Caesarea Maritima, Volume I. Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings. Part 2: The Finds 9789654065214, 9789654065955, 9654065215

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 57 The Israel Antiquities Authority Excavation Project at Caesarea 1992–1998

Caesarea Maritima Volume I Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings Part 2: The Finds

Yosef Porath

With contributions by Gabriela Bijovsky, Hannah M. Cotton, Werner Eck, Gerald Finkielsztejn, Peter Gendelman, Rivka Gersht, Yael Gorin-Rosen, Karmit Gur, Natalya Katsnelson and Omri Lernau

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2015

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Judith Ben-Michael Series and Production Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume Editor: Ezra S. Marcus Production Coordinator: Lori Lender Front Cover: View of Caesarea (Ofek Aerial Photography, 1996). Back Cover: General view of the south part of the circus and ampitheater; above and below, various finds (finds’ photographers, P. Gendelman and A. Peri) Cover Design, Production, Layout and Typesetting: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav Illustrations: Natalya Zak Printing: Art Plus Ltd., Jerusalem Copyright © 2015, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-521-4 eISBN 9789654065955 www.antiquities.org.il

Contents

Abbreviations

iv

Chapter 1: Introduction

Yosef Porath

1

Chapter 2: The Oil lamps

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

3

Chapter 3: The Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Peter Gendelman

25

Chapter 4: The Stamped Amphorae from the IAA Excavations (1992–1998)

Gerald Finkielsztejn

63

Chapter 5: The Coins

Gabriela Bijovsky

73

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

111

Chapter 7: The Sculpture uncovered in herod’S CIRCUS AND RELATED BUILDINGS

Rivka Gersht

139

Chapter 8: The Greek Inscriptions from the Shrine

Hannah M. Cotton and Werner Eck

197

Chapter 9: Fish bones from a cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

Omri Lernau

203

Appendix 1: Additions to the Locus List

217

iv

Abbreviations

AASOR ABSA ADAJ AJA ANRW Ant. Ashdod I Ashdod II–III ‛Atiqot (ES) ‛Atiqot (HS) BA BAR Int. S. BASOR Suppl. BCH BMB Caesarea I, 1 Caesarea I, 3 CIG CIIP I

CIIP II

ESI IAA Reports IEJ INJ JAOS JDAI JGS JHS

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the British School at Athens Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Journal of Archaeology Aufstieg und Niedergand der römischen Welt Josephus. Jewish Antiquities M. Dothan. Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations 1962 (‘Atiqot [ES] 7). Jerusalem 1967 M. Dothan. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965; Soundings in 1967 (‘Atiqot [ES] 9–10). Jerusalem 1971 English Series Hebrew Series Biblical Archaeologist British Archaeological Reports International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique Bulletin de Musée de Beyrouth Y. Porath. Caesarea Maritima I: Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings Part 1: Architecture and Stratigraphy (IAA Reports 53). Jerusalem 2013 Y. Porath and P. Gendelman. Caesarea Maritima I: Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings Part 3: The Pottery (IAA Reports). Jerusalem forthcoming Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum H.M. Cotton, L. De Segni, W. Eck, B. Isaac, A. Kushnir-Stein, H. Misgav, J. Price, I. Roll and A. Yardeni eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae I: Jerusalem (2 parts) Berlin–Boston 2010, 2012 W. Ameling, H.M. Cotton, W. Eck, B. Isaac, A. Kushnir-Stein, H. Misgav, J. Price and A. Yardeni eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae II: Caesarea and the Middle Coast 1121–2160. Berlin–Boston 2011 Excavations and Surveys in Israel Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Jahrbuch des deutschen archälogischen Instituts Journal of Glass Studies Journal of Hellenic Studies

v JRA JRS LA LIMC OCD PEQ QDAP RB RDAC SAOC SBF War ZDPV

Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Liber Annuus Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zurich S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford–New York 1996 Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Biblique Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Josephus. The Jewish War Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Abbreviations Used in this Volume CCE Combined Caesarea Excavation IAA Israel Antiquities Authority JECM Joint Excavation Caesarea Maritima

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 1

I ntroduction Yosef Porath

This volume presents a major portion of the finds revealed during the excavation of Herod’s Circus and the adjacent buildings (see Caesarea I, 1). The project’s approach to publication has been to present the pottery, oil lamps, the glass and the archaeozoological remains from selected loci, with priority given to sealed loci whose absolute chronology is based, wherever possible, on coins.1 A special effort was invested in studying the vast fill that completely closed the deep depression that separated the East Cavea of Herod’s Circus from the adjacent higher topography at the beginning of Stratum VIC (L1612 and other loci; see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4). Caesarea Maritima and Sebastos, the city and its artificial harbor, respectively, were initiated and constructed under the Jewish king Herod ‘The Great’ in 22–10 BCE. They functioned as the gateway for Roman culture into Herodian Judea. This Romanization process at Caesarea increased in speed and volume after Archaelaus, Herod’s son, was removed from the throne in 6 CE. Caesarea, rather than Jerusalem, was preferred by Roman authorities as the capital of Roman Judea and the seat of its governor. Thus, it became the political and economic heart of Judea (later Palestine). During the first century of its existence, the city experienced a construction boom, which has been observed wherever the archaeological spade reached the relevant stratum. Herod’s Circus, the Roman style entertainment facility initiated by Herod and further developed under the Roman governors, is a typical example for this process. In general, the destruction caused to Judean cities and villages by the oppression of the ‘Jewish War against Rome’ (66–70 CE), which culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, serves as a key juncture for the study of the material culture in the Roman period. The century prior to this oppression, i.e., the Early Imperial Roman period, is largely devoid of catastrophes that might support a division of this period into subphases according to stratigraphically

based elements in the local material culture. The results of the IAA excavations (1992–1998) at Herod’s Circus offer an opportunity for such a subdivision. The soil used for the filling project of the depression east of the Herodian entertainment facility brought with it a vast amount of finds, primarily pottery, glass and coins. These are dated to a period contemporary with the fill or derived from earlier periods. The project was carried out during the first quarter of the first century CE and, following the stratigraphic sequence and the latest coin found within the fill, allows the drawing of a material cultural line in the Early Roman period, at about 20 CE. A byproduct of the study of this vast fill is the observation of very minimal existence of finds dated solely to the first half of the first century BCE. This evidence supports Flavius Josephus’ statements regarding the conquest of Zoilos’s domain, i.e., Dor and Straton’s Tower, by the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus at about 102 BCE (Josephus, Ant. XIII.335), and the location’s status as a “dilapidated city” until Herod decided to replace the Hellenistic city with Caesarea and its artificial harbor Sebastos (Josephus, Ant. XV.331–341; War I.408–415). The finds for publication from Herod’s Circus and the adjacent buildings are numerous and multifarious. Therefore, from this perspective, it was decided to arrange the finds in two volumes. This volume presents eight aspects: lamps; terracotta statuary, masks, plastic vases and portable altars; stamped amphorae; coins; glass vessels; sculpture; Greek inscriptions; and an archaeoichthylogical study. The subsequent volume will consist of the pottery vessels and an Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) study of the Eastern Terra Sigillata pottery found in the massive fill of early Stratum VIC. I wish to thank all those, too numerous to name individually, who were involved in the long journey beginning with the physical work of excavation, supported by the remarkable staff in the office and laboratories, to the scientists who contributed their

2

Yosef Porath

knowledge and time, and the editors and staff of the IAA Production Department, who diligently and methodically helped bring this work to publication. I

hope this volume, the result of such a collective effort, contributes to the acquaintance and the understanding of the archaeology of our country.

note 1 Only the archaeoichthyological results are presented here; plans to study the other faunal remains were abandoned owing to budgetary limitations.

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 2

The Oil Lamps Yosef Porath and K armit Gur

A large number of mainly fragmentary oil lamps from the Hellenistic and the Roman periods were found in the area of Herod’s Circus. Most of them were deposited during filling projects, beginning with the initial construction (Stratum VII) and throughout the numerous renovations (Stratum VI); only some were left intact by their users.1

Strata VII–VIC Hellenistic Lamps Fragments of Hellenistic lamps, which probably originated in the area of Straton’s Tower, were discovered in the fill material of Herod’s Circus, in both Strata VII and VIC. They occur in very small amounts in comparison to the Early Roman lamps (see below). Wheel-Made Lamps Only a few fragments of Hellenistic wheel-made lamps were found—mainly in the massive fill east of Herod’s Circus that opened Stratum VIC: Form C5H/1. This form is represented by a single fragment of a folded lamp (Fig. 2.1:1). This type is common in Judea in the second and first centuries BCE until Herod’s time (Sellers 1933:51, Fig. 41; Grant and Wright 1939:142; Sellers et al. 1968:79, Fig. 29; Avigad 1970:140; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:79, Types 329–330; Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:11–13, Type A). This example is made of a fine, buff and well-fired fabric containing few lime grits and no sandy particles; it seems to be a product of Judea.2 Form C5H/6. This form is represented by a reservoir fragment (Fig. 2.1:2) with an omphalos. It is made of a fine reddish yellow fabric with a red-slipped interior. It is equivalent to Broneer Type VII–VIII and is probably an Attic product, dated not later than the third century BCE

(Broneer 1930:45–47, Fig. 14:31–36, Pl. III; Howland 1958:67–82, Pls. 9–11, 39; Bailey 1975: Pls. 81:Q393– Q402, 83:Q429–Q435). A few similar lamps were excavated at nearby Tel Dor, where they are dated to 420–290 BCE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:324, Type 5, Fig. 5.13:1–5). Form C5H/8. This form is represented by a nozzle fragment (Fig 2.1:3). It is made of a soft, fine and unglazed fabric, similar to Broneer Types V–VIII, and is probably a local or regional product that is dated from the fourth to the second centuries BCE (Broneer 1930:47–49; Crowfoot 1957:367; Howland 1958:70– 77; Bailey 1975:175–177; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:10–11; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:235, Type 6, Figs. 5.13:9–10, 5.14:1–8). Form C5H/9. This form is represented by a largely restorable example (Fig. 2.1:4) with a double convex body on a high disc-base, a small sunken disc, a long flared nozzle and a loop handle (broken) and is made of a hardfired gray fabric. It is probably a Knidian product dated from the second century to the first quarter of the first century BCE (Howland 1958:126–127; Bailey 1975:124, 151–158, Nos. Q330–336, 337–360, Pls. 62–67). Radial Molded Lamps Several forms of Hellenistic radial molded lamps were found in the Stratum VIC fills. Most of them are known to continue into the Early Roman period. Form C5H/11. This form is represented by two fragments (Fig. 2.1:5, 6) from the shoulder and nozzle of a double concave(?) body with a curved shoulder, a small sunken filling hole surrounded by one to two low ridges, and a long nozzle that is rounded and widened at the edge. The red-slipped surface is decorated with a herringbone design on the shoulder, sometimes with an added floral design (palmette or flower); with an arched line and volutes between the filling hole and the nozzle;

4

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

and with lines on the nozzle, sometimes terminating with volutes. Similar lamps were uncovered at the supposed location of Straton’s Tower (Frova 1965: Fig. 336). This form is the typical second-century BCE

lamp at Dor (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:238, Type 12.1, Fig. 5.16:11). A similar black-slipped lamp was dated at Tarsus to “second century BCE to the Augustan period” (Goldman and Jones 1950:89–90, Group VI).

3

1

2

5

4

0

6

4

Fig. 2.1. Early Stratum VIC, Hellenistic lamps. No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

1

1612

96083/2

C5H/1

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6; well-levigated; some calcite grits

2

1612

96061/1

C5H/6

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6; well-levigated; red slip

3

1612

96123/10

C5H/8

Pink 5YR 7/3; soft clay; some grits

4

7419

97150

C5H/9

Gray 10YR 5/1; well-levigated; hard

5

7412

97106/38

C5H/11

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6; fine clay; some grits; red slip

6

1612

96239/51

C5H/11

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6; many grits; red slip

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

As such, this lamp may be ascribed to Hellenistic Straton’s Tower rather than Herod’s Caesarea. Form C5H-R/15. This form is represented by five lamps (Fig. 2.2:1–5) that have a double concave body on a low ring base, a large filling hole, a sunken disc surrounded by one to three ridges (some discs have several narrow holes on the perimeter), a flared or rounded long nozzle and a high loop handle at the rear. The lamps can be decorated with floral and geometrical motifs and sometimes with dolphins (Fig. 2.2:4) on the shoulder and the nozzle, and with 3–5 plain or ‘braidlike’ longitudinal ridges on the handle (Fig. 2.2:2, 5). The form is similar to Broneer Type XIX (Broneer 1930:66–70), which covers a wide range of lamps made of a fine gray metallic-fired fabric devoid of slip.3 It is R.H. Howland’s suggestion that they were imitations of metal lamps (Howland 1958:166). The C5H-R/15 lamps are very common in Asia Minor—particularly at Ephesus, where they apparently originated (Broneer 1930:69–70)—since the beginning of the second century BCE (Goldman and Jones 1950:84–85, Pl. 94:45, 47). Such lamps were uncovered at Corinth in buildings destroyed in 146 BCE, but mainly after the city’s renovation by Caesar, until they went out of fashion in Augustan times (Broneer 1930:69–70). Similar lamps from the Athenian Agora were dated from the second quarter of the second century BCE to the first quarter of the first century CE (Howland 1958:166–168, Type 49A, Pl. 49). At Samaria, they were generally dated to the second and first centuries BCE (Crowfoot 1957:365, 370, Fig. 87:5). The rounded and thickened nozzle (Fig. 2.2:3) is considered a later variant (Bailey

5

1975:89–90); examples were found at Athens in the stratum postdating Sulla’s conquest in 86 BCE (Howland 1958:167) and are common at Corinth in the second half of the first century BCE (Broneer 1930:68, 162). Given the fact that the area of Caesarea was largely uninhabited during the first century BCE, prior to Herod’s founding of Caesarea, it appears that the relatively large number of Form C5H-R/15 lamps in the early Stratum VIC fills was imported to Early Roman Caesarea rather than to the preceding Hellenistic Straton’s Tower. Form C5H-R/16. This form is represented by a rear fragment that has several small holes on the perimeter of an oblate(?) discus surrounded by a low ridge and a loop handle decorated with a ‘braid-like’ design. It is made of a sandy fabric devoid of slip (Fig. 2.2:6) and seems to be an imitation of Form C5H-R/15. Lamps with several holes on the disc and a similar handle on the right side probably originated in Egypt and are dated to the second half of the first century BCE to the first century CE (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: Nos. 238, 239, with references; Bailey 1975: Pl. 110:Q571–Q576). Form C5H-R/21. This form is represented by a lamp with a double-convex body, a large filling hole surrounded by 1–2 ridges and a long nozzle flattened at its edge (Fig. 2.2:7). It is decorated with geometric designs, was made from worn molds and is of a soft fabric with a brown-red slip. It is common at first century BCE (late Hellenistic to Early Roman period) Judean sites, such as Jerusalem and Masada (Avigad 1970:140; Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:14–16, 19–24, Fig. 2, Type BII, with references) and is considered

Fig. 2.2 ► No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

1

1612

95442

C5H-R/15

Gray 2.5YR N5/; hard clay

2

1612

97162

C5H-R/15

Light gray 5YR 7/1; hard clay

3

1612

94945/25

C5H-R/15

Light gray 5YR 7/1; hard clay

4

1612

97073

C5H-R/15

Light gray 5YR 7/1; hard clay

5

1612

97084/191

C5H-R5/15

Light gray 5YR 7/1; hard clay

6

1612

96978/97

C5H-R5/16

Reduced firing; light red 10R6/8 exterior; gray 2.5YR N6/ core and interior; sandy clay; white grits

7

1612

16014

C5H-R/21

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 fine clay; brown red slip

8

1612

96113

C5H/31

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 fine clay; many grits

9

7412

96926/60

C5H/35

Pinkish white 5YR 8/2 clay; some grits; red slip

10

7420

97130/8

C5H/35

Pinkish white 5YR 8/2 clay; some grits; red slip

6

2

1

4

3

5

0

8

7

6

4

9

Fig. 2.2. Early Stratum VIC, Hellenistic lamps.

10

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

a local product in Judea (perhaps a local evolution of Form C5H/11?). Neutron Activation Analysis of examples from Masada indeed demonstrate that ten out of the eleven lamps were made of Judean clay, while the lone exception is from a clay typical of the northern Sharon or the Carmel coastal plain (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994); however, note that no examples are known from Areas A and C at nearby Tel Dor. The examples presented here, which were found in Herod’s Circus, apparently originated in Herodian Caesarea (Stratum VII) and not earlier. Polycandelon Form C5H/31. This form is represented by a single fragment of a handmade ‘box-shaped’ polycandelon (Fig. 2.2:8) and is made of a reddish yellow fabric containing many white grits. The single preserved nozzle has a narrow, long shape and a square profile resembling that of Hellenistic lamps (such as Form C5H5/8, above). No parallel is known. Form C5H/35. This form is represented by the top fragments of a molded ‘star-shaped’ polycandelon with 5–7 nozzles (Fig. 2.2:9, 10) and a large filling hole surrounded by a ridge; they are made of a friable fabric containing lime and pottery grits and are red slipped, and the top surface is decorated with geometric designs. A similar triple-nozzle lamp was found in a burial cave at Geva/Abu Shusha, dated to the second– first centuries BCE (Sussman 1988:106–107, No. 8). A similar seven-nozzle lamp was found at Tel Dor, dated to the late second to the early first centuries BCE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:241–242, Fig. 5.19:2, Type 16.4.) and all seem to be part of a local or regional imitation of the ‘star-shaped’ polycandelon originally produced in Asia Minor and found in the Sharon and the Carmel coast and at Samaria/Sebaste (Crowfoot 1957:371, Fig. 87:9). Early Roman Lamps A large variety of Early Roman lamps, imported and locally made, were excavated in the Stratum VI deposits, mainly in the early Stratum VIC fills. Wheel-Made Lamps Form C5R/51. This form is represented by a lamp (Fig. 2.3:1) with a wide, rounded lower and oblate upper shoulder, a broad rim around a central large filling hole (usually surrounded by a ridge), and a splayed

7

nozzle that was attached to the body before the wickhole between the body and nozzle was perforated.4 The nozzle and its join area—and in several cases, the bottom of the body as well—were knife-pared and made of diverse fabrics, containing many small white calcite grits, but no sand inclusions; the complete absence of quartz sand suggests they were all produced elsewhere, probably in Judea. These examples were found in the early Stratum VIC fills as refuse, but were apparently produced in Stratum VII and are devoid of any decoration, handle or ring-base. Even the decorative perpendicular grooves on the nozzle or circle designs, which became common in the following phase (late Stratum VIC and Stratum VIB) and are known from other Early Roman sites (such as Masada, cf. Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: Nos. 39–43, 46–57) are absent (cf. Stratum VI Variant C5R/51a, below). These lamps were very popular in the Early Roman period, from the second half of the first century BCE to the first half of the second century CE, and have been uncovered in abundant numbers at several sites. They have been classified as ‘Herodian lamps’ (Sellers and Baramki 1953:31), Type 22 at Tel Dor (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:243–244, Fig. 5.21:1– 8), and ‘Wheel-made knife-pared lamps’ at Masada, where they were discussed and classified (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:24–58). Two hundred fifty-one nozzle fragments of Form C5R/51 were found in the Stratum VII and the early Stratum VIC deposits, but none was intact. The evidence from Herod’s Circus supports the proposal that the earlier lamps of this form were undecorated (cf. Kahane 1961:136–137; Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:43, 47, Type CI). Form C5R/53. This form is represented by two ‘bootshaped’ lamps (Fig. 2.3:2, 3) with a lenticular body on a delicate thin double ring-base. It has a characteristically high, bow-shaped collar—up to one-third of the lamp’s height—that encircles the large filling hole. The nozzle, which was made separately and attached to the body at a knife-cut hole, is elongated and round, and narrows toward the edge. A wide ribbon handle from the collar to the body is decorated with three longitudinal grooves. The lamps are made of a fine fabric containing white calcite grits, and one of the two examples is burnished on the exterior (Fig. 2.3:2). Similar lamps were found mainly in northern Palestine, such as in burial caves near Nazareth dated from the middle of the first to the middle of the second centuries CE (Bagatti 1967:

8

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

Fig. 192:15, Loffreda 1975: Pl. 48:10,11; Feig 1990:73–74, Figs. 10:9, 11:2); in a burial cave at Abila, dated 63 BCE–135 CE (Mare 1984:41, Fig. 99); at Tell Abu Shusha/Geva, dated to the first century CE (Sussman 1988:96, No. 51); and from the ancient boat in the Sea of Galilee dated between 50 BCE and 50 CE (Sussman 1990:97–98, Fig.12.1). However, only two

were recorded from Jerusalem (Sussman 1990:98). Sussman (1990:97) suggested that the shape originated in lamps from Ephesus (cf. Form C5H-R/15, above). Radial Mold-Made Lamps Form C5R/61. This form is represented by a splayed nozzle fragment (Fig. 2.3:4) with a concave body that

2

1

3

4 0

4

Fig. 2.3. Early Stratum VIC, Early Roman lamps. No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

1

1612

73241

C5R/51

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 fine clay; several white grits

2

7412

96015/40

C5R/53

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 face; gray 5YR 5/1 core; fine clay; several white grits; red slip and burnish

3

7412

95962/29

C5R/53

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 face; light gray 7.5YR N7/ core; fine clay; many white grits

4

1612

16117

C5R/61

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6; several white grits

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

9

is decorated with a wide unidentified element in relief (a large leaf or a subdivided lozenge?); the nozzle and the adjacent body were knife-pared, like Form C5R/51 lamps. It is made of a fine reddish yellow fabric containing white calcite grits (probably a product of Judea). The lamp seems to be the earliest known moldmade version of the Form C5R/51 Herodian lamp. The reconstructed shape of the fragment from Herod’s Circus is very similar to Form C5R/51 (see above with references), as well as its knife-pared finish. The C5R/61 lamp is devoid of a volute or a ‘winged projection’ on either side of the join between the splayed nozzle and the rounded body, typical of the local mold-made lamps known from the mid-first to mid-second centuries CE (for a detailed discussion, see Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:59–71, with references). If the decoration on the Caesarea fragment is actually a large leaf, it would herald the ‘Molded Lamps with Floral Decorations’, generally dated by Barag and Hershkovitz (1994:59–71) to the last century of the Second Temple of Jerusalem (destroyed 70 CE).

at the edge (Figs. 2.5, 2.6). It is frequently handle-less, and is mostly covered with black-brown slip (Fig. 2.5:1; equal to Loeschke Type I, Broneer Type XXII and Bailey Type AII). The disc is decorated with floral, animal, human or mythological motifs in relief (Figs. 2.5, 2.6), and gradually rises toward the perimeter. A volute decorates each side of the nozzle. Form C5R/72 lamps were made of diverse fabrics, as Form C5R/71 (Fig. 2.6:4), first in Italy and later imitated in the provinces. Some bear potter’s inscriptions or marks on the exterior of the base (see below) These lamps were very popular throughout the Roman Empire from Augustan times to the Flavian period (Broneer 1930:74, 76–78; Perlzweig 1961:71– 78; Oziol 1977:75–112; Bailey 1988:133–141, 217, 233–234, 277) and it is the most popular shape amongst the imported lamps in the Stratum VIC deposits as well. None of the nozzle fragments of these lamps has the rounded shape of Broneer Type XXIII, which became very popular in the second quarter of the first century CE; therefore, it supports an Augustan date for this group (Broneer 1930:78–79).

