal Objects No. Room

Object

Description

Parallels

1

15

Bronze ring

Large ring, 5.9 cm in diameter with square section.

2

Tomb north of the church

3

5

4

10

1.8 cm in diameter, flat section. The top has a slightly broader section, which is the bezel of the ring.

5

Surface

Upper fragment. Engraved geometric decoration on the bezel.

6

Tomb north of the Bronze bracelet church

Elliptical, 5.8×4.5 cm, round section.

7

Tomb north of the Bronze cross church pendant

2.8×1.8 cm. Two concentric circles impressed in the middle of the cross and on each arm.

Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XXIII:8); Beit ʿAnun (Magen 1990: Figs. 12–13) Beth Sheʿarim (Avigad 1976: Fig. 101:5); Martyrius Monastery (Magen 1993b: 193)

Elliptical, 2.2×1.8 cm, with a square section. Bronze finger ring 2.8 cm in diameter, elliptical section. It evidently had a bezel at the top, which was not recovered.

8

Bronze lid

5.3 cm in diameter, and 4.7 cm high. A perforation at the top, apparently intended for a chain.

9

Bronze hand cymbal

5.4 cm in diameter, concave interior 0.9 cm deep. Beth Shean (Fitzgerald 1931: Pl. Central perforation 1.0×0.7 cm. XXXVIII:9); Peleg, “Rock Cut Tomb East of Kh. eṭ-Ṭ ayybe,” this volume, Pl. 6:12a–b

Bronze kohl stick

11.0 cm long. Lower segment has a round section, upper segment has a broad surface (0.9×0.8 cm) adorned with engraving of a cross.

10

West of Room 3

11

Tomb north of the Bronze chain church

A segment of a chain. Preserved length, 4.4 cm; hook at one end, 2.8 cm long. Apparently part of a lamp hanger of a candelabrum.

12

7

Part of a door hinge. Elliptical iron plate, 11.8×4.4 cm and 0.2–0.5 cm thick. Narrow side is curved and at either end are holes for nails.

Iron axis

[380]

Ḥ . Ḥ esheq (Aviam 1990: Fig. 21); Martyrius Monastery (Magen 1993b: 194)

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

1

3

2

7

6

9

8

11 10

12 0

1

2

Plate 6.

[381]

5

4

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Notes The church in ʿAnab el-Kabir was excavated from October 1997 to February 1998 (License Nos. 778, 784) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen, Y. Peleg, and I. Sharukh. A preliminary report was published (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh 2003). 2 The church was mentioned by V. Guérin (1869: 364–367; Kh. ʿAnab el-Kebir). C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener were the first to publish the plan of the church (SWP III: 393, Fig. 2; ʿAnb). W.M.F. Petrie (1891: 55–57) published an updated plan of the church and its dimensions. The survey reports of D.C. Baramki from 1922 and 1941 (IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 8, Kh. ʿAnab el Kabira) mention a basin that probably served as a baptismal font. The church was also mentioned by other surveyors: M. Kochavi (1972: 78, Site No. 234); A. Ovadiah and C.G. de Silva (1981: 237–238, No. 51; Kh. ʿUnab el-Kabir, ʿAnab); Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni, and J. Green (Tabula: 62; Kh. ʿAnab); and B. Bagatti (2002: 85; Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir). Kochavi (1972: 30, Site No. 234), basing himself on the finds of his survey and on those of others, proposes that the site be identified with ʿΑνάβ (Anab), which appears in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (26:8) as a village on the border of Beth Guvrin; see also Abel (1938: 243; ʿAnab) and Avi-Yonah (1976: 28; Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir). 3 For a detailed discussion of the Greek inscriptions in the church, see Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume. 4 V. Guérin (1869: 364–367) noted that the mosque on the western hill had a large stone lintel with three crosses, and it can be assumed that it originated in the church. W.M.F. Petrie published a drawing of this lintel (Petrie 1891: 55–57, Pl. 5:1). 5 For a full anthropological report by Y. Nagar, see JSRF L-784. 6 For this inscription, see Bar-Asher, “Syropalestinian Inscription from the Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume. 7 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 8 Representations of a two-handled basket with a rounded bottom were uncovered in the mosaic floors at the church at Shellal (Trendall 1957: 19, Fig. 4a) and at the synagogue at Maʿon-Nirim (Avi-Yonah 1960: 88, Pl. 18:1), dated to the first half of the sixth century CE. 9 Similar depictions also appear in mosaic floors in the church at Shellal (Trendall 1957: 19, Fig. 4c) and in the synagogue at Maʿon-Nirim (Avi-Yonah 1960: 89, Pl. 19:3). 10 A similar pattern was found in the mosaic floors at: the church at Kh. Bureikut in Gush-Etzion, where the central carpet frame is similar (Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1979: Fig. F, Pls. 16–17); the western church at Mampsis (Negev 1988: 61, Ph. 63); and in the second stage church floor at the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen 1993a: 27). 1

This motif appears in the mosaic floors of many churches and synagogues: in the church at Kh. ʿAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934: 18), in a church at Shellal (Trendall 1957: 19, Fig. 4d), in the synagogue at Maʿon-Nirim (Avi-Yonah 1960: 89, Pl. 21:3), and in the synagogue at Naʿaran (Vincent 1961: Pl. XIV:b). For a discussion of cages in mosaic floors of churches and synagogues, see Avi-Yonah (1960: 89, note 16), who notes that according to the traditional interpretation, the bird in the cage symbolizes the human soul, captive in the body and yearning to be released. For other interpretations, see also Hachlili (1987: 56). 12 A similar axe motif was revealed in mosaic floors in the churches at Beit ʿAnun and Kh. Ṭawas (see Magen, “The Northern Church at Beit ʿAnun,” and Peleg, “Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ṭawas,” both in this volume). 13 Similar amphorae were observed in the mosaic floors of the churches at Beth Guvrin (Abel 1924: Pl. XIV) and Kh. ʿAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934: Pl. X). 14 See note 4. 15 Similar chancel screens were discovered in the church of St. Catherine in Sinai (Forsyth and Weitzmann 1965: Pls. LXXXIV, LXXXVI:a–b). 16 Deliberate defacement also occurred, among others, in the church at Beit ʿAnun (see Magen, “The Central Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume). 17 Similar chancel screen posts were found in the Martyrius Monastery at Maʿale Adummim (Magen 1993b: 194), in the western church at Mampsis (Negev 1988: Fig. 11: 196), at Reḥ ovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988a: 124, Ph. 190a–b, Pl. X:48), and at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 504, No. 86). 18 Similar colonnettes support the altar table in the church of St. Catherine in Sinai (Forsyth and Weitzmann 1965: Pl. LXXXVII:b). 19 Colonnettes of this type were discovered at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 479, 506, Nos. 31, 101), and at Kh. ed-Deir (Habas 1999: Pl. 1:4–7). 20 Acconci 1998: 477–478. 21 Colonnettes of this type were found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 482, No. 37). 22 A similar marble bowl was found in the southern church at Oboda (Negev 1997: 143, Ph. 221). 23 The basin is mentioned in the British Mandate Record Files (see note 2) and in Kochavi 1972: 78, notes 5–6. 24 Similar stone basins were discovered at Kh. Beit ʿAwwa, some 12 km north of ʿAnab el-Kabir (Kochavi 1972: 62, Site No. 152) and in the central church at Herodium (Netzer 1990: 175, Fig. 16). 11

For a full numismatic report by G. Bijovsky, see JSRF L-784. 25

Israeli and Avida 1988: 177, No. 500; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 122. 26

[382]

A B Y Z A N T I N E C H U R C H AT ʿA N A B E L- K A B I R

References Abel F.-M. 1924. “Décovertes récentes à Beit-Djebrin,” RB 33: 583–604. Abel F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II, Paris. 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. Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1961 and 1962, Rome. Aviam M. 1990. “Ḥ orvath Ḥ esheq—A Unique Church in Upper Galilee: Preliminary Report,” Christian Archaeology: 351–378. Avigad N. 1976. Beth Sheʿarim. Report on the Excavations During 1953–1958 I: Catacombs 12–23, Jerusalem. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. BenTor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneʿam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avissar M. 1997. “The Pottery of Khirbet el-Bireh,” in Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai and J. Schwartz (eds.), Hikrei Eretz. Studies in the History of the Land of Israel, Ramat-Gan, pp. 109–125 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1960. “The Mosaic Pavement of the Maon (Nirim) Synagogue,” EI 6: 86–93 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5), Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1969. Excavations in Nazareth I: From the Beginning Till the XII Century, Jerusalem. 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. Bagatti B. 2002. Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev, Jerusalem. Baramki D.C. 1944. “The Pottery from Kh. el Mefjer,” QDAP 10: 65–103. Baramki D.C. and Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “An Early Christian Church at Khirbet ʿAsida,” QDAP 3: 17–19. 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. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Colt H.D. 1962. “Metal,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 52–55. Corbo V.C. 1955. Gli scavi di Kh. Siyar el-Ghanam (Campo dei Pastori) e i monastery dei dintorni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 11), Jerusalem.

Fischer M. and Tal O. 1999. “Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ʿIra. A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv, pp. 300–345. Fitzgerald G.M. 1931. Beth-Shan Excavations 1921–1923. The Arab and Byzantine Levels, Philadelphia. Forsyth G.H. and Weitzmann K. 1965. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The Church and Fortress of Justinian, Ann Arbor. Gophna R. and Feig N. 1993. “A Byzantine Monastery at Kh. Jemameh,” ʿAtiqot 22: 97–108. Gorin-Rosen Y. 1999. “Glass Vessels from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zešiyal, question). The sheva after the shin became a full vowel, since the sheva naʿ vanished in Syropalestinian7; this is realized as i, due to its proximity to the y. It is noteworthy that the plene spelling, , is present in the best of the textual witnesses of the Syropalestinian Evangelion, namely, MS. A; e.g., [and salutations in the market places] in Matt. 23:78 and Mark 12:38,9 and similarly, in Luke 1:2910 and 20:4611; but there is a single occurrence of the spelling (= siyal) in MS. C of the Evangelion.12 However, there is a difficulty with the suggested reading of in this inscription: if this word had been written here, something would have remained of the upper line of the letter alef, which turns far to the right, beyond the missing section of the inscription. The reading (šeyal), as in MS. C (above), does not seem plausible, since the expected plene spelling in early Syropalestinian13 is , with the letter alef denoting the vowel a (šiyal). In our opinion, we cannot use the spelling in MS. C as a basis for our reading, since this spelling is characteristic of the late period of Syropalestinian, when the transmission of texts in this dialect was decisively weakened14; it should be recalled that MS. C was written in 1118.15 The weakening of the linguistic tradition is also evident in the faulty spellings in this manuscript. (b) , that is,šilat]̱ ), could be read in the first line. Indeed, we find this spelling in a Syropalestinian text: (šilaṯḵ on, in Philippians 4:6).16 We undoubtedly could add the two letters (lamed and taw) to the damaged part of the inscription. Of the two possibilities, we obviously prefer the second. 5. The word (qaš) appears twice in the inscription, as the third word in the first line and the second word in the third line. In the word’s second appearance, however, the left arm of the shin is missing. This spelling is an abbreviation of qaššiša17= the 18 priest. 6. Two priests are mentioned by name, and . The first name is clearly parallel to the name Haninah (‫( חנינה‬Land of Israel spelling) or ‫חנינא‬ (Babylonian spelling)), well known from Rabbinic literature and thus of Semitic origin. Two linguistic details are reflected in this name: (1) the ḥ et is not pronounced, with the letter he coming in its place; (2) the pronunciation of the he, as well, declined in Syropalestinian and served as an indication of a vowel, denoting the final a in the name ‫הנינה‬ (Hanina), which apparently was pronounced anina. The use of he as a vowel is known from early texts in Syropalestinian, such as the spelling (this form is parallel to the form ‫ ֲע ֵליִנ ַן‬in classical Aramaic), found in an amulet from Kh. Mird and published by Baillet.19 The second name, , Girgun, is a local (Syropalestinian) transformation of the Greek Georgius (see the following paragraph). 7. The priests Haninah and Girgun are also mentioned in one of the Greek inscriptions found in the church, which states that “'Egéνετo tÕ Éργοn τοàτo ™p„ ton qeofilest£ton Gewrg…ou kaˆ 'Aniano^ presb(utšrwn)” (“this work was done under the most God-loving priests Georgius and Anianus”).20 Note the differences between the two inscriptions: In the Greek inscription, the names appear as required by the genitive form: Gewrg…ou (Georgius) and 'Anianoũ (Anianus); while in the Syropalestinian inscription they appear in the reverse order: first Hanina (Haninah), then Girgun. The alternates Anina (Haninah/Ḥ aninah), which reflect a Semitic form, and ’Anianoj or ’Annianoj, which reflect a Greek form, appear in other inscriptions written in Greek throughout the Land of

[394]

s y r o pa l e s t i n i a n i n s c r i p t i o n f r o m t h e c h u r c h at ʿa n a b e l - k a b i r

Israel.21 The inscriptions from ʿAnab el-Kabir contain two alternations, one in Syropalestinian and the other, in Greek, that refer to the colleague of the priest Georgius, known as Girgun. 8. As mentioned at the beginning of our discussion, the spelling in the inscription indicates the imperative of the root in the qal conjugation in Syropalestinian.22 This word—šemoʿ (or šemuʿ)23— was approximately pronounced in Syropalestinian as šemo or ašmo. In other words, the ʿayin was not pronounced.24 The sheva naʿ also vanished; in some instances it became a full vowel (šemo), and in others, it was entirely omitted. When the sheva naʿ is omitted, a string of consonants (cluster) appears at the beginning of the word, broken by a prosthetic vowel: šmo > ašmo. That is, šemoʿ becomes šemo or ašmo.25 The o might have reverted to u, with an open syllable after the omission of the ʿayin.26

Summary This is the presumed reconstruction of the inscription and a possible interpretation (translation) of its contents: 1  2  The author of the inscription, the priest Haninah or Girgun, addresses God, saying: 1 [Please] hear the request of the priest 2 Haninah [and the request of] the priest Girgun In closing, it should be noted that the presence of a Syropalestinian inscription in the Hebron Hills region is a fascinating discovery. Until now, we knew of Syropalestinian inscriptions in the western Land of Israel, mainly in northern Judea and Benjamin27; and some 25 km southwest of Jerusalem, we found a Syropalestinian inscription on a mosaic in the Umm er-Rus church.28 The ʿAnab el-Kabir inscription extends the area of these inscriptions southward by tens of kilometers.

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 the excavation of Y. Magen, Y. Peleg, and I. Sharukh (License Nos. 778, 784); see Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume. 2 See Di Segni, “Greek Inscriptions from the Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume. I would like to thank L. Di Segni for providing me with bibliographical references on the Greek name mentioned in the inscription discussed in this article. 3 See Bar-Asher 1977: 343, para. 1122. 4 See Bar-Asher 1977: 343, para. 1211; the name is mentioned in an inscription from es-Samra. 5 See Schulthess 1924: 62. 6 In the transliteration šiyal, we waived noting the length of the vowel a, since we have no knowledge concerning the quantity of vowels in Syropalestinian. 7 See Bar-Asher 1977: 421 ff. 8 See de Lagarde 1892: 301–302, with two copyings of the passage from Matt. 1

See de Lagarde 1892: 325. See de Lagarde 1892: 329. Only the expression (šiyal šilama) appears here. 11 See de Lagarde 1892: 352. 12 See Lewis and Gibson 1899: 278 (Luke 1:29). It should be noted that the version of MS. B (and in other places) is ; in this manuscript, the yota follows the alef. 13 In the excavators’ opinion the church was established in stages, beginning in the sixth century, and was destroyed in the middle of the eighth century (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume). This was in the early period of Syropalestinian (see Bar-Asher 1977: 284 ff). 14 See Bar-Asher 1977: 284 ff, esp. 335–338. 15 See Bar-Asher 1977: Source 89, pp. 100–101. 16 See Lewis 1897: 11. Another manuscript of this passage, however, reads , with an alef; see Schulthess 1905: 72. For all information cited above in notes 9–13 and in this note, see Schulthess 1903: 198. 17 See Schulthess 1903: 185. 18 Syropalestinian draws a fine distinction between nouns 9

10

[395]

M. bar-asher

with a definite article and those without one, such as (qaššiš)—priest, (qaššiša)—the priest. 19 See Baillet 1963; Bar-Asher 1977: 400 ff. 20 The original is brought by Di Segni (note 2, above) Inscription no. 7. 21 E.g., we found ANINA in an inscription from the synagogue in Beth Shean (see Zori 1967:159; and others). We found ANNIANOU (genitive) in an inscription from Quneitra (see Jaussen and Vincent 1901: 573, no. 14). Both forms appear in Beth Sheʿarim: in Inscription 55: ’Aninã $, in Inscription 166 ‘AnnianaÒ$, and in Inscription 175: ‘Anianoũ , in inverse (see Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974: 33, 142, 147). L. Di Segni emphasized to me that these are different variants of the same name. 22 See Schulthess 1924: 61–62; see also Müller-Kessler 1991: 159. 23 The expected form in classical Aramaic (that is, Biblical Aramaic, the Aramaic of Targum Onkelos and Jonathan to the Prophets, and Syriac) is šemaʿ, in the qal conjugation. However, in Syropalestinian, as in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (“Galilean Aramaic”), the ʾefʿol was common (peʿol

in the imperative), many times in “future” tenses (yifʿal) and in the imperative, in place of many ʾefʿal forms (peʿal in the imperative). 24 See Bar-Asher 1977: 367 ff. 25 See Bar-Asher 1977: 421 ff, esp. 430–433. 26 The question of the allophonic relationship in Syropalestinian between the vowel u (in a simple, open, syllable) and o (in a compound syllable) was discussed and presented in detail in Bar Asher 1977: 483 ff. However, in syllables that ended in a guttural consonant that was dropped, the vowel was possibly pronounced o, even after the opening of the syllable upon the omission of the guttural consonant. Needless to say, the conclusions to be drawn concerning pronunciation of the vowels in Syropalestinian are extremely limited, in light of the small amount of surviving data from the dialect. 27 See Bar-Asher 1977: 356–357, para. 211. Since the publication of my book, additional Syropalestinian inscriptions were discovered in Galilee and Transjordan, but this would exceed the purview of the current article. 28 See Bar-Asher 1977: 117 (Source 111), 356.

References Baillet M. 1963 “Un livret magique en christo-palestinien a l’Universite de Louvain,” Le Muséon 76: 375–401. Bar-Asher M. 1977. Palestinian Syriac Studies: Sourcetexts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Jaussen A. and Vincent H. 1901. “Notes d’épigraphie palestinienne,” RB 10: 570–580. Lagarde P. de. 1892. Bibliothecae Syriacae, Gottingen. Lewis A.S. 1897. A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, London. Lewis A.S. and Gibson M.D. 1899. Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels, London. Müller-Kessler C. 1991. Grammatik des christlichpaläestinisch-Aramäischen I: Schriftlehre, Lautlehre, Formenlehre, Hildesheim.

Schulthess F. 1903. Lexicon Syropalaestinum, Berolini. Schulthess F. 1905. Christlich-paläestinische Fragmente aus der Omajjaden-Moschee zu Damaskus, Berlin. Schulthess F. 1924. Grammatik des christlich-paläestinischen Aramäisch, Tübingen. Schwabe M. and Lifshitz B. 1974. Beth Sheʿarim II: The Greek Inscriptions, Jerusalem. Zori N. 1967. “The Ancient Synagogue at Beth-Shean,” EI 8: 149–167 (Hebrew).

[396]

a r o m a n t o w e r a n d a b y z a n t i n e m o n a s t e r y at r u j m j u r e i d a

A roman ROMAN tower TOWR AND a andAaBYZANTINE byzantine MONASTERY monastery AT at RUJM rujm JUREIDA jureida YITZHAK MAGEN, YUVAL PELEG, AND IBRAHIM SHARUKH

The site of Rujm Jureida is located on a hilltop, 596 m above sea level (map ref. IOG 14304/08814; ITM 19304/58814), about 1 km south of ªAnab elKabir, and some 2 km southeast of the settlement of Eshkolot (see Site Map on p. XIII ).1 It was surveyed several times during the course of the twentieth century.2

THE SITE The site consists of a natural cave encompassed by a structure, probably a farmhouse, which was built around an earlier fortified tower and later converted into a monastery. In a later phase, oil press installations and additional rooms were constructed at the site (Figs. 1–4). South of the farmhouse was another cave, and east of it, an improved winepress. Four main construction phases were discerned (Fig. 5): In the first phase, fourth century CE, a tower was erected. In the second phase, fifth or beginning of the sixth century, a farmhouse was constructed around the tower. In the third phase, end of the sixth century, the farmhouse was converted into a Christian monastery. The compound possibly continued serving as a monastery during the seventh and eighth centuries, up to the 749 earthquake. In the fourth phase, second half of the eighth to ninth century CE, an oil press installation was constructed and a number of changes occurred at the site.

Phase I—Late Roman Period (Fourth Century) In this phase a square tower, 5.90×5.90 m (L8), was erected west of the cave (L 22), and comprised the heart of the site (Figs. 6–7). It was apparently built on the initiative of the authorities to protect the area from nomadic incursions.3 The tower walls were erected on the bedrock, which was partially leveled to facilitate construction. The walls enclosing it in

the north, west, and south are 0.95 m thick and are comprised of two faces. The outer face consists of ashlars with drafted margins, while the inner face is constructed of small and medium-sized fieldstones held with bonding material and plastered. The northern wall, W513, is preserved to a height of 1.30 m, the western wall W509 to 1.80 m, and the southern wall W512 to 1.40 m. The eastern wall, W518, 1.25 m thick, is preserved to a height of two courses (1.20 m). Both faces in its northern section are ashlar built; between them, a rolling stone, 1.45 m in diameter, was found in situ (Fig. 8). In the wall’s southern section, only one face is comprised of ashlars. The tower’s entrance was fixed in this wall. The entrance, 0.90 m wide, consists of two doorposts. It was usually closed by a single-winged door and bolted. In times of duress, the entrance was blocked by the rolling stone, which was evidently added after the erection of the tower to strengthen the defenses, reflecting the inhabitants’ sense of insecurity.

Phases II–III—The Byzantine Period During the fifth or beginning of the sixth century, the tower formed the nucleus for the construction of a farmhouse (36×32 m) comprising a courtyard surrounded by wings that served as dwellings and for public functions. The farmhouse was converted into a monastery during the sixth century, and Christian elements, e.g., a chapel, were added to the compound. The compound apparently ceased serving as a monastery following the 749 earthquake. In this phase the tower floor was paved in mosaic that consisted of a geometric panel. In its northeastern corner, the mosaic frame apparently enclosed some no longer extant installation. Signs of conflagration can be discerned on the floor—possibly vestiges of the wooden roofing beams that burned after the roof collapsed.

[[397 101 ]]

W5 21

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G, A N D I . S H A R U K H y. M a g e n , y. p e l e g , a n d i . s h a r u k h

W

W5 69

52

W

66

55

W5

L20

4

L14 W 56

55

6

W55

3

L17

L4 2 W50

1

04

W50

2

W50

L12

L11

W5

W51

06

W528

W53

3

4 W51

74

6

W5

2

W55

W51 1

L21

W55

W560

W51

L13

L15

592.23

592.81

L22

52

L5

9

W561

9 54

18

L9

W5

30

W5

591.70

7 W52

L6

591.82 592.07

L18

W53

L19

W5

2 26 W5

0

W5

591.88

L1

58

W

12 W52

0 W5

29

592.29

W5

W543

09

37 W5

W5

W51

591.35

L2

55

L8

5

W50

591.88

L10

W53

W5

W5

23

W5

13

591.82

W5

57

W5

593.95

05

7

L7

W5

63 W5

64

L16

591.39

9

W5

4 W53

592.68

19

W55

W5 06

W5

W5 15

51

W5 07

W5

L3

W

54

7

W

38

0

L27

W5

5

L26 L24

0

W568

W54

4

D

L23

E

590.05

C W5 75 591.60

586.95

589.55 588.85

B

589.60

A

F

587.35

G 0

5

L25 m

Fig. 1. Rujm Jureida, detailed plan.

The site’s outer walls formed a kind of defensive wall, with a single entrance, 1.30 m wide, set in the west at W534. This wall was established on the bedrock. It is 13.20 m long, 0.80 m thick, and preserved to a height of two courses (0.70 m). It

consists of two faces, the outer face ashlar built, the inner face of small fieldstones and bonding material. The entrance threshold and doorposts were found in situ. At either end of the stone threshold, round sockets, 10 cm in diameter and 6 cm deep, were hewn. A

[ 102 ] [398]

r oAmNa Tn OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A Ra OM R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Fig. 2. Rujm Jureida, view from the west.

Fig. 3. Rujm Jureida, view from the south.