Form C5R/71. This form is represented by fragments of six large lamps (13–20 cm long) that have a concave body, a slightly to deeply sunken disc, a low ringbase, usually one or two long nozzles and a vertical lug-handle frequently bearing a ‘shield’ (Fig. 2.4); it is equivalent to Loeschcke (1919) Type III, Broneer Type XXI and Bailey Type DII. The ‘shield’ was made in a separate mold and added above the lug handle, following late Hellenistic metal prototypes (Broneer 1930:73). The lamps were produced of diverse fabrics in Italy (cf. the description in Fig. 2.4) and imitated elsewhere. Most of the lamps were covered with a black-brown slip of varying appearance. The large ‘shield’ is frequently decorated with floral (Figs. 2.4:1, 3, 4) or figurative elements (Fig. 2.4:5); the nozzle (or nozzles), usually with displays of palmettes (Fig. 2.4:6) or floral motifs. The production date ranges from late first century BCE to mid-first century CE, mainly during Augustan times and the form continued to be produced until Claudius or Nero (Broneer 1930:73–74; Perlzweig 1961:74–75; Bailey 1988:200–206).

Lamps with Potter’s Inscriptions and Marks Twenty-eight fragments of oil lamps found in the early Stratum VI deposits bear inscriptions or marks that had been carved into the lamp’s lower mold. Twenty-one lamps bear the Latin inscription FAUSTI (or a portion of this name). Eighteen of these were found in clear Stratum VIC deposits; an additional three derive from disturbed loci. Several oil lamps from Caesarea with the same inscription were published (such as Frova 1965: Fig. 334; Sussman 1999:120, Figs. 6, 7). The inscriptions of Faustus express that these lamps (or the molds) were produced either by him or in his workshop (Lynch 1995). All the examples from Caesarea seem to bear an identical inscription, but were made of diverse fabrics, and, therefore, it is uncertain whether they were all made at one workshop.5 A fragment of an Italian lamp was found at Masada, but its provenance and stratigraphy are not mentioned (Bailey 1994:97, Fig. 26). The Fausti lamps are dated elsewhere from late first century BCE to the early first century CE (the reign of Augustus and probably Tiberius as well). Those produced in Egypt are considered slightly later (Bailey 1994). All the stratigraphically reliable Fausti lamps derive from early Stratum VIC deposits. Thus, as refuse deposited in the massive fills, they may point

Form C5R/72. This form is represented by fifteen lamps that have a concave body on a low ring-base, a sunken disc with a graded rim and a large wide nozzle flaring

10

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

2

1

3

0

4

5

6

Fig. 2.4. Early Stratum VIC, Early Roman lamps.

4

11

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

to an Augustan, rather than a Tiberian, date for their production. Four fragments of Forms C5R/71 and C5R/72 bear letters that were carved into the lamp’s lower mold in bas relief, each one of a single inscription: (1) YEY (Fig. 2.5:3); (2) . . . AC (B16033; not illustrated); (3) C.F

(B73271/23; not illustrated); and (4) H (B95869; not illustrated). Three additional inscriptions are illegible. The other marks found in the Stratum VI deposits consist of two lamps with a leaf imprint (Fig. 2.5:1) and another one with a cross imprint on the bottom exterior.

◄ Fig. 2.4 No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

Remarks

1

609, 1612

9942, 96013

C5R/71

Very pale brown 10Y 8/3 clay; gray-brown slip

Handle reconstructed from two fragments made on the same mold

2

1612

16661

C5R/71

Pink 7.5YR 8/4 clay; brown-gray slip on exterior body

3

1612

15462

C5R/71

Very pale brown 10Y 8/3 clay; some micaceous grits; gray-brown slip

Hollowed mold-made handle; ‘shield’

4

1612

16803

C5R/71

Oxidized pink 5YR 8/4 light gray 7.5YR N7/ core; white and gray grits

Solid mold-made handle; ‘shield’

5

1612

97086

C5R/71

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 fine clay; dark gray slip

Hollowed mold-made handle; ‘shield’

6

1612

16597

C5R/71

Very pale brown 10YR 8/4 fine clay; brown-gray slip on exterior

No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

Remarks

1

1612

16850

C5R/72

Very pale brown 10YR 8/4 fine clay; gray-brown slip on exterior

Leaf imprint on bottom exterior

2

1612

71984

C5R/72

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/8 fine clay; some white grits; brown-red slip on exterior

3

1612

71970

C5R/72

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 fine clay; red-brown slip on body exterior

No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

Remarks

1

Sq K/94

95517

C5R/72

Pink 7.5YR 8/4 fine clay; gray-brown slip on exterior and inside nozzle

Mixed/unclear fill above L1612

2

7065

71658/2

C5R/72

Pinkish-white 7.5YR 8/2 fine clay; traces of graybrown slip on exterior

3

1612

95338/23

C5R/72

White 10YR 8/2 fine clay; traces of brown-gray slip on exterior

Two vine branches with grape clusters tied together on discus

4

1612

16684

C5R/72

White 10YR 8/2 fine clay; light gray slip on exterior

Grasshopper on vine branch with grape cluster on discus

5

1612

95756

C5R/72

Pink 7.5YR 8/4 fine clay; brown-red slip on exterior

Human figure on discus

6

1612

95815

C5R/72

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 fine clay

Lion attacking on discus

7

1612

95819

C5R/72

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 fine clay; red slip on exterior and around eye interior

Romulus and Remus suckling the she-wolf

8

1612

95359

C5R/72

White 10YR 8/2 fine clay; brown slip on exterior

Seated male figure

9

1612

73043

C5R/72

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 fine clay; red slip on exterior and patches on interior

Tiger attacking calf

10

1612

73052

C5R/72

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 clay; many white grits

Lion

11

1612

16297

C5R/72

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 fine clay

Monkey in a seated position

12

1612

95467/15

C5R/72

Pinkish-white 5YR 8/3 fine clay; gray-brown slip on exterior

Vulture?

Fig. 2.5 ►

Greek imprint ΥΕΥ on bottom exterior; winged Nike on discus

Fig. 2.6 ►►

12

1

2

3

0

4

Fig. 2.5. Early Stratum VIC, Early Roman lamps.

13

1

3

2

4

5

8

7

6

11

9

10

12 0

4

Fig. 2.6. Early Stratum VIC, Early Roman lamps.

14

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

Stratum VI

functioned either as a hippodrome/circus or as an amphitheater.

Roman Lamps Only a few loci that architecturally belong to the Stratum VI facilities contained intact lamps or large fragments from undisturbed deposits. Therefore, the limited selection of the oil lamps from Stratum VI loci do not represent the real evolution of these forms at Caesarea during the period in which Herod’s Circus

Wheel-Made Lamps The radial wheel-made lamps of Form C5R/51 continue in use throughout Stratum VIC (Fig. 2.7:1). The decorated Variant C5R/51a first appears in the later Stratum VIC deposits.

1

2

3

4

5 0

4

Fig. 2.7. Stratum VI, Roman lamps. No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

1

3898

84494

C5R/51

White 10YR 8/2 fine clay; small white grits

2

6508

68696

C5R/51a

3

3898

84490

C5R/51a

4

3898

84494/1

C5R/51a

White 10YR 8/2 fine clay; white grits

5

3898

84494/2

C5R/62

Gray 10YR6/1 fine clay; small white grits; dark gray 10YR 4/1 surface

15

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

Variant C5R/51a. This variant is represented by three examples (Fig. 2.7:2–4) and has the same shape as C5R/51, but is decorated with one to three incised parallel grooves and/or a line of small dense dots, separating the nozzle and the reservoir. The grooves were achieved after paring with a pointed implement (the paring knife itself?) and the dots, with a roulette. Lamps with impressed circles on each side of the nozzle, a common contemporary decoration on Variant C5R/51a, were found elsewhere at Caesarea but not in loci of Herod’s Circus. The stratified evidence from Herod’s Circus suggests that the decorated variant was introduced somewhere in the beginning of the first century CE, while the form appeared about 25 BCE. The introduction of the decorated variant in Herod’s Circus is evinced in the later stage of Stratum VIC (Cesspit 3898); however, it is present in earlier stages of the same stratum in other complexes dated to the first century CE (cf. Porath and Gendelmen, in prep.; Porath, in prep.). Variant C5R/51a lamps from Dor, which are classified there as Type 22A, are also dated to the first century CE and not earlier (RosenthalHeginbottom 1995:243–244, Fig. 5.21:1–7). The decorated and undecorated versions of the wheel-made knife-pared lamps from Masada (the equivalent of Form C5R/51 and Variant C5R/51a) were discussed together (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:24–53). If the stratigraphical and chronological observations that Variant C5R/51a does not appear earlier than the first century CE are correct, it may serve for subdivision of the long production period of Form C5R/51. Radial Mold-Made Lamps Form C5R/62. This form is represented by a single shoulder fragment, decorated with a fruited twig of a two-leafed myrtle (Myrtus communis) and is made of a fine gray

fabric with a black surface (Fig. 2.7:5). The decoration and fabric correlate with Masada Class D: Molded Lamps with Floral Decoration (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:59–71), where one was decorated with a two-leafed wreath, and two others, with a three-leafed myrtle wreath (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: Nos. 104, 107, respectively).6 These lamps were made mainly in Judea and were used by the Zealots at Masada, i.e., produced before 70 CE (see Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:67–71). The evidence from Herod’s Circus, i.e., a later stage of Stratum VIC, fits the chronology of Class D at Masada. The imported radial mold-made lamp Forms C5R/71 and C5R/72, discussed above, were very popular in the Stratum VIC deposits (mainly fragments), and were subsequently replaced by the discus lamps (cf. Form C5R/73, below). Form C5R/73. This form is represented by five examples and reflects a wide variety of ‘discus’ lamps that were produced in east Mediterranean centers, equivalent to Type 26 at Tel Dor (RosenthalHeginbottom 1995:244–246). The more complete examples (Fig. 2.8) were excavated in the north corridor of the vomitorium of C1000 in Herod’s Circus and should probably be ascribed to Stratum VIA. The lamps have a sunken undecorated discus with a small filling hole surrounded by a high ridge, a high rounded shoulder and a small rounded nozzle. The shoulder is usually decorated with ovoles, double-axes, or foliated designs. Double volutes or circles decorate the join between shoulder and nozzle. The designs on the lamps of the later stage of L1621 and L1619 (Fig. 2.8:3, 4, respectively) are blurred. The date of Type 26 from Tel Dor, the last quarter of the first century to 150 CE, for the good-quality lamps, and second–third centuries CE

Fig. 2.8 ► No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

Remarks

1

1621

16415

C5R/73

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/8 fine clay; red 10R4/8-5/8 on exterior

letter B in relief on center of bottom exterior

2

1621

74029

C5R/73

Pale yellow 5Y 7/4 fine clay; traces of gray slip

imprint of B . . . inscription on bottom exterior

3

1621

73983

C5R/73

White 2.5Y 8/2 fine clay; flaking gray slip

4

1619

16346

C5R/73

White 2.5Y 8/2 fine clay; flaking gray slip

5

1619

16347

C5R/73

Pale yellow 2.5Y 8/4 fine clay; traces of brown-gray slip

16

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

2 1

3

4

0

4

Fig. 2.8. Stratum VI, Roman lamps.

5

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

for the declined ones (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:245), matches the chronology for Stratum VIA. Variant C5R/74a: An elegant example is characterized by a loop handle and a triple foot design on the bottom exterior (Fig. 2.9:1). It resembles the metal prototype it imitated. Form C5R/81. Two fragments of this lamp present a double-concave body with a small undecorated discus surrounded by a ridge, a long rounded nozzle and a raised loop handle (Fig. 2.9:2). The shoulder is decorated with two branches from the handle to the nozzle, each bearing a flower. The shape and decoration is typical of Deba‘al lamps of Phoenicia (Hajjar 1965: especially Pl. XXI:460). Similar lamps were found at Tel Dor (Type 28A), and are dated to 50–150 CE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995:246), and at Shiqmona (Elgavish 1977: Nos. 185–189). Radial(?) Mold-Made Polycandelon Form C5R/95. The reconstructed form of this shape is represented by a single mold-made shoulder fragment with remnants of four wick holes (out of 22 reconstructed), decorated with a foliate garland (Fig. 2.9:3); the reconstruction is based on a lamp from Knidus in the British Museum (Bailey 1975: Pl. 52:Q295). The fragment was found in a late Stratum VIA deposit, dated to the late second–third centuries CE, but seems to be a residual sherd from a much earlier period. A similar fragment from Berenice/Benghazi was found in a context dated to the last quarter of the first century CE, but assumed to be “probably first century BC” (Bailey 1985:8, No. C34, Pl. 2, Fig. 1). Lamps with Potter’s Inscriptions Some of the Form C5R/73 lamps bear potters’ marks, such as the letter ‘B’ in relief (see Fig. 2.8:1) and the broken imprinted inscription beginning with the letter ‘B’ (see Fig. 2.8:2).

17

Lamps Found in the W1780 Niches Nine complete oil lamps were found in the soil fill that accumulated in Niches 1856 (n = 7) and 1829 (n = 2), carved into W1780, the rear wall of the C2000 shrine, apparently during Stratum VIA (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapters 5 and 6; Plans 5.4, 5.5, Figs. 5.12, 5.13, Table 5.3). The other niches were empty of any artifacts. The group of lamps consists of few forms (Fig. 2.10); however, they share two characteristics: (1) all are mold-made; (2) their filling hole was either sealed and broken before use, or a very small hole was fashioned and enlarged to beyond the margin of the original rim. Form C5R-B/85. This form is represented by a single ovoid lamp on a flat base (Fig. 2.10:1). Its shoulder is decorated in stamped designs of palmettes and circles, and a discus decorated with radial scratches, with one extending along the triangular knob handle. The decorated discus was broken in antiquity and, as noted above, the nature of the filling hole is uncertain. These lamps are very rare at Caesarea, but common at Bet She‘arim (Avigad 1976:187–189, Pl. LXX:14–26) and, thus, known as the ‘Beth She‘arim Type’; and found in the northern parts of Israel (such as Hanita; cf. Barag 1978:40; Type 5 at Bet She’an-Scythopolis ; cf. Hadad 1997:152–153), where they are dated to the late third and fourth centuries CE.7 Form C5R-B/120. This lamp form is represented by one example (Fig. 2.10:2) whose shape is between radial and piriform and rests on a plain ring base. Its shoulder is decorated with geometric designs (here radial lines) and the plain broken discus is surrounded by a ridge; it has no handle.8 It is made of coarse sandy clay, indicating a local or regional production, and is red slipped. The shape resembles Form C5R/73 (see above) and the decoration of Form C5R-B/121 (see below), but without the knob handle typical of the C5R-B/121 lamps. The C5R-B/120 lamps are, thus, a transitional shape between the two forms and seem

Fig. 2.9 ► No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

1

3898

84497

C5R/74a

Light gray 5Y 7/2 fine clay; variable gray slip on exterior and a patch on nozzle interior

2

1621

74082

C5R/81

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 fine clay

3

1619

16343

C5R/95

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/3–6/4; gray slip on exterior

18

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

2

0

1

3

Fig. 2.9. Stratum VI, Roman lamps.

4

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

2

1

3

4

5 6 0

4

Fig. 2.10. Late Roman-Byzantine lamps found in niches carved into W1081.

19

20

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

7

8

9 0

4

Fig. 2.10 (cont.). No.

Locus

Basket

Form

Description

Remarks

1

1856

65411

C5R-B/85

Very pale brown 10YR 8/3; stamps and scratch decoration

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

2

1856

65409

C5R-B/120

Very pale brown 10YR 8/4; red slip on top

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

3

1856

65396

C5R-B/121a

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6; circle decoration on bottom

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

4

1856

65410

C5R-B/121a

Reddish yellow 5YR /6/6

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

5

1856

65412

C5R-B/121a

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

6

1856

65349

C5R-B/121a

Light red 2.5YR 6/6

Sealed and broken filling hole

7

1856

65408

C5R-B/121a

Very pale brown 10YR 8/3

Very worn mold intact; sealed and broken filling hole

8

1829

17825

C5R-B/121b

Yellow 10YR 7/6

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

9

1856

65407

C5R-B/121c

Very pale brown 10YR 8/4

Intact; sealed and broken filling hole

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

to herald Form C5R-B/121. Similar lamps were found at Antipatris (Neidinger 1982: Pl. 24:1–6; No. 4 is identical to the Caesarea example) and are attributed to the transition between the Roman provincial lamps of the first to third centuries CE and the full-fledged Byzantine lamps of the fifth century CE (Neidinger 1982:166), which are dated to the late third and fourth centuries CE. A very similar lamp, also with a broken filling hole and red slipped, was found at Kh. Sumaqa (Kingsley 1999:336, Fig. 12:10, Pl. 3:6). The lamps of Group A3 from Lehavot Haviva, about 10 km east of Caesarea, belong to the same form and date to the late third and fourth centuries CE (Sussman 1986:196–197, Nos. 23–37). Form C5R-B/121. These are small-to-medium-sized lamps with a small-to-medium nozzle. They usually have a wide shoulder decorated with geometric (lines, dots, circles, etc.) and floral (branches) motifs, a ring base, and a plain, undecorated small lug handle shaped as a knob or a rectangular pyramid. The filling hole was left sealed with a film of clay at the workshop, and broken just before use. They are made of a coarse fabric consisting of sand temper, indicating a local or regional production. They are similar to ‘Group A lamps’ from nearby Kefar ‘Ara (Sussman 1976:93–98, Fig. 2:1–3) and Samaritan Type S1 (Sussman 2002:341–342), which date from the late third to early fifth centuries CE. Sealed lamps are found mainly at Samaria and in the coastal plain and are identified by several scholars as ‘Samaritan lamps’ since that community followed the religious law of purity very strictly (Sussman 1978:238– 239; 1983:71–72; 2002:339, with references). Others accept the distribution of these lamps as a geographic rather than an ethnic factor (cf. Magen 2002:242–243, with references). Sealed lamps of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods are popular at Caesarea (cf. Form C5R-B/121 in Porath, in prep.; Porath and Gendelman, in prep., and Form C5B/144 in Porath, in prep.). Seven out of the above nine lamps are attributed to three variants of Form C5R-B/121, distinguished according to the shape and the nozzle: Variant C5R-B/121a: This variant is represented by five examples, but has a simple rounded nozzle and pyramidal knob handle (Fig. 2.10:3–7) that resembles Sussman’s (1976) ‘Yavneh North’ Group. The shoulder of these Caesarea lamps is decorated solely with

21

geometrical designs (lines, arches and dots). Lamps of the same variant are common at Caesarea (cf. Porath, in prep.; Porath and Gendelman, in prep.) and were also found at Bet She’an-Scythopolis, dated to the first half of the fourth century CE (Type 6; cf. Hadad 1997:153), Antipatris (Neidinger 1982: Pl. 24:1–6); in a RomanByzantine burial cave near Silet adh-Dhahr (Sellers and Baramki 1953:34–36; No. 86 is decorated similarly to Fig. 2.10:5); in a burial cave at Kefar ‘Ara dated to the third to fourth centuries CE (Sussman 1976: Fig. 2:1); at Lehavot Haviva (Sussman 1986:197–198, Nos. 38–39); at Kh. Sumaqa (Kingsley 1999:283–284, Fig. 13:10, 11; the latter is also decorated as Fig. 2.10:5); at Kh. Raqit (Sussman 2003); and in a burial cave at Mughar el-Sharaf (Porath and Levy 1993: Fig. 2:7). Variant C5R-B/121b: This variant is represented by a single example (Fig. 2.10:8) and has a shape that is slightly oval, similar to Sussman’s ‘Samaritan Lamp Type 1’ of the third–fourth centuries CE (1978:240– 241);9 it also has a spatulated nozzle and a wider reservoir. Lamps of the same variant are common at Caesarea (cf. Porath, in prep.; Porath and Gendelman, in prep.; Holum et al. 1988: Fig. 144; Sussman 1999:129, Fig. 25 ) and were found at sites in the vicinity, e.g., Type 1 at Apollonia-Arsuf (Sussman 1983:73, Figs. 5, 6, 7:1–3); Samaria, dated to the third– fourth centuries CE (Crowfoot 1957:374, Fig. 89:3); Silet adh-Dhahr Type VII, dated to the fourth or fifth century CE (Sellers and Baramki 1953:37, Fig. 40); Kefar ‘Ara (Sussman 1976: Fig. 2:2); and Kh. Sumaqa (Kingsley 2002:338, Fig. 12:20, Pl. 4:2). Variant C5R-B/121c: This variant is represented by a single example (Fig. 2.10:9) and has a shape that resembles Variant C5R-B/121b, but with a slightly longer nozzle. The nozzle is decorated on top with a ‘channel’ that extends from the circular ridge around the filling hole toward the wick hole. This variant apparently heralds Form C5B/144 (cf. Porath, in prep.)10 and is similar to Sussman’s ‘Samaritan Lamp Type 2’ (2002:342, Fig. 1:6). Lamps of this type were also found at Samaria (Crowfoot 1957:375, Fig. 89:4). Lamps similar to the nine examples found in the niches of W1780 were produced from the late third to early fifth centuries CE. Form C5R/120 represents the earliest, dated to the third century CE, while Form C5R-B/121c is the latest and is dated to the fourth century CE. The other forms are dated to the late third

22

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

and fourth centuries CE. Therefore, the assemblage found in the niches is dated to the first half of the fourth century CE. It is important to mention that none of the above lamps bears any pagan symbol and it is possible that the later shrine served people who believed in one god (Christians, Samaritans or Jews).

Summary The early Stratum VIC deposits contained a large assemblage of oil lamps from the Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods. The most appropriate locus for a frequency analysis is L1612, the major locus of the massive fill east of the initial hippodrome, which possessed a large number of diverse lamp fragments. Three characteristic groups were observed:11 a. Hellenistic lamps of sporadic occurrence (1–5 examples per form), such as Forms C5H/1, C5H/6, C5H/8, C5H/9 and C5H/11; b. Transitional Hellenistic–Early Roman lamps occurring in larger numbers (15–30 examples per form), such as the imported Form C5H-R/15 and the local or regional examples of Form C5H-R/21; c. Early Roman shapes of considerable frequency (over 150 examples per form), such as the local or regional Form C5R/51 and the imported ones, Forms C5R/71–73. The first group originated in the debris and the garbage piles of the Hellenistic town of Straton’s Tower and was deposited in fills brought to the circus. The other two may illuminate the changing style of oil lamps, the traditional aspects of the communities living at the expanding port city of Caesarea and the role of commercial contacts of the harbor of Sebastos in the beginning of the first millennium CE. The local or regional Form C5R/51, i.e., the commonly named Herodian lamps, was very popular among the Jewish

population of the evolving city, many of whom were employed in the magnificent construction projects. The much smaller number of local or regional C5H-R/21 lamps represents the changing style, as well as the replacing of Form C5H-R/21 by C5R/51. The high number of the imported Forms C5R/71 and C5R/72 reflects the aggressive spread of Italian products and their imitations throughout the East Mediterranean region. The figurative designs on the discus of these lamps attest to the demand either by local and inland consumers (both pagan and non-religious Jews or Samaritans). The much fewer imports of Form C5H-R/15, apparently from Asia Minor, reflects their relative lack of popularity, but may still point to immigrants from Asia Minor among the pagan communities at Caesarea. The two fragments of Form C5R/53 suggest some connections with the Galilee or Phoenicia. The single fragment of the local or regional Form C5R/61in the early Stratum VIC fills establishes that the production of the mold-made ‘Herodian’ lamps probably began in the early years of the first century CE, if not earlier. The wide occurrence of the plain Form C5R/51 in the early Stratum VIC fills versus the existence of the decorated variant C5R/51a in the following phase may suggest that the decorated lamps were produced not earlier than the first century CE. The limited lamp assemblage of the later phases of Stratum VI is typical of the late first to third centuries CE. The shape of the later lamps of Form C5R/73, such as Fig. 2.8:3, represents the changing style toward piriform and oval lamps of the following centuries. The C5R-B/120 and C5R-B/121 lamps, found in the niches of the later C2000 shrine, are examples of local manufacture in the late third and fourth centuries CE, and are typical of transition toward the Stratum V assemblage.

Chapter 2: The Oil Lamps

23

Notes 1 The classification and nomenclature systems used for the lamps is explained in Caesarea I, 3. Briefly, the letter ‘C’ refers to Caesarea, the number refers to the general form (here, ‘5’; lamps), the following letter refers to the period (H = Hellenistic, fourth–mid-first centuries BCE; R = Roman, mid-first century BCE–fourth century CE; H-R for forms produced in both; and R-B for Roman-Byzantine) and the number after the front slash is the serial number of a particular type with a lowercase letter connoting a subtype. 2 The occurrence of only a single lamp of this type at Herod’s Circus can be explained by its being a residual example from the former Straton’s Tower after the Hasmonean conquest, as well as due to the geographic distance from Judea proper. 3 At least two lamps from L1612 were produced in the same mold (Fig. 2.2:2). 4 The perforation was executed by inserting a stick through the nozzle, as traced by the inwardly displaced clay on the hole’s margin and mostly by a scar on the body’s interior. 5 The Fausti stamped lamps are known from Italy, Cyprus, Palestine, Arabia (Petra) and Egypt. They are more popular than any other identified workshop, with different versions of the inscription and made of several fabrics. This phenomenon has been explained, variously, as branches of the same firm, the migration of the artisan from Italy to the East, a workshop

specializing in the production of lamp molds or ‘illegal’ imitations (Bailey 1994:97). 6 The three-leafed myrtle is considered purest according to rabbinical sources (B. Talmud, Suka 32b). The myrtle fruit bears a ’crown’ of sepals, which was identified as “two fruits” by Barag and Hershkovitz (1994:62, No. 119). The fruits on the twig decorating the Masada lamp No. 107 are also ‘crowned’ with myrtle and not olive; therefore, it is a two-leaf myrtle rather than an olive wreath. 7 A similar lamp (B16284; not discussed in this volume) was found in Fill 1614, which accumulated in the passage of C2000. Another was excavated in the Caesarea synagogue (see Caesarea I, 1: Plan 1.2), but is unpublished (mentioned in Avigad 1976:189). 8 A very similar lamp was found in the post-Byzantine soil deposits above Herod’s Circus (B10629; Sq F/117). 9 Similar lamps in the Warchaw Collection are also named ‘Samaritan’; cf. Israeli and Avida 1988:135–141, nos. 369– 403. 10 Sussman (1983:73) mentions a subtype of Apollonia Type 1 that seems to correspond to our C5R-B/121c lamp. 11 Only the common lamps are considered here. The more unusual shapes, such as the polycandelon, which are generally found in small numbers, are excluded.

R eferences Avigad N. 1970. Excavations at the Jewish Quarter of the Old Jerusalem. IEJ 20:129–140. Avigad N. 1976. Beth She‘arim III: Catacombs 12–23; Report on the Excavations during 1953–58. Jerusalem. Bagatti B. 1967. Gli Scavi di Nazeret I: dalle origini al secolo XII (Pubblicazioni dello SBF 17). Jerusalem. Bailey D.M. 1975. Greek, Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery Lamps (A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum I). Oxford. Bailey D.M. 1985. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) III, 2: The Lamps (Libya Antiqua Supplements 5). Tripoli. Bailey D.M. 1988. Roman Provincial Lamps (A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum III). Oxford. Bailey D.M. 1994. Imported Lamps and Local Copies. In J. Aviram, G. Foerster and E. Netzer eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 79–99. Barag D. 1978. Hanita, Tomb XV: A Tomb of the Third and Early Fourth Century CE (‘Atiqot [ES] 13). Jerusalem Barag D. and Hershkovitz M. 1994. Lamps. In J. Aviram, G. Foerster and E. Netzer eds. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 7–147.

Broneer O. 1930. Corinth IV, 21: Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge, Mass. Crowfoot J.W. 1957. Lamps and Early Stone Lamp Holders. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 365–378. Elgavish J. 1977. The Pottery of the Roman Period (Shikmona Archaeological Excavations 3). Haifa (Hebrew). Feig N. 1990: Burial Caves at Nazereth. ‘Atiqot (HS) 10:67– 79. Frova A. 1965. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Milan. Goldman H. and Jones F.F. 1950. The Lamps. In H. Goldman ed. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus I: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Princeton. Pp. 84–134. Grant E. and Wright G.E. 1939. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine) V: Text (Biblical and Kindred Studies 8). Haverford, Penn. Hadad S. 1997. Oil Lamps from the Third to the Eight Century C.E. at Scythopolis-Bet Shean. DOP 51:147–188. Hajjar J. 1965. Un hypogée romain à Deba‘al dans la région de Tyr. BMB 18:61–104. Holum K.G., Hohlfelder R.L., Bull R.J. and Raban A. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York.

24

Yosef Porath and Karmit Gur

Howland R.H. 1958. Greek Lamps and Their Survivals (The Athenian Agora IV). Princeton. Israeli Y. and Avida U. 1988. Oil-Lamps from Eretz Israel. The Louis and Carmen Warchaw Collection at Israel Museum. Jerusalem. Kahane P.P. 1961. Rock-Cut Tombs at Huqoq: Notes on the Finds. ‘Atiqot 3:126–147. Kingsley S.A. 1999. The Sumaqa Pottery Assemblage: Classification and Quantification. In S. Dar. Sumaqa: A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel (BAR Int. S. 815). Oxford. Pp. 263–329. Loeschke S. 1919. Lampen aus Vindonissa. Zurich. Loffreda S. 1975. Un lotto di ceramica de Karm er Ras Presso Kafr Kanna. LA 25:193–198. Lynch K.M. 1995. Desperately Seeking Faustus. BA 58:115. Magen Y. 2002. The Samaritans in the Roman-Byzantine Period. In E. Stern and H. Eshel eds. The Samaritans. Jerusalem. Pp. 213–244 (Hebrew). Mare W.H. 1984. The 1982 Season in Abila of the Decapolis. ADAJ 28:39–54. Neidinger W. 1982. A Typology of Oil Lamps from the Mercantile Quarter of Antipatris. Tel Aviv 9:157–169. Oziol Th.J. 1977. Salamine de Chypre VIII: Les lampes du Musée de Chypre. Paris Perlzweig J. 1961. Lamps of the Roman Period, First to Seventh Century after Christ (The Athenian Agora VII). Princeton. Porath Y. In Preparation. Caesarea Maritima: The Praetorium of Roman Judaea/Palaestina (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Porath Y. and Gendelman P. In Preparation. Caesarea Maritima: The Byzantine Bath and Roman Domus (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Porath Y. and Levy Y. 1993. Mughar el-Sharaf: A Cemetery from the Roman and Byzantine Periods in the Sharon. `Atiqot 22:29*–42* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 153). Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1995. Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. In E. Stern. Excavations at Dor. Final

Report I, B: Areas A and C; The Finds (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 183–288. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schlossinger Collection (Qedem 8). Jerusalem. Sellers O.R. 1933. The Citadel of Beth-Zur. Philadelphia. Sellers O.R. and Baramki D.C. 1953. A Roman-Byzantine Burial Cave in the Northern Palestine (BASOR Suppl. 15–16). New Haven. Sellers O.R., Funk R.W., McKenzie J.L., Lapp P. and Lapp N. 1968. The 1957 Excavations at Beth-Zur (AASOR 38). Cambridge, Mass. Sussman V. 1976. A Burial Cave at Kefar ‘Ara. ‘Atiqot (ES) 11:92–101. Sussman V. 1978. Samaritan Lamps of the Third–Fourth Centuries A.D. IEJ 28:238–250. Sussman V. 1983. The Samaritan Oil Lamps from ApolloniaArsuf. Tel Aviv 10:71–96. Sussman V. 1986. A Collection of Oil Lamps from Lehavot Haviva. In S. Dar and Z. Safrai eds. Shomron Studies. Tel Aviv. Pp. 195–205 (Hebrew). Sussman V. 1988. Lamps from Geva (Abu-Shusha). In B. Mazar ed. Geva—Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha`emeq. Jerusalem. Pp. 89–119 (Hebrew). Sussman V. 1990. The Lamps. In S. Wachsman. The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kineret) (‘Atiqot 19). Jerusalem. Pp. 97–98. Sussman V. 1999. Terracotta Oil Lamps. In R. Gersht ed. The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima in Memory of Aharon Wegman. Tel Aviv. Pp. 115–138 (Hebrew; English abstract, pp. 14*–15*). Sussman V. 2002. Samaritan Oil Lamps. In E. Stern and H. Eshel eds. The Samaritans. Jerusalem. Pp. 339–371 (Hebrew). Sussman V. 2003. The Oil Lamps from Horvat Raqit. In S. Dar. Raqit: Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel. Tel Aviv. Pp. 217–232 (Hebrew).

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 3

The Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars Peter Gendelman

Fragments of 90 terracotta statues, figurines and molded objects were found in Herod’s Circus in a variety of contexts (Table 3.1), but primarily in the Stratum VIC fill east of the initial circus (e.g., 20 objects) and from Stratum V deposits (33 objects). These consist of small fragments owing to the secondary and tertiary nature of the deposits, as presumably the objects were moved several times after their use elsewhere in the successive cities of Straton’s Tower and Caesarea Maritima, until they were dumped with the fill.1 Examination of their fabric suggests that while some were imported, others were produced locally, possibly in the vicinity of the site. The terracotta objects are divided into seven main categories: freestanding statuary and figurines, small figurines, plaques made in a single mold, theatrical masks, plastic vases, small portable altars and money boxes. Unfortunately, owing to the fragmentary nature of the objects presented here and the limited number of published Hellenistic, Roman and Late Antiquity assemblages of terracotta objects of ample size, especially from this region, many of these artifacts cannot be accurately identified based on existing comparanda.

Freestanding Statuary and Statuettes These objects generally present very fine realistic work with extensive details. The preserved fragments comprise objects of diverse size, from nearly life-size statues, to small, 0.18–0.20 m high figurines. Freestanding Statues Nude Males (Cat. Nos. 1–9; Figs. 3.1–3.3) A single statue of a nude male (up to 0.57 m high) is represented by several joined and not-connected fragments (Cat. Nos. 1–8; Figs. 3.1, 3.2). Among these are portions of the torso (Cat. No. 1), arms (Cat. Nos. 2–4), part of the body from below the chest to the groin (Cat. No. 5) and a leg (Cat. No. 6), as well as some

unidentified fragments, perhaps of the head and neck (Cat. Nos. 7, 8). Another freestanding statuette of a muscular nude male (Cat. No. 9; Fig. 3.3) is preserved from the shoulders down to one of the ankles (the right leg and a section of the buttocks are missing); the partially preserved right arm is raised. This example has a fine reddish brown slip on the exterior. Warrior or Gladiator (Cat. No. 10; Fig. 3.4) The right portion of a male face is all that is preserved from a one-quarter to one-third life-size statuette. It is very finely modeled in high relief with details of its nostrils and eyes revealing secondary retouch. Remains of a helmet and cheek pieces occur on the brow and right cheek, respectively. The outer surface is covered with a fine red slip. The fragment is too small to even postulate what type helmet was depicted or the personage intended. It could be a divinity wearing a helmet or a Hellenistic ruler, Roman officer or gladiator. Nearly Life-Size Statues or Busts/Protomes (Cat. Nos. 11, 12; Fig. 3.4) This category includes two examples: the left side of a male head of an almost life-size statue (c. 1.5 m high) or a protome, from which the cheek, ear, and hair are preserved (Cat. No. 11). This statue was formed in separate molds and was covered with reddish slip of a metallic luster; its micaceous clay indicates it to be an import. The second example is a fragment of a head comprising the nose with the upper lip and part of the mouth from a nearly life-size statue (Cat. No. 12; reconstructed H 1.2–1.3 m). The nostrils and mouth were shaped by a knife, and finished by burnishing on the exterior. This fragment belongs to one of the finest terracotta statues from Caesarea. It is possibly of Hellenistic date.

26

Peter Gendelman

1

3 2

4

0

3

Fig. 3.1. Freestanding statues, Cat. Nos. 1–4.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

5

6

7

8 0

3

Fig. 3.2. Freestanding statues, Cat. Nos. 5–8.

27

28

Peter Gendelman

9

0

3

Fig. 3.3. Freestanding statue, Cat. No. 9.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

10

11

12 0

3

Fig. 3.4. Freestanding statues, Cat. Nos. 10–12.

29

30

Peter Gendelman

Small Statuettes Male Images (Cat. Nos. 13, 14; Fig. 3.5) This category is represented by two examples. One, a fragment from the rear of a male head with short hair, is preserved from the crown to the nape (Cat. No. 13). It was made in a rather worn mold. The second is a fragment of probably the rear of a male head preserved from the crown to the nape with part of the face (Cat. No. 14). It was made in two separate and badly worn molds and joined together with a clearly visible seam; a small vent hole pierced the back of the head.

Female Images (Cat. Nos. 15, 16; Fig. 3.5) This category is represented by two examples: a fragment of a freestanding nude female figurine, of which a left half-bent leg from the upper thigh to above the ankle is preserved (Cat. No. 15). It was made in two separate molds and retouched with a knife. The second fragment is from the arm of a female figurine, which is preserved from the elbow to either a bracelet or a sleeve (Cat. No. 16). It was made in two separate molds; the bracelet was formed from a strip of clay that was added and retouched.

13

14

16

15 0

3

Fig. 3.5. Small statuettes, Cat. Nos. 13–16.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Small Figurines Divinities Syncretic Goddess or Priestess (Cat. No. 17; Fig. 3.6) A fragment of a female figurine or plaque is preserved from below the chest to the knees. It is probably made of local clay in a good, fresh mold. The figure wears an over-garment—ependytes (on this term, see Thiersch 1936); it is decorated with horizontal friezes separated by ridges on cells. Such complex over-garments were common gifts to temple statues in antiquity (Brody 2007:86). The wide belt was girded beneath the breasts. A long cloak, with winding folds, framed the body on the right side. The left side of the cloak is decorated on its edge with tassels that covered the right breast, which probably indicates that her head was turned to the right. The head, which is not preserved, was apparently covered with a cloak, which presumably extended to the ground. The cloak has some preserved remains of purple and blue pigment. Iconographically, this statuette closely resembles the canonical images of the two famous goddesses of Asia Minor: Aphrodite of Aphrodisias and Ephesian Artemis. The cloak of the Caesarean statuette very closely resembles a veil of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias (Brody 2007:85) except that, in all preserved depictions of this Carian goddess, the veil frames her body from both sides and its edge is devoid of tassels. On the other hand, the ependytes of the Caesarean figurine is closest to those schematic images of Ephesian Artemis as represented on gems, rather than to Aphrodisian Aphrodite (cf. Brody 2007:79–80, Pl. 19:53).2 However, it is possible that the Caesarea figurine depicts neither of these goddesses, but some other unknown divinity of a syncretic nature, or one of her followers. Osiris Canopus/Hydreios (Cat. No. 18; Fig. 3.6) The Egyptian deity Osiris Canopus/Hydreios is represented by the fragmentary front part of a terracotta figurine. The dense strips on the upper chest probably portray a pectoral, partly covered by the termination of a canonical pharaoh’s beard. Horizontal lines on the remainder of the body most probably depict mummy wrappings (cf. the stone statue dating to the second half of the second century CE from the Iseum at Ras el-Soda; Clerc and Leclant 1994:124, No. 53). The entwined relief on the lower part of the fragment is unclear, but looks like an uraeus, the sacred cobra associated with both Osiris and Isis (cf. marble statue

31

of Osiris Canopus/Hydreios now in Leiden; Clerc and Leclant 1994:119, No. 19). The Osiris-Hydreios (Osiris-in-jar) or Osiris-Canopus was named after the temple of Alexandrian Osiris that was built by Ptolemy III Euergetes in the town of Canopus (modern Aboukir) near Alexandria (Breccia 1926:18, 21). He was worshiped together with Isis and Serapis not only in Egypt, but also in Rome and other parts of the Roman Empire, where sculptured images of him were found (Roullet 1972:97–100). The terracotta figurines depicting Osiris-Canopus, which date from the Late Ptolemaic (late second–first centuries BCE) until the Early Roman periods, are known primarily from Egypt. The figurines reported from the eastern necropolis of Alexandria (Breccia 1930:43–44, Pl. XLIX:18; Török 1995:90–92, Pl. LVIII: Nos. 109–112) are related to the same type as the Caesarea example. Heracles? (Cat. Nos. 19, 20; Fig. 3.6) Two fragments from different figurines (Cat. Nos. 19, 20) preserve part of a lion skin with a mane; the left ear of an animal is visible on one of them (Cat. No. 19). These figurines are made in good-quality molds and retouched. These fragments may be compared with the common type of figurines, dating to the Hellenistic and Roman periods, that represent contrapposto Heracles (both young and bearded) holding a club and the skin of the Nemean lion in different combinations (cf. Goldman 1950:327–333, Nos. 130–134, 148–153, 156, 160). Local Divinities (Bet Natif Circle Figurines) (Cat. Nos. 21, 22; Fig. 3.6) Two fragments discovered within later fills in Herod’s Circus are of a distinctive local series of terracotta figurines produced in the late third–fourth-century CE Judean Hills. It seems that several workshops manufacturing such figurines were located there. The wasters of one such workshop were discovered at Bet Natif in the early 1930s (Baramki 1936). One is a small fragment of a figurine made in low relief using two separate molds (Cat. No. 21). The fragment presents a female figure wearing a long dress of which the hem is still visible on the rear side. A pair of legs is preserved from the shin to the bare feet on a low pedestal marked by two parallel ridges visible on the front. It may be compared with a fragmentary figurine from Bet Natif (Baramki 1936:5, Pl. IX:12).