[[399 103]]

MG aE gN e n, ,Y. y. PpEeLl E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Fig. 4. Rujm Jureida, reconstruction of the site in the Byzantine period.

small square socket in the middle of the threshold and other sockets in the doorposts were designed for bolts. On either side of the opening is a stone slab paving. In the center of the farmhouse, east of the tower, is a rectangular courtyard (L9), measuring ca. 12×9 m. Two narrow corridors lead to it from the west (L10 and L16). The courtyard is delimited in the north by Walls 558, 555, and 508, which were dismantled during the excavation; in the east, by W506, and in the south, by Walls 552 and 528. The northern corridor (L16), 8.40 m long with a maximum width of 1.70 m, leads from the entrance to a central courtyard. This corridor is delimited by W519 in the north, W557 in the east, and W513 in the south. At the western end of W513, an arched opening supported by two pilasters divided the corridor from L7 to the west of the tower (Fig. 9). The corridor allows access from the compound entrance in W534 to the courtyard through a 1.10 m wide

opening in W557, the latter 1.50 m long and 0.50 m thick. This corridor also leads to the northern wing through a 0 .70 m wide opening in W519, whose ashlar doorposts and threshold were found in situ. The W557 entrance’s southern doorpost abuts the tower’s northeastern corner. The corridor’s western section is paved, as noted, with stone slabs, while the bedrock served as its floor in the rest of its area. L7 is a rectangular space, 4.50×2.20–2.90 m. It is bordered in the west by W534, in the north by the northern corridor (L16), in the east by W509, and in the south by W523. Established on the bedrock, W523 is 2.70 m long and 0.90 m thick, and has two faces: the northern face of large, well-dressed stones, the southern face of small fieldstones and bonding material. This wall is preserved to a height of three courses (0.85 m). In its middle is an opening whose estimated width is 0.90 m, and whose threshold and western doorpost are still extant. Two pilasters were found at the northern end of

[[400 104 ]]

r oAmNa Tn OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ e A Ra OM R eArNaDn d A aB Y Zz AaNnTtI iNnEe M On NaAsStTeErR UiRdEaI D A

D

E

C

B

F

A 0

5 m

Late Roman Period Byzantine Period Early Islamic Period Fig. 5. Rujm Jureida, main construction phases.

[[401 105]]

G

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Fig. 6. Tower, view from the south.

Fig. 7. Tower, view from the northeast.

[[402 106 ]]

ro oR w eArNaDn A d a bZ yA z aNnTtI iNnEe M mO on mJ M j u rJ U e iRdEaI D A A Ra OM Am NaTnOtW BY N aAsStTeErRyYatATr uRjU

Fig. 8. Rolling stone in situ, view from the east.

Fig. 9. The room west of the tower and the northern corridor, view from the west.

[[403 107 ]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

L7, the eastern one, 0.55×0.35 m, adjoining W509, the western one, 0.55×0.20 m, adjoining W534. These pilasters apparently carried a roof-supporting arch. The bedrock serves as the floor in the southeast of the room, while in the northwest, the room is paved in mosaic, probably in order to lessen the differences in height. The mosaic, of large white tesserae (ca. 25 per sq. dm), abuts the western wall and the pilaster adjoining it, as well as the stone slab pavement in the corridor to the north and the bedrock floor to the southeast. Four steps descend from the opening in W557 to the courtyard (Fig. 10). The upper step is hewn, the lower three, constructed; they are 1.60 m long, 1.25 m wide, and the staircase is 0.90 m high. The latter is delimited in the north by W555 and in the south by the bedrock, which was hewn in order to install the steps. At the foot of the

Fig. 10. Stairs descending from the northern corridor into the courtyard, view from the east.

staircase is a square measuring 2.15×1.05 m, paved with small fieldstones, delimited in the east by W549. This wall, 2.20 m long, consists of large fieldstones laid over smaller ones. In the square area, the staircase divides into two: one flight, no longer extant, descended to the cave opening in the east, while the other turns south, leading to a ca. 2×2 m hewn square east of the tower entrance. This staircase, comprising four steps of dressed stones, is 2.00 m long, 0.75 m wide and 0.80 m high. The southern corridor (L10), south of the tower, is 6.75 m long, and 3.90 m wide in the west, tapering to 2.60 m in the east. Thus, the walls delimiting this corridor in the north and south are not parallel. In the east, the corridor is delimited by W522, with an opening into the central courtyard; it is delimited in the south by W510, with an opening into Room L6, and in the west by W500. W522 is 2.70 m long, 0.85 m thick, and consists of two faces: its western face is of ashlars, its eastern face, of small fieldstones and bonding material. This wall is preserved to a height of three courses (0.80 m); in the south it abuts W552 and in the north, W512. The entrance in the middle of this wall is 0.80 m thick and both the doorposts and the bedrock-hewn threshold are extant. In the south of the threshold is a round socket, 8 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep, which held the door’s axis. A round socket in the upper section of the northern doorpost received the bolt. As in L7, the bedrock serves as the floor in part of the corridor, while in those sections with a lower level, traces of a mosaic floor of crude white tesserae can be discerned, abutting W510 and W 512. The courtyard walls were erected on the bedrock in the area above a cave (L22). The cave had collapsed, and chunks of bedrock from its roof, which originally formed the base of the courtyard floor, had fallen into its cavity. In the southeastern corner of the courtyard is an elliptical plastered water cistern (L21), 4.00×2.50 m and 4.00 m deep (Fig. 11). A round stone, 1.00 m in diameter and 0.25 m thick, had been laid over it. It has a square opening, 0.35×0.35 m, enclosed by a frame for a lid. The cistern was fed by a channel adjoining the northern face of W552. The channel’s eastern section, hewn into the bedrock, is 9.50 m long, 0.15 m wide and 5 cm deep. Its western

[[404 108 ]]

r oAmNa Tn OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ e A Ra OM R eArNaDn d A aB Y Zz AaNnTtI iNnEe M On NaAsStTeErR UiRdEaI D A

Fig. 11. Cistern, view from the northwest.

Fig. 12. Channel running along W552, view from the east.

section, 2.50 m long and 0.70 m wide, was constructed using a row of medium-sized fieldstones over the bedrock and against W552 (Fig. 12). The channel is plastered, and declines from west to east: in the west it is hewn 0.30 m into the bedrock, in the east, 0.17 m. The channel was originally covered by flat roofing stones, several of which were found in situ. It evidently drained the rainwater from the roof of the farm’s southern wing and conducted it into the cistern. Only the southeastern area of the courtyard remained intact. This area revealed a mosaic floor, and apparently the entire courtyard was similarly paved. Some 2.80 m north of the cistern, against W506, a pilaster base, 0.55×0.50 m, was found in situ, abutted by the mosaic floor. Thus, it appears that this pilaster was part of a portico that stood in the south of the courtyard and was roofed by arches and paved in mosaic. North of the central courtyard and tower, the northern wing (Fig. 13), which includes a row of three rooms (nos. 1–3) was erected. Room L3 in the west is the largest; it is rectangular in plan, measuring 8.80×5.00 m. In the west, Room L3 is delimited by W534, and in the north, by W505, which enclosed the entire wing. The latter wall, 0.80 m [[405 109]]

MG aE gN en g, a aA ru Y. y. MA , ,Y.y. PpEeLl Ee G, AnNdD i I. . s Sh H RkUhK H

Fig. 13. Northern wing, view from the west.

thick and preserved to a height of three courses (0.80 m), was established on the bedrock and consists of two faces: the outer face is of large, welldressed stones, the inner face, of small fieldstones and bonding material. W515 separates Rooms L2 and L3 (Fig. 14). This wall, 0.80 m thick and preserved to a height of four courses (1.10 m), also consists of two faces; the western face is of large fieldstones, the eastern face, of smaller fieldstones and bonding material. At its southern end is an opening, 0.95 m wide, connecting the two rooms; its doorposts and bedrock-hewn threshold were found in situ. In the south, the room is delimited by W519, 0.55 m thick and preserved to a height of three courses (0.75 m). The wall was of large, roughly hewn stones, some of them smoothed, and of smaller fieldstones. In the east, W519 abuts W555, and the room’s southern entrance is in its western section. The bedrock on which the room is founded was hewn into two levels, the southern level being some 0.30 m higher than the northern one, which is

partially hewn and partially paved with stone slabs. The middle room of the northern wing (L2) is rectangular, 6.40×4.70 m, and only its western half was excavated. It is delimited in the west by W515, in the north by W505, and in the east, W507 separates it from L1. W507, established on the bedrock, is 0.70 m thick and preserved to a height of three courses (0.78 m). It consists of two faces: its western face was of large well-dressed stones, its eastern face, of smaller fieldstones and bonding material. In its south, an opening, 0.75 m wide, with ashlar doorposts connects Room L2 with Room L1. In the south, the room is delimited by Walls 555 and 558, established on the bedrock north of the staircase descending to the cave. These actually comprise a single wall: W555 to the west of the opening leading from the courtyard into the room, and W558 to its east. Both walls are 0.85 m wide, preserved to a height of four courses (1.18 m) and, like most of the walls at the site, consist of two faces. The 0.65 m-

[[110 406]]

ro oR w eArNaDn A d a bZ yA z aNnTtI iNnEe M mO on mJ M j u rJ U e iRdEaI D A A Ra OM Am NaTnOtW BY N aAsStTeErRyYatATr uRjU

Fig. 14. Loci 2–3, view from the northwest.

wide entrance from the courtyard was set at the bottom of the staircase leading to the cave. Its ashlar doorposts and threshold were found in situ. A round bolt socket was hewn in the western doorpost. Two pilasters were found in situ in the room. One adjoins the middle of W558; the other is fixed opposite it against the middle of W505. These pilasters, each 0.60×0.50 m, carried a roof-supporting arch that spanned the room’s breadth. The room’s floor was originally paved in irregular stone slabs. In its southwestern corner, opposite the entrance from Room 3, are the remains of an unidentified installation, apparently square in plan, of which only W564, delimiting it from the east, has survived. This wall, 1.45 m long and preserved to a height of one course (0.20 m), is built of narrow stones and is integrated into the room’s floor. The eastern room of the wing (L1) is rectangular in plan, 5.20×4.00 m; only its northern half was excavated. The bedrock serves as the base for its beaten-earth floor. Against the middle of its western

and eastern walls are ashlar pilasters, each 0.55×0.30 m, founded on the bedrock and, as in the central room (L2), they carried a roof-supporting arch. An entrance, 0.60 m wide, in the southern section of the eastern Wall, W506, leads into the eastern wing, and its doorposts are constructed of ashlars. The eastern wing includes two rooms, a courtyard, and another entrance into the cave (Fig. 15). Originally, it appears that the entire area of this wing was a courtyard measuring 13.70×9.40 m. It is delimited: in the west by W506, which separates it from the central courtyard and the northern wing; in the north by W505; in the east by W504, which is 0.80 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.60 m); and in the south by W503, 0.75 thick and preserved to a height of three courses (0.84 m). Three entrances lead into this courtyard: the first, in W506 in the southwestern corner, is 0.90 m wide and its southern doorpost and threshold were found

[[407 111 ]]

MG aE gN en g, a aA ru Y. y. MA , ,Y.y. PpEeLl Ee G, AnNdD i I. . s Sh H RkUhK H

Fig. 15. Eastern wing, view from the northwest.

in situ; the second, in W505, is 1.10 m wide and only its threshold was found in situ; the third leads from the eastern room of the northern wing (L1). A probe excavated in the northeastern part of the courtyard (L11) revealed another entrance to the cave, hewn, narrow, and oblong in shape (1.70×0.60 m), with four hewn steps descending from the east. Two short walls, W560 and W561, built of well-dressed stones, were erected to the north and east of the entrance, 0.50 m wide and preserved to a height of two courses (0.60 m). Two rooms were apparently constructed in the west of the courtyard during the Byzantine period: one in the southwestern corner adjoining the central courtyard (L13), the other in the northwest, adjoining the northern wing (L18). L13 is a rectangular room east of the central courtyard, measuring 7.10×4.20 m, and was not excavated. In the north it is delimited by W516, 0.75 m thick and consisting of two faces: its northern

face of large well-dressed stones, its southern face of fieldstones of various sizes. This wall is preserved to a height of two courses (0.60 m), and abuts W506 in the west. In the east, the room is delimited by W517, 0.75 m thick, of similar construction to the northern wall and also preserved to a height of two courses (0.55 m). Its southern end abuts W503. L18 is a small room, 3.10×2.40 m, created in the northwestern corner of the courtyard by the erection of two walls, W556 in the east, 0.50 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.45 m), and W539 in the south, 0.50 m thick and preserved to a height of one course (0.35 m). The entrance to the room, 0.60 m wide, is in the eastern wall and its doorposts and threshold were found in situ. The floor consists of small fieldstones and beaten earth. A short, winding wall, W543, joins the southeastern corner of L18 with the northeastern corner of L13. This wall, comprising a single row of large fieldstones, is 0.40 m thick and preserved to a height

[[112 408]]

r oAmNa Tn OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A Ra OM R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

of one course (0.40 m), creating an irregular space (L19) measuring 4.25×2.20 m. The entrance leading to this space originally led from the northern wing to the eastern courtyard. South of the central courtyard and tower are the rooms comprising the southern wing: a large central room (L5), a western room (L6), two rooms east of the large room (L4 and L15), and another room (L17) at the wing’s eastern end. L5 is the main room in this wing (Fig. 16). It measures 7.50×6.50 m, and is delimited in the north by W552, 0.75 m thick, preserved to a height of three courses (0.90 m) and consisting of two faces: the northern face of large, well-dressed stones and the southern face of small fieldstones and bonding material. In its middle is an entrance leading into the central courtyard, 1.10 m wide, with its stone threshold in situ. Two round sockets, 8 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep, were hewn into either side of the threshold, and a rectangular bolt socket was hewn into its center, indicating that a double-winged door stood in

this entrance. South of the threshold is a rectangular marble slab measuring 0.85×0.40 m that was sunk into the room’s mosaic floor (Fig. 17). In the east, the room is delimited by W514, 0.75 m thick, preserved to a height of three courses (0.95 m) and, like the others, comprised of two faces. Two openings in this wall link this room with the rooms to its east. The northern entrance leading into L15 is 0.75 m wide and its ashlar doorposts and threshold were found in situ. The southern entrance, leading into L4, is 0.85 m wide, its ashlar doorposts also found in situ. In the south, the room is delimited by W501, 0.70–1.00 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m). Established on the bedrock, it consisted of two faces: its southern face of large, well-dressed stones and its northern face of small fieldstones and bonding material. Plaster was observed along the bottom of this wall on the exterior face, probably applied to prevent the penetration of rainwater. In the west, the room is separated from

Fig. 16. L5, view from the southeast.

[[409 113]]

MG aE gN e n, ,Y. y. PpEeLl E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Fig. 17. Marble slab sunk into the mosaic floor in room 5, view from the south.

L6 by W511, 0.95 m thick, preserved to a height of four courses (1.25 m) and consisting of two faces. In the middle of the wall is an entrance, 0.75 m wide connecting the two rooms; its ashlar doorposts and threshold were found in situ. Against the eastern and western walls (W514, W511) are two sets of ashlar pilasters that carried two roof-supporting arches; each pilaster measured 0.60×0.50 m and was preserved to a height of three courses (1.05 m). The floor is comprised of a colorful mosaic of geometric pattern. Next to the room’s northern entrance in W552, west of the marble slab, is a depression, 0.25 m in diameter and 8 cm deep, for draining off excess water when the floor was washed. An identical depression is found south of the room’s northwestern pilaster. Alongside the southern entrance in W514, a natural round opening, 0.60 m in diameter, was observed in the bedrock underneath the mosaic floor. Between it and the entrance is part of a frame within the mosaic floor, evidence of an inscription that did not survive.

L4, the southernmost of the two rooms adjoining L5 to the east, was a chapel; it is rectangular in plan and measures 5.10×3.00 m. In the west, it is delimited by W514, in the south of which is an entrance leading to L5. In the north, it is delimited by W532, 0.60 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m); this separates the room from the one to its north (L15). At its eastern end, ca. 0.5 m above floor level, is a plastered niche, 0.42×0.30 m, only partially preserved; it was apparently used for liturgical purposes. In the east, the room is delimited by W502, 0.85 m thick and preserved to a height of three courses (0.94 m). The room’s floor was completely paved in mosaic, including two colorful carpets with geometric designs and the remains of a Greek inscription in the north (see below). The room’s features reinforce the conjecture that it served as a chapel for the local populace. In several places below the mosaic floor, which was not preserved intact, there are natural openings leading to the cave below the compound.

[[410 114 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

L15 is a small room north of the chapel, measuring 3.00×1.50 m. Its entrance is in the west, leading from the wing’s central room (L5). L15, which possibly served as storage for liturgical vessels, was evidently paved with a mosaic floor, of which only the bed, consisting of small fieldstones and lightcolored bonding material, survived. This foundation was laid over the bedrock and yielded a coin from the first half of the sixth century.4 L6, the westernmost room in the wing, measures 7.75×6.40 m (Fig. 18). In the north, it is delimited by W510, 0.85 m thick, which contains one of the two openings leading into the room; 0.70 m wide, its doorposts and threshold were found in situ. The second entrance is in W511, connecting it with the wing’s central room. As in the central room, two arches supporting the roof of this room rested upon pilasters adjoining the

Fig. 18. L6, view from the west.

western and eastern walls, and continue the line of the arches in the central room. The pilasters, each measuring 0.80×0.65 m, are constructed of ashlars and established on the bedrock, which was leveled for this purpose. The western pilasters are preserved to a height of three courses (0.95 m), while the eastern pilasters are preserved to a height of four courses (1.35 m). The third course in both eastern pilasters is wider than the lower two and fashioned into a decorated capital; the southernmost capital was adorned with rhomboids. The function of the room at this phase is unclear, since it was later converted into an oil press, effacing the earlier vestiges. L17 is a rectangular room measuring 4.00–4.50×3.05 m; located in the east of the southern wing, it links the room to the eastern wing. In the west the room is delimited by W502. In the north W528 connects the northeastern corner of the southern wing with the southwestern corner of the eastern wing. W528, 3.60 m long, 0.65 m thick, and preserved to a height of three courses (0.87 m), has a 0.80 m-wide entrance with ashlar doorposts and threshold intact, affording access from the central courtyard. Judging by the single socket in the west of the threshold, the entrance had only one door. A step comprising a stone slab, 0.80×0.40 m, descends from the entrance to the room’s floor. In the east the room is delimited by W553, 0.65 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.61 m), abutting W503 in the north. In the south the room is delimited by W544, 0.60 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.64 m), abutting W502 in the west. The room’s floor is comprised of beaten earth and small stones. In the northeastern corner a raised surface is delimited by a curving wall (W568) of one course of fieldstones. This wall and the raised surface are plastered. A ceramic pipe installed in a channel traversing W528 apparently belongs to the earlier phase, prior to construction of L17, and served to drain excess water from the central courtyard. Some 10 m southeast of the structure, an improved winepress (L25) was exposed (Figs. 19–20). It includes a central treading floor, four secondary treading floors, settling pits, and collecting vats. The press was hewn from the bedrock, and above its western margin a wall of

[[411 115]]

MG aE gN en g, a aA ru Y. y. MA , ,Y.y. PpEeLl Ee G, AnNdD i I. . s Sh H R kUhK H

D

E

W5

27

C

B

F

A G

0

Fig. 19. Winepress, detailed plan.

3

m

roughly hewn stones of diverse sizes had been erected (W575), preserved to a height of three courses (0.80 m). The central treading floor (A), 4.40×4.05 m, is paved in crude white mosaic (15 tesserae per sq. dm), which had been laid over a bed of pebbles and plaster, 7 cm thick. In the middle of the floor a round stone, 1.05 m in diameter, had been placed in a hewn depression. The stone has a square hole, 0.40×0.40 m, in its center that served as a screwpress mortise for the final pressing of the grape skins. The mosaic floor abuts this stone. A hewn and covered channel, 2.10 m long, leads from the mortise to the central collecting vat east of the floor. North and west of the central treading floor are four secondary treading floors hewn into the bedrock, ca. 0.3 m higher than the central treading floor: B and C in the west, D and E in the north. Floor B is rectangular, 3.40×2.30 m, and was evidently paved in a mosaic that did not survive. A

Fig. 20. Winepress, view from the southeast.

[[116 412]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

narrow channel, 40 cm long, 5 cm wide and 10 cm deep, leads from its southeastern corner to a rectangular settling pit in the south. The settling pit measures 0.85×0.55 m and 0.40 m deep, and a channel, 0.30 m long, led from it to the central treading floor. Floor C was also rectangular, 2.70×2.40 m, and its mosaic paving is almost completely intact. This mosaic is similar to the one on the central floor, also laid over a bed of pebbles and bonding material. In the floor’s southeastern corner is a round settling pit, 0.55 m in diameter, and a channel, 0.20 m long, leads from it to the central treading floor. Floor D is the smallest, square in plan, 2.00×2.00 m, and evidently paved in mosaic. To its south is a rectangular settling pit, 0.60×0.35 m and 0.30 m deep, and a channel, 0.20 m long, leads from it to the central treading floor. Floor E is rectangular, 2.50×1.95 m, and paved in mosaic, a section of whose bed has survived in the northeast. To its south is a square settling pit, 0.35×0.35 m and 0.30 m deep, and a channel, 0.25 m long, leads from it to the central treading floor. The liquid produced by the winepress was drained from the central treading floor by a 0.30 m-wide gutter to a large plastered settling pit in the southeastern corner of the press (G). This settling pit is irregular in plan, measures 1.75×1.40 m and 0.80 m deep, and a channel hewn in its north leads to a central collecting vat (F); the latter measures 2.10×1.90 m and 2.20 m deep, and is plastered and paved in crude white mosaic. In its northwestern corner is a round, hewn depression, 0.45 m in diameter and 0.40 m deep. Some 5.5 m south of the compound, a hewn corridor leads southward to a cave with a single room (L23), elliptical in shape, 3.80–5.20 m in diameter, and 1.70 m high. The narrow corridor (3.40×0.90 m) has six steps. In the cave entrance a rolling stone, 1.20 m in diameter, was found lying on its side and had evidently been used to close the entrance. The cave’s walls and floor are plastered, and it is possible that the cave served for the storage of liquid, perhaps wine produced by the nearby winepress. Northwest of the compound is a cistern (L24). Two settling pits were hewn north and west of the cistern. The northern one was almost square,

0.85×0.80 m and 0.60 m deep, and the western one was 0.95×0.80 m and 0.90 m deep. The cistern was covered at a later phase by the crushing stone of the oil press in secondary use. Next to it were assorted building stones and a number of stone troughs.

Phase IV—Early Islamic Period In the second half of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century CE, alterations were made at the site, possibly introduced following an earthquake that caused the collapse of parts of the cave roof and also, perhaps, parts of the structure. At this phase, large sections of the compound were evidently in ruins, and the new inhabitants made use of only a small portion of it. Changes were made in the corridors surrounding the tower. The opening in W523 was blocked and a number of walls were installed in the southern corridor (L10). W535, 3.90×0.60 m, was erected parallel to W510, 0.45 m to its north and over the mosaic floor. It abuts W500 in the west, consists of two faces of medium-sized fieldstones, and is preserved to a height of three courses (0.85 m). W526 (1.05×0.60 m) abuts W510 in the south and consists of two faces: its western face is of large well-dressed stones, its inner (eastern) face of small fieldstones and bonding material. It is preserved to a height of four courses (1.10 m). The erection of these walls obstructed the way to the opening leading to L6 to the south, which was also blocked. Another short wall, W537, 0.50 m long, was built perpendicular to W523. The function of these walls is uncertain; they may have served to narrow the corridor to facilitate roofing. At this phase changes were made in the northern wing. In L3, an east–west-oriented wall was built lengthwise across its center in two separate sections: W538 in the west of the room and W551 in the east. These walls, 0.60 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m), are constructed of ashlars in secondary use and fieldstones of various sizes upon the bedrock, which serves as the room’s floor in this phase. In the northwestern corner of the room, W550 was erected perpendicular to the northern wall and together with W538, it encloses a rectangular room (L27) measuring 3.50–4.00×2.80 m. W550, 0.50 m thick and preserved to a height of three courses

[[413 117]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

(0.95 m), was established on the bedrock and consists of two faces: the western face of large, welldressed stones, the eastern face of small fieldstones. It appears that the 0.90 m-wide opening to the new room was in W538 in the south. Further changes to L3 include the blockage of the southern opening in W519 and the introduction of two openings in W505. The westernmost opening, in the northwestern corner of the room, 0.90 m wide and evidently without doorposts for a door, affords access from L27 to the rooms north of W505 (L20 and L26). The second opening in the northeastern corner of L3, 0.85 m wide, leads to the courtyard (L14) that was built north of the compound, and it, too, was evidently doorless. Alterations in the wing’s central room (L2) include the blockage of the opening in the eastern W507. A new opening 1.05 m wide, was set in W505 to the west of the pilaster and led into the courtyard to the north (L14). This opening is approached via a narrow three step staircase of ashlars in secondary use, 1.10×0.70 m. The stone of the middle step has two round hewn sockets, 0.18 m in diameter and 0.12 m deep. West of the new opening the northern wall was thickened by the construction of W559. This wall is 0.80 m thick, built of large, well-dressed stones and preserved to a height of four courses (1.35 m). The space between it and the original W505 was filled with earth and various-sized fieldstones. An installation of uncertain character was constructed in the room’s northwestern corner —a curving wall, W563, 0.40 m thick and 0.55 m high, made of well-dressed stones and fieldstones, delimiting a surface ca. 0.5 m higher than the room’s floor. North of the northern wing, two rooms (L20 and L26) and a courtyard (L14) enclosing the rooms and the area to their north and east, were added in this phase. The eastern room (L26), 2.80×1.70 m, is delimited in the north by W554, which also delimits L20. This wall, 0.50 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.65 m), is built of mediumsized fieldstones. In the east, L26 is delimited by W565, 0.50 m thick and preserved to a height of two courses (0.59 m). In the west, W566, preserved to a height of two courses (0.60 m), separates the two rooms. This wall possibly contained the entrance to

L26. In the room’s northwestern corner is a surface consisting of three flat stones, 1.00×0.75 m, and 0.40 m higher than the room’s bedrock floor; its function is unclear. The western room (L20), 2.10×2.00 m, is delimited in the west by W569, which is 0.70 m thick, built of medium-sized fieldstones, and preserved to a height of one course (0.35 m). An opening through W505 made at the time of the room’s construction, connects it to the room to its south. There is evidently another opening in the northern wall, 0.80 m wide, leading from the room to the courtyard. Following the construction of these rooms, a trapezoidal courtyard (L14) was added, measuring 16.70×7.40 m. Two sections of its enclosing wall, W520 and W521, 0.50 m thick, are built of mediumsized and small fieldstones and preserved to a height of one course (0.50 m). A 1.30 m-wide opening into the courtyard from outside the compound was discerned in the middle of the western section of W521. In the southeastern corner of the courtyard, a curving wall (W547), of fieldstones, encloses a raised surface. In this phase, the western room in the southern wing (L6) was converted into an oil press (Figs. 21–22). The opening in the room’s northern wall was blocked and two new openings were introduced: one in the middle of the southern wall, 0.80 m wide, and the other in the middle of the eastern wall (W500), 1.00 m wide (Fig. 23). This opening enabled the oil press installations to be brought into the room, and was then blocked by W574. The oil press installation, comprising a crushing basin, 1.70 m in diameter and 0.30 m deep, set on a stone podium, 0.40 m high, rests on the bedrock floor below the room’s southern roof-supporting arch (Fig. 24). The positioning of the oil press installation beneath the arch was intentional, as the arch served both to buttress the crushing-stone axis and to facilitate the revolving of the stone by the beast of burden. The crushing stone was discovered in secondary use as the covering of the cistern (L24) west of the structure. It is 1.30 m in diameter and 0.30 m thick and in its center is a square hole measuring 0.35×0.35 m. The pressing device was installed in the north of L6, adjoining W510. It includes two pier-shaped

[[414 118 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Fig. 21. Oil press, view from the southwest.

Fig. 22. Oil press, reconstruction.

[[415 119]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Fig. 23. Oil press, view from the northwest.

Fig. 24. Oil press, view from the east; note the pilasters supporting the southern arch.

[[416 120 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Fig. 25. Pier-shaped weight from the oil press.

Fig. 26. Rectangular stone basin from the oil press.

weights, measuring 2.05×1.15×0.50 m, which were set on parallel stone slabs separated by a sunken basin (Fig. 25). The weights, which were found toppled on the floor, have hewn sockets on the bottom designed to fix the weights into the stone slabs on the floor, and on top to accommodate the pressing device, with a wooden screw between them. The stone basin, 1.17×0.65 m and 0.58 m deep, located between the weights, received the oil during the pressing process (Fig. 26). In the room’s northeastern corner, east of the press installation, is a hewn rectangular installation, 2.20×1.55 m and 0.60 m deep, whose purpose was apparently to collect the olive waste following the pressing process (Fig. 27). In the west the installation is delimited by W530. This wall, of ashlars in secondary use, was built on the bedrock and preserved to a height of two courses (0.55 m). It is bordered by two

rectangular stone slabs on the same level as the press installation. To the north and east the installation is delimited by W510 and W511, and in the south, by the eastern pilaster of the northern arch. Between this pilaster and W530, at the installation’s southern end, two steps built of ashlars in secondary use facilitate descent from floor level to the bottom of the installation. The installation’s walls are plastered and the floor consists of crude white mosaic (16–20 tesserae per sq. dm) with a frame of three rows of tesserae that abut the walls. At some stage a new mosaic was laid over a fill, 0.40 m deep, covering this floor. It, too, consists of crude white tesserae and abuts the installation’s walls. The room was apparently unroofed during this period. The stones of the northern arch that supported the roof in an earlier phase were dismantled, probably to permit the introduction of the oil

[[417 121]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Fig. 27. Installation for collecting the olive waste.

pressing installation, and were now reused in the construction of W529. This wall, preserved to a height of one course (0.30 m), blocks the opening installed in W500 to enable entrance of the oil press into the room. A similar wall, W527, built of stones in secondary use between the two eastern pilasters, is preserved to a height of one course.

MOSAIC FLOORS The mosaic floors, partially preserved, were extant in various locations: the tower (L8), the corridors to its west and south (L10 and L7), the central courtyard (L9), the central room in the southern wing (L5), and the chapel (L4). All these floors were probably laid at the same time. The floors are paved in four shades: white, black, red, and ocher. The mosaic corridor floors near the tower are of medium-sized white tesserae (35 per sq. dm) set diagonally, except along the edges where the mosaic abutted the walls in three horizontally set rows.

The mosaic tower floor (49 per sq. dm) includes one geometric panel. The wide margins around the carpet were formed of diagonally set white tesserae, while abutting the walls were three horizontally set rows white tesserae. The northern edge unusually includes three geometric shapes: one rectangle measuring 2.10×0.40 m, and two trapezoids of ocher tesserae set diagonally, as were the rest of the edges (Fig. 28). It is unclear whether these three geometric shapes were specifically planned from the outset, or whether following the completion of the carpet in the middle of the floor, the left-over tesserae were utilized to produce them. The carpet field in the center, 1.10×1.10 m, has a frame of two rows of white tesserae, one of red, two of ocher, one of black, two of white, and another of black. The carpet is decorated with a pattern of interlacing squares and circles (a variant of J2*; Fig. 29)5 composed of strips of ocher and white and of red and white. The circles are dotted with black tesserae and the squares contain geometric motifs.

[[418 122 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Fig. 28. Tower mosaic floor, view from the east.

Fig. 29. Central carpet of the tower mosaic floor.

As mentioned above, this floor was found stained with soot. The mosaic floor in the central room of the southern wing (L5) is almost completely intact (Fig. 30) and includes a colorful carpet measuring 3.60×3.55 m (ca. 35 per sq. dm). The edges of the carpet are of diagonally set white tesserae, while along the walls are three horizontally set rows. The carpet frame comprises two rows of white tesserae, two of red, two of ocher, two of black, two of white, one of black, and two of red. The carpet field contains a grid of diamonds of black and white tesserae (H1*). In the center of each is a crosslet composed of four buds (F25*) in black and red. Opposite the chapel entrance are traces of a tabula ansata that probably contained an inscription that did not survive. The chapel mosaic floor (L4) is partially preserved, mainly in the east. It consists of two abutting carpets separated by two rows of horizontally

[[419 123]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Fig. 30. Mosaic floor in Room 5, view from the north.

Fig. 31. Mosaic floor in Room 4, view from the west.

[[420 124 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

set white tesserae (Fig. 31), indicative of two stages that may be technical or chronological. The southern carpet, 3.10×3.00 m, includes a geometric field, 2.00×1.90 m, which is missing. The carpet edges are of diagonally set white tesserae, and the frame consists of two rows of white tesserae, two of red, two of black, and two of white, followed by a band containing a geometric design of hexagons in black and red (H3*). Each hexagon contains a lozenge in similar hues (E*, Lozenge). The northern carpet, 3.00×2.10 m, is only extant in its east (Fig. 32). The edges are of diagonally set white tesserae, while along the walls are three horizontally set rows. They incorporate small diamonds in black and red (E*, Diamond). The carpet field is enclosed by a frame consisting of two rows of white tesserae, one of black, two of white, and another of black. The field’s extant portion is divided into two: a geometric pattern of squares with internal loops made of strips of ocher and white and of red and white, and a Greek inscription of at least four lines made of red tesserae

against a white background. Only three letters have survived (O, B, A), each concluding a line of the inscription. The mosaic floor in the courtyard (L9) is only extant in the southeast, next to the cistern. It is made of large, diagonally set white tesserae (ca. 30 per sq. dm), except for three horizontally set rows abutting W506, the lid of the cistern, and the stones covering the feeding channel. Northwest of the cistern is a fragment of a colorful carpet made of small tesserae (ca. 65 per sq. dm) in various hues, which probably contained a medallion whose estimated diameter is 1.20 m.

FINDS Architectural Elements Two fragmentary lintels engraved with crosses were discovered not in situ. The first (Fig. 33:1), integrated into a wall (W521) in the north of the site, was 60 cm wide and 42 cm high. It was decorated on one side with a depression in the shape of a pointed volute enclosing a cross measuring 28×17 cm. The second (Fig. 33:2) was found in L5 and possibly originally served as the lintel of the chapel entrance.

1

2

Fig. 32. Mosaic floor in Room 4; note the traces of the Greek inscription.

Fig. 33. Lintels decorated with a cross.

[[421 125]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

It was 51 cm high, and its extant width was 40 cm. In the middle, a Maltese cross was engraved inside a circle whose diameter was 33 cm. These cross-decorated lintels demonstrate the site’s Christian character in the Byzantine period. L5 also yielded fragments of marble collonent legs, as well as other marble vestiges, attesting to the use of this part of the site as a chapel.

Pottery No pottery that can be ascribed with certainty to the first phase was found. The vessels re-covered belong to two main periods: the Byzantine–Umayyad period (fifth–seventh centuries; Pls. 1–2), and the Abbasid period (eighth–tenth centuries; Pl. 3). The assemblage from the Byzantine period, when the site was a Christian farmhouse, is represented by vessels of daily use and tiles (which evidently served as roofing for the chapel). The assemblage from the Abbasid period comprises a relatively small number of vessels. Just below the surface were several sherds of painted jugs and a fragment of a smoking pipe dated to the Mamluk period (thirteenth–fourteenth centuries). At this time the site was apparently abandoned, and only the cistern was in use. Glass Vessels Most of the glass vessels uncovered in the excavations are dated to the end of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Pl. 4). One notable fragment belongs to a camel-shaped vessel that dates to the Early Islamic period (Pl. 4:12). Metal Objects The excavations yielded a few metal objects, including rings, knives, and pins (Pl. 5). Notable among them is a bull-shaped bronze object whose use has not been determined (Fig. 34; Pl. 5:14). Coins Fifteen coins were retrieved in the structure.6 The earliest, apparently dating to the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE), was found southwest of the tower, in L10. Three coins dating to the fourth century were found in L10, L3, and L5, while four coins dating to the sixth century were recovered on

0

1

2

Fig. 34. Bull-shaped bronze object.

the surface, in L15, next to the cistern in the courtyard, and outside the structure to the south of W544. Three post-reform Umayyad coins dating to the eighth century were found in L1, L2, and L11; two Abbasid coins from the ninth century were discovered in L3; while an Ayyubid coin from the midthirteenth century and a Mamluk coin from the end of the fourteenth century were discovered on the surface south of the structure.

Miscellaneous Four beads (which cannot be dated) were found at the site. A small, flat, square stone tablet, 19×19 mm and 4 mm thick, was recovered in L7; its use is unclear. Fragments of basalt grinding stones, tabun fragments and olive pits were found in L6, where the oil press was installed.

SUMMARY A square fortified tower was the first building to be erected at Rujm Jureida in the fourth century CE, next to a large cave that conceivably served as a dwelling in earlier periods. Its entrance in the east could be closed by means of a rolling stone. During the fifth or beginning of the sixth century, a number of rooms were built around the tower, as well as a winepress to its southwest. At a later phase in the sixth century, a room in the southern wing was converted into a chapel for Christian residents of the site. The structure continued in service at the beginning of the Early Islamic period and remained

[[422 126 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

unchanged until it was abandoned, apparently in the mid-eighth century. It is reasonable to conclude that its abandonment was connected to the earthquake that struck the Land of Israel in 749 CE, destroying, for example, the nearby church of ªAnab el-Kabir. The structure was reoccupied at the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century, and a

number of changes were introduced. The southwestern room was converted into an oil press, and several rooms and a courtyard were added to the northwest of the compound. The site was apparently abandoned in the course of the tenth century, only the cisterns remaining in use, serving the nomads of the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods, and, in fact, those of the following centuries up to the present.

[[423 127]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Plate 1. Byzantine Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

LRC bowl

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, red slip, black slip on outer rim, few white grits. Light red ware 10R:6/6, red slip, black slip on outer rim, few small white grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, red slip, burnished. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, red slip, burnished. Reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:5/4, red slip, burnished.

Hayes 1972: Fig. 69:23, Form 3F

5th cent. CE

1

L8

2

L 22

3

L4

Bowl

4

L 16

ARS bowl

5

L2

CRS bowl

6

L5

Bowl

7

L 11

ERS bowl

8

L4

Bowl

9

L 25

10

L 25

11

L6

12

L 14

13

L8

14

L6

15

L3

16

L9

17

L9

18

L6

Krater

Cooking pot

Light red ware 2.5YR:6/6, red slip, burnished. Light red ware 2.5YR:6/8, light gray core, red slip on inner face and outer face below rim. Light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, few small white grits. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:6/6, few small gray grits. Very dark gray ware 7.5YR:3/1, very few tiny white grits. Combed decoration on body. Light reddish-brown ware 2.5YR:6/4, few small white and gray grits. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, few small gray grits. Combed decoration on rim. Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3, few small gray grits. Combed decoration on rim and outer face. Light brown ware 7.5YR:6/4, light yellow slip, few small white grits. Light reddish-brown ware 5YR:6/4, light yellow slip, few small gray grits. Thumb-indented decoration on rim. Reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/4, few large white grits. Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, many white grits. Red ware 2.5YR:5/6, few small white grits.

[[424 128 ]]

Hayes 1972: Fig. 67:9, Form 3C

Hayes 1972: Fig. 30:23, Form 104C 6th cent. CE Hayes 1972: Fig. 82:12, Form 9

End of 4th–early 7th cent. CE

Hayes 1972: Fig. 86:I

Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.78)

End of 4th–mid-5th cent. CE 6th–8th cent. CE 5th–7th cent. CE Late Byzantine period 6th–8th cent. CE

Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.145:4–8)

5th–8th cent. CE

Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.129:13) Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.137:9)

5th–7th cent. CE Byzantine period

Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.137:17) Caesarea (Adan-Bayewitz 1986: Fig. 3:24)

4th–7th cent. CE Byzantine period

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 194, Form 1A) Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.132:2) ¡. ¡ermeshit (Greenhut 1998: Fig. 23:13)

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Plate 1.

[[425 129]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Plate 2. Byzantine Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L14

Cooking pot

L23

Casserole

Jerusalem (Tushingham 1985: Fig. 30:15) Deir Ghazali (Avner 2000: Fig. 20:3)

6th cent. CE

2

3

L5

Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, few small gray grits. Red ware 10R:5/8, few large white and black grits. Traces of soot on body. Red ware 2.5YR:5/8, few large white and black grits. Reddish-brown ware 5YR:4/4, many white and gray grits.

4

5

L10

Casserole lid

6

Jar

7

West of L6 L6

8

L7

9

L15

10

L6

11

L1

12

East of L12

13

L9

14

L10

15

Surface

16

L18

17

L20

18

West of L6 South of L5

19

Pithos

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, Form 1, No. 12) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 213, Form 2) ; Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Figs. 6.134:14; 6.137:8) Red ware 2.5YR:4/6, many white Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 215, grits. Two rounded holes in wall. Casserole Lids, Nos. 1, 3–4) Very pale brown ware 10YR:7/3, Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: few small white grits. Figs. 6.133:12; 6.152:15) Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: many small white grits. Fig. 6.130:8) Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 227, many large white grits. Form 5B); Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Figs. 6.143:19) Pink ware 5YR:7/4, few large white Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 212, grits. Form 6A) Dark brown ware 7.5YR:4/6, many Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: small gray grits. Fig. 6.133:8) Yellowish-red ware 5YR:5/6, many white and gray grits of various sizes. Reddish-yellow ware 7.5YR:7/6, few small white grits. Combed decoration on shoulder. Light red ware 10R:6/6, many large white and gray grits. Light red ware 2.5YR:5/8, few small white grits.

Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.147:11) Tel ªIra (Fischer and Tal 1999: Fig. 6.152:3)

Ras Abu Maªaruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:111–112) Wheel-made Schloessinger Collection lamp (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 123, No. 508); Kh. ed-Deir (Calderon 1999: Fig. 6, Pl. 5:4) Large candle- Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, a lot Schloessinger Collection (Rosenthal stick lamp small white grits. Traces of soot and Sivan 1978: 117, Nos. 478–479) ; around the filling hole. Netiv Ha-Lamed-He (Barag 1974: Pl. XXVII:8–9); Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 252, Form 3A) Lamp

Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, few small white grits. Mold made, decoration in pattern of butterflies and flowers. Pink ware 5YR:8/4, few small white grits, mold made. Traces of soot around the filling hole.

Roof tile

[[426 130 ]]

3rd/4th–8th/ 9th cent. CE 5th–7th cent. CE 6th–8th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 6th–8th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE 7th–8th cent. CE 6th–8th cent. CE End of 5th–7th cent. CE End of 6th–7th cent. CE 6th–7th cent. CE

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Plate 2.

[[427 131]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Plate 3. Early Islamic Pottery Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L1

FBW bowl

L12

3

L7

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 199, Form 2A) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 200, Form 2B) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 200, Form 2C)

8th–10th cent. CE

2

Reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/4, wheel burnished. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, gray core, 5YR:5/1. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:6/6, gray core 5YR:5/1.

4

L2

5

L2

Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 196, Form 1D) Jerusalem (Magness 1993: 196, Form 1E)

6

L9

7

L10

8

L3

Reddish-brown ware 5YR:5/3, few small white grits, wheel burnished. Gray ware 10YR:5/1, few tiny white grits, red slip on outer face, wheel burnished. Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/6, red slip and wheel burnished on outer face. Dark gray ware 2.5Y:4/1, few tiny white grits. Very pale brown 10YR:7/4.

9

L3

10

L20

11

L26

12

L20

13

L9

14

W515

FBW cup

Bowl

Jug

Lamp

Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 1:5) Pink ware 5YR:8/4, few large black Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen and red grits, white slip. Green and Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 3:1) brown zigzag bands on inner face, green zigzags on outer face. Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4. Yokneªam (Avissar 1996: Fig. XIII.139:6, Type 13) Gray ware 10YR:5/1, few small Kh. Abu ¥uwwana (Cohen white grits. Finkelstein 1997: Fig. 4:5) Very pale brown ware 10YR:8/4, Ramla (Sion 2004: Fig. 12:56–57) few large white grits. Deir Ghazali (Avner 2000: Reddish-yellow ware 5YR:7/8, many small white grits. Mold made, Fig. 22:7–10) decoration in pattern of grape clusters. Pink ware, 7.5YR:8/4, few small white grits. Conical handle. Moldmade arabesque decoration. Traces of soot around filling hole.

[[428 132 ]]

End of 6th–10th cent. CE

8th cent. CE

Mid-6th–mid8th cent. CE End of 8th–early 9th cent. CE 8th–9th cent. CE Mid-7th–mid8th cent. CE 8th–9th cent. CE 8th–10th cent. CE

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

1

2

3

5

6

4

7

8

9

10

11

12

5

0

10

13

14 0

1

2

Plate 3.

[[429 133]]

Y. M A G E N , Y. P E L E G, A N D I . S H A R U K H

y. M a g e n , y. p e l e g , a n d i . s h a r u k h

Plate 4. Glass Vessels No. Room

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L6

Bottle

¡. ¡ermeshit (Winter 1998: Fig. 2:12)

6th–early 7th cent. CE

2

L27

Beth Shean (Hadad 1998: Fig. 4, Nos. 63–67)

Umayyad period

3

L7

4

L2

5

Surface

Diam. 5.3 cm. Light bluish-green glass. Tall, rounded rim, cylindrical neck. Decorated with green spiral trail. Diam. 2.8 cm. Light bluish-green glass, small oval bubbles near rim. Rounded rim, short, narrow, cylindrical neck and rounded shoulder. Diam. 2.0 cm. Light bluish-green glass, small round bubbles. Rounded rim, short, cylindrical neck. Diam. 1.6 cm. Light bluish-green glass. Rounded flaring rim, short, narrow, cylindrical neck. Very thin walls. Yellow glass. Wide, cylindrical neck. Decorated with one band of thick, wavy, purple string.

¡. ¡ermeshit (Winter 1998: Fig. 2:3) ; Kh. el-Shubeika (Gorin-Rosen 2002: Fig. 7:61–62)

6

L3

7

L20

Late Byzantine– Umayyad periods 8th–9th cent. CE Late Byzantine– Umayyad periods

8

L20

9

L3

Cup

10

L26

Bottle

11

West of L6

Stick

12

L17

Miniature

13

L7

Bead

Light bluish-green glass. Neck and upper part of polygonal body. Diam. 2.1 cm. Yellowish-green glass. Infolded, flaring rounded rim, narrow, cylindrical neck decorated with encircling green spiral trail in its middle and a thick, wavy, green band in its lower part. Yellowish-green glass. Rounded handle of vessel. Light green glass. Body fragment with pinched decoration.

Diam. 1.5 cm. Bluish-green glass. Rim and narrow neck fragment consisting of at least five round glass rings. Light green glass. Stick fragment, 0.45 cm thick. Decorated with blue spiral trail. Yellow glass. Fragment of camelshaped miniature comprising camel’s body and base of small basket on one side. Yellow glass. Double bead, height 1.2 cm, diam. 0.8 cm.

[ 134 ]

[430]

Beth Shean (Hadad 1998: Fig. 44:739a) ¡. ¡ermeshit (Winter 1998: Fig. 2:13)

Beth Shean (Hadad 1998: Fig. 16:282) ¡. ¡ermeshit (Winter 1998: Fig. 1:4) ; Kh. el-Shubeika (Gorin-Rosen 2002: Fig. 7:53) Beth Shean (Hadad 1998: Fig. 42:710)

Beth Shean (Hadad 1998: Figs. 19:331–332; 53:912–914a) Ramat Yishay (Porat 2007: Fig. 8)

Umayyad period Late Byzantine– Umayyad periods Second half of 8th–second half of 9th cent. CE Early Roman– Abbasid periods.

Kh. el-Shubeika (Go 2002: Fig. 7

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

5

4

7

6

9

8

11

3

2

1

12

Plate 4.

[[431 135]]

10

13

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

Plate 5. Metal Objects No. Room

Type

1 2 3 4 5

L1 Surface L9 L5 Surface

Ring

6

L9

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

L9 L9 L8 L9 L26 L9 L13

14

L12

Description

Diam. 3.1 cm, flat section 0.65 cm. Bronze. Diam. 3.4 cm, round section 0.5 cm. Bronze. Diam. 4.6 cm, round section 0.7 cm. Bronze. Diam. 3.4 cm, rectangular section 4.0×2.5 cm. Iron. Diam. 5.6 cm, round section 0.8–1.4 cm. Iron. Probably originally attached to a door or piece of furniture. Knife 9.1 cm in length, 1.4 cm in width. Iron knife. Remains of the blade and handle preserved. Nos. 6–8 may be fragments of a single triple knife (for parallel see: Davidson-Weinberg 1988: 234–235, No. 49). 10.9 cm in length, 1.8 cm in width. Iron. 8.6 cm in length, 1.8 cm in width. Iron. Scabbard Lower section, 7.7 cm in length. Iron. Kohl stick 11.6 cm in length with flat, round end, diam. 1.1 cm. Bronze. 11.8 cm in length, flat, oval end, 0.5 cm wide. Bronze. Twisted, broken edge. Bowl Diam 9.0 cm, 0.2 cm in thickness. Bronze. Handle? 12.0 cm in length. Bronze. L-shaped object with arched section. At one end, a hollow knob (hole diam. 0.5 cm). Zoomorphic 5.3 cm long, 3.9 cm high, 0.95–2.3 cm in wide. Bronze miniature, probably bull-shaped ornament ornament with horns, eyes and nostrils. Flat base, round hole (diam. 1.5 cm) in middle of body.

[[432 136 ]]

r oAmNa T n OtW ow by mo y YatATr uRj U mJ jMu rJ eUiRdEaI D A A R aO M R eArNaDn d A aB Y Z zAaNnTtI iNnEe M O nNaAsStTeErR

Plate 5.

[[433 137]]

MG aE gN e n, , Y. y. PpEe Ll E eg ar Y. y. MA G,, aAnNdD i .I .s h SH AuRkUhK H

NOTES 1 The site was excavated in August–October 1997 (License No. 774), on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology— Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen, Y. Peleg, and I. Sharukh. 2 In 1942, D.C. Baramki surveyed two sites in this vicinity (IAA Archives, British Mandate Record Files: File No. 115, Rujm Jureida; File No. 191, Kh. ªUseila). All the surveyors who later examined the area joined the two sites and in describing the one under discussion, erroneously named it Kh. ªUseiliyye. M. Kochavi described it as a Roman villa overlying a burial cave and next to an oil press (Kh.

ªUseiliyye, Kochavi 1972: 80, Site No. 237). Z. Safrai, who published a general plan of the site, noted that it was a Roman estate and identified the rolling stone as the crushing basin of the oil press (Safrai 1985–1986: 120–121, 126, Site No. 10). 3 See Magen 2008: 237. 4 See coin No. 6 in G. Bijovsky’s numismatic report, JSRF L-774. 5     according to the of 5 The The patterns patternsare arenumbered numbered according to classification M. Avi-Yonah M. Avi-Yonah (1981) andanmarked with an asterisk. 1981, and marked with asterisk. 6 For G. Bijovsky’s full numismatic report, see JSRF L-774.

REFERENCES Adan-Bayewitz D. 1986. “The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building and its Implications (Stratum 4),” in L.I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 90–129. Avissar M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery,” in A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali (eds.), Yokneªam I: The Late Periods (Qedem Reports 3), Jerusalem, pp. 75–172. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Avner R. 2000. “Deir Ghazali: A Byzantine Monastery Northeast of Jerusalem,” ªAtiqot 40: 25*–52* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Barag D. 1974. “A Tomb of the Byzantine Period near Netiv Ha-Lamed He,” ªAtiqot 7: 81–87 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 13*). 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. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ªAtiqot 32: 19*–34*. Davidson-Weinberg G. 1988. Excavation in Jalama. Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, Missouri. Fischer M. and Tal O. 1999. “Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ªIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv, pp. 300–345. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002. “Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika 1991, 1993: The Glass Vessels,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 288–321 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 186*–187*). Greenhut Z. 1998. “¡orvat ¡ermeshit (1988–1990),” ªAtiqot 34: 121–172 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 9*).