32

Peter Gendelman

The second fragment is a figurine made in low relief in separate molds (Cat. No. 22). The preserved right front side of the figurine displays a column with a stylized base and capital that supported a partially remaining arch. The complete figurine may be reconstructed based on several fragmentary figurines from Bet Natif wasters made in the same series of molds. This type of

nude female divinity stands within a gabled aedicule; she is characterized by elaborate hair, a high headdress, a necklace and bracelets, and her right arm covers her groin while the left hand holds her breasts (Baramki 1936:5, Pls. II:3, V:5, IX:1, 5). Avi-Yonah (1981:17) identified this divinity as a ‘Syrian Goddess’ connected with fertility.

17

18

19

20

21

0

3

Fig. 3.6. Small figurines, Cat. Nos. 17–22.

22

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Human Figures

Parthian/Palmyrean Man (Cat. No. 24; Fig. 3.7) A small fragment from the right leg of a figurine is preserved from the shin to the bottom of the foot; it was made in a double mold. The male figure was dressed in Parthian-style trousers that fall in elliptical folds to the ankles and a soft leather boot with straps. This style of male dress was common in Parthian and Sassanian Iran, as well as in neighboring countries including the eastern parts of the Roman provinces of Syria and

Female Dancer (Cat. No. 23; Fig. 3.7) A fragment of the front side of a figurine that was made in a double mold preserves part of a dancing female (from belly to knees) wearing a peplos with an apoptygma—a double layer of fabric folded over a belt. The figurine is well-modeled, but the mold is rather worn.

23

24

26

25

27

28

29 0

33

3

Fig. 3.7. Small figurines, Cat. Nos. 23–29.

34

Peter Gendelman

Cilicia, such as Palmyra and Commagene (cf. Kawami 1987: Pls. 11, 31; Stauffer 2012:92). The same dress and boots appear on rider figurines from the Bet Natif workshop (Baramki 1936:5, Pl. IV:2–4). Unidentified Human Figures (Cat. Nos. 25–29; Fig. 3.7) Several fragments of figurines are set upon mold-made quadrangular plinth bases (Cat. Nos. 25–29). The bases and feet were made in separate molds and joined to the figures before firing; most of the fragments are slipped or coated. Four out of a total of five fragments preserved the bare feet of upright human (male?) figures (Cat. Nos. 25–28). Their state of preservation does not allow for any identification of the figures, but see similar fragments from Dor (Erlich 2010:131, Nos. 66, 67). Horse-and-Rider (Cat. Nos. 30–38; Fig. 3.8) The well-known ‘Horse-and-Rider’ type is represented by several fragments of different figurines. Two subtypes were identified: the first is represented by four fragments of different figurines (Cat. Nos. 30– 33); the earliest pieces were found in the massive fill outside the East Cavea (Cat. Nos. 30, 31). The best preserved piece (Cat. No. 30) is the head and neck of a bridled horse with a short mane. The bridle is decorated with round pendants applied to the figurine before firing; the left side has the rider’s left hand holding the reins and some part of his garment or ephippium (i.e., saddle blanket; on this term, see Nickel 1989; Bishop 1988:108–109). A second fragment exhibits a section of the rider’s tunica (Cat. No. 31), and the last two are fragments of a prancing horse’s leg (Cat. Nos. 32, 33). No vent holes were observed on the fragments of the figurines, which apparently had an open bottom similarly to the complete figurines from Gerasa dated to about the early second century CE (Iliffe 1945:9, Pl. II:17, 18). The figurines are covered with a white coating—a common practice in Hellenistic terracottas (cf. Erlich and Kloner 2008:109); they are very

realistic and were produced with great attention to detail by retouching. Fragments of horse-and-rider figurines generally date to the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods and were common finds from the Levant and beyond (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:386, Pl. 75:v right; van Ingen 1939:153–154, Pl. XXXIV:476; Goldman 1950:380, Fig. 253:598; Negev 1986:120, 122–123, Nos. 1062– 1069; Erlich and Kloner 2008:46–52, Pls. 25–30; Erlich 2010:134). The fragments from Herod’s Circus, where the best preserved fragments originated in the initial fill of Stratum VIC (c. 10 CE), are most probably Hellenistic in date. Their careful and realistic work resembles that of the unstratified figurine from Tarsus and the Hellenisticperiod horse rider from Samaria-Sebaste. The treatment of the horse’s mane and bridle resembles the mounted Harpocrates from Alexandria dated to the third–second centuries BCE (Besques 1992:109, Pl. 66:c). Other fine examples of horse-and-rider figurines dating to the Hellenistic period are reported from Pelusium (Szymon 2005:71, Fig. 2) and the Hadra necropolis near Alexandria (Breccia 1930:75, Pl. XXXIX:2). The second subtype is represented by four fragments of several figurines, which were probably made in the same series of molds (Cat. Nos. 34–38). All are of rather realistic workmanship and evenly modeled on both sides. Owing to the fragmentary state of the examples, it is unclear whether they were entirely mold-made or included hand-modeled limbs. The rider wears a short tunica, which is preserved on two fragments (Cat. No. 34, 35). He rides a horse equipped with an ephippium secured with a breast strap (Cat. No. 38), a haunch strap (breeching) that goes under the horse’s tail (Cat. Nos. 34, 35), a bridle consisting of a noseband, and a headpiece connected by a cheek-piece with a small phalera at their junction (Cat. No. 37). Additional fragments from horse-and-rider figurines made in different, lower quality molds, are reported from the CCE excavations at Caesarea (Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:313, no. 296) and Horbat Biz‘a, a rural settlement within the territory of Caesarea (Gendelman 2012:44*, Fig. 5).3

Fig . 3.8. Small figurines, Cat. Nos. 30–38. ►

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

30

31

32

33

34

35

37

36

0

3

38

35

36

Peter Gendelman

Animal Figurines Saddled and Bridled Horse (Cat. No. 39; Fig. 3.9) This type is represented by a single fragmentary figurine of a saddled horse. The animal body was made in a two-sided mold and was joined where the rather short schematic legs are hand-modeled and attached to the figurine (Cat. No. 39). Part of the ephippium and a breast strap decorated with bosses are preserved. Despite the poor state of preservation, it seems that no riding figure was attached to the animal. This figurine closely resembles the group of presumably fourth–fifth-century CE limestone molds discovered in a late fill at the Byzantine praetorium at Caesarea (Sussman 1980:78– 79).4 Like the present example, the horses on the molds are saddled and wearing a harness, but without a rider (cf. Sussman 1980; Erlich and Foerster 2012:4). Ram (Cat. Nos. 40–44; Fig. 3.9) The kneeling ram is represented by several examples of two types. The first is demonstrated by two fragments, probably from the same kneeling ram figurine of the closed type (Cat. Nos. 40, 41). It is facing right with the front portion from the leg to the neck preserved along with the tip of a horn and a section of the belly (Cat. No. 40). Only one side was modeled; the other was left plain. The molded side is very realistic, with secondary retouching of the ram’s coat and a narrow knife-cut vent hole above the hoof. Remains of red pigment are preserved on the plain side. The second example is actually three fragments of a kneeling ram resting on a low base from at least two different figurines, which were probably made in the same mold (Cat. Nos. 42–44). They were produced using the ‘open base’ technique and are well-modeled; the fleece is detailed by hand. One fragment represents the belly, front leg and a section of the neck; the second is the hindquarters of the same animal. The figurines were made in two molds; apparently the two sides were modeled.

Lion (Cat. No. 45; Fig. 3.9) This fragment of a lion figurine has most of the head, the right ear and part of the mane preserved. It was made in a good quality mold and although details are rather schematic, in general it provides a good portrayal of a male lion. Birds (Cat. Nos. 46–49; Fig. 3.10) Fragments from three figurines were made in the same series of the molds (Cat. Nos. 46–48). The figurines were formed in two separate molds; protruding components such as a crest were then hand-modeled and connected to the figurine. Preserved fragments portray a pheasant with schematic details—one of its head and upper neck (Cat. No. 46), and two additional fragments, from the head of a bird (Cat. Nos. 47, 48). The eyes of the pheasant are almond-shaped with circular pupils and a collar on its neck. This collar clearly depicts a common pheasant (phasianus colchicus) with its characteristic collar-like whitecolored feathers on the upper neck. Common pheasants were represented in the Mediterranean world as early as the fifth century BCE and were continuously bred there from the Roman period until late antiquity (Jennison 1937:16, 109–110; Toynbee 1973:254–255; Kroll 2012:103). In general, they resemble wheeled toys in the form of a rooster from a second-century CE tomb at ‘Ar‘ara and from a rock-cut tomb at Mughar el-Sharaf (near modern Netanya) that dates from the first–fifth centuries CE (respectively, Zias 1980:64, Fig. 5, Pl. X:4; Porath and Levy 1993:34*, Fig. 4). A fragmentary figurine, probably a plastic decoration for a vessel (Cat. No. 49), is handmodeled with the head and part of the tail missing; it is painted with yellow pigment. Given the high train of the tail, it might be a male bird, perhaps one of the phasianidae family, such as a rooster or a peacock.

Fig. 3.9. Small figurines, Cat. Nos. 39–45. ►

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

39

40

41

42

43

44

45 0

3

37

38

Peter Gendelman

46

48

47

49 0

3

Fig. 3.10. Small figurines, Cat. Nos. 46–49.

Plaques (Cat. Nos. 50, 51; Fig. 3.11) Plaques are made in a single mold with their rear left unmodeled. Two fragments made in different molds and covered with a dull red slip represent standing nude male youths (or Eros) in a cross-legged position, with the right leg resting on the left; the left hand holds a chlamys falling behind the back (Cat. Nos. 50, 51). A fragment of a similar figurine was recovered from a foundation trench of a wall from a Hellenistic-period dwelling at Dor (Erlich 2010:129, 145, No. 52). The modeling of Eros’ body resembles a figurine of ‘Eros exhibits a mask’ from Tarsus, which was a popular motif from the third century BCE to the first century CE (Goldman 1950:323, Fig. 220:101).

Theatrical Masks (Cat. Nos. 52–54: Fig. 3.11) Three fragments of theatrical masks seem to be of the same well-known type of a ‘leading servant’ with a wig and grotesque facial characteristics (Bieber 1961:245, Fig. 810). All fragments are life-size and made in good quality molds with retouching of details; purple pigment is still visible on one. One of

the fragments preserves part of the right side of the face, including a pierced eye, knitted brow, flat nose and part of a mustache above a wide, open mouth (Cat. No. 52). The other two fragments preserve the right corner of a wide-open pierced mouth surrounded by a fused mustache and a beard (Cat. Nos. 53, 54). Painted terracotta masks of this type, with piercing holes for suspension, were found in an Early Roman cemetery next to the southern fortification wall of Herodian Caesarea.5 Such masks, dating from the late Hellenistic period until the third century CE, are commonly reported in this region—Maresha (Erlich and Kloner 2008:57, Pl. 34:181), Dor (Erlich 2010:133, Nos. 76–79, 80), Hippos/Susita (Erlich 2009:56, Fig. 13) and Jerash-Gerasa (Iliffe 1945:16, Pl. V:74)—and throughout the East Mediterranean, as attested by examples from Alexandria (Breccia 1930:65, Pls. XXXVII:1, 4, XXXVIII:2, 4, 9, XLVI:2, 7, 17; Török 1995:154–155, Pls. CXXIII:237, CXXIV:234), Salamis in Cyprus (Herbert 1959:107, Fig. 13), Tarsus (Goldman 1950:346–347, Figs. 234:276–277, 235:275, 280), Gordion (Bald Romano 1995:46–49, Pl. 32:111) and Athens (Grandjouan 1961:22, 60, Pl. 14:560).

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

50

51

52

53

54 0

3

Fig. 3.11. Plaques and theatrical masks, Cat. Nos. 50–54.

39

40

Peter Gendelman

Plastic Vases During a long period, several East Mediterranean workshops produced plastic vases made in separate molds and decorated in high relief. Pre-Magenta Ware Guttus Grotesque Guttus (Cat. No. 55; Fig. 3.12) This small fragment of a plastic vase is made of a fine gray fabric with a reddish gray slip on its exterior; it is probably imported. The vessel was modeled as an African male head with rather grotesque facial characteristics. It resembles, in fabric and shape, headshaped gutti depicting an African man (Pre-Magenta Ware) dated to the third–early second centuries BCE from Maresha (Erlich and Kloner 2008:68–69, Pl. 41:217) and the Alexandrian necropolis at Hadra (Breccia 1930:65, Pl. XXXVIII:6). Knidian Relief Ware This group is the largest among the plastic vases discovered mostly within late fills in the area of Herod’s Circus. This group was first recognized as a Knidian product by Hayes (1972:411–412) and Bailey (1972–1973; 1978–1979) and was later studied by Kenrick (1985:327–337). The ‘true’ Knidian Relief Ware dates from the late first–fourth centuries CE and is characterized by a hard fabric and a streaky, mottled slip with a metallic sheen colored from orange to brown (cf. Kenrick 1985:327). Shapes produced by Knidian potters are diverse: askoi, lagynoi and head-cups designed in the form of human body parts (mainly, but not only heads; cf. Slane and Dickie 1993) or as an animal; oinophorae, oinochoai, lagynoi and flasks with relief decoration; animal-handled emblemata paterae with applied medallions; and thymiaterion/lampstands. Although the production of Knidian workshops is better studied and easily recognized, there were additional workshops in the East and West Mediterranean that imitated Knidian ware (cf. Baldoni 2003; Gabler and Márton 2008–2009). Ram-Vase (Cat. Nos. 56–60; Fig. 3.12) Various, mostly late, fills produced several fragments of askoi on a rectangular base and modeled as a ram. Two fragments from different vases preserved part of

a head with the characteristic lateral spiral horn, ear and fleece-covered tip of the head (Cat. Nos. 56, 57). Another single fragment is from the animal’s withers and preserves a fleece and marks of a filling hole or a missing handle (Cat. No. 58). Two additional fragments are from the front short side of two vessels: one has part of the chest covered with a thick fleece, the right front leg and a hoof (Cat. No. 59); the second preserves part of the chest with a fleece (Cat. No. 60). These fragments are comparable to the series of ramvase vessels depicting a standing animal, with a mouth for filling on its withers, as on second–third-century CE vessels. Examples are known from Caesarea, Dor, Shiqmona and ‘Akko (respectively, Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:315, No. 320; Guz-Zilberstein 1989; Stern 2000: Pl. V:3; Elgavish 1994:138, 157, Fig. 144; Messika 1997:124, Fig. 3:13; Erlich and Foerster 2012: Figs. 1, 3).6 Feline-Shaped Askoi (Cat. Nos. 61–63; Fig. 3.13) Three fragments are from askoi in the form of felines. One fragment, from the front side of the vessel, preserves part of the right forward leg. The paw has the characteristic claws of a feline, most probably a male lion (Cat. No. 61). An additional fragment that preserves the right ear and part of the head with remains of a mane is of a lion-shaped askos (Cat. No. 62). The only parallel known for such vessels is a lionshaped askos from the Cesnola collection.7 A small fragment of a zoomorphic vase preserves the right ear and part of the head (Cat. No. 63). The form of the ear resembles those of felines, and the closest parallel is a leopardess-shaped askos from excavations of port of Aenona at Zaton (Brusić 1999–2000:85, Pl. IV:3). Canine-Shaped Askos (Cat. No. 64; Fig. 3.13) This fragment of a plastic vase preserves an almost complete head of a canine with a round pierced opening in its mouth for pouring. A similar fragment was recovered from Area KK at Caesarea (Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:313, no. 298). These fragments from Caesarea are comparable to a fragmentary askos in the form of a kneeling dog or wolf from the Dor excavations (Stern 2000: Pl.V:2), fragmentary vessels in the form of a dog wearing a collar from Aenona at Zaton (Brusić 1999–2000:85, Pl. V:2) and a complete askos in the form of a resting dog of unknown provenance now on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.8

41

55

56

57

58

59

0

60

3

Fig. 3.12. Plastic vases, Cat. Nos. 55–60.

42

61

62

63

64

65

66 0

3

Fig. 3.13. Plastic vases, Cat. Nos. 61–66.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Unidentified (Cat. Nos. 65, 66; Fig. 3.13) Two fragments are of unidentified Knidian zoomorphic askoi. One is an undecorated bottom fragment (Cat. No. 65) and the second is from the top and side of an askos (Cat. No. 66). Emblemata Patera with Ram’s-Head Handle (Cat. Nos. 67, 68; Fig. 3.14) Two fragmentary ram’s-head handles from paterae with emblema on the bottom imitate metal vessels. One fragment, which is made of a Knidian fabric, preserved the edge of the shaft with two parallel ribs and part of a ram’s head with a partially preserved right horn, ear and eye (Cat. No. 67). The eye is pierced for the vent hole. Such vessels date from the second–fourth centuries CE and are distributed throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond (Breccia 1930:76, Pl. XLI:2, XLII:9; Kenrick 1985:333–335; Hayes 2008:107). The second fragment, which is made from a light colored apparently not-Knidian fabric and without a slip, preserves part of a ribbed shaft and complete tip of the handle with a ram’s head (Cat. No. 68). Although the mold was worn, the ram’s details are rather realistically modeled. Knidian-produced paterae were imitated in several East Mediterranean workshops, e.g., those located at Attica (Waagé 1933:306–307,

Fig. 6:256, Pl. 171:256; Robinson 1959:104–105, Pl. 26: M210), Corinth (Slane 1990:39) and other centers in Greece (Hayes 1972:413, n. 1). Thymiateria/Lampstands (Cat. Nos. 69, 70; Fig. 3.14) Two fragments of plastic vessels are made in typical Knidian fabric covered with a metallic slip. Both preserve part of a human figure standing upon a plinth base. One fragment comprises part of the neck, right ear and cheek of a male with a short headdress (Cat. No. 69); the second is a low fragment of a human figure, made in two separate molds, in a chiastic pose with bare feet placed on a round base mounted upon a high quadrangular plinth made in a separate mold (Cat. No. 70). These objects belong to a group of thymiateria produced in workshops at Knidos (Bailey 1975b). The earliest examples date to the first century BCE, such as one modeled in the form of Artemis-Hekate from the Temenos of Demeter at Knidos (Bailey 1975a:158– 159, Pl. 68), but the majority are of the first and second centuries CE, such as those from the Terrace House at Ephesus (Ladstätter 2005:248–250, Ill. 43: K784, Pls. 197: K784, 225–227) and from Rhodes (Katsioti 2014).9 Additional thymaterion with HorusHarpocrates found at Caesarea are now on display in the Sdot-Yam Museum (Sussman 1999:124–125, Fig. 14).

68

67

69

70 0

43

3

Fig. 3.14. Plastic vases, Cat. Nos. 67–70.

44

Peter Gendelman

Plastic Vases (Non-Knidian)

unpreserved vessel; a rounded hole for suspension is located beneath their joined tails. The fragment is made in a pinkish gray micaceous fabric, apparently not Knidian, and covered with a fine dark brown slip. No parallels for such a vessel have been found. A North African plastic lamp in the form of a dolphin mounted upon a column is known from Carthage (Deneauve 1987:229, Fig. 29: Ant. 1).