Hadad S. 1998. Glass Vessels from the Umayyad through Mamluk Periods at Bet Shean (7th–14th Centuries C.E.), Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Kochavi M. (ed.) 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2008. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Y. Magen, and Southern Hebron HebronHills,” Hills,”in Judea and Judea Samaria. Samaria. Research and Discoveries 6), Jerusalem, Researches and Discoveries (JSP (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. pp. 217-246. 217–246. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9), Sheffield. Porat L. 2007. “Ramat Yishay. Final Report,” ESI 119 (http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp ?id=476&mag_id=112). Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maªaruf (Pisgat Zeºev East A),” ªAtiqot 38: 171–204. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8), Jerusalem. Safrai Z. 1985–1986. “Unab e-Kabir—Village Pasture in the Roman–Byzantine Period,” in R. Zeºevy (ed.), Israel —People and Land. Haaretz Museum Yearbook 2–3: 119–128 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 12*). Sion O. 2004. “An Early Islamic Period Settlement in Ramla,” ªAtiqot 46: 67–92 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 133*). Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto. Winter T. 1998. “The Glass Vessels from ¡orvat ¡ermeshit 1988–1990),” ªAtiqot 34: 173–177 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 10*).

[[434 138 ]]

A ROMAN MILITARY COMPOUND AND A BYZANTINE MONASTERY AT KHIRBET UMM DEIMINE YITZHAK MAGEN, SHAHAR BATZ, AND IBRAHIM SHARUKH

Kh. Umm Deimine is situated on a summit, 518 m above sea level (map ref. IOG 14369/08680; ITM 19369/58680), in the southwestern Hebron Hills. It lies some 2.5 km south of Kh. ʿAnab el-Kabir and 5.5 km southwest of the village of Dahariyeh. This region was on the route between the Hebron Hills and the northern Negev (see Site Map on p. XIII). The site was surveyed and excavated a number of times.1 The latest excavations at the site2 revealed three main periods of occupation: Phase I, Late Roman period (late fourth to early fifth century CE), a rectangular military compound; Phase II, Byzantine Period (sixth to eighth centuries CE), the compound served as a monastery; and Phase III, Early Islamic period (second half of the eighth to the ninth century), sporadic use of the compound, with the incorporation of an oil press in one of its rooms and the construction of additional rooms to its north (Figs. 1–4). Northwest of the compound is an unexcavated square tower with sloping walls, which belongs to the watch towers with a glacis type, the likes of which were discovered in the Hebron Hills and date to the fourth century CE.3

THE COMPOUND In the first phase the compound, 27.5×24.5 m, like many other military compounds in the southern Hebron Hills, was constructed over a large natural cave. The natural cave (no. 23) in the northwest of the site was in use even before the compound’s construction. Irregular in shape, the cave measures 15.00×9.00 m, with a maximal height of 2.10 m; its wide entrance, built in its north, was blocked by the construction of a stone wall (W22). A test section in the cave uncovered different periods of use, including the Early Roman period, to which a number of sherds were dated. A fill in the foundation of W35 yielded a Seleucid coin of Demetrius I (162–150 BCE). The coin, along

with the sherds found in the test section in the cave, indicate a presence at the site in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. This presence, however, was sporadic, and most likely did not encompass the entire area of the site. The compound comprises a rectangular courtyard encompassed by porticos and surrounded by wings. The Phase I structure was encompassed by massive walls: W47 in the south, W16 in the east, W7 in the north, and W10 in the west. Two entrances were opened in the north and south; both were situated in the west of the compound, almost facing one another. The doorposts of the narrow entrances contained bolt sockets. The entrances of the rooms facing the courtyard were roofed with wooden beams. These entrances, built of massive lintels and of doorposts containing bolt sockets, were placed near the rooms’ corners, a feature seen in many fourth century CE fortresses and military compounds.4 The majority of the structure had thick plastered floors. The walls were built on a fieldstone foundation. The walls themselves were of ashlars with a prominent or flat boss on the outer face, the inner face being of large and medium-sized roughly worked stones, with a fill of mortar and stone. W47, some 24 m long and 0.75 m thick, is preserved to a height of five courses, each course being 0.85 m high; W16 is some 27 m long and 0.85 m thick. Remains of a water channel were found in the south of the wall; they led runoff water from the cistern in the central courtyard (L165) to a cistern located east of the compound. W7 is 24 m long and 0.85 m thick; the northern entrance to the compound, 0.80 m wide, is set in its west. This entrance consisted of a threshold and two ashlar doorposts. A 1.80 mlong door bolt was discovered in situ in the wall. W10, 21 m long and 0.85 m thick, abuts W35, thus leaving open access to the compound’s southern entrance, 0.80 m wide, set in W35.

[435]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

W55 W9

1

F329 L361 L362

L330

L332 W11

L133 L123 L137

W15

F340

F331

F122 W21

W54

W52

W12

W70

F137

W8

W22

2

L319

L281 515.89

L412

516.37

L203 L380

L381

L413 L404

W7 F245

517.56 517.11

516.78

F181

517.60

515.86

F399

L375

516.93

F288

517.45 518.18

F176

1

L458

516.52

W18 L360

516.84

F358 L359 F357

515.86

517.44

L157

L346 517.19

L316

517.00

L359 2

0

Fig. 1. Kh. Umm Deimine, detailed plan.

[436]

5 m

5

517.53

F261

517.16

518.04 516.48

44

F254

516.12

516.08 517.53

W18

W18

518.19 517.70 516.53

515.70

515.86

516.41 515.31 L257

L3

516.21

F341 L328

516.78

516.02

W47

517.66

F241

516.02

F295 L296

516.10

517.01

516.38

L315

L383

W45

L161

516.39 516.42 516.13 516.39 L166 517.90

516.18

516.51

516.72

516.45

F415 L416

516.17

517.83 516.83 517.57 516.66 W35

516.54

L370 L367

516.22 516.54 516.46

W29

W40

F407 L366

517.19

517.17 516.44

515.84

F419

F312 W38

516.67

516.74

517.51

F365

517.09

516.70

W36

517.47

F169 L165

516.75 516.30

W39

W35

W71

517.27

F166

518.34

515.62

F406

W1

W37

L177

516.847

518.80

F405

516.57

516.87

L242 L279 F179 F169 F248

F283 517.60 517.86

W16

W32

W61

L376

W43

W44

518.07

F128 516.52 517.35 F127 517.21 517.03 W13 516.97 W4 516.56 F457 L144 F432 L150 F423 F151 F414

516.87

516.87 517.28

L118

517.23

516.13

518.07 517.03 517.91 516.73

516.56

F183

3 516.90

516.55

516.52

517.53

F145

W25

518.40

F222 W2

518.13

516.67 517.59

W49

517.65 517.87

F286

518.44

517.12

W50

W10

F284

5

44

W68 F237 F208 F146 L238 F147

L286

6

F168

518.37

W69 518.86

518.70

517.82

516.76

516.44

516.06

W53

F270 F271

517.56

W27

518.74

W28

F159

W56

516.60

L207 F223 L240 F420

517.07

W3

F264

516.45

W41

3

W33

L319

517.47 516.74

W17

L215

W30

W6

516.66

518.47

518.33

F221

W51

517.57

515.30

L243

6

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1-1 555 00

W35 W37

554 00 553 00 552 00

W47

W39 W37

W37

F367 F169 F248

F181

F399

F365 F356

F407

F146 F237 L451 F208 L422

2-2 517 00 516 00

W9

515 00

W21

W11

L380

W12

514 00 W55

W2 W27

W7 W28 L203

513 00

W41

W7 F168 F159

W3 W49

L188 F183 F457

F223 F222 F420

W30

W69 W33

W3

L165

518 00 517 00 516 00

W10 L319

W6

W30 W33 F271

W7

L381

L345

F222

F168 F159

515 00

W7

L380 W28 L203 F223

F420

W16 L240 F420

4-4 518 00 517 00 516 00

W2

W3

W13

W18

W3

W3

F127 L118 F128

F151 L134 F241 F157 F151

5-5 578 00 577 00

W16

576 00

519 00 L376 518 00 W71 517 00 L370

W17 F169 F423 F151

W1 F169 F169

L416 F415

F261

520 00

516 00

W3

W37 F181 F248

W10 F286

6-6

W35 W38

W36

W40 F295

F407 F365 L366 L367

F312

W51 F357

L383 F358 L359

W18 L316 W56 W53 L328 F341

Fig. 2. Kh. Umm Deimine, sections.

[437]

W16

W18 W51

W47

W29

F423 F169 F432

3-3 519 00

W3

F415 L157 L416 F151

L360

F358

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 3. Kh. Umm Deimine, view from the south.

In Phase II, the structure was converted into a monastery. Repairs were made to the structure’s outer walls using roughly worked stones and ashlars with marginal drafting from the previous phase. W71, 6.80 m long and 0.70 m thick, was built, closing the compound to the west. The western wall was thickened by an additional 0.40 m-thick plastered wall composed of medium-sized and small fieldstones that apparently abutted the entire length of the wall’s outer face. The wall reinforced the compound wall and sealed it against the water that most probably came from the west and seeped into and damaged the structure. A channel (L319) along the wall transported water to a large cistern north of the compound. Coated with hydraulic plaster, it was preserved for a length of ca. 1.8 m, and was 0.10 m wide and 0.20 m deep. The rooms walls were coated in white plaster; and most of their floors, as well as the portico and courtyard floor, were paved in white mosaic. A second story covering part of the building was possibly laid at this phase. In the northern wing W33 and W6 were added,

as well as W27 and W28, which bore an arch. These created a re-division into rooms: a chapel (no. 10) paved with a colorful mosaic carpet and a crossadorned lintel at its entrance (see below, Architectural Elements); a vestibule (no. 9); and an additional room (no. 8). The two latter were paved with mosaic carpets ornamented with crosses. In the eastern wing, Room 12 was paved with a mosaic carpet ornamented with fish; and a winepress was built south of the compound. In Phase III (eighth to ninth centuries CE) the monastery ceased to exist and the structure was destroyed. However, the lines of the compound’s original outer walls were not altered and seem to have been repaired and reinforced rather than destroyed. The rooms that had suffered less damage were now used sporadically. In a number of rooms of the original compound, secondary use was made of architectural elements from earlier phases. In the north, an addition of several rooms and a new entrance were built. At this phase the compound reached its largest size, 40×24 m. The walls of the addition, like those built

[438]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

22

20

19

21

23

17 18

10

9

8

4

12

27

7

11

13

24

6

16

25

5

14

15

4

3

26

14

2

1 4

5

0

Late Fourth–Early Fifth Century CE Fifth–Early Eight Century CE Late Eight–Ninth Century CE Fig. 4. Kh. Umm Deimine, construction phases.

[439]

m

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

within the compound in this phase, were carelessly built compared to previous phases. Several residential rooms were built in the courtyard after the destruction of the porticoes. A new entrance was built in the compound’s southern wall. The entrance, located in the west of the wall, is 0.90 m wide and consists of a monolithic threshold and two stone doorposts that rest on it. An industrial oil press with architectural elements in secondary use was established in the southern wing. Its installations were introduced through this entrance. The structure’s floors in this phase were not uniform. Some consisted of beaten earth, while others had mosaic floors from the Byzantine period that continued in use, new repairs being made with stone and marble slabs in secondary use.

Northern Wing The northern wing consists of Rooms 8–10. Hardly any Phase I remains survived in this wing, since its plan gradually changed in Phase II (Fig. 5). The walls to the south (W2, W68, and W69) bounded the Phase I wing. Although a Phase I division of Rooms 9 and 10 could not be identified, in light of its extensive area, we surmise that the space was used for storerooms or as a stable. The rooms had a leveled bedrock floor. Two stone steps (L422) probably led to the central courtyard, which was on a higher level. The east of the wing had a light plaster floor that was discovered in soundings conducted beneath the Phase II mosaic floor. The plastered floor (F420) abuts the foundation course of the eastern wall (W16). Two arches in the west of Room 9 led to Room 8 and were blocked in Phase II by W33. Changes were made in the wing upon the establishment of the monastery in Phase II. W6 and W33 divided the wing into a chapel (no. 10), a vestibule (no. 9), and an additional western room (no. 8). Rough white mosaic floors (F271 and F159) were laid in Rooms 8 and 9; the incorporation of two crosses attests the liturgical nature of the wing as a whole, which apparently was roofed by a gable in this phase. Room 8 measured 5.80×4.50 m; its walls were coated with white plaster. A layer of reddish hydraulic plaster was later added on the lower part of the wall, to the height of ca. 0.5 m above the floor. Identical plaster was uncovered in the chapel and courtyard.

Fig. 5. Northern wing, view from the west.

W33, bounding the room to the east, was built of ashlars with marginal drafting in secondary use. The construction of the wall entailed the removal of the central pier supporting the arches of the previous phase. A 0.70 m-wide entrance was set in the center of the wall; its threshold and two doorposts were found in situ. In this phase the room was paved with a mosaic floor (F271). Towards the end of the Byzantine phase a wall was built in the room (W30), covering the edge of one of the cross’s arms. In Phase II the vestibule (no. 9), 5.80×3.90 m, provided access to the chapel (no. 10) and to the central courtyard. The chapel entrance was set in the eastern wall of the room (W6). The wall has an outer face of ashlars in secondary use and an inner one of large and medium-sized fieldstones. In the center of it is the entrance, 0.70 m wide and 1.70 m high, above which is a stone lintel, 1.65×0.50 m and 0.45 m thick, engraved with a stylized Maltese cross (see below,

[440]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

“Architectural Elements”). In this phase a mosaic floor (F159) was laid in the room. In Phase III floor F168 was laid above the existing floor. The new floor was of marble slab fragments in secondary use and of stone slab fragments laid ca. 0.3 m above the level of the earlier mosaic floor, over a fill of stones, dirt, pottery sherds, marble chancel screen fragments, and tesserae. The chapel (no. 10), 12.50×5.70 m, was divided into a raised bema in the east and a hall in the west. Colorful mosaic floors decorated the chapel, one in the chapel hall and the other in the bema. The stratigraphic sequence of finds in the chapel is the most complete of the entire site. The chapel walls were renovated in this phase. The southern wall (W2), preserved to a height of four courses, was originally built of a single face of ashlars to which an inner face of plastered fieldstones was attached in this phase. As in Room 8, the lower part of the walls, to a height of ca. 0.5 m from the floor, was coated with reddish hydraulic plaster (Fig. 6). It is unclear whether this was done for protection against water seepage, or for some other purpose.5 Two niches coated with plaster identical to that covering the walls were added to the chapel’s northern wall (W7).6 The niches, preserved in their entirety, measure 0.54×0.45 m, and are 0.55 m high. An installation (L203) was built in the corner of walls W7 and W28 (Fig. 7). It measures 1.60×1.20 m and is some 0.45 m high, with a drainage hole, 0.15 m in diameter, in its center; its upper part is concave. It is shaped like a third of a circle. The installation is of large and medium-sized fieldstones and is coated with gray hydraulic plaster. A large 0.40 m-wide fieldstone and a bowl were found west of it. This stone might have been the base on which a washing bowl stood, and the installation might have served as a labrum.7 The chapel hall measures 9.00×5.70 m. Its mosaic floor included a carpet decorated with animal figures (see below) that had been defaced and repaired, apparently following the iconoclastic campaign of Yazid II in 721 CE. The repairs were made with rough white plaster rather than with tesserae, which were usually used. The bema, 5.70×2.70 m, was separated from the chapel hall by an arch, by a height differential of the floor level of some 0.15 m, and by a chancel screen.

Fig. 6. Plaster on the northern chapel wall (W7).

Fig. 7. Installation, found in the chapel.

A chancel screen and marble chancel screen posts were discovered in the debris and beyond the chapel (see below, Liturgical Furniture). The arch spanned 3.50 m and rested on pillars (W27, W28) built on the Phase I plastered floor. The pillars were of mediumsized and small fieldstones, as well as of ashlars with a prominent boss in secondary use, and were coated with plaster. In two pillars, niches were cut in the ashlars with a prominent boss. The southern pillar has a niche, 0.50×0.30 m, the interior of which is plastered and faces the chapel hall.8 The niche in the northern pillar, 0.58×0.58 m and 0.45 m high, faces the bema. The bema was paved in a colorful mosaic; at its western end are the remains of an illegible inscription. Fragments of the altar table were found on the bema (see below). The southern wall (W2) has a Phase II 0.65 m-wide entrance with plastered doorposts, which connects the bema with the room to its south (Room 12).

[441]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

In Phase III the chapel was used as a dumping area for refuse collected from the monastery courtyard. Fragments of shafts, capitals, other architectural elements, and broken sections of a mosaic floor, mostly of white tesserae, were heaped together. Its two entrances—the main entrance in W6, and the southern one in W2—were blocked (Fig. 8). The burned chapel roof was found in the hall ruins, over the mosaic floor. A layer of earth was spread over the roof’s ruins. All the capitals from the porticoes, with the exception of one (found in the eastern portico), were discovered in the debris in the chapel area. Some of the bema steps were found in secondary use, west of the chapel.

Eastern Wing The eastern wing consists of Rooms 12 and 13, of which only the former was excavated. W3, bounding the wing to the west, contained three entrances. The entrances, with doorposts of ashlars with marginal drafting, similar to the entrances in the compound’s outer walls, led from the portico to the wing. One entrance led to Room 12 and the two other entrances led to Room 13, which probably had a wall that divided it into two. The entrances most likely date to the Roman period, when each of the rooms had an entrance. The northern entrance to Room 13, 0.90 m wide, was preserved to a height of 0.90 m; its threshold and southern doorpost survived as well. The 0.75 m-wide southern entrance is preserved to a height of 1.20 m. A water channel incorporated in the first course of W3 is also dated to Phase I. In the Byzantine period (Phase II) the wing’s walls were renovated, the line and location of the original entrances being maintained. W3 was renovated and rebuilt with two faces. The western face is of ashlars with a prominent boss in the foundation courses; the other courses contain ashlars in secondary use along with large fieldstones, between which are horizontal rows of small fieldstones. The inner face, uncovered only in Room 12, consists of small and medium-sized fieldstones with an intervening earth fill. Both of the wall’s faces were plastered. Room 12, measuring 4.30×2.80 m, is connected to the chapel bema by a passage through W2. The entrance to the room from the portico was located in the western wall, with a niche north of it (Fig. 9). Of the 0.90 m-wide entrance, preserved to a height of ca.

Fig. 8. Entrance in W2, view from the north.

1.2 m, two doorposts and the threshold remained in situ. The doorposts contain sockets for a short bolt. An additional socket was hewn in the threshold. This entrance connected the eastern portico with Room 12. The room’s mosaic floor included a colorful carpet decorated with fish (see below). The connection to the chapel and the mosaic attest to this room serving as a service room, a variation of a pastophorium (Fig. 10). There are two niches in the room’s southern wall (W45). A greenish-gray marble bowl (see below, Liturgical Furniture) in secondary use was discovered west of the room; it may be assumed that the bowl was in one of these niches. In a later stage, during the Byzantine period, all of the room’s walls were plastered, with an additional band of red plaster on the bottom, as in Room 8, the chapel, and the courtyard. In the Early Islamic period (Phase III) the room’s entrance from the eastern portico was blocked by a number of installations for a domestic oil press, which

[442]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Fig. 9. Room 12 and the northern portico, view from the east.

Fig. 10. Room 12, view from the east.

[443]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

were discovered in front of it, in Room 27. The room contained debris, including fragments of a marble chancel screen, thus attesting to the disuse of the room in this phase. Assumedly, all other entrances in W3 were blocked in this phase.

Southern Wing In the first phase the wing’s plan consisted of Rooms 1 and 2, while the area to their west was open, providing access to the compound’s southern entrance in W35. In the second phase, W36 was built, creating Room 3. In addition, W71, which closed the wing and the compound to the west, was added, creating a room to the west of Room 3, and in effect canceling the entrance to the compound from the south. In this phase, all the wing’s rooms, with the exception of Room 3, were paved in a white mosaic floor, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. In Phase III, this room was further divided by the construction of W38, creating Room 26 and Room 4. An entrance set in Room 26’s southern wall (W47) provided access to the compound from the south.

Room 1, the compound’s southeastern room that measures 6.60×3.30 m, has two entrances in the northern wall (W18; Fig. 11). The main entrance, in the western end of the wall, connected the room with the eastern portico and was established in Phase I. This entrance, 0.85 m wide and preserved to a height of 1.90 m, comprises an ashlar threshold and doorposts. The second entrance, 0.70 m wide, created in Phase II, connected the room with Room 13 in the eastern wing. The entrance’s doorposts were created by plastering the wall. Its threshold is coated with thick layers of plaster which the room’s floor (F341) abuts. In Phase III, two walls were built in the east of Room 1. W53 divided the room into two, and W56 bounded the debris. The latter wall did not have an orderly foundation course; rather it rested on a pile of earth covered with stones in secondary use. The rest of the room contained debris, which covered the charred wooden beams over the Phase II mosaic floor. Room 2, measuring 5.30×3.80 m, has a mosaic floor (F358) laid in the Byzantine period over a bed

Fig. 11. Rooms 1 and 2, view from the south.

[444]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Fig. 12. Oil press in Room 4, view from the south.

of leveled plaster (L359). In the northwestern corner of W35 is a 1.00 m-wide room entrance, of which only the threshold survived. Two water drains were discovered in the foundation courses of the room’s southern wall (W47); it is unclear whether this system drained water from the roof or from the room itself.9 A trough measuring 0.85×0.55 m fed by a water supply system was found in the western wall (W40). The trough was later repaired with red plaster. In Phase III the damaged parts of the floor were replaced by irregular stone slabs with intervening coarse plaster (F357). The drains were also repaired. Hearths with plastered bases and nearby fragments of red bricks were found in the room. The soot marks evident on the walls as well as on the plastered bases indicate that these were cooking installations, possibly a stove. Such installations are known from other monasteries.10 Fragments of grindstones and millstones were also found on the room’s floor. A small marble capital, suitably sized for a column thinner than those erected in the peristyle courtyard, was also uncovered (see below). Columns of this sort were

unearthed in secondary use in the Phase III oil press. Room 3, 5.50×3.10 m, has a floor of leveled bedrock. Access to the room was provided by a 1.10 m-wide entrance in W36 built during the second phase, and by an entrance of the same width in W35. The room has two levels of beaten earth floors (F295). In Phase III the entrance in W36 was blocked. West of it is Room 26, 5.50×2.00 m. A vestibule formed by the construction of W38 in Phase III. The room, having three openings, formed a passageway into the compound. One in the south, 0.95 m wide, led to the compound from outside; the second, in the north, 0.85 m wide, led to the courtyard; and the third led to the oil press established in Room 4. Room 4, in the southwest of the compound, measured 5.80×4.50 m, and was paved with a rough mosaic floor in the first phase. This room was probably at least partially open to the west and was used as the vestibule to the compound. In Phase II W71 was built, closing the room and canceling access to the compound from this direction. The room was repaved with a white mosaic floor (F365).

[445]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

As mentioned above, in Phase III W38 was constructed, bounding the room to the east, and an industrial oil press of the lever-screw-and-cylindricalweight type was installed in the room, with considerable secondary use of architectural elements from the compound (Fig. 12). The pressing installation is set on the bedrock itself. This was achieved by dismantling the mosaic floor. The crushing basin was placed on a stone-built base, a feature characteristic of Early Islamic oil presses. The weight featured a socket and mortises enclosed in a rectangular depression.

Western Wing The western wing consists of Rooms 5–7 (Fig. 13). The wall bounding the wing to the north (W69) is preserved to a height of six courses. It has two faces of medium-sized stones with earth fill between them, and is incorporated in the western compound wall (W10).

Fig. 13. Western wing, view from the north.

W37 (13.00×0.80 m), bounding the wing to the east, was preserved to a height of five courses. In Phase I, three entrances were opened in the wall, two with doorposts of ashlars with marginal drafting. The manner of construction of this wall, as well as the construction of the entrances and their location close to the corners of the rooms, is identical to that of the western wall in the eastern wing (W3). In Phase II all rooms in the wing were apparently paved with a white mosaic floor and their walls were coated with greyish white plaster, like the rooms in the other wings. Room 5 measures 4.00×3.30 m, and has a 0.80 m-wide entrance from the east whose doorposts have survived. The room, unexcavated, probably had a white mosaic floor, like the other rooms in the wing. In Phase III the room’s entrance was blocked. Room 6, measuring 3.30×3.00 m, was paved in Phase II with a white mosaic floor (F286), having 49 tesserae per sq. dm, which abuts all its walls. The room might have partially remained in use in Phase III, on a level much higher than the original one, with steps rising over the debris heaped in it. The entrance in the eastern wall is 0.65 m wide, its doorposts preserved to a height of 1.60 m. Alongside it is a track for a bolt. In Phase III the entrance was blocked, and a tabun was built in front of it (see below, Room 25). Room 7, the northernmost room in the wing, measures 4.90×3.90 m. The room has two entrances from the east set in W37. At the 0.55 m-wide southern entrance, the doorposts are preserved to a height of 1.00 m. The threshold and doorposts are of ashlars with marginal drafting and a prominent boss. The other entrance, set in the Phase II is located in the northeastern corner of the room. This simple entrance, 0.75 m wide and preserved to a height of 1.60 m, lacks doorposts and a threshold stone. The entrance was blocked with plaster during, the Byzantine period. The room, in the Phase II, was paved in a white mosaic floor (F284) that abuts the walls of the room and its Phase II entrance threshold. The floor level was probably lowered in this phase, as attested by the hewn bedrock in the room’s northwestern corner abutted by the mosaic floor. In Phase III a poorly built staircase adjacent to Room 7’s eastern wall led to a kind of second story that apparently existed over the debris in the wing’s rooms (see below).

[446]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Courtyard and Porticoes The courtyard and surrounding porticoes measure 14.00×13.00 m. They were built in Phase I and remained in use during all the phases of the compound. The courtyard’s unroofed center measures 9.00×7.00 m, and the porticoes are ca. 1.6 m wide, except for the northern portico, whose width is some 3.2 m. In Phase I the courtyard was paved in irregular stone slabs (F457), as can be seen from the sounding conducted in the northeast of the courtyard (Fig. 14). A plaster layer that apparently served as the bed of the stone slab floor was uncovered in the south of the courtyard. In the center of the courtyard is a cistern (L165), 2.90 m in diameter and 5.30 m deep, and a runoff channel (L157). The channel extends through the southern and eastern porticoes, transporting runoff water eastward from the courtyard. It joins a water pipe (L257) incorporated into W16 in the south, that leads to the eastern cistern outside the compound. The preservation of the stylobates of Phase I is not good. The most preserved one is the easternmost stylobate (W17). It measures 8.00×0.60 m and is laid on the bedrock. The surviving bases on the stylobate measure 0.57×0.57 m. Despite the poor preservation of the other stylobates it is evident that they bore columns of similar diameter. The porticoes, unlike the courtyard, had been paved in Phase I with a thick mortar floor. The eastern portico (no. 24), uncovered in its entirety, is enclosed between a stylobate (W17) and W3 (Fig. 15). A sounding conducted in the center of the portico revealed the Phase I mortar floor (F415), which was laid over a fill (L416) of fieldstones and earth that leveled the bedrock. The floor abuts the stylobate in the west. The southern portico (no. 14) is bounded by W35, and in the north, by a stylobate that did not survive. The Phase I plaster floor (F419) was laid on leveled bedrock. The western portico was mostly covered by Rooms 16 and 26. Two pillars of the stylobate that bounded it to the east are preserved. The Phase I thick plaster floor in this section (F146) is preserved only in its north. The northern portico (no. 11) was twice as wide as the others (3.20 m). It is bounded on the south by a stylobate (W49) and on the north by W2. The portico’s western and eastern pillars were discovered

Fig. 14. Sounding in the north of the courtyard.

Fig. 15. Eastern portico, view from the southwest.

in situ. The bed of the Phase I floor (F147), uncovered in the west of the portico, abuts a stylobate and the foundation of the staircase in the portico’s west. The courtyard and porticos were paved in Phase II with a white mosaic floor (F423), which presumably covered the entire courtyard. However, only the bed of the floor, made of bonding material and small fieldstones, survived. Later, during the Byzantine period, the courtyard was repaved with a new mosaic floor (F169), with 36 tesserae per sq. dm, set on a bed of bonding material and medium-sized fieldstones. Upon the establishment of the monastery a capstone made of bonding material was added to the cistern, as well as a settling pit, 0.65×0.65 m, located between the capstone and L157. W43 was also built in this phase in the northeast of the courtyard. F169 abutted the surrounding stylobates, the cistern (L165) capstone, the channel (L157), and W43. The floor survived mainly in the courtyard’s

[447]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

west, over which rooms were built in Phase III, and around the capstone. The eastern portico’s white mosaic floor (F151) abuts the stylobate (W17), W3, and W18. The southern portico’s mosaic floor (F176) abuts W29 and the renovated line of W35. It is cut by water channel L157. In the western portico W37 was repaired and it mosaic floor abuts the repaired course in the wall. The northern portico’s mosaic floor was unearthed in its northwest. The floor abuts the portico’s walls, including W37 and the northern opening to Room 7. Two additional white mosaic floors in the portico were discerned, F183 in the center and F128 in the east, with 49 tesserae per sq. dm; these abut the respective walls of the portico and northern stylobate (W49). In Phase III, most of the courtyard’s columns and capitals were discarded into the chapel area. Rooms were established in some of the porticoes, encroaching on the courtyard area and altering its shape. The courtyard’s mosaic floor was replaced by a floor of beaten earth (F166), some 0.45 m higher than the mosaic floor level. The new floor rested on Phase II tile

fragments and pottery sherds. A fragment of the altar table from the monastery chapel was unearthed in the floor’s fill in the northwestern corner of the courtyard. The north of the eastern portico was blocked by the construction of W13, which rests on the Phase II mosaic floor. Like the other Phase III walls, W13 included architectural elements in secondary use. In the south of the portico the Phase II floor was repaired with irregular slabs and plaster (F241), similar to the repair made in this phase in the southern wing. A column and its capital were found in the debris in the portico. Fill L166, uncovered in the southern portico and dated to this phase, contains tile fragments and pottery sherds dated to the second half of the seventh century CE. Three shaft fragments were discovered above it. Most of the western portico area was in residential use. The construction of W32 in the north, W39 in the south, and W1 in the east created two rooms (nos. 15 and 25) that covered part of the portico (Fig. 16). W1 rests on the Phase II courtyard mosaic floor. The walls contained Phase II architectural elements in secondary use, such as a stone decorated with a Maltese cross that

Fig. 16. Rooms erected over the western portico, view from the northwest.

[448]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

came to light in W39. Stylobate W50 had probably been destroyed prior to the building of the rooms, and the floor level was raised so that its fill covered the wall. Access to Room 16, 2.90×2.20 m, was through a 0.70 m-wide entrance in W1. The entrance has no doorposts, and its threshold is actually a remnant of the mosaic floor in the portico (F288). The room has a beaten earth floor (F281), which seals a fill (L287) that includes tiles and pottery sherds dated to the seventh and eighth centuries CE. In the center of the room is a pillar base, most probably not in situ. Room 25 measures 4.50×3.60 m. In Phase III a beaten earth floor (F248), in which a tabun (L242) is incorporated, was laid over the Phase II portico floor. The construction of a tabun in front of the entrance to Room 6 attests that this entrance was blocked in this phase. Above F248 is an additional beaten earth floor (F181), which is dated to the eighth to ninth centuries CE. The northern portico was divided by the construction of W41. The wall rests on the Phase II mosaic floor, and includes a fragment of a capital ornamented with a Maltese cross, in secondary use. The carelessly built wall formed Room 27, 3.70×2.60 m, in the east of the portico. The room was bounded in the south by two new walls, W4 and W13. It was paved with a beaten earth floor (F127) that was ca. 0.5 m higher than the Phase II mosaic floor. The beaten floor together with the installations for domestic oil pressing blocked the entrance to Room 12. The installations were sunken in F127, which contained marble fragments, tiles, and pottery sherds dated to the seventh to eighth centuries CE. Two domestic oil presses were uncovered. A basin and two flanking piers made from a broken lintel in secondary use were laid next to W3 in front of the entrance to Room 12. Opposite them were two stone weights with holes for tying a rope (Fig. 17). Three columns were discovered in the center of the northern portico, close to W2; they had been brought there in the beginning of Phase III, when the courtyard was cleared of the rubble. The columns were uncovered in fill L188, which also included fragments of architectural elements and numerous tile fragments, attesting there had been a tile roof over the northern portico. The pottery sherds discovered in this fill are dated to the sixth to early eighth century CE.

Fig. 17. Room 27, view from the northwest.

A staircase (L238) that included architectural elements in secondary use was built adjacent to W37. The staircase rests on the portico’s Phase II mosaic floor. Two floors of beaten earth, from different phases abut the staircase. The first floor (F237) abuts the first course of the staircase, under which tile fragments, nails, and small pieces of marble were discovered. This is actually the destruction stratum of the monastery courtyard. The second floor (F208) contained pottery sherds dated to the early ninth century. A stone mortar is sunken in this floor.

Northern Building Addition In Phase III (Early Islamic period) an addition comprising a number of rooms was built north of the compound; it was bounded by external walls on the east, W8, north, W55, and west, W70. The addition’s walls, more carelessly built than the compound walls in Phases I and II, consisted of two faces with a fill of earth and small stones. The outer face is of ashlars in secondary use and roughly worked stones, the inner face, of medium-sized stones laid in straight courses. Some of the walls were supported by an earth fill, and some were not built of orderly courses. The addition’s rooms had floors either of beaten earth or of fill layers, which were different from the beaten earth floors from this phase uncovered in the rooms inside the compound. The ceramic finds unearthed in the soundings, and the appearance throughout the addition of numerous finds from the rest of the compound in secondary use, date it to Phase III. The finds included parts of marble

[449]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

from the liturgical furniture, used as fill in the earthen floors in the addition’s rooms. Access to the addition was provided by two entrances: one, from the northern wing, was the Phase I entrance set in W7; the other, 1.00 m wide, was fixed in W8, in the northeast of the addition. It had ashlar doorposts in secondary use and was built over a Phase II drainage channel. This channel (L319), only part of which is preserved, measures 3.00×0.25×0.20 m. It is rock cut and plastered and most likely transported overflow water from the roof to a cistern or to the open channel between Rooms 21–22. A plastered open channel (L361, L362), 7.50×3.00 m, was only partly uncovered. It is unclear whether it served to drain the roof gutters or as a channel for runoff water. Room 17, measuring 7.00×5.50 m, was paved with a beaten earth floor. The floor was covered in stone debris from W7. This collapse apparently occurred after the site was abandoned. The room’s carelessly constructed walls, W52 and W12, have a single face of stones of different types and sizes. The room contains a channel (L413) situated in the eastern end of W7 that is 0.20 m wide and 0.18 m deep. The channel is coated with hydraulic plaster and covered with stone slabs identical to those covering the water channels in the courtyard (L157). Room 18, the largest in the addition, measures 14.50×5.00 m, and yielded a fill stratum (L281) containing fragments of marble chancel screen panels. This fill most probably postdates the destruction at the end of Phase II. Room 19 is located in the northwest of the addition. Its poor state of preservation did not enable us to determine its exact dimensions. Room 20, which measures 8.50×3.60 m, was leveled by a fill that includes items such as sections of mosaic floors, with a number of layers of beaten earth over the fill. This leveling was necessary since the bedrock in this area drops sharply to the north. The foundations of the room’s walls also yielded architectural elements that came from the Phase II monastery chapel.

Winepress A winepress from the Byzantine period was unearthed some 17 m south of the compound (Fig. 18). It comprised a rectangular treading floor measuring

Fig. 18. Winepress south of the compound, view from the east.

6.00×5.50 m, with remains of a mosaic floor (F323) of large white tesserae, with 15 tesserae per sq. dm. The treading floor is encompassed by walls, two of which (W62 and W63) survived and are built of a single course of smoothed stones. The center of the treading floor did not survive, but a wooden press installation probably stood in its center. In the southeast of the treading floor a drainage channel leads to a collecting vat in the south with a diameter of 2.80 m and 1.55 m deep. The vat is built of worked stones and cement, and coated with plaster on the inside.

Mosaic Floors A number of colorful mosaic floors were discovered in Phase II at the site: ornamented carpets came to light in the chapel (no. 10) and in Room 12, south of the bema. Two crosses were uncovered in the mosaic floors west of the chapel, one in Room 8, the other in the vestibule to the chapel (no. 9). The other parts of the compound, including the courtyard, were paved in white mosaic with 49 tesserae per sq. dm. The rectangular mosaic carpet in the chapel hall (F222) measures 9.00×5.80 m (Figs. 19–20). The carpet margins are composed of white tesserae laid in diagonal rows and decorated with buds. The eastern margin, which hardly survived, contains a few geometric decorations, including schematic crosses: two crosses are enclosed in meander circles,11 one cross is made of two interwoven ellipses (I4*),12 and one crosslet is composed of four buds.

[450]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

The carpet frame is composed of a guilloche band consisting of five strips (B6*) encompassed in a red dentil pattern (A6*). The guilloche strips are of red, pink, ocher, light gray, and white tesserae. The carpet field is divided into two panels separated by a double frame of rows of black and white tesserae. The western panel is decorated with a colorful geometric pattern of pairs of interlocking, elongated hexagons with concave ends that produce circles, octagons and lozenges, with triangles and semicircles at the edges of the frame (H5*). The pairs of hexagons are made of bands decorated with strips of colorful tesserae or with a guilloche pattern. The octagons and circles are ornamented with animal figures, floral motifs, and daily objects; the lozenges and triangles are decorated with geometric patterns, and the semi- and quartercircles, with a conch motif.13 The animal figures underwent iconoclastic defacement that included replacing the tesserae with white, coarse plaster smoothed to the floor level.14 Animals identified despite defacement include a bear (Fig. 21:1), eagle, rooster (Fig. 21:2), and various birds, including a dove. In many instances, various animal body parts are visible, such as legs or a beak.15 Additional motifs include grape clusters, flowers, baskets and bowls of fruit, and a grain basket; a ship with two jars is set in an octagon in the center of the carpet, on its main axis (Fig. 21:3). A similar motif appeared in the mosaic floor in the prayer hall of a church at Petra, which is dated to the early sixth century CE.16 In the fifth and sixth centuries, a ship symbolized the Church.17 The undecipherable bema inscription is situated on the west of the bema. Additional motifs on the central axis are a bowl containing fruits on a stand, and a basket of grapes from which grape leaves emanate (Fig. 21:4). These motifs are common in churches in the region from the fifth and sixth centuries, and even later.18 One of the octagons is decorated with an eagle that was defaced, but it is evident from its remains that its wings are spread to the sides, thereby symbolizing Jesus. Similar eagles were discovered in a number of churches in the Land of Israel and Transjordan.19 An additional motif of symbolic importance appears in the eastern panel in the chapel hall. The church’s central axis contains a depiction of an amphora from which grape tendrils emanate, with grapes clusters and grape leaves (Fig. 22). Alongside the amphora is

Fig. 19. Chapel hall mosaic floor, view from the west.

a heraldic composition of two lions. Only the paws and tails of the unrepaired defaced lions remain. A similar composition of lions in a heraldic pose on either side of an amphora was discovered in mosaics in Transjordan churches dated to the first half of the sixth century CE.20 Lions in a heraldic pose on either side of a menorah also came to light in various synagogues, as in the mosaic floor of Maʿon (Nirim), which, too, is dated to the sixth century.21 The southern and northern margins of the bema carpet, which measures 5.20×2.70 m (Figs. 23–24), were laid with white tesserae in diagonal rows and buds (F223). In the front of the bema carpet, near the margin, are three lines of an undecipherable inscription in black letters, each some 7.5 cm high, with a band of red tesserae between the lines. The carpet frame consists of a pattern of interlocking diamonds, with a small square in the middle of each (B5*). In each square is a small cross. An additional frame between the diamonds and carpet field contains two rows of black tesserae bounded on each side by two rows of white tesserae and a single row of black. The field of the mosaic carpet in the bema includes

[451]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

0

Fig. 20. Chapel hall mosaic floor, illustration.

[452]

1

m

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1

2

3

4

Fig. 21. Motifs in the chapel hall mosaic floor.

Fig. 22. Eastern panel of the chapel hall mosaic floor.

[453]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Fig. 23. Bema mosaic floor.

two partially surviving circles, each 1.70 m in diameter. Each circle is ornamented inside with slightly different interlacing strips that create a round, entwined, concentric design. The southern circle, only partially preserved, contains interlacing circles. The northern circle is composed of alternately interlacing circles and diamonds. Identical decorations from the fifth century CE are known from several churches and sites in the Land of Israel.22 The four corners of the carpet, between the circles and the frame, are decorated with two conches in the south, and with pomegranates on one side, and a rainbow pattern on the other, in the north. In terms of style, the mosaic at Kh. Umm Deimine is dated to the second half of the fifth or the early sixth century. The bema motifs were fashioned in a more flattened manner than mosaics with similar motifs uncovered in Beth Guvrin and Kh. Ẓ ur. This mosaic includes six colors: ocher, brick red, light red, light gray, black, and white. Its tesserae sizes vary from 64 tesserae per sq. dm in the margin, to 81 per sq. dm in the carpet field. Room 12 contains a white mosaic floor (F283) in which the carpet is divided into two panels (Fig. 25). Rows of white tesserae are set diagonally in the carpet margins. The western panel, measuring 0.93×0.86 m,

0

Fig. 24. Bema mosaic floor, illustration.

[454]

20

40

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

fish, ΙΧΘΥC (Ichthus), is also an acronym for “Iesous (Jesus) CHristos (Christ) THeou (God) Uiou (Son) Soter (Savior).”24 In the middle of the panel are four squares, each measuring 0.15×0.15 m. White, brick red, light red, and black tesserae were used in this carpet, with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. Room 8 has a white mosaic floor (F271), in the center of which is a crux gemmata ornamentation set in a circle (Fig. 26). The circle, 1.40 m in diameter, consists of two red rows of tesserae with an intervening row of black. The arms of the cross enclosed in the circle are of equal length. Each is decorated with geometric motifs of a square, a diamond, and a circle. At the center of the cross is a schematic small cross composed of white and red tesserae (D3*). B. Bagatti is of the opinion that the cross enclosed in the circle represents the universe and Jesus’ central place in it.25

0

20

40

Fig. 25. Room 12 mosaic floor, illustration.

0

20

faces the entrance from the portico, and has a frame consisting of a row of red tesserae and a row of white. The center of the panel is decorated with an amphora 40 from which vine shoots with leaves and grape clusters extend. This symbolically important motif embellishes several churches from the fifth to eighth centuries.23 The frame of the larger eastern panel (measuring 1.60×1.50 m) contains four rows of white tesserae and between them, a row of black and a row of red. The panel’s field is decorated with ten schematic fish, in some of which an eye is drawn; bird’s feet were added to one of them. The fish were not defaced, unlike the zoomorphic depictions in the chapel mosaic floor. The fish symbolizes Jesus, since the Greek word for

0

20

40

Fig. 26. Room 8, cross in the mosaic floor.

[455]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

The cross is composed of six colors: brick red, light red, light gray, ocher, white, and black. The floor was laid with 64 tesserae per sq. dm. Room 9 has a white mosaic floor (F159) that includes a Maltese cross, also of the crux gemmata type, in the front of the chapel (Fig. 27). Its arms are decorated with squares, and four chains descend from the horizontal arms. Hanging chains were discovered in the mosaic, adorning depictions of both crosses and

menorahs.26 A similarly decorated cross was unearthed in the excavations of the monastery at Yattir.27 The cross’s tesserae are brick red, red, gray, ocher, white, and black. The mosaic has 64 tesserae per sq. dm at the edges, while the cross has 81 tesserae per sq. dm.

Architectural Elements The excavation in the compound uncovered many architectural elements, some in the debris, others in situ or in secondary use. The details include lintels decorated with crosses, column shafts of varying sizes, column bases, and capitals. Many marble items belonging to the chapel’s liturgical furniture also came to light.

Lintels

0

20

40

Fig. 27. Room 9, cross in the mosaic floor in front of the chapel.

0

20

A lintel, 1.70×0.72 m, and 0.50 m thick, was found at the chapel entrance (Fig. 28). In the center of the lintel is a relief containing a Maltese cross enclosed in a circle, 0.42 m in diameter. Lintels of similar decoration were discovered in several sites dated to the Byzantine period.28 M. Kochavi mentioned the discovery of a lintel decorated with rosettes at the site.29 Another lintel, 1.45×0.50×0.26 m, of grayish

40

Fig. 28. Lintel, found at the chapel entrance.

[456]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

marble was found in secondary use in the oil press (no. 4; Fig. 29). In the center of the highly decorated lintel is a cross enclosed in a circle; and at the two ends are amphorae with emanating branches. Between the cross and amphorae are two circles: the one on the right is ornamented with a geometric design consisting of three bands with a flower in its center; and the one on the left is decorated with a geometric design. The lintel should perhaps be reconstructed in the main entrance, in the southern wall, near the oil press.

Bases

The porticoes encompassing the courtyard most likely contained ten columns that topped square limestone bases. Three types of bases came to light at the site. Those of the first type are incorporated in the northern and southern stylobates in the courtyard (Fig. 30:1). The square bottom measures 0.60×0.60 m, the diameter of the upper round part, 0.60 m. The height of the bases is 0.35 m. Monolithic limestone shafts, some found not in situ in the northern and southern porticos, stood on these bases. The second base type is smaller. Its square part measures 0.46×0.46 m, and the upper part has a diameter of 0.36 m. Bases of this sort were found having two heights: 0.38 m (Fig. 30:2) or 0.33 m (Fig. 30:3). On their side is a groove for anchoring a wooden railing that extended between the column bases.30 The third type of base is the smallest, with its square bottom measuring 0.38×0.38 m, an upper rounded part, diameter 0.29 m, and a height of 0.33 m (Fig. 30:4). The diameter of these bases suits the columns found in secondary use in the oil press.

0

20

40

Fig. 29. Lintel, found in secondary use at the oil press.

1

2

3

4

Column Shafts

Shafts of different sizes were discovered in the compound. The largest are 2.30 m long, with a base diameter of 0.58 m (Fig. 31:1). Another, smaller type of shaft was discovered in the debris of the eastern portico. It is 1.80 m long, with a base diameter of 0.35 m (Fig. 31:2). Most of the capitals discovered at the site suit these shafts (see below). An additional type of column apparently corresponds to the small bases described above (Fig. 31:3). These columns are 1.70 m long, with a base diameter of 0.34 m. Unlike the other shafts, this type is very finely worked and bears a groove that encompasses its upper part.

0

20

40

Fig. 30. Architectural elements, bases.

[457]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

3

2 0

20

40

Fig. 31. Architectural elements, column shafts.

Capitals

The site yielded eight whole capitals and a number of fragments. The capitals are not uniform in terms of order and decoration. The capitals include basket capitals, some degenerated versions of Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders. Each capital is of local limestone with the exception of one, which is of reddish limestone. Most of the capitals were found in the debris in the chapel. The capitals may be divided into three groups based

on their diameter, corresponding to the three sizes of columns described above. The first group of the largest capitals is comprised of four capitals. A capital was found measuring 0.58×0.58 m, with a base diameter of 0.44 m and prominent knobs on its four corners that are a degenerated version of bucranea; between each is a garland with a prominent decoration in its center (Fig. 32:1).31 A second capital, measuring 0.52×0.44 m, with a base diameter of 0.52 m, is deteriorated Doric, with an echinus decorated with a Maltese cross and an abacus with a very shallow decoration consisting of two rows of triangle patterns (Fig. 32:2). A third capital, 0.54×0.54 m in size, with a base diameter of 0.38 m, is a sort of deteriorated Ionic capital, in which the volute decoration on the sides was replaced by one of Maltese crosses inside circles. It bears an additional Maltese cross in its center, on the abacus. Such capitals, of diverse shape and ornamentation, were widespread throughout the Land of Israel in the sixth century CE (Fig. 32:3).32 The fourth capital, of which only the abacus survived, measures 0.54×0.54 m and has a base diameter of 0.44 m; the abacus is shallowly ornamented in a similar manner to the second capital (Fig. 32:4). The second group comprises capitals of smaller diameter, including one of reddish limestone in two parts (Fig. 32:5). The lower part is rounded, unornamented, and ends in a thick torus. Two faces of its square upper section are decorated with a Maltese cross flanked by rosettes, the two additional faces being ornamented with a cross. The square, large upper part measures 0.43×0.43 m, with a base diameter of 0.32 m. The third group includes three capitals. One capital, a schematic version of a Corinthian capital, measured 0.45×0.45 m, with a base diameter of 0.26 m (Fig. 33:1). An additional limestone deteriorated Corinthian capital, measuring 0.47×0.47 m, with a base diameter of 0.31 m, was decorated with acanthus leaves and diagonal volutes; and bore a knob in the center of each side (Fig. 33:2). These type of capitals first appeared in the second half of the sixth century CE.33 Another capital discovered in the assemblage is unworked, and measures 0.51×0.45 m, with a bottom diameter of 0.51×0.33 m (Fig. 33:3). One side of the capital is ornamented with two shallow triangles in relief.

[458]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1

2

3

4

5 0

10

Fig. 32. Architectural elements, capitals, first and second group.

[459]

20

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

2

3 0

10

20

Fig. 33. Architectural elements, capitals, third group.

Chancel Screen

Liturgical Furniture Most of the marble parts used as liturgical furniture in the Byzantine period (Phase II) of the site were found scattered throughout the site. Some were used as raw material in the construction of the Phase III walls and floors.

Excavations unearthed many fragments of panels and posts of the chapel chancel screen, some in the fill around the chapel, others in secondary use in Phase III. A fragment of a step to the chancel was uncovered, including a section of the chancel channel and a socket for the chancel screen post. The chancel screen parts are of white and grayish marble.

[460]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

The panels contain a frame with a number of alcoves, with a decorative relief on their interior. Among the fragments we can reconstruct one chancel screen panel of grayish marble with an estimated size of 1.28×1.00 m, and a maximal thickness of 6 cm (Fig. 34:1). These dimensions match the channel found on the chancel step leading to the bema. The chancel screen center is decorated with a Maltese cross with lilies between its arms. The cross is enclosed by a laurel wreath, the bottom of which was apparently tied with a knot from which branches emerged and ended in two crosses that flanked the central cross. Chancel screens of similar decoration were discovered at various sites in the Land of Israel and Transjordan.34 A complete chancel screen post of grayish marble was unearthed in the excavation (Fig. 34:2). It measures 1.10 m in length, with a base measuring 0.20×0.19 m; flattened “pine cones” decorate its upper section. Two of the post’s sides are flat; another has a channel for the chancel panel; and the fourth, which faced the nave, was decorated in concentric rectangles.35

Capital

A grayish white marble Corinthian capital was found in Room 2 (Fig. 34:3). It is 15 cm long, with a base diameter of 8 cm; it has an acanthus leaf decoration. Although its origin has not been determined, its small diameter indicates that it was part of a piece of liturgical furniture.

Altar Table

The excavations unearthed a number of fragments that enabled us to reconstruct an altar table (sacra mensa), which stood in the chapel bema.36 The table has a base, four legs, and a table top. Fragments of the table base were discovered in the Room 9 Phase III floor. The fragment, which measures 19×17 cm, and is 5 cm thick, was made of grayish marble (Fig. 35:1).37 The excavations yielded fragments of one of the gray marble round colonnette legs, 10 cm in diameter (Fig. 35:2). The colonnette’s square upper part is crowned with a floral capital, decorated with a schematic lotus leaf, typical of colonnette legs in sixth century churches.38 The upper part of an additional round colonnette, 11 cm in diameter and 19 cm high, which came to light in the bema debris, is decorated

with a schematic lotus leaf (Fig. 35:3). The upper part of the colonnette has a drilled hole for connecting the colonnette to other parts of the alter table, or to anchor a metal cross.39 A marble table top was laid on the colonnette legs.40 Two parts of a table top were found, one in the fill, and the other incorporated in the Phase III construction. One part, measuring 12×11×3 cm, has a flat frame ending in a ridge (Fig. 35:4).