Lantern? (Cat. No. 71; Fig. 3.15) This fragmentary handle is from a lantern or other plastic vessel that was made in two separate molds and modeled as two mirrored dolphins, of which one is complete and only part of the tail of the second has survived. The dolphins are rather schematically modeled and were connected at their mouths to the

71

0

3

Fig. 3.15. Plastic vase, Cat. No. 71.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Kneeling Quadruped (Cat. Nos. 72–74; Fig. 3.16) Three non-connecting fragments from a single plastic vase represent the form of an unidentified kneeling quadruped made in two separate molds. Two are from the left side of the vase: one fragment preserves the front portion from the mid-belly to the chest and part of the front leg (Cat. No. 72); the second is from the midbelly to the hindquarter with part of the left leg (Cat. No. 73). An additional fragment preserves the filling mouth that was most probably located on the animal’s withers (Cat. No. 74). The mold was worn and the fur as well as other details are rather schematic. This vessel resembles the zoomorphic askoi from a workshop at Gerasa (Iliffe 1945:17, Pl. VI:88–90). Dromedary (Cat. No. 75; Fig. 3.16) This plastic vase is in the form of a loaded dromedary; its head and legs are missing. This vase was made in two separate molds and combined; the legs, tail and saddle with its amphorae were hand-modeled and attached to the body. The animal is wearing a high arched pack-saddle (stramentum) with a pair of amphorae (only the lower parts of the vessels with conical spikes are preserved) on each side of the saddle, tied on with rope. The remains of a filling mouth are preserved on the back behind the hump; the spout was most likely through the dromedary’s mouth (cf. Johnson 2008:133). The body and neck of the animal are decorated with stylized brown paint. Terracotta figurines and plastic vases in the form of a loaded dromedary are commonly produced in second– third-century CE Roman Egypt (Bailey 2008:178, 183, Nos. 3763, 3764, Pl. 138:3763, 3764 with a list of finds up to 2008; Bountantin 2014:300–318, Nos. 196, 207–210). Additional plastic vases in the form of a kneeling dromedary loaded with amphorae are known from Ashqelon (Johnson 2008:133, 135). The Caesarea example is dissimilar both in technique and clay from these found in Egypt and at Ashqelon; probably, they were locally produced, as suggested by the evidence of limestone molds for producing dromedary figurines, with and without a cameleer, found at Caesarea (Sussman 1980: Pl.XVI:6–7).

45

Hippocampus-Headed Rhyton (Cat. Nos. 76, 77; Fig. 3.17) Two not-connected fragments of a rhyton are part of the bottom of a vessel modeled as a mythological creature—a hippocampus—“a horse like a whale (ketos) from the breast onwards” (Pausanias, Description of Greece 2.1:7–9). The vessel, which is imported according to its micaceous fabric, was made in two separate molds with subsequent retouching of the details. The preserved horse head has a pipe-like spout in its mouth, a well-modeled tooth, and part of a thoracic fin or bony operculum protecting a gill. The beginning of a long curved horn is preserved, as may be reconstructed on the basis of a gazelle-head rhyton found in a contemporary deposit in Insula W2S3 at Caesarea (Gendelman and Porath, in prep.). To the best of this author’s knowledge, no such terracotta rhyton has yet been published, from the southern Levant or beyond. The rhyton (a libation vessel), in precious metals and stone, as well as in pottery, was produced from the second millennium BCE onward, although it became common in pottery in the southern Levant only in the Persian period (Stern 1982:42). The Caesarea rhyton differs from the common type of Achaemenid protome-rhyton finished with animal or human protoma, where the spout is located on the chest (for locally produced terracotta rhyta from Persian and early Hellenistic dates, see Ziffer, Kletter and Segal 2006; Erlich and Kloner 2008:73–78, Pls. 44–49). Rather, they belong to the type of animal-head rhyta which combines influences of both Achaemenid metal and Attic and Apulian terracotta rhyta of the sixth– fourth centuries BCE (Rotroff 1997:205, Pl. 105:1384; Marazov 2010:14–21, Figs. 1, 4a, 6, 7a–10, 16–19; Treister 2012; for examples in silver and in local terracotta from Thrace, cf. Ebbinghaus 1999:401–405, Figs. 3, 4). Such metal rhyta were produced from the Persian period until the first century CE (Pfrommer 1993:47–49, 220). A fragmentary horse-head rhyton was found at Petra (Horsefield and Horsefield 1942: Pl. XVII:112). Late Hellenistic (first century BCE) until Roman-period terracotta animal-head rhyta have been reported from Cilicia, such as the bull-headed rhyton from Tarsus and the boar-head vessel from a tomb at Elaiussa-Sebaste (Lafli 2008: Figs. 1–7).

46

Peter Gendelman

72

74 73

0

75

3

Fig. 3.16. Plastic vases, Cat. Nos. 72–75.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

47

76

77 0

3

Fig. 3.17. Plastic vase, Cat. Nos. 76, 77.

Portable Altars (Cat. Nos. 78–89; Figs. 3.18– 3.20) Several types of small portable altars were found in various deposits. The first type is represented by one nearly complete and several fragmentary altars on a quadrangular base with four small legs at the corners (Cat. Nos. 78–83). The shafts are nearly square or rounded and the basin is square with a high flaring wall modeled as horns or acroteria. Additional notched crenellations are placed between the acroteria on three examples (Cat. Nos. 78–80). The base and basin exterior are decorated with moldings. Different molds were utilized for the base, the shaft and the basin (the acroteria and crenellations were retouched with a knife after modeling). Such altars show a

diverse degree of workmanship and retouching, from fine to very careless. Traces of purple, red or green pigments were observed on most fragments. Soot traces discerned on the basins’ interiors clearly indicate that they were used for burning. Similar altars were published from the CCE excavations at Caesarea (Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:315, Nos. 316–318), from Gerasa (Iliffe 1945:18, Pl. VI:98) and from Dor (Erlich 2010:135, figure on p. 197: Nos. 91–93). The second type is represented by a single fragment of an altar on a round base with three separately prepared legs; the shaft is conical (Cat. No. 84). The upper part of the altar did not survive. Three-legged horned altars, but with a wider cylindrical shaft, were published from Tarsus (Goldman 1950:374, Fig. 252:534).

48

Peter Gendelman

78

79

80

81 0

3

Fig. 3.18. Portable altars, Cat. Nos. 78–81.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

82

83

84

86

85

87 0

3

Fig. 3.19. Portable altars, Cat. Nos. 82–87.

49

50

Peter Gendelman

Money-Box (Cat. No. 90; Fig. 3.20)

The last type is represented by fragments of four objects that could be altar basins, but no base was identified (Cat. Nos. 85–89).10 The altars’ basins are deep and conical. On the exterior, the rims are decorated with parallel moldings; two examples also have a frieze of ‘eggs and darts’ (Cat. Nos. 85, 86). The lower exterior is decorated with a modeled lotus flower (Cat. No. 87) or multi-petal rosettes (Cat. No. 88); another example has an applied rosette (Cat. No. 89). All pieces were coated with a red or reddish-brown slip on the exterior and traces of soot were observed on the bowls’ interiors, which supports their interpretation as portable altars. Similar objects are reported from a Roman fill at Dor (Erlich 2010:136, 146, figure on p. 201: No.103).

A peculiar object discovered in a late fill above Herod’s Circus is a fragment of a locally produced money-box. It may be reconstructed on the basis of several unpublished examples from IAA excavations at Caesarea as a barrel-shaped vessel made in two separate molds and joined together. The upper side is modeled as a schematic human face with circular eyes and a protruding nose; the mouth is pierced and used as a 3.5 cm wide coin slot. Terracotta moneyboxes (piggy bank, savings-bank) in different shapes are known from as early as the second century BCE (Robinson 1924:239) and are still in use. Fragments of similar money-boxes from excavations at Caesarea were recently published (Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:310, nos. 208, 209).

88

89

90 0

3

Fig. 3.20. Portable altars, Cat. Nos. 86–89; money box, Cat. No. 90.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Cat. No. 17

Cat. No. 30

Cat. No. 71

Color Pl. 2.1. Terracottas.

51

52

Peter Gendelman

Cat. No. 76

Cat. No. 78

Color Pl. 2.2. Terracottas.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Discussion Archaeological Context and Chronology The dating of the terracotta statuary fragments of Herod’s Circus is problematic, as their contexts only offer a terminus post quem date for their deposition. Moreover, owing to their fragmentary state of preservation and their distinctive nature, finding welldated parallels for these objects is not easy. Stratum VII (c. 10/9 BCE–10 CE) Only two small fragments were found beneath the Stratum VII arena. The figurine of Heracles (Cat. No. 19) and the theatrical mask (Cat. No. 54) have parallels from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The findspots favor an earlier date and they may be associated with the Hellenistic cemetery preceding Herod’s Circus in this area (Caesarea I, 1:33). Figurines of Heracles and theatrical masks are often associated with burials (Burn and Higgins 2001:21). Terracotta Objects from Fill 1612 (c. 10 CE) A large group of terracotta objects (32 fragments from 20 objects) originated from the massive fill east of the East Cavea. These consist of a wide variety of objects from almost all groups: freestanding statuary (Cat. Nos. 1–8, 10, 12); a statuette (Cat. No. 9); small figurines of both humans and animals (Cat. Nos. 25, 26, 29–31, 40– 44); plaques (Cat. Nos. 50, 51); plastic vases (Cat. Nos. 76, 77); and portable altars of two types (Cat. Nos. 82, 83, 85–89). It is very possible that, as in the case of the general pottery from this fill, which consists of some 10– 15% Hellenistic residuals (Gendelman, forthcoming), some of the terracotta objects are of an early date and related to Caesarea Maritima’s predecessor, Straton’s Tower (e.g., some of the freestanding statuary may be Hellenistic in date, as well). However, as in the pottery and other finds from these fills, many of these belong to the first 32 years of Caesarea Maritima’s existence. The terracotta statuary and figurines presented here are almost exclusively male figures, most probably of deities or heroes, although their state of preservation does not support any identification. Figurines of horsemen of the first type appear initially in L1612 (Cat. Nos. 30–33) and seem to continue until the end of Stratum VIC, at the very least (see below).11 The animal figurines may be have been used both as toys and/or as votives (Erlich and Kloner 2008:54–55). Locally produced portable altars first appear in this stratum,

53

and are certainly connected with the private religious activity of the inhabitants. Strata VIC/B–VIB (c. 66–140 CE) Only a handful of terracotta objects derives from these strata. One is the fragment of a figurine set upon a mold-made quadrangular plinth base (Cat. No. 27) and others, of two types of portable altars (Cat. Nos. 78, 79, 81, 84). Apart from the second altar type (Cat. No. 84), all appear already in the previous stratum. Stratum VIA (c. 140 CE–end of the third century CE) Stage VIA4 (c. 140–162 CE). The early stage of this stratum produced only a few fragmentary objects, most of which are types known from Stratum VIC; most are probably residual. Examples include the horse-and-rider of the first type (Cat. No. 33), which is comparable to finds from L1612, and the fragment of a Heracles figurine (Cat. No. 20), which corresponds to one from Stratum VII. Stage VIA3 (c. 162–c. 180 CE). The deposits from this stratum provide, for the first time, products of Knidian workshops: two fragments of lion-shaped askoi, one from a specifically Stage VIA3 deposit (Cat. No. 61), and the second, from a general Stratum VIA deposit (Cat. No. 62). Their appearance here corresponds well with the general date of this group of vessels. Stage VIA2 (c. 180–c. 200 CE). A rather large group of terracotta objects originated in several deposits of the transition to Stage VIA2. Some most probably are residual, such as the grotesque guttus of Hellenistic date (Cat. No. 55), or long-lasting types, such as a portable altar of the first type, whose occurrence is continuous since Stratum VIC (Cat. No. 80). However, the fills (L1617, L1619, L1620, L1621) deposited within the vomitorium when the subterranean complex C7000 and the vomitorium were excluded from the amphitheater area (see Caesarea I, 1:145) produced a fragment of a Knidian canine askos (Cat. No. 64). A fragmentary figurine of a horse rider of the second type appears for the first time in L1619 (Cat. No. 36), accompanied by pottery of the mid-second century CE (see Gendelman, forthcoming). A fragmentary Knidian ram-vase appears for first time in a possibly contemporary fill above the arena (L1765; Cat. No. 56). Fragments of terracotta masks were also discovered in this stratum (Cat. Nos. 52, 53).

54

Peter Gendelman

Stage VIA1 (Third Century CE). Only three fragments of terracotta objects were discovered in Stage VIA1 deposits: a small statuette depicting a male with short hair (Cat. No. 13); and two fragments, one of a Knidian-manufactured thymiaterion (Cat. No. 70), and the other, of a non-Knidian ram-headed handle of an emblemata patera (Cat. No. 68). Stratum V (Fourth Century CE–640 CE) One-third of the terracotta objects found in the area of Herod’s Circus come from large fills that covered the remains of this facility and from later architectural remains that were built here. It seems that the majority of these objects are residual and were brought with fills from Caesarea’s municipal refuse similar to that which was recently excavated by the author south of Roman and Byzantine Caesarea12 or from elsewhere within the city. Consequently, many of these undoubtedly belong to earlier periods and were redeposited here. The examples are numerous: a figurine on a quadrangular plinth base (Cat. No. 28), horse-and-rider figurines of the first (Cat. No. 32) and second types (Cat. Nos. 34, 35, 37, 38); Knidian zoomorphic askoi (ram-vases— Cat. Nos. 57–60; others—Cat. Nos. 63, 65); emblemata patera (Cat. No. 67); a thymiaterion and a lantern (Cat. Nos. 69, 71). The life-size terracotta statue (Cat. No. 11), figurines of a syncretic goddess or priestess (Cat. No. 17) and of Osiris-Canopus (Cat. No. 18), also seem to be earlier than the fourth century CE and are most probably residual here. Two fragmentary figurines of local divinities (Cat. Nos. 21, 22) are of Bet Natif circle figurines that generally date to the third and fourth centuries CE, which complements the findspot. The locally produced figurines of a saddled horse (Cat. No. 39), a pheasant (Cat. Nos. 46–48) and a money box (Cat. No. 39) fit well within the milieu of terracotta production in Late Roman and Byzantine Caesarea. Some Remarks on the Production Methods of Terracotta Objects from Herod’s Circus Freestanding Statuary and Statuettes The fragmentary state of these figurines and the absence of any molds make it difficult to reconstruct their production method; however, some preliminary conclusions may be drawn. The most common production method employs the use of several molds. Two sides of the body and legs were made in separate molds and then joined with the

seam that was smoothed over. The head may have been modeled together with the body or fashioned by the same technique in separate molds and then joined to the body (cf. Erlich 2010:138–139). The projecting limbs were modeled by hand and then also joined to the figurine with a smear of clay. The rear of the figurine is usually pierced with a round vent hole. A less frequent production method was identified on a fragmentary statue representing a nude male (Cat. Nos. 1–8).The statue was produced from several molds, each used to model a particular portion. Apparently, an archetype—a stone or clay sculpture— was used for forming the separate molds for, e.g., the head and heck, bust, lower body, etc. Each part was then modeled and fired separately. The pieces were joined together by inserting one part into the opening of the other one and then the joints were ‘glued’ with a lime mix, the remains of which are visible on every fragment. Similar techniques were employed on some terracotta statues from Seleucia on the Tigris (van Ingen 1939:10–11, 116, 210–211, Pls. XX:135, 136, L:354–356). Small Figurines The small figurines were cast in separate molds for rear and front portions with the projecting and extending limbs. This technique made them more relief-like than freestanding terracottas. Two types of figurines were found: one modeled as a closed form with small vent holes; the other with an open bottom. The rear of these figurines was usually not thoroughly modeled—they are a transitional category between relief and freestanding figurines (Goldman 1950:300), presumably intended to be inserted into niches. Secondary retouching of some details, which was executed after the figurine was taken from the mold and prior to firing, were observed on some fragments (such as the ram’s fleece; see Cat. Nos. 40–44). Plaques and Terracotta Mask These two groups were produced by the same technique—casting within a single mold. Most items were decorated with a coating before or painted after firing. Plastic Vases This group, which mostly consists of imported vessels, was produced with numerous molds. The Knidian zoomorphic askoi, for example (Cat. Nos. 56–66), were

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

cast in no less than five separate molds, one for front, rear, each side and bottom, with the handle and mouth produced separately and connected to the vessel before firing. This technique demanded skilled workmanship for retouching of details. Locally or regionally produced plastic vases are vessels produced in separate molds such as zoomorphic askoi (Cat. Nos. 72–74) or using both mold-casting and

55

hand-modeled details (e.g., the dromedary askos; Cat. No. 75), with differing degrees of skillfulness. Portable Altars These locally produced devices are made in a technique that also combines parts produced in molds and/or hand-modeled parts connected together with retouching of some details. Some also show remains of post-firing painted decoration.

Table 3.1. Catalogue of Terracottas Cat. No.

Locus

Basket

Object/Part

Description (Dimensions in cm)*

1

1612

96060/3, 98050/7, 96912/32

Freestanding statue; torso

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 9.2

2

1612

96060/32

Freestanding statue; arm

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 8.2

3

1612

97030/39

Freestanding statue; arm fragment

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 5.2

4

1612

16073

Freestanding statue; arm

5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some minute red and white grits; H 5.5

5

1612

96205/20

Freestanding statue; chest to groin

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 10.7

6

1612

97030/44

Freestanding statue; leg fragment

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 5.7

7

1612

95973/8

Freestanding statue; unidentified body part

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 6.0

8

1612

73047/9

Freestanding statue; unidentified body part

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute red and white grits; remains of dull red color on front exterior; H 5.5

9

1612

95525/3, 4, 5

Freestanding statuette; shoulder to ankle

5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some minute-to-small white and dark gray grits; reddish-brown slip on exterior; round vent hole (D 1.1) below neck; H 13.0

10

1612

95214

Freestanding statuette; face

5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, gray inside; some minute red and black grits; fine red slip and slight burnish on exterior; H 5.0

11

3803

84130

Freestanding statue; face

7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few white inclusions, some mica; reddish slip on exterior; H 9.2

12

1612

71632

Freestanding statue; face

5YR 8/4 pink; some minute red and black grits; well-burnished on exterior; H 5.3

13

6609

68027/16

Freestanding statuette; head

7.5YR 8/4 pink; few white inclusions; self-slip on exterior; H 4.4; W 6.2

14

1831

17979

Freestanding statuette; head

7.5YR 8/4 pink; gray core; smoothed; H 4.3; W 3.8

15

7456

97320/2, 3

Freestanding statuette; leg

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; self-slip all over; remains of red painting; marks of knife shaving; H 9.4

16

Late fill above arena; Sq AB/89; Stratum V

74875/2

Freestanding statuette; arm

10R 5/8 red, exterior fired to light red; few white inclusions; self-slip on exterior; H 6.7; W 5.3

56

Peter Gendelman

Table 3.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Locus

Basket

Object/Part

Description (Dimensions in cm)*

17

7105

73036

Figurine; upper body

7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few brown inclusions; self-slip on exterior; remains of purple and blue pigment; H 6.4, W 6.0

18

2062

18362

Figurine; body

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; white coating on exterior; H 4.3; W 3.8

19

695

54709

Figurine; ear

7.5YR 7/4 pink; self-slip on exterior; H 4.1; W 1.9

20

7456

97320/1

Figurine; lion skin and mane

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; self-slip; H 5.1; W 3.0

21

Late fill above arena; Sq F/113; Stratum V

59195

Figurine

10YR 8/3 very pale brown; light gray on core; few red inclusions; self-slip all over; H 3.9

22

2110

18844, 18887

Figurine

7.5YR 8/4 pink; few white inclusions; self-slip and polish on exterior; H 9.2

23

1617

74255

Figurine

7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; self-slip on exterior; H 6.2; W 3.6

24

1621

74020

Figurine; leg

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few red inclusions; self-slip and polishing on exterior; H 5.9

25

1612

14163

Figurine; pedestal

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 2.85; W 2.3

26

1612

73057

Figurine; pedestal

5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few white inclusions; dull reddish wash allover; smoothed; H 2.5; W 3.6

27

7116

71958

Figurine; pedestal

7.5YR 8/4 pink; few white and red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; remains of white coating; H 4.6; pedestal 3.6 × >2.2

28

1266

11095

Figurine; pedestal

10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few brown and red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 3.0; W 2.8

29

1612

16342

Figurine; pedestal

5 R 7/6 reddish yellow; few minute white and red grits; remains of dull red slip on exterior; H 4.2

30

1612

95332

Figurine; horse head and neck

10R 5/6 red; gray interior; some minute white grits; white coating on exterior; H 6.2

31

1612

73121/8

Figurine; tunic

5 YR 8/4 pink; some small white grits; remains of white coating on exterior (from a mold?); H 3.0

32

7540

75244

Figurine; horse leg

5 YR 8/4 pink, gray core; some large dark gray grits; traces of white coating on exterior; H 4.2

33

7223

74322

Figurine; horse leg

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, exterior torn to pinkish white; self-slip on exterior; H 4.5; W 3.1