Reliquary

Two reliquary fragments were unearthed, one in the chapel debris and the other in the south of the compound. The bema debris yielded a cover fragment measuring 0.80×0.32 m, in which the gable’s carination and the projection from its corner survived (Fig. 35:5). The additional fragment is a section of the cell partition (Fig. 35:6). Based on the identical marble type, color, and workmanship, both fragments belong to the same two-celled reliquary, with a gabled cover.41

Bowl

Two fragments of a greenish gray marble bowl were found at the site, one in a niche in Room 12, the other in Room 8 (Fig. 35:7). The bowl might have been used in the liturgical rites in the chapel.

Pottery Excavations of the site uncovered pottery vessels dated to three main periods: Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic (Pls. 1–6),42 with the majority dated to the sixth to eighth centuries CE. A stone vessel that apparently served as a mold for making oil lamps at the site in the Early Islamic period was also found. In addition to these finds, a number of later vessels, from the Mamluk and Ottoman periods, were discovered at the site.

Glass and Metal The glass vessel finds from the site are characteristic of the Land of Israel in the third to eighth centuries CE (Pl. 7). The metal finds discovered throughout the site included a number of iron nails, a measuring utensil, and a key (Pl. 8).

[461]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

1

3

0

0

5

Fig. 34. Liturgical furniture, chancel screen, post, and capital.

[462]

10

10

20

2

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1

3

2

4 5

7 6

0

5

Fig. 35. Liturgical furniture, altar table, reliquary, and bowl.

[463]

10

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Coins The excavation yielded seven coins, six in sealed loci and one on the surface.43 The earliest coin is Seleucid, from the time of Demetrius I (162–150 BCE), and was found in the fill in the oil press in Room 4. Three Byzantine coins were uncovered: a coin dated to the time of Justin II (565–578 CE) was unearthed under the bed of the mosaic floor in Room 2; one dated before 538 CE was discovered on the mosaic floor of the chapel in Room 10; and an additional coin, dated to the sixth century, was found on the surface. Three coins dated to the Umayyad period (eighth century) came to light in the northern wing, in Rooms 22 and 8, and south of the compound.

Summary The excavations helped establish and date the different phases of activity at the site. The three main phases of activity discovered at Kh. Umm Deimine, i.e., the Roman military compound converted into a Byzantine monastery, later functioning as a Muslim oil press, are characteristic of numerous sites throughout the Land of Israel, and especially in the Hebron Hills. A natural cave located in the northwest of the site (no. 23) was in use prior to the construction of the compound, and a number of sherds were discovered in it, dating to the Early Roman period. The fill in the foundation of W35 contained a Seleucid coin of Demetrius I (162–150 BCE). These are evidence of a sporadic human presence at the site in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. In the late fourth or early fifth century CE a compound was built and served for several periods of occupation. Three distinct main phases of activity were discerned. Northwest of the compound was an unexcavated watchtower, the likes of which were discovered in the Hebron Hills and date to the fourth century CE. Phase I, in which the military compound was erected, is dated, to the late fourth or early fifth century CE. The plan of the Phase I compound is similar

in dimensions and inner division to that of other contemporaneous compounds, e.g., Ḥ . Zikhrin.44 In both instances, the large central hall is situated in the northeastern corner of the compound; both have wings encompassing a courtyard with porticoes. Remains of porticoes were unearthed at the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim, at Kh. el-Kiliya,45 and the Church of Mary Theotokos on Mt. Gerizim.46 These porticoes are dated to the last quarter of the fifth century. Phase I came to an end in the late fifth century CE. Phase II is dated from the late fifth or early sixth to the first half of the eighth century on the basis of the pottery and numismatic finds, and on a stylistic analysis of the compound’s mosaics. In this phase the compound was converted into a monastery, and a chapel paved with a colorful mosaic floor was established in Room 10. The chapel mosaic suffered iconoclastic defacement following Yazid II’s decree of 721 CE, and installation L203 was established in the chapel. The iconoclastic defacement, installation L203, and the pottery finds attest to the continued existence of the Phase II monastery until at least the first half of the eighth century (the Umayyad period). The majority of Phase II marble details and architectural elements were discovered in secondary use in Phase III construction and in fills meant to level later beaten earth floors. A thorough examination of the finds suggests that Phase II probably came to a conclusion in the second half of the eighth century CE. Phase III is dated to the late eighth to ninth century CE. The compound, in this phase, is characterized by local construction and the partial removal of remnants of debris. The courtyard became a dwelling area. Architectural elements were removed from the courtyard and heaped in the chapel. Secondary use was made of architectural elements bearing crosses in construction throughout the site. For example, a marble lintel bearing a cross was discovered in the oil press in the southern wing. All the Phase III beaten earth floors that came to light were found above fills that contained various stone fragments from Phase II, along with pottery dated from the eighth century CE onwards.

[464]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Plate 1. Pottery: Late Roman Ware Bowls No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L233

ARS 57 bowl 5YR:5/4 reddish brown ware, 2.5YR:6/8 Hayes 1972: 94, Fig. 14; Jerusalem light red slip. (Hayes 1985: 192, Fig. 61:2)

Late 4th cent. CE

2

L110

ARS 67A bowl

2.5YR:5/6 red ware, 2.5YR:7/6 light red slip.

Hayes 1972: 115–115, Fig. 19:4; Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 61:8)

360–420 CE

3

L335

ARS 104A bowl

2.5YR:5/8 red ware, 2.5YR:6/8 light red slip.

Hayes 1972: 160, Fig. 30:3

530–580 CE

4

F281

ARS 104C bowl

2.5YR:5/8 red ware, red slip.

Hayes 1972: 160, Fig. 30:29; Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 62:14–16)

550–625 CE

5

L279

ARS 105 bowl

2.5YR:5/8 red ware, red slip.

Hayes 1972: 166, Fig. 32:8–9; Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 62:17)

Late 6th–mid7th cent. CE

6

F223

LRC 3C bowl 2.5YR:6/8 light red ware, red slip.

Hayes 1972: 337; Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 63:8)

Late 5th cent. CE

7

L414

8

L330

LRC 3D bowl 2.5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ware, 2.5YR:6/8 light red slip.

Hayes 1972: 337

9

F133

LRC 3F bowl 10R:6/6 light red ware.

Hayes 1972: 338; Jerusalem (Hayes 1985: 193, Fig. 64:6)

6th cent. CE

10

L999

ERS “A” or Coptic RS bowl

Hayes 1972: 389, Fig. 86:M

6th–early 7th cent. CE

2.5YR:6/6 light red ware, 2.5YR:5/6 red Hayes 1972: 337; Jerusalem (Hayes ware, red slip. 1985: 193, Fig. 64:5)

5YR:6/6 reddish yellow ware, 10R:4/8 red slip. The rim exterior is discolored.

1

2

3

4

5

7

6

9

8 Plate 1.

Date

0

5

[465]

10 10

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 2. Pottery: Bowls, Cups, and Kraters No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L183

Fine Islamic ware bowl

5YR:5/1 gray core, 5YR:7/6 reddish yellow inner wall, 2.5YR:6/4 light reddish brown outer wall.

2

L181

Fine Islamic ware bowl

5YR:7/3 pink ware, 5YR:5/1 gray core, burnished.

Mid 7th–9th Naḥal Laʿana (Nahlieli, Israel, and cent. CE Ben Michael 1996: 71*, Fig. 9:1); Naḥal Besor (Ben Michael, Israel, and Nahlieli 2004: 114*, Fig. 11:1)

3

L281

Fine Islamic ware bowl

5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ware, 5YR:4/1 dark gray core.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Whitcomb 1988: 59, 8th cent. CE Fig. 1:1e); ʿAmman (Northedge 1992: Pl. 131: 6–9)

4

L177

Fine Islamic ware bowl

7.5YR:7/3 pink ware, 7.5YR:5/1 gray core, white wash. Red and black paint on outer wall.

Kh. el-Mafjar (Whitcomb 1988: 56, Fig. 1)

5

L252

FBW bowl

2.5YR:7/6 light red ware, 10R:5/8 red slip.

Mid 7th–9th cent. CE

6

L233

5YR:7/4 pink ware, 5YR:7/1 light gray core. Red paint on inner wall and rim.

Mid-7th–9th cent. CE

7

L218

FBW cup

5YR:7/4 pink ware, 5YR:5/1 gray core, burnished.

8

L177

Cup

5YR:7/6 reddish yellow ware.

9

L218

10

L142

Cup fragment 10YR:7/3 very pale brown ware, white slip inside with red paint black, white grits.

11

L142

Arched “piecrust” rim krater

12

L290

Incurved-rim krater

13

L191

14

L341

15

Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (RosenthalHeginbottom 1988: Pl. IV:172)

Date

Early 9th cent. CE

6th–7th cent. CE Mid-7th–9th cent. CE

2.5YR:7/6 light red ware, 2.5Y:8/1 white slip.

Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: 153, Fig. 5:6–7)

Mid-7th cent. CE

Dhraʾel Khan (Kareem 2000: 82, Fig. 29:4–5)

13th–15th cent. CE

2.5YR:6/6 light red ware, 10YR:7/3 very pale brown slip.

Pella (Watson 1992: 237, Fig. 6:47); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: 176, Fig. 5:74, 76)

6th–7th cent. CE

5YR:4/4 reddish brown ware, white wash.

Kh. Abu Ṣuwwana (Cohen Finkelstein Late 6th–Early 9th cent. CE 1997: 20*, Fig. 2:1)

5YR:7/8 reddish yellow ware.

Kh. Deiran (Avissar 2007: 96*, Fig. 3:8)

7.5YR:8/2 pinkish white buff ware, 7.5YR:7/4 pink slip.

Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: 161, Fig. 3:5)

L289

5YR:7/6 reddish yellow ware, white wash.

Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: 161, Fig. 3:16)

16

L321

2.5Y:8/2 pale yellow ware.

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: 176, Fig. 5:66–68)

17

L330

7.5YR:7/1 light gray ware, 7.5 YR:8/2 pinkish white slip.

Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (RosenthalHeginbottom 1988: 90, Pl. IV: 169)

18

L123

10YR:7/3 very pale brown ware.

19

L394

5YR:5/8 yellowish red ware, 5YR:7/4 pink slip.

20

L178

10YR:7/3 very pale brown ware.

21

L313

Arched-rim krater

Deep bowl

Pella (McNiccol, Smith and Hennessy Early 8th cent. 1982: 149–150, Pl. 149:6) CE

5YR:5/4 reddish brown ware; 7.5YR:7/3 Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: 117, Fig. pink slip. XIII.64:1–2)

[466]

6th–7th cent. CE

6th–9th cent. CE

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1

3

2

4

5 7

6

9

8

10

12

11

14

13

16

15

18

17

19

20

21 0

5

Plate 2.

[467]

10

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 3. Pottery: Cooking Vessels, Jugs, and Flasks No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L221

Casserole

2.5YR:4/6 red ware.

Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: 93, Pl. 5:200)

6th–7th cent. CE

2

L135

2.5YR:4/8 red ware.

Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: 139, Fig. XIII.99:6, Type 12); Ramla (Kletter 2005: 79, Fig. 18:7)

8th cent. CE

3

L207

2.5YR:6/8 light red ware.

Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: 162, Fig. 6:22)

6th–7th cent. CE

4

L383

2.5YR:6/4 light reddish brown Pella (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessy 1982: Pl. 6th–early 7th ware, 2.5YR:4/8 red core. 138:5); Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: cent. CE 162, Fig. 6:18)

5

L330

2.5YR:6/8 light red ware.

6

F127

2.5YR:4/6 red ware, 2.5YR:5/3 Caesarea (Adan-Bayewiz 1986: 107–108, Fig. reddish brown slip, white wash 3:24) on outer wall.

7

F137

2.5YR:4/6 red ware.

Caesarea (Adan-Bayewiz 1986: 107–108, Fig. 3:26)

8

L129

5YR:5/4 reddish brown ware, 5YR:2.5/1 black core.

Pella (Smith and Day 1989: Pl. 51:14; Watson 1992: 236, Fig. 3:22)

9

F415

2.5YR:5/8 red ware.

Caesarea (Adan-Bayewitz 1986: 109, Fig. 4:9); Early 7th cent. Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom CE 1988: 90–93, Pl. V:217); Naḥal Besor (Ben Michael, Israel, and Nahlieli 2004: 114*, Fig. 11:9)

10

L299

2.5YR:4/8 red ware.

Naḥal Besor (Ben Michael, Israel, and Nahlieli 2004: 114*, Fig. 11:13)

11

L213

2.5YR:6/3 light reddish brown Naḥal Laʿana (Nahlieli, Israel, and Ben Michael ware, 2.5YR:5/6 red core. 1996: 71*, Fig. 9:9)

6th–early 8th cent. CE

12

L990

Pan with “wishbone handle”

2.5YR:5/8 red ware.

6th–7th cent. CE

Jug

2.5Y:8/1 white ware.

Cooking pot

Lid

Pella (Watson 1992: 235, Fig. 3:20); Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: 160, Fig. 9:11);

Beersheba (Ustinova and Nahshoni 1994: 162, Fig. 6:27)

Late 6th–early 7th cent. CE Early 7th cent. CE

6th–early 7th cent. CE

7th–9th cent. CE

13

L308

14

F137

2.5YR:6/6 light red ware.

15

L144

2.5Y:8/2 pale yellow ware.

16

L40

2.5Y:8/2 pale yellow ware.

Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: 88, Pl. III:154)

17

L264

5Y:8/2 pale yellow ware.

Kh. Abu Ṣuwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Mid-7th–mid-8th cent. CE Fig. 4:11)

18

L112

5YR:7/6 reddish yellow ware, 10YR:8/2 very pale brown slip.

Pella (McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: Pl. 144:3)

19

L150

2.5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ʿAmman (Harding 1951: Fig. 2:29); Kursiware. Gergesa (Tzaferis 1983: 34–35, Fig. 8:24)

20

L144

7.5YR:7/4 pink ware, 10YR:7/3 very pale brown slip.

21

L184

10YR:7/1 light gray ware.

Pella (Walmsley 1995: Fig. 9:1)

22

L47

5YR:7/6 reddish yellow ware.

Pella (Walmsley 1995: 661, Fig. 5:9)

23

L110

5Y:5/1 gray to white buff ware, Yokneʿam (Avissar 1996: 164, Fig. XIII.143:4) pale green glaze on inner and outer walls.

Kh. Abu Ṣuwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 20*, Mid-7th–mid-8th cent. CE Fig. 4:7)

[468]

6th–7th cent. CE

Mid-8th cent. CE Mid-7th–mid-8th cent. CE

Mid-8th cent. CE 7th–9th cent. CE

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Plate 3. cont. 24

L124

Flask

7.5YR:6/4 light brown ware, white grits.

25

L397

2.5YR:5/6 red ware, white slip. Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: 88, Pl. III:140)

26

L226

10YR:5/3 brown ware, 5YR:7/3 pink slip.

Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: 88, Pl. III:141)

2

3

4

6

7

9

Mid-7th–mid-8th cent. CE

ʿAmman (Northedge 1992: Pl. 132:3)

1

5

8

10

11

13

12

15

14

16

18

19

21

22

17

20

23

25

24 Plate 3.

6th–7th cent. CE

0

5

[469]

26 10

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 4. Pottery: Amphorae and Jars No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L110

Amphora

5YR:5/4 reddish brown ware, 7.5YR:8/3 pink slip. Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1988: 86–87, Pl. III:127)

2

L132

Gaza jar

5YR:5/4 reddish brown ware, 7.5YR:6/3 light brown slip.

Peacock and Williams 5th–6th cent. CE 1986: 198–199, Class 49; Ashdod (Baumgarten 2000: 70*, Fig. 4:9)

3

L257

Jar

7.5YR:5/1 gray core, 10YR:8/2 very pale brown slip.

Ashdod (Baumgarten 2000: Early 6th cent. 69*, Fig. 3:7) CE

4

L316

2.5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ware, 7.5YR:7/2 pinkish gray slip.

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano Late 6th–early 8th cent. CE 1999: 179, Fig. 7:107)

5

L331

5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ware.

6

L122

5YR:7/4 pink ware, 7.5YR:8/2 pinkish white slip.

7

L331

2.5YR:6/6 light red ware, 5YR:8/3 pink slip.

8

L178

7.5YR:8/3 pink ware.

9

L437

7.5YR:8/3 pink ware.

10

L118

2.5Y:8/2 pale yellow ware.

Late 6th–midCaesarea (Riley 1975: 26–27 (Type 1B)); Ras Abu 8th cent. CE Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:106); Jerusalem (Mazar and Peleg 2003: 90, Pl. I.16:18); Sarafand el-Kharab (Singer 2004: 49, Fig. 1:6)

11

L255

10YR:6/3 pale brown ware, 10YR:8/3 very pale brown slip.

Jerusalem (Mazar and Peleg 7th–8th cent. CE 2003: 90, Pl. I.16: 22–23)

12

L312

2.5YR:6/6 light red ware, 7.5YR:8/4 pink slip.

13

L231

10YR:8/3 very pale brown ware.

Caesarea (Riley 1975: 26–27, Type 1B); Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: 179, Fig. 7:106)

Late 6th–7th cent. CE

14

L412

10YR:8/3 very pale brown ware.

Neve Ur (Shalem 2002: 161, Fig. 12:6)

8th cent. CE

15

L224

5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ware, 7.5YR:7/3 pink Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 6th–7th cent. CE slip. 1999: 179, Fig. 7:107)

16

L314

2.5YR:7/6 light red core, white wash.

Ramla (Sion 2004: 77, Fig. 11:40–43)

8th cent. CE

17

L215

5YR:5/4 reddish brown ware, 5YR:6/2 pinkish gray slip.

Beth Shean (Avissar and Stern 2005: 100, Fig. 42:1)

12th–early 13th cent. CE

7th cent. CE

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano Late 6th–7th cent. CE 1999: 178–179, Fig. 7:100–102)

[470]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1

4 3

2

7

6

5

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

0

5

Plate 4.

[471]

10

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 5. Pottery: Lamps No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L332

Shoe-shaped lamp

5YR:6/1 gray ware.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 72–74, nos. 317–319)

6th–7th cent. CE

2

L123

Candle-stick lamp

5YR:8/3 pink ware, gray core.

Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Rapuano 1999: 184, Fig. 10:137–139)

3

L278

Channelnozzle lamp

10YR:8/2 very pale brown ware.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 82, no. 374)

7th cent. CE

4

L142

5YR:5/3 reddish brown ware.

Caesarea (Brosh 1986:71, Fig. 5:10); Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 82–94, no. 360)

7th–8th cent. CE

5

L332

10YR:8/2 very pale brown ware.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 82–94, no. 369)

6

L232

5YR:8/1 white ware, 5YR:6/1 gray slip. Menorah depicted on the rim.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 82–94, no. 371)

7

L119

5YR:6/1 gray ware, white slip.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 95, 105, no. 427)

8

F208

7.5YR:8/4 pink ware.

Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 95, 105, nos. 443, 448)

9

L225

5YR:8/1 white ware, 5YR:6/1 gray slip.

Kh. Abu Ṣuwwana (Cohen Finkelstein 1997: 32*, Fig. 8:6); Beth Shean (Hadad 2002: 95, 105, no. 427)

[472]

Late 8th–early 9th cent. CE

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

3

2 1

4

5

7

6

9

8 0

1

Plate 5.

[473]

2

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 6. Pottery: Miscellaneous No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

Date

1

L382

Stand

10YR:8/3 very pale brown ware.

1st–2nd cent. CE Givʿat Ram (Herschkovitz 1987: 319, Fig. 3:12, Fig. 10)

2

L296

Stamped jar handle

7.5YR:7/6 reddish yellow ware. Traces of unidentified stamp.

3

L135

Tile

10YR:7/2 light gray ware.

4

L225

Stamp

5YR:7/6 reddish yellow ware.

5

L101

Pipe

6

L255

Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 2:1)

6th–7th cent. CE

5YR:5/1 gray ware.

Greece (Robinson 1985: 153); Belmont Castle (Simpson 2000: 147, Fig. 13.1:16–21)

17th cent. CE

5YR:6/4 light reddish brown ware, red slip.

Greece (Robinson 1985: Late 19th cent. 191, Pl. 59:C125); Belmont CE Castle (Simpson 2000: 167, Fig. 13.8:181, 186)

[474]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

1

3

2

4

5

6

0

1

2

Plate 6.

[475]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 7. Glass Vessels No. Locus

Type

Description

Parallels

1

L289

Bottle

Bluish-green glass. Out-turned sloping rim.

2

L153

Bottle

Bluish-green glass. Infolded rim, thin wall.

Kh. el-Shubeika (GorinByzantine period Rosan 2002: 307, Fig. 6:36)

3

L332

Bottle

Bluish-green glass. Decorated with nine thin trails and five thick ones.

Kh. el-Shubeika (GorinRosan 2002: 316–319, Fig. 6:41)

4

L153

Cup

Bluish-green glass. Straight thickened rim.

5

F137

Cup

Light greenish glass. Straight thickened rim.

Kh. el-Shubeika (GorinRosan 2002: 299–300, Fig. 7:51, 54)

Late Byzantine– Early Umayyad period

6

F137

Decorated cup

Light greenish glass. Pinched horizontal decoration.

Kh. Ṭabalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 86*, Fig. 2:12–13)

Late Byzantine– Early Umayyad period

7

L361

Bowl lamp

Bluish-green glass. Outfolded rim, thin wall, a handle from rim to body.

8

F169

Bowl lamp

Bluish-green glass. Concave scarred base.

Byzantine– Kh. Ṭabalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 90*–91*, Fig. 3:31–32) Umayyad periods

9

F137

Fragment of polycandelon lamp

Bluish-green glass. Straight wall, convex base.

10

L114

Decorated shiny fragment

Shiny brown glass. Decorated bird, possibly a peacock.

[476]

Kh. Ṭabalieh (Gorin-Rosen 2000: 91*, Fig. 3:37)

Date

Byzantine– Umayyad periods Late Byzantine– Umayyad periods

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

4

1

3

2

5

6 7

8

9

0

10

1

Plate 7.

[477]

2

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Plate 8. Metal Objects No.

Type

Description

1–5

Iron nail

Small top, square shaft section. Many nails of this type were found nailed to burned wooden beams at the chapel.

6

Iron nail

Large top, probably originated at the oil press.

7

Iron key fragment

A key with two teeth.

1 1

3 3

2 2

7 7

4 4

5 5

0 0

1 1

6 6

Plate 8.

[478]

2 2

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Notes F.-M. Abel (1938: 372) proposed identifying the site with the biblical settlement of Madmannah, which appears in the list of cities in Judah in the Book of Joshua: “Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah” (Josh. 15:31) and in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (130, 7–8). This identification is implausible in light of excavations and surveys conducted at the site that showed a clear absence of Iron Age remains. See: SWP III: 392, 399; Kochavi 1972: 80–81 (Site No. 244), Tabula: 254. 2 Kh. Umm Deimine was excavated in June–July 2004 (License No. 1003) on behalf of the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Y. Magen, S. Batz, and I. Sharukh. 3 Magen 2008a: 227, Fig. 16. 4 Magen 2008b. 5 A similar phenomenon came to light in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen, forthcoming); waterproof plaster was applied above the level of the dining room benches to protect the diners’ clothing from dirt left by ordinary plaster. The appearance of similar plaster in the chapel at Kh. Umm Deimine might indicate that the monks sat on the hall floor during religious ceremonies. 6 A plastered niche was found in the church at Kh. Beit Sila (Batz 2012). 7 A similar installation was uncovered in excavations of the synagogue at ʿEn-Gedi (Barag 1992). At the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim, a niche in which a water basin stood on a marble table was discovered opposite the church (Magen and Talgam 1990: 100; Magen 1993: 31). At Kh. Umm Zaqum, a plastered niche with a column in its center, thought to be a labrum, was discovered in an auxiliary room adjacent to the chapel (Peleg 2012). 8 This might be a prothesis niche. The placement of the prothesis in a niche next to the apse rather than in the northern pastophorium, is dated to the sixth to seventh centuries CE (Ovadiah 1970: 195–197). 9 Installations for draining water from roofs are known from other monasteries like Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 72–73) and the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim, in the area east of the dining room (Magen and Talgam 1990: 138, Fig. 60). 10 An identical installation was found in Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 72, Fig. 111); similar installations were discovered in the monastery of Kh. Huriya (Har-Even and Greenfeld 2012). 11 This motif was found in the southern Baptistery Chapel’s mosaic floor in the Memorial Church of Moses, Mt. Nebo (Piccirillo 1998: 288). 12 The patterns are numbered according to the classification of M. Avi-Yonah (1981) and marked with an asterisk. 13 This pattern was found in mosaic floors in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim, in the later church (Magen 1

and Talgam 1990: 125–127, Figs. 41–45). An identical, but larger, example came to light at Kh. Bureikut in the northern Hebron Hills (Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1979: Fig. F, Pls. 16–17). This pattern was found also in Transjordan in the Memorial Church of Moses, Mt. Nebo (Piccirillo 1998: 289). 14 Identical plaster appeared in the labrum installation, also dated to the end of Phase II, when the mosaic was iconoclastically defaced. 15 Animals were also found in the church at Petra, where the composition and motifs greatly resemble those in the mosaic carpet at Kh. Umm Deimine (Waliszewski 2001: 231–241). 16 Friedman 2001: 294. 17 Bagatti 1971: 219–221. 18 These motifs were found in mosaic floors in the churches at Mt. Nebo (Piccirillo 1998: 326, 341, 360) and Petra (Waliszewski 2001: 241). 19 Habas 2005: 307–308, 318–319. 20 A similar composition was found in the mosaic floor in the Chapel of the Priest John in Kh. al-Mukhayyat in Transjordan. The chapel mosaic is dated to the late fifth to early sixth century (Habas 2005: 365–366; Piccirillo 1998: 310–312). An amphora depicted with a leopard at either side was found in the mosaic floor at the church of the Deacon Thomas at Mt. Nebo, which is dated to the first half of the sixth century CE (Piccirillo 1998: 332–343). 21 Avi-Yonah 1960: Fig. 13. 22 This motif was found: in the mosaic floor of the first phase of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where it was dated to the late fourth century (Harvey and Harvey 1938: Pl. VII); and also in the mosaic floors in the church at Beth Guvrin (Kloner 1993: 260); and in the frigidarium at Kh. Ẓ ur (Batz, “A Roman Bathhouse and Two Byzantine Churches at Khirbet Ẓur,” in this volume), which are both dated to the first half of the fifth century. 23 See Habas 2005: 363–364; and an additional example of the motif in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 130). 24 Bagatti 1971: 213–216. 25 Besonen 2001: 39. 26 An identical decoration was depicted in the mosaic carpet in the synagogue at Naʿaran, where it appears hanging from a menorah. For a discussion of this motif’s appearance in Christian and Jewish iconographies, see Levine 2000: 31. 27 Besonen 2001: 38–39. 28 Lintels decorated with a Maltese cross enclosed in a circle were found in the cemetery at Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: 104, Ill.151) and at Umm er-Rasas (Bagatti 1971: 232, Fig. 101). 29 Kochavi 1972: 80–81 (Site No. 244). 30 A wooden railing between bases is known from the atrium in the church at Petra (Kanellopoulos 2001: 155, 180–181);

[479]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

and such a railing is reconstructed in the gallery in the church at Ḥ . Ḥ esheq (Aviam 2002: 170–171). 31 A similar decoration was discovered at Building XII in Mampsis (Negev 1988: 81–82, Ph. 76). 32 A similar decoration was found, for example, in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 108–109, Fig. 24). 33 Acconci 1998: 510–513, Fig. 122. 34 Similar chancel screen panels were found in the northern church at Nessana (Colt 1962: 50, Pl. XIX:5); in the western church as Mampsis (Negev 1988: 107, Fig. 9:198); in the northern church at Oboda (Negev 1997: 114, Ph. 164); and at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 514, No. 125). 35 Similar chancel screen posts were found in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim (Magen and Hizmi 1985: 90); in the western church at Mampsis (Negev 1988: 196, Fig. 11); in the northern church at Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: 124, Ph. 190a–b, Pl. X:48); and at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 504, No. 86). 36 For reconstruction see the altar table at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 121). 37 A similar fragment was found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 490, No. 60).

Similar fragments were found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 479, Nos. 26–28). 39 A fragment with a similar drilled hole was found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 479, No. 23). 40 Similar table tops were found at Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 490, No. 59); and at Kh. ed-Deir (Hirschfeld 1999: 120). 41 Reliquary covers are mostly gable shaped; see, e.g., Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998: 498, No. 80). 42 The pottery analysis was conducted courtesy of B. Yuzefovsky. 43 For the numismatic report by G. Bijovsky, see JSRF L-1003. 44 Texal 2005: 17–22, Fig. 4. 45 The porticos in the Martyrius Monastery in Maʿale Adummim apparently predate the church and were built around a courtyard (Magen and Talgam 1990: 104–105). In Kh. el-Kiliya, part of a portico was revealed in the courtyard of the compound that was established in a Roman fortress and later functioned as a Byzantine monastery; see Magen 2012: 265. 46 The peristyle built around the church at Mt. Gerizim preserves this Roman building tradition (Magen 2008c: 252–254). 38

References Abel F.-M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II, Paris. 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. Adan-Bayewitz D. 1986. “The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building and Its Implications (Stratum 4),” in L.I. Levine and E. Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 90–129. Aharoni Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Raḥ el. Seasons 1959 and 1960, Rome. Aviam M. 2002. “Five Ecclesiastical Sites in Western Upper Galilee,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 165–218 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 184*–185*). 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. Avissar M. and Stern E.J. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 26), Jerusalem. Avissar M. 2007. “The Pottery from Stratum 2 at Khirbet Deiran, Reḥovot,” ʿAtiqot 57: 91*–104* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 173–175).

Avi-Yonah M. 1960. “The Ancient Synagogue of Maʿon (Nirim). The Mosaic Pavement,” Bulletin Rabinowitz 3: 25–35. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1971. The Church from the Circumcision. History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Smaller Series 2), Jerusalem. Barag D. 1992. “En-Gedi,” NEAEHL 2: 399–409. Batz S. 2012. “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Beit Sila,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 373–408. Baumgarten Y.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, pp. 201–202). Ben Michael J., Israel Y., and Nahlieli D. 2004. “Upper Naḥal Besor: A Village from the Early Islamic Period in the Negev Highlands,” ʿAtiqot 48:105*–122* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 159). Besonen J. 2001. “The Yattir Mosaic, A Visual Journey to Christ,” BAR 27(4): 37–43. Brosh N. 1986. “Ceramic Remains,” in L.I. Levine and E. Nezer (eds.), Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979 (Qedem 21), Jerusalem, pp. 66–89. Cohen Finkelstein J. 1997. “The Islamic Pottery from Khirbet Abu Suwwana,” ʿAtiqot 32: 19*–34*.

[480]

A R O M A N M I L I T A R Y C O M P O U N D 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 U M M D E I M I N E

Colt H.D. 1962. “Architectural Details,” in H.D. Colt (ed.), Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I, London, pp. 48–51. Friedman Z. 2001. “Mosaics: The Votive Ship of Mosaic III,” in Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski and R. Schick, The Petra Church, Amman, pp. 294–297. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2000. “The Glass Vessels from Khirbet Tabaliya (Givʿat Hmaṭos),” ʿAtiqot 40: 81*–95* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 165). Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002. “Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika: The Glass Vessels,” in Z. Gal (ed.), Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 288–321 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. *186–*187). Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structures and Their Relationship with the Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Pavements, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Hadad S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean (Qedem Reports 4), Jerusalem. Harding G.L. 1951. “Excavations on the Citadel, Amman,” ADAJ 1: 7–16. Har-Even B. and Greenfeld U. 2012. “A Byzantine Church and Monastery at Khirbet Huriya,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 309–326. Harvey W. and Harvey J.H. 1938. “The Structural Decay of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” PEQ 71: 156–161. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes J. W. 1985. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus,” in A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I, Toronto, pp. 181–194. Herschkovitz M. 1987. “The Pottery of the First and Second Centuries CE from Givʿat Ram,” EI 19: 314–325 (Hebrew). Hirschfeld Y. 1999. The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38), Jerusalem. Kanellopoulos C. 2001. “Architecture of the Complex,” in Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski, and R. Schick, The Petra Church, Amman, pp. 153–192. Kareem J. M. 2000. The Settlement Patterns in the Jordan Valley in the Mid-to Late Islamic Period (BAR Int. S. 877), Oxford. Kletter R. 2005. “Early Islamic Remains at ʿOpher Park, Ramla,” ʿAtiqot 49: 57–100. Kloner A. 1993. “A Byzantine Church at Maresha (Beit Govrin),” in Tsafrir Y. (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 260–264. Kochavi M. (ed.), 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Levine L. I. 2000. “The History and Significance of the Menorah in Antiquity,” Cathedra 98: 7–32 (Hebrew).

Magen Y. 1993. The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim. A Guide, Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008a. “Late Roman and Byzantine Towers in the Southern Hebron Hills,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 217–246. Magen Y. 2008b. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 117–216. Magen Y. 2008c. Mount Gerizim Excavations II. A Temple City (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2012. “A Roman Fortress and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Kiliya,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 261–296. Magan Y. Forthcoming. The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (JSP 17), Jerusalem. Magen Y. and Hizmi H. 1985. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim,” Qadmoniot 71–72: 62–92 (Hebrew). Magen Y. and Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at Maʿale Adummim (Khirbet el-Muraṣṣaṣ) and Its Mosaics,” Christian Archaeology: 91–152. 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 Report II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43), Jerusalem, pp. 86–103. McNicoll A., Smith R.H., and Hennesy B. 1982. Pella in Jordan I, Canberra. Nahlieli D., Israel Y., and Ben-Michael Y. 1996. “The Naḥal Laʿana Site: An Early Islamic Farm in the Negev,” ʿAtiqot 30: 67*–78* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 130). Negev A. 1988. The Architecture of Mampsis. Final Report II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (Qedem 27), Jerusalem. Negev A. 1997. The Architecture of Oboda. Final Report (Qedem 36), Jerusalem. Northedge A. 1992. Studies on Roman and Islamic ʿAmmān. The Excavation of Mrs C-M Bennett and Other Investigations I: History, Site and Architecture, London. Ovadiah A. 1970. Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, Bonn. Patrich J. 1988. “Architectural Sculpture and Stone Objects,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz, and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-inthe-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 97–133. Peacock D.P.S. and Williams D.F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide, New York. Peleg Y. 2012. “A Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Zaqum,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and

[481]

Y. M A G E N , S . B AT Z , A N D I . S H A R U K H

Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 235–260. Piccirillo M. 1998. “The Mosaics,” in M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem, pp. 265–371. Rapuano Y. 1999. “The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Maʿaruf (Pisgat Zeʾev East A),” ʿAtiqot 38: 171–203. Riley J. A. 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. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1988. “The Pottery,” in Y. Tsafrir, J. Patrich, R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, I. Hershkovitz and Y.D. Nevo, Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25), Jerusalem, pp. 78–96. Shalem D. 2002. “Nevé Ur—An Early Islamic Period Village in the Bet Sheʾan Valley,” ʿAtiqot 43: 149–176. Simpson St. 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. 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. Singer K. 2004. “The Pottery Assemblage from a Salvage Excavation at Sarafand el-Kharab, Nes Ziyyona,” ʿAtiqot 46: 49–58 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 131*).

Sion O. 2004. “An Early Islamic Period Settlement in Ramla,” ʿAtiqot 46: 67–92 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 133*). Taxel I. 2005. The Transition Between the Byzantine and the Early Islamic Period (the 7th century CE) as Seen Through Rural Settlement—Horvat Zikhrin as a Case Study, M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Tsafrir Y. and Hirschfeld Y. 1979. “The Church and Mosaics of Ḥorvat Berachot, Israel,” DOP 33: 295–326. Tzaferis V. 1983. The Excavations of Kursi—Gergesa (ʿAtiqot 16), Jerusalem. Waliszewski T. 2001. “Mosaics,” in Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski, and R. Schick, The Petra Church, Amman, pp. 219–270. Walmsley A. 1995. “Tradition, Innovation, and Imitation in the Material Culture of Islamic Jordan: The First Four Centuries,” SHAJ 5: 657–663. Watson B. 1992. “Change in Foreign and Regional Economic Links with Pella in the Seventh Century A.D.: The Ceramic Evidence,” in P. Cnivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam. VIIe–VIIIe siècles, Damascus, pp. 233–248. Whitcomb D. 1988. “Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence,” BASOR 271: 51–67. Ustinova Y. and Nahshoni P. 1994. “Salvage Excavations in Ramot Nof, Beʾer Sheva,” ʿAtiqot 25: 157–177.

[482]

ICONOCLASM IN CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES IN JUDEA YUVAL PELEG

In the eighth century figurative images in churches and synagogues in the Land of Israel and Transjordan underwent defacement, an act known as iconoclasm. In this region, iconoclasm was expressed in the defacement of animal and human depictions, and not necessarily in the defacement of the images of saints, as was common in the iconoclasm in Byzantium.1 Iconoclastic acts occurred during that period in areas under Islamic rule and in Byzantium. This article deals with iconoclastic acts in churches and synagogues in Judea and how they relate to similar contemporaneous acts in areas under Byzantine and Muslim rule.2 To discuss the phenomenon of iconoclasm in Judea, we must first examine the attitude of the three major monotheistic religions during this time span to the presentation of images. Islam opposed the depiction of any living creature, since such a portrayal is, in effect, an imitation of the act of creation by God. Islamic opposition to human and faunal representational art began to intensify towards the end of the seventh century.3 Instances of human depictions existed in Islamic lands, and such forbidden representations were vigorously enforced only in mosques.4 Some scholars maintain that the beginnings of an iconoclastic approach were visible during the reign of Caliph Omar II (reigned 717–720 CE), who was known for his Islamic orthodoxy and anti-Christian activity.5 This iconoclastic approach reached its climax in the issuance of an official decree by Yazid II in 721 CE that prohibited human and animal representations.6 The earliest and most detailed version of this decree was cited by John, a priest from Jerusalem, in the church council that convened in Nicea in 787 CE. O. Grabar questioned the authenticity of the decree, since it is absent from early Muslim sources and appears in Christian sources as an anti-Islamic and anti-Jewish document.7 The Muslim caliphs’ attitudes to images distinguished between private and public

art. Thus, the Umayyad desert palaces contained many images, while images were rare in the public art of the mosques or on coins, at least until the eleventh to twelfth centuries.8 Christians knew the biblical Second Commandment, which prohibits making a sculptured image or likeness; but until the eighth century, there were no practical limitations on Christian figurative representational art. Images of animals and humans appeared in mosaics, wall paintings, stone carvings, and icons. In the Byzantine Empire, the iconoclastic trend had its first beginnings in the time of Leo III (717–741 CE). Veneration of the images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints and martyrs intensified during the sixth and seventh centuries CE.9 The eruption of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire in the eighth century was a reaction to this veneration. The iconoclast emperors ordered the destruction of the images of Jesus and the saints, but overlooked the images of other humans and of animals and birds. Thus, for instance, Constantine V did not deface his own image that appeared on coins, but did destroy the representations of Jesus and Mary. The Christian controversy regarding sacred icons reached its peak in the church Council of Hieria in 754 CE. The Council adopted laws opposing the presence of representations of Jesus, Mary, saints, and martyrs, but was silent regarding the rejection of other images. During the course of the iconoclastic revolution in the Byzantine Empire, a large part of the Christian population in the Land of Israel, which was under Muslim rule, remained supportive of icons, and even expressed its opposition to the emperors’ actions. John of Damascus was one of the leading spokesmen of this opposition. The religious council that convened in Jerusalem in 760 CE condemned iconoclasm.10 Iconoclasm in Judea apparently differed from that in the Byzantine Empire after the Islamic conquest. While iconoclasts in the Byzantine Empire opposed

[483]

Y. P E L E G

images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, in Judea, all figurative representations were defaced.11 Very few Jewish sources relate to plastic art in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. Byzantine synagogue mosaics were colorful and rich in geometric, floral, and figurative (human and animal) motifs, to which we should add marble chancel screens, menorahs, and wall paintings.12 As regards Jewish Halakhah in this period, Jewish tradition apparently exhibited a tolerant attitude to art, with a few reservations. Figurative representation in mosaic and relief was permitted, only free sculpture being prohibited, especially when it was accompanied by an object such as a staff, ball, or bird.13 Destruction of figurative images in synagogue mosaics was revealed only in the synagogues in Susiya and Naʿaran, and possibly also in the synagogue floor at Eshtemoaʿ. Defaced stone reliefs were found in numerous synagogues in Galilee and the Golan. Some scholars have proposed dating the iconoclastic campaign to the Byzantine period, while others argue that the phenomenon began in the seventh century, as part of the decline of paganism. A number of scholars suggest placing the phenomenon of synagogue iconoclasm in the eighth century, but disagree regarding their interpretation of the motives for the destruction and its implementers.14

ICONOCLASM IN THE JUDEA REGION In the course of current research, of the 31 churches and 3 synagogues in the Judea region that were examined, testimonies to the destruction of figurative images were discovered in 17 churches and 2 synagogues (Fig. 1). In most cases, the defaced representations were in a mosaic floor. Testimonies to the destruction of images on marble chancel screens and stone reliefs were found at only three sites: the synagogues at Eshtemoaʿ and Susiya, and the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir. Of the sites containing evidence of destruction, seven are located in the southern Hebron Hills: two synagogues (Susiya, Eshtemoaʿ); the Christian sites of ʿAnab el-Kabir, Kh. Umm Deimine, Ḥ . Qerayot; and two churches at Ḥ . Yattir. Five additional sites are located in the Judean Shephelah: Ḥ . Beth Loya, Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi), Sokho, Kh. ʿEin Dab,

and Roglit. Four sites are situated on the central mountain ridge, mostly along the main routes leading to Jerusalem: Kh. ʿAsida, ʿEin Ḥ anniya, Ḥ . Ḥ anot, Beit ʿAnun, and an additional site at the desert’s edge at Herodium.15 These data indicate that the sites in which figurative images were defaced are concentrated mainly in the southern Hebron Hills and in the Judean Shephelah, in the area that was included, in the Byzantine period, in the territory of the city of Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin). The latter was the most important city in the Shephelah; and its territory might have been the largest of any of the cities in the Land of Israel, since it included the Shephelah and all of the southern Hebron Hills up to the Beersheba Valley—the region known as “Daroma.”16 The boundary in the hill country between the territory of Eleutheropolis and that of Jerusalem apparently passed between Hebron and Ḥ alḥ ul, since Eusebius writes that the settlement of Ḥ alḥ ul was located in the territory of Jerusalem.17 Twelve of the sixsteen sites in which iconoclastic destruction were discovered were in the sphere of influence of Eleutheropolis, which prospered in the Byzantine period, when it served as the seat of the bishopric. It declined in stature and population in the Islamic period. However, the city’s bishopric continued to exist into the early eighth century, as attested by the fact that churches, such as those at Kh. Ṭ awas and Kh. Istabul (Aristobulias), were still built in its territory in the late seventh and early eighth century.18 Two synagogues exhibiting defacement, at Eshtemoaʿ and Susiya, served Jewish communities that existed in this region alongside the Christian communities. In these two sites, historical processes and archaeological reality appear congruent with events at the Christian sites in the same area. The continued functioning of churches and synagogues in the seventh and early eighth century attests that these communities maintained their religious character after the Muslim conquest and that the Umayyad authorities granted religious freedom to the populace and did not compel conversion to Islam.19 The churches at ʿEin Ḥ anniya, Ḥ . Ḥ anot, and Kh. ʿAsida are located in the territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, along roads leading to the city from Beth Guvrin and the Hebron area. The sites of ʿEin Ḥ anniya and Ḥ . Ḥ anot likely served travelers to

[484]

ICONOCLASM IN CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES IN JUDEA

}

( Jerusalem 

( Beth Lehem







 

(







Dead S ea



Beth Guvrin

Hebron

(



 

   0

5

Christian Site Jewish Site

10 Km

Fig. 1. Judean sites that exibited sings of iconoclasm.

Jerusalem in the seventh and early eighth century. Since these churches continued to function in the Umayyad period, it became necessary to deface the images in their mosaic floors. The church at Kh.ʿAsida might also have served pilgrims to Jerusalem, due to its location close to the main mountain ridge route, and the figurative images in it, too, were destroyed. A Christian community existed at Herodium after the Islamic conquest, at least until the middle of the eighth century, and thus iconoclastic defacement is

evident in the eastern church at the site. In addition to these churches only at Shiloh there is a testimony to iconoclastic destruction. The “Basilica Church” contains destroyed human and animal depictions in the mosaic floor from the first half of the sixth century. The damage was repaired by re-laying the removed tesserae, either haphazardly or in a floral pattern. This church was destroyed in an earthquake in 749 CE.20 In addition, a mosaic floor was discovered in the late northern church; in it, as

[485]

Y. P E L E G

well, animals that decorated the medallions were destroyed, and the tesserae were re-laid haphazardly or in a simple geometric design.21 Similar damage was found in the “Pilgrims” Church at the site.22 Shiloh is located on the main road to Jerusalem, and the site’s sanctity might have been the reason why these churches continued in use during the eighth century but suffered iconoclastic destruction. The precise dating of the destruction in Judea is problematic in the absence of inscriptions attesting to iconoclastic activity. In various excavation reports from sites in which defacement was found, the excavators suggested a range of dates for its implementation. D.C. Baramki wrote that the defacement at Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi) was conducted in the Early Islamic period.23 Similarly, the excavators of the northern church at Ḥ Yattir are of the opinion that the figures there were destroyed during that period.24 Baramki and Avi-Yonah wrote that the images in the churches at ʿEin Ḥ anniya and Kh. ʿAsida were defaced in the early eighth century as part of the iconoclastic trend throughout the Near East.25 The figurative images in the mosaics of the Ḥ . Beth Loya and ʿAnab el-Kabir churches were destroyed, according to the excavators, in the early eighth century, by force of the decree issued by Yazid II in 721 CE.26 In his article on the church at Ḥ . Qerayot, S. Derfler concluded that the images in the church were destroyed in the early eighth century, following both the decree issued by Yazid II in 721 CE and the actions of Byzantine Emperor Leo III.27 Most of the excavation reports from these sites, however, are only partial, with no details regarding the pottery and numismatic finds. Pottery vessels dated to the early eighth century and Umayyad post-reform coins from the first half of the eighth century were discovered at Kh. Beit ʿAnun, ʿAnab el-Kabir, Kh. ʿEin Dab, and Kh. Umm Deimine. As mentioned above, none of the sites in the Judea region in which defacement was discovered had yielded an inscription dating the iconoclastic action. However, a new interpretation for the dating of the inscription in the southern church at Ḥ . Yattir might change this. In this church, the mosaic floor with animal depictions was replaced by a new one decorated with an embellished band and mystical symbols. This might possibly be regarded as an iconoclastic act. Here, the floor contains a Greek

inscription that mentions the sixth indiction of the city (526 CE). The excavators suggested that this was the count of Provincia Arabia and the city of Halutzah, and therefore the inscription is to be dated to 631/2 CE. However, as the settlement of Yattir was in the territory of Daroma, in the area of Eleutheropolis, the city mentioned in the inscription might in fact refer to Eleutheropolis, in which case the date in the inscription should be read as 725/6 CE. Such a dating is problematic in terms of the indiction, but explains the replacement of the floor with a new one containing geometric and mystical motifs only a few years after the decree was issued by Yazid II.28 The Christian sites in Judea in which undamaged figurative decorations were discovered, with the exception of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, continued in use, at the latest, until the seventh century.29 The mosaic floor of the Church of the Nativity, which was only partly uncovered in the excavations conducted at the site, and which is dated to the fifth century, contains animal figures. These representations were not destroyed, possibly because a stone floor was installed over the mosaic one, precluding the need to deface the images. If this hypothesis is correct, the stone floor is to be dated to the early eighth century and should be viewed as a nondestructive solution for the presence of images in the mosaic floor of this church. In general, structures that showed iconoclastic damage were still in use in the eighth century. According to the excavators, the churches were destroyed in the 749 CE earthquake. Pottery finds and coins from the churches at ʿAnab el-Kabir and Ḥ . Qerayot attest to their continued use in the first half of the eighth century CE. The continued use of the structures enables us to give the same dating to the iconoclastic defacement. This, however, does not mean that all instances of defacement occurred in the same year, and the process probably continued over a period of several years. Iconoclasm by the Muslim authorities might already have begun in the time of Omar II (717–720 CE), reaching its peak with the issuance of the decree by Yazid II in 721 CE.30 Iconoclastic defacement is evident in the territory of Eleutheropolis in all churches and synagogues that continued in use in the eighth century. In contrast, in the region close to Jerusalem, most of the sites had

[486]

ICONOCLASM IN CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES IN JUDEA

already been abandoned before the eighth century, and do not contain testimony to such destruction. In this area, defacement appears only at sites close to the roads leading to Jerusalem (Ḥ . Ḥ anot and ʿEin Ḥ anniya), or at especially sacred sites like the Church of the Nativity. A number of churches in Transjordan were discovered with inscriptions that enabled a more precise dating of the iconoclastic destruction. Iconoclastic defacement there was conducted and repaired in a manner similar to that in Judea. The mosaic floor in the church at Maʿin is dated to the last quarter of the sixth or first half of the seventh century. The figurative images in the mosaic floor were defaced and the damage was repaired. An inscription at the entrance to the church dates the repair to 719/20 CE. De Vaux maintained that the defacement was performed a number of years before the repair, and he dated the iconoclastic activity to the time of the Umayyad caliph, Omar II, beginning in October 717 CE, and the repair to 720 CE, the year in which that caliph died.31 Piccirillo, in contrast, argues that the inscription is contemporaneous with the floor, and accordingly dates the defacement to a number of years after the inscription, to the time of Yazid II. He further asserted that based on technical considerations, the craftsmen who made the original floor also implemented the repair.32 J.W. Crowfoot ascribed the destruction of the images in the church at Gerasa to the time of Omar II.33 In Pella, the excavators attributed the destruction of the church to the earthquake of 717 CE. A marble chancel screen, used in a late phase of the church as an altar base, was found in situ on the bema. It contains two defaced images of sheep flanking a cross. The images on this screen already being defaced before 717 CE led the excavators to conclude that the destruction was carried out between 692 and 717 CE.34 The lower church at Quweisma contains an inscription referring to the reconstruction of the mosaic in which the figures had been defaced. This inscription is dated to 717/8 CE, the first year of the reign of Omar II.35 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon maintain that the latest mosaic floor with images is to be found in the Church of St. George at Deir al-ʿAdas, which is dated to 722 CE. Afterwards, apparently in the beginning of the second quarter of the eighth century, floors with a geometric pattern

were laid, while the human and animal figures were defaced, either fully or in part.36 The sites discovered in Transjordan enable scholars to date the defacement to the time of the Umayyad caliph Omar II, ca. 717 CE. In the first three decades of the eighth century, mainly beginning from the time of Caliph Omar II, figurative images were defaced in the synagogues and churches in Judea

ICONOCLASM CHARACTERISTICS IN JUDEA Iconoclastic defacement was conducted in full or almost so, at most of the 15 sites in Judea. In cases of almost complete defacement, only a few images remained unscathed. In all these instances care was taken to inflict minimal harm to the floor itself, with localized destruction of the image or part of it. In most of the structures in which iconoclasm was discovered, the floors had been repaired, with the exception of the chapel at Kh. Umm Deimine, the church at Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi), and the Christian religious structure at Sokho (Fig. 2). In these sites, as well, the images were defaced, with care taken not to harm the rest of the mosaics, but were not repaired. There was almost complete defacement in the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir, where only a single bird representation remains in the northeastern corner of the church hall, where the ambo probably stood, precluding the need to deface it. In the mosaic floor in the synagogue at Susiya, the image of a deer to the west of the Torah ark and the menorahs was covered by stone slabs, and therefore did not need to be defaced.37 The almost complete iconoclastic defacement in the southern church at Ḥ . Yattir led to the replacement of the entire mosaic. Of the original mosaic, consisting of a pattern of vine shoots that formed medallions containing birds, only four birds remain, one in the northeastern corner of the prayer hall, over which the ambo might have stood.38 In this case, as at Susiya, the reason for replacing the mosaic is uncertain, and might have resulted from the destruction or deterioration of the original mosaic in addition to the desire to replace the mosaic’s figurative images. In the northern church at that site, only the western side of which is preserved, a single bird figure remains in the northwestern corner of the nave, the other figurative images in the preserved part of the mosaic being defaced.