34

2110

18844

Figurine; rider

10Y 8/3 very pale brown; smoothed; H 3.7; W 4.8

35

Late fill above arena; Sq F/106– 107; Stratum V

80674

Figurine; horse’s croup

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few white and red inclusions; exterior fired to pink; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; made in separate molds connected together, round vent hole (D 0.4) on horse’s croup; crupper strap painted red pigment; H 3.1; W 5.3

36

1619

73836

Figurine; horse’s croup

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few white and red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 3.3; W 5.7

37

2139

18809

Figurine; horse head

7.5YR 8/4 pink; few white and red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; remains of brown coating; H 3.7; W 4.0

38

1174

11570

Figurine; horse’s chest and shoulder

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 4.2; W 3.1

39

2092

18503

Figurine; body and part of leg

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; self-slip on exterior; H 4.4; W 6.2

40

1616

15996

Figurine; body and leg

5YR 7/4 pink; some minute white grits; ivory color on exterior; remains of a dull red color on the rear; H 4.6

41

1612

15958

Figurine; belly and horn

5YR 7/4 pink on core to ivory color on exterior; contains some minute white grits; polished; H 1.8

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

57

Table 3.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Locus

Basket

Object/Part

Description (Dimensions in cm)*

42

1612

95521/42

Figurine; hind quarter and leg

5YR 7/4 pink on core to ivory color on exterior; some minute red and white grits; H 5.0

43

1612

15876

Figurine; belly and leg

7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few white and red inclusions; exterior fired to pink; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 4.2; W 3.8

44

1612

16091

Figurine; belly

7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few white and red inclusions; exterior fired to pink; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 2.8; W 4.2

45

Late fill above arena; Sq F–G/104–105; Stratum V

83321

Figurine; head

7.5YR 8/4 pink; few brown inclusions; self-slip allover; smoothed; remains of white coating; H 4.2; W 3.3

46

2110

18743

Figurine; head

10YR 8/3 very pale brown; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 3.2; W 3.6

47

1080

6752/1, 2

Figurine; head

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white and red inclusions, gray core; exterior fired to pink; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; made in two separate molds and joined; additional parts formed separately; H 3.3; W 4.1

48

1153

6673

Figurine; head

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white and red inclusions, gray core; exterior fired to pink; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; made in two separate molds and joined; additional parts formed separately; H 3.8; W 3.6

49

Late fill above arena; Sq F–G/112; Stratum V

59037

Figurine; body

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few white inclusions; gray core; hand-modeled and was connected to a base or vessel (not preserved); yellow paint? pigment? H 4.5

50

1612

16306

Plaque

7.5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium white and red grits; dull red slip on exterior; H 4.3

51

1612

96942/7

Plaque

5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some minute white and red grits; dull red slip on both surfaces; H 4.5

52

1617

73413

Terracotta mask

7.5YR 8/4 pink; few red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 7.0; W 8.5

53

466

52781

Terracotta mask

7.5YR 7/4 pink; few red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; H 4.5; W 5.0

54

7474

97679

Terracotta mask

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few red inclusions; self-slip on exterior; smoothed; remains of purple color paint; H 4.5; W 5.8

55

Fill east of circus; Sq I/89; Strata VIA–V

95705/13

Plastic vase

5YR 6/1 light gray; some thin silvery mica; reddish gray 5YR 5/2 slip on the exterior; H 4.0

56

1765

17635

Plastic vase

5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; red to reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 3.2; W 5.3

57

Late fill above arena; Sq F–G/111; Stratum V

59586

Plastic vase

As above; gray core; reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 6.2; W 6.6

58

1090

2769/16

Plastic vase

7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few white and dark inclusions; red slip on exterior; H 5.0, W 5.7

59

1601

71113

Plastic vase

5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; gray core; reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 7.5; W 5.0

60

1398

13141

Plastic vase

As above; thin reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 3.7; W 3.5

61

6061

60751

Plastic vase

2.5YR 6/6 light red; few white inclusions; red to reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 4.6; W 3.2

62

1633

70013

Plastic vase

5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; red to reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior and interior; H 5.5; W 4.1

58

Peter Gendelman

Table 3.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Locus

Basket

Object/Part

Description (Dimensions in cm)*

63

4881

27889

Plastic vase

2.5YR 6/6 light red; few white inclusions, some mica; mottled reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 2.5

64

1621

73985

Plastic vase

7.5YR 5/2 brown; few white and dark inclusions; reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; L 4.2; W 4.7

65

7288

74591/1

Plastic vase

5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; gray core; red to reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 6.2; W 6.6

66

1619

16343

Plastic vase

As above; many thin white inclusions; reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 4.0; W 6.6

67

6521

68537

Patera handle

7.5YR 5/2 brown; few white and dark inclusions; reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; L 4.1; W 2.0

68

6895

69938

Patera handle

5YR 7/8 reddish yellow; fired to pink on surfaces; smoothed; L 7.2

69

7906

78725/1

Thymiaterion

5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; gray core; reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 2.8; W 3.4

70

6887

69879

Thymiaterion

2.5YR 6/6 light red; few white inclusions; mottled reddish-brown metallic slip on exterior; H 6.2; pedestal: 6.0 × 6.0

71

1327

11473/69

Lantern; handle

7.5YR 6/2 pinkish gray; micaceous; 7.5YR 5/2 brown slip all over; H 11.6; round vent hole (D 1.1) below the neck

72

1601

14043/1

Plastic vase

5YR 8/3 pink; few brown and white inclusions; self-slip all over; chalk remains on exterior probably from mold; H 3.8; W 5.6

73

1601

14043/2

Plastic vase

5YR 8/3 pink; few brown and white inclusions; self-slip all over; chalk remains on exterior probably from mold; H 3.6; W 4.7

74

1601

14043/3,4

Plastic vase

5YR 8/3 pink; few brown and white inclusions; self-slip all over; chalk remains on exterior probably from mold; H 4.7; W 5.0

75

Late fill above East Cavea; Sq F/114; Stratum V

12685

Plastic vase

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; self-slip all over, dark brown paint; H 8.0; W 4.6

76

1612

15972/1

Rhyton

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions and mica; self-slip on exterior; exterior smoothed; stitch between two parts; knifeshaved and smoothed; H 10.4; W 3.6; spout D 0.5

77

1612

15972/2

Rhyton

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions and mica; self-slip on exterior; exterior smoothed; stitch between two parts; knifeshaved and smoothed; H 4.8; W 3.5

78

7084

71732

Altar

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; gray core, self-slip all over; H 9.5

79

9238+9251

92077/8

Altar

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white and brown inclusions; self-slip allover; remains of turquoise pigment on exterior; H 5.7; W 4.9

80

1620

16722

Altar

5YR 5/6 yellowish red; few white inclusions; gray core; saltwhitened on exterior; H 4.2; shaft c. 3.0 × 3.0

81

7497

97806/2

Altar

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; gray core; self-slip on exterior; H 4.2, shaft c. 3.0 × 3.0

82

1612

16149

Altar

5YR 8/4 pink; remains of purple pigment on exterior; H 5.0

83

1612

97060/37

Altar

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white and red inclusions; gray core, self-slip all over; H 3.0; W 3.2

84

3852

84392/6

Altar

7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few white inclusions; gray core; self-slip on exterior; shaft mold-made, and leg hand-modeled and then connected; H 7.3

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

59

Table 3.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Locus

Basket

Object/Part

Description (Dimensions in cm)*

85

1612

73249/19

Altar

5YR 8/4 pink, light red core; remains of dull dark red slip on upper part of exterior; fire blackened on interior; H 7.0

86

1612

95647/28

Altar

5YR 8/4 pink, light red core; remains of dull dark red slip on upper part of exterior; fire blackened on interior; H 3.9

87

1612

16729

Altar

5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few minute black and red grits; dull red slip; H 3.5

88

1612

95810/32

Altar

5YR 8/4 pink; dull red slip; H 3.3

89

1612

73238/11

Altar

5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; minute white and red grits; remains of dull red slip on exterior; H 4.0

90

3819

84121

Money-box

7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few white inclusions; self-slip on exterior; H 3.8; W 4.4; slot W 3.5

* H = Height; W = Width; D = Diameter

Notes 1 No favissa containing terracotta objects or a potter’s workshop deposit containing terracotta objects or molds, such as those excavated at Bet Natif (Baramki 1936) and Jerash (Iliffe 1945:1), has yet been found at Caesarea Maritima. A series of soft limestone molds of a Byzantine terracotta lamp and figurine manufacturer was found in Area KK, in a secondary fill (Holum et al. 1988:192, Figs. 140, 141). 2 A marble statue of Ephesian Artemis, which was uncovered during excavation near the Caesarea theater (Frova 1965:206–215), together with other objects bearing her image found at the site, may indicate a number of her worshipers among the inhabitants (Gersht 1996:318–319, n. 65). 3 On the figurine from H. Biz‘a, which dates to the Byzantine period, the rider was modeled separately and connected to the horse before firing (Gendelman 2012:44*–45*). 4 These molds originated from fills containing coins of the fourth–early sixth centuries CE and oil lamps, pottery and glass that date to c. the fifth–early seventh centuries CE (Patrich and Pinkas 2008:286, n. 2). 5 The archaeological content will be published in Porath, in prep.

6 For the classic type of kneeling animal with a mouth for filling set on top of its head, see Hayes 1983:105, 138, 2008:107, 271, Pl. 78:1635–1638; Kenrick 1985:333, Pl. 61:495. 7 Displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Accession No. 74.51.1666 (http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/ the-collection-online/search/241221 [accessed February 24, 2015]). 8 The vessel is on display there (Accession No. X.21.12) and is labeled as “Hellenistic. Date: 2nd–1st century B.C,” but the color image displayed on the website shows the distinctive metallic slip of Knidian vessels (http://www.metmuseum. org/collection/the-collection-online/search/256597 [accessed February 24, 2015]). 9 Especially one with the figure of Eros/Heracles (Katsioti 2014:104, Fig. 4). 10 Regarding the possibility that it was placed on the top of a figurine, see the “Vase in shape of Nike supporting an altar” from Tarsus (Goldman 1950:336, Fig. 230:188). 11 A fragment of a horseman figurine was also recovered from a fill in the Domus of the Dioscuri (L4816; see Gendelman and Porath, in prep.). 12 Permit No. A7080/2014.

60

Peter Gendelman

R eferences Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies. Jerusalem. Bailey D.M. 1972–1973. Cnidian Relief Ware Vases and Fragments in the British Museum 1, Lagynoi and HeadCups. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 14–15: 11–25. Bailey D.M. 1975a. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum I: Greek, Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery Lamps. London. Bailey D.M. 1975b. A Roman Lampstand of Cnidian Manufacture. Antike Kunst 18:67–71. Bailey D.M. 1978–1979. Chnidian Relief Ware Vases and Fragments in the British Museum 2, Oinophoroi and Jugs. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 19–20:257–272. Bailey D.M. 2008. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum IV: Ptolemaic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. London. Baldoni D. 2003. Vasi a matrice di età imperiale a Iasos (Missione archeologica Italiana di Iasos III; Archaeologica 139). Rome. Bald Romano I. 1995. Gordion Special Studies II: The Terracotta Figurines and Related Vessels. Philadelphia. Baramki D.C. 1936. Two Roman Cisterns at Beit Nattif. QDAP 5:3–10. Besques S. 1992 Musée du Louvre, catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre cuite grecs, étrusques et romains IV, 2: Époques hellénistiques et romaines, Cyrénaïque, Egypte ptolémaïque et romaine, Afrique du Nord et Proche-Orient. Paris. Bieber M. 1961. History of the Greek and Roman Theater. 2nd ed. Princeton. Bishop M. 1988. Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century A.D. In J.C. Coulston ed. Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference (BAR Int. S. 394). Oxford. Pp. 67–195. Bountantin C. 2014 Terres cuites et culte domestique: Bestiaire de l’Égypte gréco-romaine (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 179). Leiden. Breccia E. 1926. Monuments de l’Égypte Gréco-Romaine 1: Le rovine e i monumenti di Canopo. Bergamo. Breccia E. 1930. Terrecotte figurate Greche e Greco-egizie del Museo di Alessandria. Bergamo. Brody L. 2007. Aphrodisias III: The Aphrodite of Aphrodisias. Mainz am Rhein. Brusić Z. 1999–2000. Knidska reljefna keramika na Jadranskim nalazistima (Knidian Relief Pottery at Adriatic Sites) Opvsc. archaeol. 23–24:83–91 (Croatian; English summary). Burn L. and Higgins R. 2001. Catalogue of Greek Terracottas in the British Museum 3. London. Clerc G. and Leclant J. 1994. Osiris Kanopos. LIMC VII/1:116–131. Deneauve J. 1987. Figurines et lampes africaines. Antiquités Africaines 23:197–230.

Ebbinghaus S. 1999: Between Greece and Persia: Rhyta in Thrace from the Late 5th to the Early 3rd Centuries B.C. In G. Tsetskhladze ed. Ancient Greeks West and East. Leiden. Pp. 385–425. Elgavish J. 1994. Shiqmona on the Seacoast of Mount Carmel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Erlich A. 2009. Terracotta Figurines and Masks. In A. Segal, J. Mlynarczyk, M. Burdajewicz, M. Shuler and M. Eisenberg eds. Hippos-Sussita, Tenth Season of Excavations. Haifa. Pp. 53–62. Erlich A. 2010. Figurines, Sculpture and Minor Art of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. In E. Stern. Excavations at Dor: Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets; 1980–2000 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 117–212. Erlich A. and Foerster G. 2012. Zoomorphic Vases of the Fourth–Sixth Centuries from the North of Palestine. In L.D. Chrupcała ed. Christ is Here! Studies in Biblical and Christian Archaeology in Memory of Michele Piccirillo, ofm. Milan. Pp. 1–10. Erlich A. and Kloner A. 2008. Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989– 1996 Seasons (IAA Reports 35). Jerusalem. Frova A. 1965. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Milan. Gabler D. and Márton A. 2008–2009. Head-Pots in the Antiquities Collection. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 108–109:43–64. Gendelman P. 2012. The Pottery from Horbat Biz‘a. ‘Atiqot 70: 33*–47*. Gendelman P. Forthcoming. The Pottery. In Y. Porath and P. Gendelman. Caesarea I, 3 (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Gendelman P. and Porath Y. In Preparation. Caesarea Maritima II: W2S3 Insula; Domus of the Dioscuri, Late Roman Public Termae, Byzantine Semi-Public Complex and the Adjoining Architecture; Small Finds (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Gersht R. 1996. Representation of Deities and the Cults of Caesarea. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 305–324. Goldman H. 1950. The Terracotta Figurines. In H. Goldman ed. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus I: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Princeton. Pp. 297–383. Grandjouan C. 1961. Terracottas and Plastic Lamps of the Roman Period (The Athenian Agora 6). Princeton. Guz-Zilberstein B.1989. Drinking Vessels from Tel Dor. Qadmoniot 22 (85–86):39–41 (Hebrew). Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London. Hayes J.W. 1983. The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: The Pottery. ABSA 78:97–169. Hayes J.W. 2008. Roman Pottery Fine-Ware Imports (The Athenian Agora 32). Princeton. Herbert K. 1959. Terracotta Figurines at Bowdoin College. The Classical Journal 55:98–111. Holum K.G., Hohlfelder R.L, Bull R.J. and Raban A. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York.

Chapter 3: the Terracotta Statuary, Masks, Plastic Vases and Portable Altars

Horsefield G. and Horsefield H. 1942. Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene IV: The Finds. QDAP 9:105–204. Iliffe J. H.1945. Imperial Art in Trans Jordan: Figurines and Lamps from a Potter’s Store at Jerash. QDAP 11:1–26. Jennison G. 1937. Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome. Manchester. Johnson B.L. 2008. Ashkelon 2: Imported pottery of the Roman and Late Roman periods. Winona Lake. Katsioti A. 2014. Πήλινοι λυχνοστάτες με πλαστική διακόσμηση στο στέλεχος από τη Pόδο (Terracotta Lampstands with Plastic Decoration on the Stem from Rhodes). In Kοροπλαστική και μικροτεχνία στον αιγαιακό χώρο, Διεθνές συνέδριο στη μνήμη H. Zερβουδάκη. Athens. Pp. 95–110 (Greek). Kawami T.S. 1987. Monumental Art of the Parthian Period in Iran (Acta Iranica 26). Leiden. Kenrick P.M. 1985. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) III, 1: The Fine pottery (Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5). Tripoli. Kroll H. 2012. Animals in the Byzantine Empire: An Overview of the Archaeozoological Evidence. Archaeologia Medievale 39:93–121. Ladstätter S. 2005. Keramik. In H. Thür ed. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde (Forschungen in Ephesos VIII/6). Vienna. Pp. 230– 358. Lafli E. 2008. A Hellenistic Terracotta Bull-Head Rhyton from the Museum of Tarsus in Cilicia. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayın 3112–3132:257–262. Marazov I. 2010. Риmoн c Глава на Овен (Rhyton with Ram’s Head). Sofia (Bulgarian). Messika N. 1997. Excavation of the Courthouse Site at ‘Akko: The Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from Areas TB and TC. ‘Atiqot 31:121–128. Negev A. 1986. Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Nabatean Oboda: Final Report (Qedem 22). Jerusalem. Nickel H. 1989. The Emperor’s New Saddle Cloth: The Ephippium of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. Metropolitan Museum Journal 24:17–24. Patrich J. and Abu Shaneb M. 2008. The Clay Objects. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN; Final Reports I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 301–332. Patrich J. and Pinkas S. 2008. Lamps and Flask Molds. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN; Final Reports I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 296–300. Pfrommer M. 1993. Metalwork from the Hellenized East: Catalogue of the Collections, the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu, Calif. Porath Y. In Preparation. Caesarea Maritima: The Praetorium of Roman Judea/Palestina (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Porath Y. and Levy Y. 1993. Mughar el-Sharaf: A Cemetery of the Roman and Byzantine Periods in the Sharon. ‘Atiqot 22: 29*–42* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 153–154).

61

Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S.F. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910 I–II. Cambridge, Mass. Robinson D.M. 1924. Some Roman Terra-Cotta SavingsBanks. AJA 28:239–250. Robinson H.S. 1959. Pottery of the Roman Period: Chronology (The Athenian Agora 5). Princeton. Rotroff S.I. 1997. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (The Athenian Agora 29). Princeton. Roullet A. 1972. The Egyptian and Egyptianizing Monuments of Imperial Rome. Leiden. Slane K.W. 1990. Corinth XVIII.2: The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore; The Roman Pottery and Roman Lamps. Princeton. Slane K.W. and Dickie M.W. 1993. A Knidian Phallic Vase from Corinth. Hesperia 62:483–505. Stauffer A. 2012. Dressing the Dead in Palmyra. In M. Carroll and J.P. Wild eds. Dressing the Dead in Classical Antiquity. Gloucestershire. Pp. 89–98. Stern E. 1982. Achaemenid Clay Rhyta from Palestine. IEJ 32:36–43. Stern E. 2000. Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor town on the Carmel Coast. Jerusalem. Sussman V. 1980. Moulds for Lamps and Figurines from a Caesarea Workshop. ‘Atiqot (ES) 14:76–79. Sussman V. 1999. Terracotta Oil Lamps. In R. Gersht ed. The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of the Antiquities of Caesarea in Memory of Aharon Wegman. Tel Aviv. Pp. 115–138 (Hebrew; English abstract, pp. 14*–15*). Szymon M. 2005. Some Terracotta Figurines from Tell Farama (Pelusium). Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 16: 69–71. Thiersch H. 1936. Ependytes und Ephod: Gottesbild und Priesterkleid im Alten Vorderasien. Stuttgart. Török L. 1995. Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt (Bibliotheca Archaeologica 15: Monumenta Antiquitatis extra Fines Hungariae Reperta IV). Rome. Toynbee J.M.C. 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art. London. Treister M. 2012. The Treasure of Silver Rhyta from Erebuni I: The Calf-Head Rhyton. Изкуство и идеология. Sofia. Pp. 117–145. Van Ingen W. 1939. Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris Discovered by the Expeditions Conducted by the University of Michigan with the Cooperation of the Toledo Museum of Art and the Cleveland Museum of Art. Ann Arbor. Waagé F. O. 1933. Excavations in the Athenian Agora. The Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Hesperia 2:308–328. Zias J. 1980. A Roman Tomb at ‘Ar‘ara. ‘Atiqot 14:60–65. Ziffer I., Kletter R. and Segal O. 2006. Drinking Vessels (Rhyta) from Tel Ya‘oz. ‘Atiqot 52:25*–37* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 203–204).