[487]

Y. P E L E G

In the churches at Ḥ . Beth Loya and Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi), the destruction was partial. In the church at Ḥ . Beth Loya, the figurative images in the narthex were unscathed; in the nave mosaic floor, the representations of two birds drinking from a goblet in the easternmost row of medallions were not defaced, nor were the fish in the central medallion of the northern aisle or the bird figure at the western end of each aisle. The other human and animal images in this church were destroyed. At Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi), most of the figurative images were defaced by uprooting the tesserae, but the floor was not repaired. In some instances, the defacement was only partial. Thus, for example, only the face of the prophet Jonah in the northern aisle was destroyed. In a few instances, images remained unharmed: a crab at the northeastern end of the northern aisle; a horse and a bull at the eastern end of the southern aisle. The only partial defacement in this instance can probably be explained by the iconoclasts’ identity. The finds from the site attest to its continued use in the eighth century.39 The site’s ceasing to function as a church is indicated by: the conversion of the room southeast of the church into a hypocaust, built over a mosaic floor containing animal figures; the only partial defacement; and the fact that the floor was not repaired after the iconoclastic activity. The defacement was conducted by the new, apparently Muslim, settlers there. Testimony to iconoclastic destruction was also found in stone artifacts: the church at ʿAnab el-Kabir yielded marble chancel screen fragments ornamented with an animal figure, apparently a camel, whose defacement

was attempted by chisel blows; in the synagogue at Eshtemoaʿ, fragments of a marble menorah were found, ornamented with the head of a lion whose face was destroyed; two lintels decorated with menorahs were found at Kafr es-Samoaʿ (Eshtemoaʿ), both apparently with animal figures that flanked the menorah and were defaced beyond recognition; in the synagogue at Susiya, human and animal figures that embellished the marble chancel screens were defaced by chisel blows (Fig. 3). The mosaic floor repairs can be classified into four types: 1. Repair using large tesserae. This type of repair appears in seven structures: the northern church at Ḥ . Yattir; ʿEin Ḥ anniya; Kh. ʿEin Dab; Ḥ . Qerayot; Roglit; and the synagogues at Eshtemoaʿ and Susiya (Fig. 4). At Susiya, only part of the repair made use of large tesserae. A repair of this sort was done to the deer image east of the Torah ark and the menorahs in

Fig. 2. Kh. Umm Deimine, iconoclastic defacement.

Fig. 3. Susiya, iconoclastic defacement of chancel screen.

[488]

ICONOCLASM IN CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES IN JUDEA

Fig. 4. Kh. ʿEin Dab, iconoclastic defacement repaired with crude white tesserae

front of the bema, and to the images that were most likely part of the scene of Daniel in the lion’s den, in the western carpet. 2. Repair using the same tesserae that had been removed, and were now re-laid haphazardly. This repair method appears in three churches: ʿAnab el-Kabir, Ḥ . Beth Loya, and Ḥ . Ḥ anot; and in the synagogue at Susiya (Fig. 5). In many instances parts of the original images can be identified, mainly at its edges, such as feet, a tail, ears, and the like. In these three churches, all the defaced figures were repaired in this way. In the synagogue at Susiya, the only images repaired in this manner were the representations of birds in the square medallions in the eastern carpet of the synagogue prayer hall. 3. Repairs using the same tesserae that had been removed, and were now arranged in a floral or geometric pattern. This repair method appears in three churches: Kh. ʿAsida, Beit ʿAnun, and the eastern church at Herodium. In the church at Kh. ʿAsida, in the medallions that had previously held animal representations, the repairers used the removed tesserae to form floral decorations that included flowers and fruits (Fig. 6). In one instance, the tail and feet of the original lion remained, appearing as part of the flower and stem arrangement. In the church at Beit ʿAnun, in the center of each medallion that had contained an animal figure, the repairers formed

Fig. 5. ʿAnab el-Kabir, iconoclastic defacement repaired with haphazardly re-laid tesserae.

Fig. 6. Kh. ʿAsida, iconoclastic defacement replaced by a floral design.

various geometric shapes, mainly lozenges, or a floral decoration (Fig. 7). The iconoclastic destruction in the eastern church at Herodium was repaired by forming a leaf pattern in place of the defaced animal representation.40 4. The replacement of the entire floor or a large part of it.41 In both instances in which the mosaic floor was replaced, in the southern church at Ḥ. Yattir and in the synagogue at Susiya, the original floor that contained figurative representations of animals, and possibly also of humans, was replaced by one with a geometric pattern. Nonetheless, other reasons might have led to the floor replacement in each of these

[489]

Y. P E L E G

Fig. 7. Beit ʿAnun, iconoclastic defacement repaired replaced by a geometric design.

Fig. 8. Susiya, iconoclastic replacement of the entire floor, or most of it.

two instances. In the southern church at Ḥ . Yattir, the original nave floor, which had been decorated with vine shoots that formed medallions containing birds, was replaced by a new floor that was devoid of figurative embellishments. This new floor contained bands containing mystical symbols, a large cross, and geometric decorations. In the synagogue at Susiya, the central carpet in the hall mosaic floor, which was decorated with a Zodiac, was replaced by a geometric design (Fig. 8). Only the southern edge of the original Zodiac remained; in the center of the new floor a rosette consisting of 26 leaves was laid. The rosette was surrounded by a carpet of simple geometric pattern. An example of the replacement of a large part of a mosaic floor was discovered in the church at ʿAyn al- Kanisah in Transjordan. At this site, the western part of the nave floor was replaced in the eighth century; in place of vine shoots that form medallions with animal depictions, a mosaic floor of geometric pattern was laid. The animal figures were defaced in the remainder of the original floor.42 The differences in repair method might be indicative of the means available to the community, and the general decline in this period. This is also attested by the establishment, in the second half of the seventh and early eighth century CE, of churches like Kh. Ṭ awas and Kh. Istabul (Aristobulias), which were paved with simple mosaics composed of relatively large tesserae.43 This does not reflect a decline in artistic ability in comparison with the sixth century CE, since, for example, the mosaics of the Umayyad

palace at Kh. el-Mafjar in Jericho, built in the first half of the eighth century, exhibit high artistic and technical capabilities.44 A lack of funds or craftsmen might underlie the absence of repairs of iconoclastic activity, as was observed at three sites: the chapel at Kh. Umm Deimine, the church at Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi), and the Christian religious structure at Ḥ . Sokho. The absence of repairs might be because the iconoclastic activity was conducted by Muslims after the site had been abandoned, as at Beth Guvrin.

Summary The phenomenon, during the eighth century CE, of iconoclastic defacement of figurative images in Judea, as well as the methods of repair, was common to both Christian and Jewish sites, a reality that apparently indicates that this was not a local initiative by Jewish or Christian zealots, but rather a general phenomenon that stemmed from something else.45 The fact that iconoclastic action was common to both churches and synagogues demonstrates the lack of any connection between the phenomenon in Judea and that in Byzantium. Furthermore, the Christian population in the Land of Israel apparently opposed the iconoclasm in Byzantium, and the archaeological finds show differences between Judea and Byzantium in the emphases of their respective iconoclastic activity. In Judea, all figurative images, both animal and human,

[490]

ICONOCLASM IN CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES IN JUDEA

were defaced, while only the images of saints were defaced in Byzantium. Iconoclastic actions in churches and synagogues in Judea probably resulted from the policy of the Muslim authorities, who forbade the presentation of figurative images in places of prayer. This policy had begun in the time of Caliph Omar II and climaxed with the issuance of the decree by Yazid II. The archaeological testimony shows that only the sites in which iconoclastic destruction had taken place, or which contained solely geometric decoration, continued in use at least until the middle of the eighth century. Sites in which figurative representations were not defaced had been abandoned or converted to some other use following the Muslim conquests, already at the beginning of the seventh century. In all instances in which iconoclasm was discovered, including those in which no repair was conducted, as in the chapel at Kh. Umm Deimine, the church at Beth Guvrin (Mahatt el-Urdi), and the Christian religious structure at Sokho, the iconoclasts made an effort not to damage the mosaics as a whole. The defacement was concentrated solely on the visible figurative images. In a considerable number of instances, parts of the image can still be identified; these were generally

at the edges, which remained unharmed. Thus, for example, it is possible to identify birds’ beaks, tails, and feet, and the ears, feet, and tails of lions and other animals. We should therefore question the testimony by John of Jerusalem, who relates that Caliph Yazid II ordered the brutal looting of the churches, and that the Christians preferred to flee rather than destroy, with their own hands, the images of saints.46 Each community, Christian and Jewish, most probably engaged in the defacement of the images in its own places of worship, and in most instances, also in the repair of the damage that had been caused.47 The finds in churches and synagogues in Judea are reflective of the processes experienced by Jews and Christians in this region in the period following the Muslim conquest. The very fact that iconoclastic activity was conducted in the public structures of each of the two religions attests that Christian and Jewish religious life in Judea, mainly in the southern Hebron Hills and the Judean Shephelah, continued to exist in the eighth century CE, and that the decline in the Jewish and Christian population in the region occurred later, apparently in the second half of that century, after the major earthquake in 749 CE and the institution of Abbasid rule in the Land of Israel.

Notes This article is based on the author’s Master’s Thesis, written under the direction of Professor Z. Weiss of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 2 Iconoclasm in the Land of Israel was discussed by R. Schick (1995) and by L. Habas (2005). The destruction of synagogue images in the Land of Israel was examined by S. Fine (2000). D. Amit related to the destruction in synagogues in Judea (Amit 2003). 3 Paret 1976–1977. 4 Vasiliev 1956: 25. 5 Tritton 1930: 101; Frey 1934: 299; Vasiliev 1956: 25, note 4. 6 Vasiliev 1956: 25, 45–47; Sahas 1986: 19. 7 Grabar 1977: 46. 8 Grabar 1957: 399–400. 9 Schick 1995: 210. 10 Schick 1995: 210, note 27. 1

Brubaker and Haldon 2001: 35; Piccirillo 1993: 41. Ovadia 1987; Tsafrir 1984: 389–441. 13 M Avodah Zarah 3:1. 14 For a discussion of the different interpretations of iconoclasm in synagogues, see Amit 1994 and Fine 2000. For those supporting the Byzantine dating, see Sukenik 1975: 54–55; Ovadiah 1987; Klein 1935: 36–38. For those supporting the idea of the defacement of images as part of the decline of paganism, see Stern 1996: 417–418. For those favoring Muslim influence, see Mayer and Reifenburg 1936: 6–7; Tsafrir 1984: 389. For those proposing Jewish zealousness, see Avi-Yonah 1961: 80. 15 The synagogue at Susiya (Gutmann, Yeivin, and Netzer 1972; Yeivin 1993; Amit 2003: 68–83); the synagogue at Eshtemoaʿ (Yeivin 2005); ʿAnab el-Kabir (Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” 11

12

[491]

Y. P E L E G

in this volume); Kh. Umm Deimine (Magen, Batz, and Sharukh, “A Roman Military Compound and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet Umm Deimine,” in this volume); Ḥ . Qerayot (Govrin 1993; Derfler and Govrin 1993; Derfler 2003); Ḥ . Yattir (Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Besonen 2001); Ḥ . Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1993); Beth Guvrin—Mahatt el-Urdi (Baramki 1972); Sokho (Gudovitch 1996); Kh. ʿEin Dab (Peleg, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet ʿEin Dab,” in this volume); Roglit (Gofna and Zvilichovsky 1959; Zvilichovsky 1960); Kh. ʿAsida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934); ʿEin Ḥanniya (Baramki 1934); Ḥ . Ḥ anot (Shenhav 2003); the central church at Beit ʿAnun (Magen, “The Central Church at Beit ʿAnun,” in this volume); the eastern church at Herodium (Netzer, BirgerCalderon, and Feller 1993). 16 Tsafrir 1982: 370; Urman 1988: 155. 17 Eusebius, Onomasticon, 86:11. 18 Peleg, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ṭawas,” in this volume; Peleg and Batz, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias),” in this volume. 19 Sharon 1986: 99. 20 Dadon 2012. 21 Andersen 1985:48–49; Magen and aharonovich 2012: 189. 22 Andersen 1985: 72, 75; Kjaer 1930: 52–53. 23 Baramki 1972: 146. 24 Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2001a: 231. 25 Baramki 1934: 115; Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934: 19. 26 Patrich and Tsafrir 1993; Magen, Peleg, and Sharukh, “A Byzantine Church at ʿAnab el-Kabir,” in this volume. 27 Derfler 2003: 41–42. 28 This is not the only instance of a lack of correspondence in the same inscription between the indiction and another count. A similar phenomenon appears in the Church of the Virgin at Madaba (Di Segni 1992). 29 Beth Guvrin—el-Mekurkush (Vincent 1922; Abel 1924); the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (Harvey 1935); Kh. Bureikut (Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1979; 1993); Bettir (Vincent 1910); Kh. Deir Shaʿar (Vincent 1903; Hieromonachos 1937); Kh. Hebeileh (Abel 1925; Vincent 1939); Mattaʿ

(Ovadiah, Ovadiah, and Gudovitz 1976); Maresha (Kloner 1993); Kh. Fattir (Jakobs 1995; Strus 2003); Kh. el-Qaṣr (Magen, Har-Even, and Sharukh, “A Roman Tower and a Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet el-Qaṣr,” in this volume). The synagogue at ʿEn-Gedi is the only synagogue in Judea to contain animal depictions that were not defaced, and it, too, did not continue past the seventh century (Barag, Porat and Netzer 1981). 30 Tritton 1930: 101; Frey 1934: 299. 31 De Vaux 1938: 256–257. 32 Piccirillo 1984: 334, 340–341. 33 Crowfoot 1931: 4. 34 Smith and Day 1989: 48. 35 Schick and Suleiman 1991: 326–327. The inscription was first published by S.J. Saller (1948). 36 Brubaker and Haldon 2001: 35. 37 Yeivin 1993: 27; Amit 2003: 81. 38 The site excavators expressly state that two phases are evident in the southern church mosaic floor. They maintain that the builders of the later phase destroyed most of the early phase (Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2000: 228–229). 39 Baramki 1972: 152. 40 Netzer, Birger-Calderon and Feller 1993: 225. 41 Interpreting the act of replacing the floor as an iconoclastic act is tentatively suggested and other explanations are possible. 42 Piccirillo and Alliatta 1998: 363. 43 Peleg, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Ṭawas,” in this volume; Peleg and Batz, “A Byzantine Church at Khirbet Istabul (Aristobulias)”, in this volume. 44 Hamilton and Grabar 1959. 45 In the synagogue at Naʿaran, all images in the hall mosaic floor were defaced, except for two gazelles adjoining the central entrance of the hall (Avi-Yonah 1992). 46 Vasiliev 1956. 47 Schick 1995 reached a similar conclusion regarding the Christian sites. Piccirillo (1993: 42) alluded to the connection between iconoclastic defacement in churches and synagogues.

References Abel F.M. 1924. “Découvertes récentes à Beit-Djebrîn,” RB 33: 583–604. Abel F.M.1925. “Église byzantine au Khirbet Hebeileh,” RB 34: 279–282. Amit D. 1994. “Iconoclasm in Ancient Synagogues in Eretz Israel,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, June 22–29, 1993, Jerusalem, pp. 9–16 (Hebrew). Amit D. 2003. The Synagouges of Hurbat Maʿon and Hurbat

ʿAnin and the Jewish Settlement in the Southern Hebron Hills, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Andersen F.G.1985. Shiloh, Copenhagen. Avi-Yonah M. 1971. “Synagogue Architecture in the Late Classical Period,” in B.C. Roth (ed.), Jewish Art. An Illustrated History, Jerusalem, pp. 65–82. Avi-Yonah M. 1993. “Naʿaran,” NEAEHL 3: 1075–1076. Barag D., Porat Y., and Netzer E. 1981. “The Synagogue

[492]

ICONOCLASM IN CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES IN JUDEA

at ʿEn-Gedi,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 116–119. Baramki D.C. 1934. “An Early Christian Basilica at ʿEin Ḥanniya,” 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 Christian ʿAsida,” QDAP 3: 17–19. Besonen J. 2001. “The Yattir Mosaic—A Visual Journey to Christ,” BAR 27/4: 37–43. Brubaker L. and Haldon J. 2001. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680–850): The Sources, Cornwall. Crowfoot J.W. 1931. Churches at Jerash, London. Dadon M. 2012. “The ‘Basilica Church’ at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 223–234. Derfler S. 2003. “The Byzantine Church at Tel Kerioth and Religious Iconoclasm in the 8th Century,” ARAM 15: 39–47. Derfler S., and Govrin Y. 1993. “Tel Kerioth, 1992,” IEJ 43: 263–267. Di Segni L. 1992. “The Date of the Church of the Virgin in Madaba,” LA 42: 251–257. Eshel H., Magness J., and Shenhav E. 2000. “A Byzantine Monastic Church at Khirbet Yattir,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceeding of the 9th Annual meeting—2000, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 227–232 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XXII–XXIII). Eshel H., Magness J., and Shenhav E. 2001a. “Surprises at Yattir—Unexpected Evidence of Early Christianity,” BAR 27/4: 33–36. Eshel H., Magness J., and Shenhav E. 2001b. “Byzantine Period Churches at Horvat Yatir and their Similarity to the Churches at Horvat Hof,” in A.M. Maeir and E. Baruch, Settlement, Civilization and Culture. Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon. Ramt-Gan 2001, pp. 223–233 (Hebrew). Fine S. 2000. “Iconoclasm and the Art of Late-Antique Palestinian Synagogues,” in L.I. Levine, and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 183–194. Frey J.B. 1934. “La question des images chez les Juifs a la lumière des eécentes découvertes,” Biblica 15: 265–300. Gofna R. and Zvilichovsky V. 1959. “Roglit,” IEJ 9: 143. Govrin Y. 1993. “Tel Qerayot—1991,” ESI 13: 112–113. Grabar O. 1957. “L’interdiction des images et l’art de palais a Byzance et dans l’Islam ancien,” AIBL: 393–401. Grabar O. 1977. “Islam and Iconoclasm,” in A. Bryer and J. Herrin (eds.), Iconoclasm, Birmingham, pp. 45–52. Gudovitch S. 1996. “A Byzantine Building at the Foot of Horbat Sokho,” ʿAtiqot 28: 17* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 19).

Gutman S., Yeivin Z., and Netzer E. 1972. “Excavations in the Synagogue at Khirbet Susiya”, Qadmoniot 18: 47–52 (Hebrew). Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structures and Their Relationship with the Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Pavements, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Harvey W. 1935. Structural Survey of the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, London. Hamilton R.W. and Garbar O. 1959. Khirbat al-Mafjar, Oxford. Hieromonachos P. (Іеромонахъ Ф.) 1937.“Аинъ – Каремъ или Бетъ–Захаръ?,” Sviataia Zemlia (The Holy Land) IV(1): 10–16 (Russian). Jakobs P.H.F. 1995. “Reste einer byzantinichen siedlung Bei Beit-Jimal,” in Akten Des XII. Internationalen Kongresses Für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22–28.9.1991, Münster, pp. 873–880. Kjaer H. 1930. The Excavation of Shilo, Jerusalem. Klein S. 1935. The History of the Jewish Settlement in the Land of Israel, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1993. “A Byzantine Church at Maresha (Beit Govrin),” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 261–264. Magen Y. and Aharonovich E. 2012. “The Northern Churches at Shiloh,” in Christians and Christianity III: Churches and Monasteries in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 15), Jerusalem, pp. 161–208. Mayer L.A. and Reifenberg A. 1936. “The Jewish Buildings of Nawe,” Bulletin of the Jewish Exploration Society IV (1–2): 1–8. 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. 1987. “Mosaic Art in Ancient Synagogues of Eretz-Israel,” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, and U. Rappaport (eds.), Synagogues in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 185–203 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XII–XIII). Ovadiah A., Ovadiah R., and Gudovitz S. 1976. “Une église Byzantine a Mattaʿ,” RB 83: 421–431. 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. Paret R. 1976–1977. “Die Enstehungszeit des Islamischen Bilderverbots,” KO 11:158–181. Piccirillo M. 1984. “The Umayyad Churches of Jordan,” ADAJ 28: 333–341. Piccirillo M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman. Piccirillo M. and Alliata E. 1998. Mount Nebo. New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 27), Jerusalem.

[493]

Y. P E L E G

Saller S.J. 1948. “An Eighth-Century Christian Inscription at El-Quweisme, Near Amman, Trans-Jordan,” JPOS 21: 138–147. Sahas D.J. 1986. Icons and Logos: Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, Toronto. Schick R. 1995. The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islam Rule, New Jersey. Schick R. and Suleiman E. 1991. “Preliminary Report of the Excavations of the Lower Church at El-Quweisma, 1989,” ADAJ 35: 325–335. Sharon M. 1986. “The Cities of the Holy Land under Islamic Rule,” Cathedra 40: 83–120 (Hebrew). Shenhav A. 2003. “Horvat Hanot. A Byzantine Tradition of Goliath’s Burial Place,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and L. D. Chrupcata (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 269–272. Smith R.H. and Day L.P. 1989. Pella of the Decapolis II, Wooster. Stern Y. 1996. “Figurative Art and Halakha in the Mishnaic– Talmodic Period,” Zion 61: 397–419 (Hebrew). Strus A. 2003. Khirbet Fattir—Bet Gemal, Roma. Sukenik E. 1975. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha. An Account of the Excavations Conducted on Behalf of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Hildesheim. Tritton A.S. 1930. The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, London. Tsafrir Y. 1982. “The Provinciae in the Land of Israel: Names, Boundaries, and Administrative Areas,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, and M. Stern, Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple Period to the Muslim Conquest, Jerusalem, pp. 350–386 (Hebrew).

Tsafrir Y. 1984. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest. Archaeology and Art, Jerusalem. Tsafrir Y. and Hirschfeld Y. 1979. “The Church and Mosaics at Horvat Berachot, Israel,” DOP 33: 295–326. Tsafrir Y. and Hirschfeld Y. 1993. “The Byzantine Church at Ḥ orvat Berachot,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, pp. 207–218. Urman D. 1988. “Historical Names and Bounderies in the Southern Shefelah,” in E. Stern and D. Urman (eds.), Man and Environment in the Southern Shefelah. Studies in Regional Geography and History, Givatayim, pp. 151–162 (Hebrew) Vasiliev A.A. 1956. “The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A.D. 721,” DOP 9–10: 25–47. Vaux R. de. 1938. “Une mosaïque byzantine a Màʿin (Transjordanie),” RB 47: 227–258. Vincent L.H. 1903. “Les ruines de Beit Chaʿâr,” RB 12: 612–614. Vincent L.H. 1910. “Une mosaïque byzantine à Bettir,” RB 19: 254–261. Vincent L.H. 1922. “Une villa gréco-romain à Beit Djebrîn,” RB 31: 259–281. Vincent L.H. 1939. “L’église byzantine de Hebeileh,” RB 48: 87–90. Yeivin Z. 1993. Horvat Susya. A Jewish Town from the Talmudic Period, Jerusalem, pp. 28–31 (Hebrew). Yeivin Z. 2005. “The Synagogue at Eshtemoaʿ in Light of the 1969 Excavations,” ʿAtiqot 48: 46–48 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 155*). Zvilichovsky V. 1960. “Roglit,” RB 67: 401–402.

[494]

COLOR PLATES

P late I

ʿAnab el-Kabir, church, view from the west.

ʿAnab el-Kabir, intercolumnar mosaic carpet.

[496]

P late I I

ʿAnab el-Kabir, conch and buds designs, nave mosaic floor.

[497]

P late I I I

ʿAnab el-Kabir, intercolumnar mosaic carpets.

[498]

P late I V

ʿAnab el-Kabir, intercolumnar mosaic carpet.

[499]

P late V

Beit ʿAnun, central church, chapel mosaic floor.

Beit ʿAnun, central church, diamond pattern, nave mosaic floor.

[500]

P late V I

Beit ʿAnun, central church, diamond with a volute in its center and an axe on either side, nave mosaic floor.

Beit ʿAnun, central church, diamond pattern, nave mosaic floor.

[501]

P late V I I

Beit ʿAnun, northern church, intercolumnar mosaic carpets.

[502]

P late V I I I

Beit ʿAnun, northern church, fruit, chancel mosaic floor.

Beit ʿAnun, northern church, entwined swastika meanders, chancel mosaic floor.

[503]

P late I X

Khirbet Umm Deimine, chapel mosaic floor.

[504]

P late X

Khirbet Umm Deimine, amphora with emanating grape tendrils, chapel mosaic floor.

Khirbet Umm Deimine, defaced rooster, chapel mosaic floor.

[505]

P late X I I

Khirbet el-Qaṣr, chapel mosaic floor.

[506]