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 4

The Stamped Amphorae from the IAA Excavations (1992–1998) Gerald Finkielsztejn

Introduction Twenty-one amphora stamps from the IAA excavations (1992–1998) at Caesarea were studied (Fig. 4.1). Twelve are of Rhodian origin, out of which six were most likely parts of handles belonging to three different amphorae (Rh 8, Rh 10 and Rh 11). Another is Rhodian in form, but not necessarily from that city (Rhr 1). One amphora top is Cypriot and inscribed in Phoenician (Cy 1). Four stamps written in Latin are borne by three amphora fragments from the western Mediterranean (L 1, L 2, L 3 and L 4), and include a complete top; one of them may be of Koan production. The quantity of stamped fragments from this facility and its vicinity is quite small in comparison to the nonstamped Hellenistic amphora fragments, examples of which are discussed elsewhere (Gendelman, forthcoming).1 Their paucity is probably due to the relatively limited evidence of the Hellenistic period at Herod’s Circus, which comprises the majority of the stamped fragments. The Rhodian stamps date to the last third of the third to the first centuries BCE, evidence for activity throughout the Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods. It is interesting to note that activity is already attested in Straton’s Tower in the 230s BCE, but the last third of the second and the middle of the first centuries BCE are best represented. The late Rhodian types are, to the best of this author’s knowledge, published for the very first time, but more evidence is necessary in order to fully understand the latest period of the practice of stamping amphorae in Rhodes (Finkielsztejn 2000b). Finally, it should be noted that stamped Roman amphora fragments, although not very common in Israel, remain significant and should be integrated into the general picture of trade in such vessels, most of which were not stamped, during the first century BCE

to the first century CE. The stamped amphora fragments from Herod’s Circus at Caesarea are evidence for activities in: (1) Hellenistic Straton’s Tower (third– second centuries BCE); (2) the intervening phase before Herod’s building projects (first half of the first century BCE); and (3) the early period of Caesarea (late first century BCE–early first century CE). The two former periods are dominated by Rhodian imports, as is the case in all the southern Levant, with one Cypriot amphora, a class often found at coastal sites (such as Jaffa or Akko-Ptolemais; Finkielsztejn 2000a:211, Pl. 110), but also rarely inland (e.g., Samaria and Marissa; Ariel and Finkielsztejn 2003:143–144). The importance of the example from Caesarea is that it definitely originates in the Phoenician area of the island and, while not unique, the products most commonly exported to the Levant are those from Greek Kourion. The last period is also best represented by Rhodian amphorae together with imports from the western Roman world, i.e., eastern Italy and northern Spain. These exports reflect the still flourishing commerce from the former leading Greek city of Hellenistic times, namely Rhodes, in all directions and the eastward extension (actually the continuation for eastern Italy) of the Imperial Mediterranean. The Koan origin of one example (L 1) remains tentative.

Catalogue R hodes The Rhodian stamps are presented here in chronological order following the dates reflecting the low chronology recently established by this author, all of which are approximations.2 This presentation is intentionally concise and minimal references are provided (cf. Finkielsztejn 2001:209–211).

64

Gerald Finkielsztejn

Rh 1. Locus 7412, Reg. No. 6/95-95939, Stratum VIC—Rectangular stamp.

Rh 3. Locus 6331, Reg. No. 6/95-63027, Hellenistic foundation fill—Rectangular stamp.

’Ε[π]ì ‘Εξα κέστ(ου)

Κό[τευς Grape cluster?]

Rh 1

Rh 3

Retrograde writing. The eponym ‘Eξάκεστος is the earliest one known to this author that mentions a month (Grace 1952:536, No. 17, 1963:328, n. 20; Le Roy 1984:309, No. 5; Kontorini 1989:134, 195). Date: c. 234 BCE (Finkielsztejn 2001:191).

This inscription’s restoration seems the most likely name of the fabricant, based on parallels with a similar script (Börker and Burow 1998: Pl. 17, No. 470, with grape cluster or Pl. 27, No. 245, without cluster). No evidence for associating Κότης with eponyms is known to this author. In light of the appearance of two examples in the Pergamon Deposit and seven in the Olbia Deposit (Levi 1964:270, Nos. 271–277, Pls. XVIII, XIX), the activity of this fabricant can be dated to Period III. Date: first half of the second century BCE, probably between c. 181 and 161 BCE.

Rh 2. Locus 1612, Reg. No. 6/95-95818, Stratum VIC—Circular stamp (Fig. 4.1: Rh 2). ’Αριστόνεικ[ος] Cornucopia

Rh 4. Locus 732, Reg. No. 6/94-27149, Byzantine context—Rectangular stamp. ]τε ]ου

Rh 2

Probably from the same die as in Levi 1964:169, No. 220, Pl. XV, despite the illustration there as having been enlarged to greater than 1:1. The fabricant is ’Aριστόνεικος, who also used a large rosette as a device. He seems to have preceded ’Αριστοφάνης (Grace 1952:536, Nos. 18, 19). Associations are known with the eponyms Νίκων (IG XII, 1, 1169) and ’Αριστεύς (on the basis of the stamping devices employed). Date: c. 230–228 BCE (Finkielsztejn 2001:78–80, 105, Pl. XI).

Rh 4

Traces of a frame. The aspect of the handle and the script do not allow a precise dating of this amphora, but it may belong to the second century BCE (probably early in this century).

Chapter 4: the Stamped Amphorae from the Iaa Excavations (1992–1998)

Rh 5. Locus 12137, Reg. No. 38/92.II.35741, Byzantine context—Circular stamp. ’Επì Κληνοστράτου Δα[λίο]υ Bust of Helios

65

from being read. Such a date is strengthened by the handle’s profile, which is angular but not fully raised. Both Κλεύδικος (Nilsson 1909:445, No. 274; Grace 1952:529) and Κλεύτιμος (Grace 1953:123, 126, No. 109 b) are likely restorations of the eponym’s name, the former being more common and previously attested on this type of stamp (Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, J.-Y. Empereur, pers. comm.). Date: first quarter of the first century BCE, probably 90–75 BCE (Finkielsztejn 2001:159–160, 162, Table 14; 2000b:407–408, Fig. 1:1). For parallels to the following Rhodian stamped handles, see Grace 1965:8–9, Figs. 2, 3 (for the illustrations) and 14, 15 (for the commentaries). Rh 7. Locus 1612, Reg. No. 6/95-96899, Stratum VIC—Circular stamp (Fig. 4.1: Rh 7).

Rh 5

Large rose

Eponym Κληνόστρατος. Fabricant ΕÙφράνωρ 2nd. Date: c. 128–126 (Finkielsztejn 2001:138–140, 194). Rh 6. Reg. No. 6/94-25891—Circular stamp. [’Ε]πˆ Κλε[υδίκ or υτίμ]ου Large rose

Rh 7

Rh 6

The month does not seem to have been included in the stamp. This example is a typical feature of late Period VI circular stamps with a rose, when they are larger than the handle, precluding the complete inscription

The stamp bears the same features as Rh 6, but it is not clear whether the die was anepigraphic. The bend of the handle is much more raised and, therefore, this amphora is probably later in date. There is a yellow slip on the surface, which is a feature common in the late second to early first centuries BCE. Date: possibly second quarter of the first century BCE. Rh 8. Locus 1612, Reg. Nos. 6/95-96221 + 96226, Stratum VIC—Probably a pair of opposing handles from the same unrestored amphora—Rectangular stamps (Fig. 4.1: Rh 8).

66

Gerald Finkielsztejn

Same die impressed on each handle: ΕÙφά νης

under Rh 8–Rh 12. All have the same date as Rh 12. On this example and the following stamped handles see previous discussion in Finkielsztejn 2000b:413–414. Rh 9. Locus 1612, Reg. No. 6/96-97058, Stratum VIC—Circular stamp. [Ε]Ùφάνη[ς]

Rh 9

Rh 8

The two first letters are ligatured: the two upper branches of the upsilon (Υ) are set on the top of the epsilon (Ε). This most probably is the name of the fabricant. The profile of the handle is similar to that of Rh 7, but is thicker. Unfortunately, the context—the massive fill in the depression east of the East Cavea (See Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4)—offers little help toward confirming that the two handles belong to one and the same amphora. Moreover, it is not absolutely certain that, in this period in Rhodes, an amphora would be (1) stamped on both its handles and (2) by the same stamp. However, such a practice seems likely, as at least one example, albeit a few decades later, was stamped on each handle with the same die representing monograms, one for the fabricant’s name and one for the month (see the commentary under Rh 12 below). If this was not the case in the period in question, we would be dealing with two different amphorae from the same workshop. It should be noted that the sole handle catalogued as Rh 12 was stamped with the same die as the pair catalogued as Rh 11, i.e., either the second handle was not retrieved (most probably) or the amphorae received only one stamp on one of its handles only, which means that we would deal with three different vessels (less likely in view of the above example of a few decades later). This reasoning also applies for Rh 10. Thus, there could have been a maximum of eight amphorae with a stamp bearing a name starting with ΕÙ-, in the case of a single stamping, and a minimum of five, in the case of a double stamping, all registered

Enough letters are preserved to allow a restored reading on the basis of Rh 8. The aspect of the handle is roughly the same, but the impression of the die on the angular bend modified the general profile. This strengthens the attribution to the same workshop, but not necessarily to the same fabricant, although he may have used different types of die. It has the same date as Rh 12. Rh 10. Locus 1612, Reg. Nos. 6/96-97068.1 + 97171, Stratum VIC—Probably a pair of opposing handles from the same unrestored amphora—Rectangular stamps (Fig. 4.1: Rh 10 illustrates one example). The association is based on the aspect of the handles, which are raised and slightly thickened, the same brownish color of the fabric and the stamps from an identical die: ΕÙ(

Rh 10

Retrograde reading. From a different die than Rh 11 and Rh 12 below (see commentary). See also Rh 8 for a supposed association.

Chapter 4: the Stamped Amphorae from the Iaa Excavations (1992–1998)

Rh 11. Locus 1612, Reg. Nos. 6/96-97022 + 97068.2, Stratum VIC—Probably a pair of opposing handles from the same unrestored amphora—Rectangular stamps. The association is based on the aspect of the handles, which are raised, narrowed and pinched, the reddish color of the fabric, and the stamps from an identical die: ΕÙ(

Rh 11

Retrograde reading. From a different die than Rh 10 above, but identical with that of Rh 12 (see commentary). See also Rh 8 for the supposed association. Rh 12. Locus 1612, Reg. No. 6/93–16077, Stratum VIC—Rectangular stamp. ΕÙ(

Rh 12

Retrograde reading. From a different die than Rh 10, but identical with that of the pair catalogued as Rh 11. In addition, the handle is also pinched and the fabric is rather yellowish-red and there are traces of red paint on the attachment. The evidence seem to suggest that all the amphorae with the ΕÙ( stamps come from the same workshop and that the latter two were made by the same potter, who had the same ‘hand’ in modeling the handles and who used the same die. However, it cannot be easily ascertained whether the name

67

ΕÙφάνης appearing on Rh 8 and Rh 9 was intended in the abbreviated form. The handles of Rh 11 and Rh 12 are shorter than that of the three other amphorae. A relative chronology cannot be based on the aspect of the stamps so close in time as evidenced by the similarities of the inscriptions. However, it should be noted that an amphora from the Dramont D shipwreck, thought to have sunk in the middle of the first century CE, bears the stamp ΕÙ( ‘Yα( on both handles and both abbreviations are separately ligatured as on Rh 8. It is J.-Y. Empereur’s suggestion that the second monogram could stand for the month of ‘Yα(κίνθιος), on the basis of earlier examples (Empereur and Hesnard 1987:61–62, Pl. 3, No. 14 = Finkielsztejn 2001: Pl. C, Fig. 20). This explanation is most likely; however, the reading ΑÙ( cannot be ruled out. Here, again, the difference in dates does not allow a link to be suggested between this amphora and our stamps. The same ligature ΕÙ( appears inside the name Κλευκράτης on a stamp from Delos, which is attributed to Rhodes and dated to the first century BCE (Κλευκράτης 2nd; Grace 1952:538, No. 34). I would now date the latter roughly between 73 and 46 BCE, and the person named may have been an eponym late in that period (see Finkielsztejn 2001:159–160, 162, Table 15). Grace noted that the fabric of the latter handle, as well as that of two others from the same origin and date, was dark red (Grace 1952:538, Nos. 32, 34, with two names not appearing on any other Rhodian stamp of the same period; see Rhr 1). The entire group of amphorae starting with ΕÙfrom Caesarea may be dated to the second half of the first century BCE. The history of Caesarea, thus, may contribute to the refinement of their dating. Peter Gendelman (pers. comm.) posits that the main commercial activities in first century BCE Caesarea took place between the years 20 and 10 BCE. The (nonetheless mixed) context of most of the ΕÙ( and ΕÙφάνης handles seems evidence for those activities. The style of the stamps and the context would chronologically situate these amphorae between Κλευκράτης 2nd and the amphora stamped ΕÙ( ‘Yα(, i.e., between the second quarter of the first century BCE and the first third of the first century CE. This could suit their form, as the profile of the handles is definitely earlier than the Rhodian types of the very beginning of the first century CE, such as those from a rich Lyon deposit (France; Desbat and Picon 1986:638, Fig. 1:5; 642, Fig. 4:1–5). See also Rh 8.

68

Gerald Finkielsztejn

A R hodian-R elated Amphora Rhr 1. Locus 1612, Reg. No. 6/93-15930, Stratum VIC—Circular stamp. Schematic rose

Rhr 1

The stamp is completely impressed and anepigraphic. The handle is short and rather thick, and its profile is angular and slightly raised. The fabric is different from the more common one attributed to Rhodes. The color is bright yellowish-red to purplish-dark red, and there are some thin shiny yellow particles. The surface is pale brown. Both the features of the fabric and the crudely designed device cast some doubt on the attribution of this vessel to an actual Rhodian production (see Rh 12). ‘Imitations’ are attested in this period, although the full meaning of that phenomenon remains to be understood (see Empereur and Hesnard 1987:13, where imitations are distinguished from ‘counterfeits’; this point is discussed fully in Finkielsztejn 2002 and 2006). The profile of the handle would date this amphora to the second half of the first century BCE.

Cyprus (Phoenician) Cy 1. Locus 1612, Reg. No. 6/95-95351, Stratum VIC— Complete neck with one complete handle and the top of a second one—Circular stamp (Fig. 4.1: Cy 1). The stamp bears two Phoenician letters separated by a dot set in the middle of the circle, reading from right to left: n.t

[‫ ]נ • ת‬

Cy 1

The late Professor J. Naveh kindly provided me with the reading of this stamp, on the basis of a photograph and a rubbing, and added the following comment. The cursive tav is common on late Punic inscriptions, but nothing prevents it from being used also in Cyprus. It seems that the script evolved evenly in the various Phoenico-Punic areas. The third-century BCE dating of this script fits that suggested for the vessel itself (J. Naveh, pers. comm.; see below). This author would like to add that the sign for the nun exists also in the Cypriot syllabic script, for the syllable pe (Masson 1961: Fig. 1, table). So, if this stamp was poorly impressed and only the right part is visible, it could be misinterpreted. No other sign compares with that of the tav in the Cypriot script. The fabric and the surface of the amphora are buff, with some white and brown inclusions. The profile of the fragment is definitely Cypriot, but the fabric is atypical, at least, for Kourion ware, which is easily identified. In any case, other wares are found on the island (e.g., Cypriot stamped handles from the Kaplan excavations in Jaffa, to be published by the author). The present example shares the dense quantity of light and dark grits with the Kourion ware. In any event, since this amphora was probably made in a Phoenician area of the island, the fabric may be different from that of Kourion. The bend of the handles is not raised (Grace 1979: Pl. XXVIII:1–2a; Calvet 1986:506, Fig. 1a; Meyza 2004:276, Fig. 8). Other examples of Cypriot amphora stamps with Semitic script (in Phoenician, probably from the east coast of the island) were found in Jaffa and ‘Akko (Finkielsztejn 2013: passim). Some such stamps were found in Cyprus, but were not considered local (Calvet 1982:47, No. 129, although the profile of the handle is not of a Levantine type and could be Cypriot). This issue needs further examination. No explanation may be suggested for the meaning of the letters. Date: probably third century BCE.

Chapter 4: the Stamped Amphorae from the Iaa Excavations (1992–1998)

Rh 7 Rh 2

Rh 8

Rh 10

Cy 1

L1

L2

L3

L4 0

10

Fig 4.1. Stamped amphorae: Rh 1, Rh 7, Rh 8, Rh 10, Cy 1, L 1, L 2, L 3, L 4.

69

70

Gerald Finkielsztejn

Latin Stamps L 1. Locus 609, Reg. No. 6/93–54210, Stratum VIC—Rectangular stamp, impressed under the rim (Fig. 4.1: L 1). LVP.ANO.VI[

L1

The P is ‘open’ and ligatured with a V. Alternative readings for the second ligature, which are unlikely because of the following O, include NA or AV. The amphora is a Dressel 2–4, which are mainly characterized by double-barreled handles, on the basis of the straight neck and the rounded thickened rim (H 2.2 cm; Th 1.9 cm). The fabric is yellowish-red with some white and brown inclusions, as well as a few flakes of gold mica. The surface is pale brown with white inclusions and more gold mica. These features may point to a Koan origin for this amphora, although the Latin stamp may be evidence for the ‘imitations’ (or, rather, ‘adoptions’) of the form that spread widely in the Roman Empire (see the Longarina Deposit, dated to the first twelve years of the first century CE, in Hesnard 1980:145, Pl. 2:1; see also Desbat and Picon 1986:638, Fig. 1:1, 2, 643, Fig. 5). No parallel is known for the stamp (M.-B. Carre, pers. comm.). Date: early first century CE(?). L 2. Reg. No. 6/94–71702—Rectangular stamp impressed on the neck, under the profiled rim, next to the attachment of one handle (Fig. 4.1: L 2). TIBISI

L2

The flaring profile of the neck may point to a Dressel 7–11 Beltrán I amphora. The rim is thickened with a triangular profile (H 2.4 cm; Th 3.2 cm). Under the rim, there is a molding (H 1.0 cm; Th 0.4 cm). The fabric is hard, bright yellowish-red without any inclusions. The surface is a very pale brown with some thin mica. On this class, see Peacock and Williams 1986:117–121, Class 17, rather than Class 16 (B). Dario Bernal, of Cadix University, kindly confirmed that this amphora is actually a Spanish product (letter dated 10/12/98): “The amphora rim we are dealing with is a Dr. 7–11 produced on the coast of Tarraconensis, in the first century CE, probably in the atelier of L’Aumedia, in Tivissa (modern province of Tarragona, in Cataluña). There, they have some kilns with the same stamp and typology [of the vessel]. The most recent publication is […] Revilla Calvo 1993.” This fits the name appearing on the stamp, which is that of the production site ‘Tibisi/Tivissa’ (see also Hesnard 1980:145–147, Pl. 4:1; Desbat and Picon 1986:639, Fig. 2:1–6). Date: first century CE. L 3. Locus 1135, Reg. No. 38/92-10022, Byzantine context—Complete top of the amphora, with incused letters at the bottom of the neck, between the handles (Fig. 4.1: L 3). TI.IVLP

L3

The P is open and ligatured with a V and an L. The amphora belongs to the Dressel 6B class, which carried oil from Istria and also perhaps from the Venetian area (M.-B. Carre, pers. comm.). The fabric is reddishyellow and the surface is very light brown. On the class, see Peacock and Williams 1986:98–101 (Class 8). See also Hesnard et al. 1988:54–55, Nos. 68, 69. Date: first century CE.

Chapter 4: the Stamped Amphorae from the Iaa Excavations (1992–1998)

L 4. Locus 4816, Reg. Nos. 6/94-27664 + 27495, Stratum VI—Two fragments of the upper neck with the rim and attachment of one handle. Incused letters impressed under the rim between the handles (Fig. 4.1: L 4). Τ.Ι[

71

A possible restoration of the inscription is T.H.B, as on the rim and neck of Dressel 6A wine amphorae from the Central Adriatic Coast and the area of Parma (Cipriano and Carre 1989:85–88; Carre et al. 1995:80, No. 223, Pl. 3). It is the abbreviation of the name T(itus) H(elvius) B(asila), according to Marie-Brigitte Carre (pers. comm.). The fabric is a whitish-beige, with rare thin mica. Date: first half of the first century CE.

L4

Notes 1 Stamps are integral parts of amphorae and, thus, should typically be included in the catalogue of all examples of this form. However, for reasons of expertise and internal organization of this publication, non-stamped amphorae and fragments are published separately (see Gendelman, forthcoming). 2 A full presentation of this revision may be found in Finkielsztejn 2001. For the periodization and an elaboration

of the chronology referred to in the comments, see especially Finkielsztejn 1995 and 2000b. Further revisions shall be presented by the author in forthcoming publications of large collections of stamped amphora handles. In the meantime, see the relevant parts in Badoud (forthcoming); however, non-specialists should use this work with caution as some new proposed dates are unlikely.

R eferences Ariel D.T. and Finkielsztejn G. 2003. Amphora Stamps and Imported Amphoras. In A. Kloner ed. Maresha Excavations Final Report 1: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (IAA Reports 17). Jerusalem Pp. 137–151. Badoud N. Forthcoming. Le temps de Rhodes: Une chronologie des inscriptions de la cité fondée sur l’étude de ses institutions. Munich. Börker C. and Burow J. 1998. Die hellenistischen Amphorenstempel aus Pergamon. Berlin. Calvet Y. 1982. Kition-Bamboula 1: Les timbres amphoriques. Paris. Calvet Y. 1986. Les amphores chypriotes et leur diffusion en Méditerranée orientale. In J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan eds. Recherches sur les amphores grecques (BCH Suppl. 13). Paris. Pp. 505–514.

Carre M.-B., Gaggadis-Robin V., Hesnard A. and Tchernia A. 1995. Recueil des timbres sur amphores romaines (1987– 1988). Aix-en-Provence. Cipriano M.T. and Carre M.-B. 1989. Production et typologie des amphores sur la côte adriatique de l’Italie. In Amphores romaines et histoire économique: Dix ans de recherche (Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome 114). Rome. Pp. 67–104. Desbat A. and Picon M. 1986. Les importations d’amphores de Méditerranée orientale à Lyon (fin du Ier siècle avant J.C. et Ier siècle après). In J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan eds. Recherches sur les amphores grecques (BCH Suppl. 13). Paris. Pp. 637–648. Empereur J.-Y. and Hesnard A. 1987. Les amphores hellénistiques. In P. Lévêque and J.-P. Morel eds. Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines 2. Paris. Pp. 10–71.

72

Gerald Finkielsztejn

Finkielsztejn G. 1995. Chronologie basse des timbres amphoriques rhodiens et évaluation des exportations d’amphores. Acta Hyperborea 6:279–296. Finkielsztejn G. 2000a. Les amphores importées au Levant sud à l’époque hellénistique et la révision de la chronologie des timbres amphoriques rhodiens. In Acts of the Fifth Scientific Conference on Hellenistic Pottery (Chania, April 1997). Athens. Pp. 207–220. Finkielsztejn G. 2000b. Chronologie et diffusion des dernières amphores timbrées rhodiennes: étude préliminaire. Rei Cretariæ Romanæ Fautorum Acta 36:407–415. Finkielsztejn G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ. Premier bilan (BAR Int. S. 990). Oxford. Finkielsztejn G. 2002. Les amphores hellénistiques de Crète et les questions des imitations d’amphores et des timbres amphoriques à types monétaires. In A.K. Mylopotamitake ed. Οινός παλαιός ηδύποτος Το κρήτικο κρασί από τα προϊστορικά ως τα νεότερα χρόνια (Vinum Creticum Excellens): The Cretan Wine from Prehistory to Modern Times (Heraklion, April 24–26 1998). Heraklion. Pp. 137– 145. Finkielsztejn G. 2006. Production et commerce des amphores hellénistiques: récipients, timbrage et métrologie. In R. Descat ed. Approches de l’économie hellénistique (Entretiens d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 7). Saint-Bertrandde-Comminges. Pp. 17–34. Finkielsztejn G. 2013. Cypriot Amphora Stamps of the Hellenistic Period Found in Israel. In J. Lund and M. Lawall eds. The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus (Gösta Enbom Monographs 3). Aarhus. Pp. 86–100. Gendelman P. Forthcoming. The Pottery. In Y. Porath and P. Gendelman. Caesarea I, 3 (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Grace V. 1952. Timbres amphoriques trouvés à Délos. BCH 76:514–540. Grace V. 1953. The Eponyms Named on Rhodian Amphora Stamps. Hesperia 22:116–128. Grace V. 1963. Notes on the Amphorae from the Koroni Peninsula. Hesperia 32:319–334.

Grace V. 1965. The Commercial Amphorae from the Antikythera Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 55.3:5–17. Grace V. 1979. Kouriaka. In Studies Presented in Memory of Porphyrios Dikaios. Nicosia. Pp. 178–188. Hesnard A. 1980. Un dépôt augustéen d’amphores à la Longarina, Ostie. In J.H. D’Arms and E.C. Kopf eds. The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36). Rome. Pp. 141–156. Hesnard A., Carre M.-B., Rival M. and Dangréaux B. 1988. L’épave romaine Grand Ribaud D (Hyères, Var). Archaeonautica 8:49–55. IG XII: F. Hiller de Gaertringen. Inscriptiones Graecae Insularum Maris Aegaei—Rhodi, Chalces, Carpathi, cum saro casi (Inscriptiones Graecae XII, 1). Berlin 1895. Kontorini V. 1989. Inscriptions inédites de Rhodes II. Athens. Le Roy C. 1984. Timbres amphoriques provenant de Tanis: Complément. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale 84:307–315. Levi E.I. 1964. A Pottery Complex of the IIIrd–IInd cent. B.C. from the Excavations of the Olbian Agora. In V.F. Gaidukevich ed. Olbia: Temenos and Agora. Moscow. Pp. 259–280 (Russian; English summary). Masson O. 1961. Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques: Recueil critique et commenté (Etudes Chypriotes 1). Paris. Meyza H. 2004. Kouriaka Again: Amphora Stamps from the Kourion Acropolis Excavations. In J. Eiring and J. Lund eds. Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (Athens, September 26–29, 2002). Athens. Pp. 273–284. Nilsson M.P. 1909. Timbres amphoriques de Lindos (Exploration archéologique de Rhodes V). Copenhagen. Peacock D.P.S. and Williams D.F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide. London. Revilla Calvo V. 1993. Producción cerámica y economía rural en el bajo Ebro en época romana: El Alfar de L’Aumedina, Tivissa (Tarragona) (Collecció Instrumenta 1). Barcelona. (Non vidi)

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 5

The Coins Gabriela Bijovsky

Nine hundred and four coins from the excavation of Herod’s Circus in Caesarea were registered between the years 1992 and 1998 (Tables 5.1, 5.2; Coin Catalogue). Most of the coins were corroded or in a poor state of preservation due to the physical conditions at the site, in particular its proximity to the sea; 618 of these coins were unidentifiable. No hoards or deposits were recovered. All of the coins are bronze except where otherwise indicated.1

Coins by Group (Table 5.1) The Herodian issues (Herod the Great and his son, Archelaus) represent almost half the coins. This distribution is not surprising, as the excavation focused on a facility originally constructed during Herod’s time and that was subsequently in use for nearly three centuries. The general picture that emerges from the other coin groups (Table 5.2) is quite consistent with results from other published coins from excavations in Caesarea (Belloni 1965; Ariel 1986:137–146; Lampinen 1992:169–170; DeRose Evans 1995:164, 2006). All of these reports share the same general character in their numismatic assemblages: the huge quantities of bronze in contrast to the absence of gold and silver coins, and the poor state of preservation. Hellenistic issues are almost non-existent at published sites, while the number of coins increases toward the third century CE, reaching a peak in currency during the fourth century, and continuing until the sixth century CE in decreasing numbers. Most of the excavations revealed remains of the Byzantine city, while the present excavations offer an exceptional opportunity to concentrate on Roman Caesarea. The coins in this report derive from the excavation of Herod’s Circus, which was dedicated in 10/9 BCE by Herod. Historical sources allude to the date of its construction, but do not attest to the date of its abandonment or developments during the intervening period (see Caesarea I, 1). Thus, the numismatic data,

which belongs to loci from sealed strata (Table 5.1), is of critical importance for the dating of the different building phases identified by the excavators and for the cessation of the facility’s use. Hellenistic (Seleucid and Hasmonean—Third and Second Centuries BCE) The earliest coins found in the excavation are dated to the Seleucid period (Cat. Nos. 1–11). However, they are not stratigraphically related to a Hellenistic phase, but were found within the fills of the post-Herodian phase (Stratum VIC, see below). Thus, they might indicate occupation at the site during the third to second centuries BCE, probably related to Straton’s Tower. Hellenistic coins found in Herodian strata are already known from the JECM (Lampinen 1992:169, 172; DeRose Evans 2006:7–9). Herodian (Herod the Great and Archelaus— 40 BCE–6 CE) Only one coin of Herod’s son Archelaus (Cat. No. 109) is recorded from Stratum VII Surface 7419, apparently from a later phase of its use. Seven Herodian coins (Cat. Nos. 34, 77, 84, 85, 107, 110, 116) were found in Foundation Trench 7412 of W1640, which was constructed during the beginning of Stratum VIC. However, Herodian coins were recovered in large quantities within the deposits that filled the depression to the east of the circus. These fills are related to the renovations to the structure during the early first century CE by the Roman Procurators (Stratum VIC; see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4), when the surface to the east of Herod’s Circus was raised up to the level of the uppermost row of seats, and the entrances to the facility were changed. The coins of Herod and Archelaus discovered within these fills provide a terminus post quem for the beginning of Stratum VIC.

74

Gabriela Bijovsky

All the 64 coins of Herod are prutot of the common type ‘anchor/double cornucopiae with caduceus’, except for one double prutah depicting the ‘X’ design within a diadem on the obverse, and the tripod on its reverse (Cat. No. 18). The high incidence of the ‘anchor/double cornucopiae with caduceus’ coins is not surprising, since some 70% of all provenanced coins of Herod belong to this type (Ariel 2006:352). Coin No. 18 represents, according to Ariel’s internal chronology, the earliest of Herod’s coins struck in Jerusalem, namely between 30 and 29 BCE. In contrast, the ‘anchor/double cornucopiae with caduceus’ type was minted later in Herod’s reign. Ariel (2006:351– 353) suggests that the combination of symbols—the cornucopia, the caduceus and the anchor symbolizing, respectively, prosperity, trade and sovereignty over the coast—indicate that this type was minted during the construction of Caesarea the city and its port Sebastos. The typological proximity of this coin of Herod to a similar type of Archelaus reinforces the assumption that Herod’s coin belongs toward the end of the series (Ariel 2006:339–340). Regarding the 40 coins of Archelaus (4 BCE– 6 CE) found within these fills, not all of his types are represented. This evidence may raise new questions about the internal chronology of Archelaus’ types. Seventeen of the coins belong to his two earliest types, which imitate Herod’s prutot (Cat. Nos. 82–98 and see above); while the rest introduce new motifs (Cat. Nos. 99–121). Among them are six prutot bearing the crested helmet with caduceus and a cluster of grapes. These coins are considered to be the last type minted by Archelaus, due to the change in size and weight of the flan, which more resembles the Roman standard of the quadrans than the standard based on the Seleucid lepton. This new standard was then followed by Agrippa I and the Roman Procurators in Judea (Meshorer 1997:74). Interestingly, both types of Archelaus bearing the galley (the double prutah and prutah; AJC 2: Nos. 3, 4) are missing from the excavation. Meshorer (1997:74) relates them to Archelaus’ successful voyage to Rome in order to claim his rights before Augustus against his brother Antipas, during the early days of his rule. The complete absence of both types from the excavation at Herod’s Circus may suggest that they were indeed minted at a later stage during Archelaus’ rule, otherwise they should have been found together with his earlier types. Moreover, the fact that Meshorer’s Type No. 3

was struck in a large denomination, could indicate, according to his assumption cited above, a later date of minting.2 Twenty-three coins from these fills remain classified under the general category ‘Herodian’ (Cat. Nos. 122– 144). All of them have in common the depiction of the anchor on one side, and the crossed cornucopiae with the caduceus on the reverse. However, since the legends on these coins are the most accurate way to assign them to each ruler and in most of the examples the inscriptions are illegible (or there are no inscriptions at all), no attribution to either Herod I or his son Archelaus is possible. Judean (First Century CE) Most of the coins of the first century CE from this excavation are related to repairs that took place toward the end of Stratum VIC. Coins of Agrippa I (Cat. Nos. 148–152) were uncovered under the new floor of the Pillared Complex 3800; a Judaea Capta coin of Titus (Cat. No. 163), struck in Caesarea, was found within Channel 3896; and a coin of the Roman Procurators under Nero struck in 58/59 CE (Cat. No. 154) comes from floor infrastructure above the massive fills on the southeast side of the complex. Two coins of the Roman prefect under Augustus dated to 10 CE and 6–12 CE (Cat. Nos. 145–146) are the latest coins within the fill which sealed the depression to the east and south of Herod’s Circus,3 thus dating this operation to no earlier than the first decade of the first century CE. A total of eight Judean Procutorial coins were discovered (Cat. Nos. 145–147, 153–157), a small number that, unfortunately, cannot shed any light about the preeminence of Caesarea, the new seat of the provincial government from 6 CE, over Jerusalem, as mint place of these coins (Levine 1975:21; RPC I:682; Meshorer 1997:152). Actually, Kushnir-Stein (2002) associates these issues with the mint of Jerusalem, based on their beveled edges; her suggestion is adopted in the catalogue below. Another interesting issue is the complete absence from the excavation of coins struck by Claudius bearing Latin legends or a series of bronzes by Nero. Previously, all of them had been attributed to the city of Caesarea, based on their find spots (as Meshorer writes: “More than 90 percent of these issues have been discovered in the environs of Caesarea” (AJC 2:61; RPC I:670–673 Nos. 4847, 4848, 4858–4865). Two coins of Claudius

75

Chapter 5: The Coins

1

20

117

166

7

62

146

12

18

94

107

160

167

169

0

Fig. 5.1. Coins.

165

172

2

76

Gabriela Bijovsky

174

177

179

183

180

185

184

186

194

0

Fig. 5.2. Coins.

2

77

Chapter 5: The Coins

195

197

200

206

255

0

2

Fig. 5.3. Coins.

of this series were published in the catalogue of the archaeological collection at the Sdot-Yam Museum beside Caesarea (Berman 1999:74).4 As well, no coins of Domitian’s administration in Caesarea were found in the excavations (AJC 2:290–291). Roman Provincial (First- to Third-Century CE) and Roman Imperial (Second- to Third-Century CE) Coins During the early second century CE, a larger circus was built in the east part of the city and Herod’s Circus was transformed into an amphitheater (Stages VIA4– VIA2) and then a circus again (Stratum VIA1; see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 5). The date for the beginning of this stratum relies on two coins of Hadrian (Cat. Nos.

169, 172), which were found in the arena’s Surface 1725 and relate to changes that took place at the end of Stratum VIB, no earlier than the first half of the second century CE. Thus, the amphitheater’s Stage VIA4 should be dated no earlier than the reign of Hadrian. Thereafter, three coins were discovered in Fill 6007, which leveled the Stage VIA4 arena surface in preparation for the extended amphitheater (Stage VIA3). A coin of Antoninus Pius from Caesarea provides a terminus post quem of 138 CE for this new surface; another coin from this mint is dated to the second century CE and an illegible Roman Provincial coin is dated to the second–third centuries (Cat. Nos. 174, 210 and 218, respectively). No coins are related to Stage VIA2. Finally, the latest coins related to Stage VIA1, the Revived Circus, are two coins of

78

Gabriela Bijovsky

Elagabalus minted in Tyre and Caesarea (Cat. Nos. 180, 182). During this period, characterized by the Pax Romana, the city prospered from its status as capital of the province of Syria Palaestina (Levine 1975:41–44). These circumstances may explain the increase in the number of coins at the site toward the third century, as shown by the results of the IAA, the Drew Institute of Archaeological Research and the JECM excavations (DeRose Evans 1995:164; 2006:19–20). Most of the coins from this period are Roman Provincial issues, from coastal cities such as Tyre, Dora, Ascalon and Gaza, but also include coins from Neapolis, Sepphoris and Aelia Capitolina (Table 5.3). Mint Distribution of the Roman Provincial Coins (Table 5.3) A worn Roman Provincial coin, which bears a countermark with a male head on one side that can be attributed to the Tenth Legion Fretensis (Cat. No. 209), is worth mentioning (Howgego 1985:130–131, Nos. 132–135). Among the coins of this group is a rare type of Philip Junior (247–249 CE) from Neapolis, depicting Zeus seated on a throne, holding a scepter and a globe, with an eagle at his feet (Cat. No. 186).5 Another interesting coin is an unpublished variant by Salonina, of the popular type ‘Cadmus standing, stretching hand and holding spear’ from Tyre (Cat. No. 197). This variant is known to me from three other collections in Israel: the Hebrew University, the Franciscan Biblical School, both in Jerusalem, and the Kadman Collection at the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv (Bijovsky 1999). Another three coins of note are from the Imperial mint of Rome. The first is a well-preserved silver denar of Domitian (Cat. No. 166). Until now, only one silver Roman denar has been published from Caesarea (Lampinen 1992:169).6 However, the IAA excavations at Caesarea have produced nine Roman denarii and two silver tetradrachms in different areas of the excavation.7 The two other Imperial coins are a sestertius of Maximianus I (236–238 CE, Cat. No. 183) and a dupondius of Philip Senior (244–249 CE, Cat. No. 185). The Caesarea Mint The high number of Roman Provincial coins struck at the local mint of Caesarea is outstanding. A total of twenty-one Caesarean issues of conventional types,

including local minimi, were found in the area of the amphitheater within Herod’s Circus. The mint was active between the years c. 41 and 253 CE, issuing bronze coins for local use; it became the main supplier of coins for the entire region. However, Caesarea coins from published excavations at the site are relatively few in numbers and types, and “have hardly expanded Kadman’s fundamental listing of the municipal types” (Hohlfelder 1992:167). Out of a total of 1411 Roman Provincial coins minted in Caesarea that have been registered, up to now, in the National Collections by the Israel Antiquities Authority, only 191 of them have been discovered at the site of Caesarea.8 This relatively small number (about a third of the total) seems to confirm Hohlfelder’s assumption. DeRose Evans (2006:18) reached the same conclusion in her analysis of the coins found by the JECM expedition. Among the local issues is the Judaea Capta coin cited above (Cat. No. 163). This unique Provincial series, bearing Greek inscriptions intended for local circulation, was issued at Caesarea to commemorate the Roman victory in the Jewish War. Unlike other military campaigns, it was actually a suppression of an internal revolt (Levine 1972:131–132). A well-preserved coin of Hadrian, depicting the bust of Serapis (Cat. No. 169), illustrates one of the most common types in the coinage of Caesarea. Seven more coins of this type were found in the excavations (Kadman 1957:56–57). Another noteworthy example is the ‘founder type’ coin of Antoninus Pius, showing the variant of a Victory flying toward the emperor (Cat. No. 174). Interestingly, no Caesarea coins from the last ten fruitful years of the mint were found at the excavation. This period is characterized by a rise of pagan vitality— well-expressed through the motifs depicted on the coins of the city—together with Christian persecutions that affected the Caesarea community as well (Levine 1972:134–137; 1975:58). During the years 249–251 CE, Trajan Decius, alone, struck 75(!) different coin types in the city (Kadman 1957:37). The complete absence of this group is surprising, since coins of the emperors Philip Senior and Junior (244–249 CE) and Trebonianus Gallus (251–253 CE), who ruled before and after Trajan Decius, were indeed found at the excavation, albeit in small numbers (Cat. Nos. 184–187). Furthermore, only 48 coins of this last period of the

Chapter 5: The Coins

mint are recorded out of the total of 191 IAA Caesarean coins cited above. Thus, the numismatic evidence at the site does not seem to reflect the output of the Caesarea mint during its last decade. Among the local types are seven minute bronze coins or minimi, dated to the first and second centuries CE, which are found at Caesarea by the hundreds. They bear no inscriptions or mintmarks, but were clearly intended to supply small change for daily use. This local tradition continued through the Byzantine period (Hamburger 1955; Bijovsky 1998). Kadman did not include them in his Caesarea Maritima corpus, arguing that they cannot be assigned with certainty to this mint, because of their lack of inscriptions (Kadman 1957:93). Most of the Roman period Caesarean minimi are imitations of Tyrian and Alexandrian prototypes. Not all small module coins found at Caesarea were produced there. Both Trajan and Hadrian struck considerable numbers of small module coins in Alexandria and the Nomes (Dattari 1901; Poole 1892). Many of them were also found in excavations in Israel. Catalogue No. 171 for example, dated to Hadrian’s reign, depicts a nude figure standing, raising its left arm. This type does not belong to the common repertoire of local imitations. It does, however, appear in numismatic catalogues of Alexandrian coins. The local issues are struck on poorly produced flans. Nevertheless, some of the minimi found in the excavation, such as Cat. No. 159, which depicts an ibis, or Cat. No. 173, with Isis’ headdress, are difficult to differentiate from their

79

Alexandrian prototypes (Hamburger 1955:119–121). On the other hand, Cat. No. 172, which bears Hadrian’s portrait and the common ‘Alexandrian’ date L ΙΔ (year 14), is a cast coin and a good example of a crudely executed local imitation. The latest dated coins related to the Revised Circus (Stage VIA1) were found within Fill 6057 above the final phase of the arena and they belong to the emperors Gallienus and his son Saloninus (Cat. Nos. 190 and 198, 253–268 CE). Furthermore, coins discovered under the mosaic floors, west of the colonnade of Complex 4000 and built over the upper seats of the East Cavea (L21061, L21064), include those dated to the mid-third century (Gallienus, Salonina and Claudius Gothicus) and as late as coins of Probus and a coin of Diocletian, from the end of the third century CE. This date seems to fit the date of abandonment of the building. Most of the coins of this period are silvered antoniniani depicting pagan deities and personifications (Cat. Nos. 190–196, 198–207). A Late Roman coin dated to 330–341 CE was also discovered in L21061 (Cat. No. 237).

Late Roman (Fourth- to Fifth-Century CE) and Byzantine (Sixth-Century ) Coins The numismatic material of the fourth–sixth centuries (Cat. Nos. 231—286) derives from surface finds and post-amphitheater layers. It represents about 20% of the coin assemblage. The types are quite conventional and do not deserve special discussion.

80

Gabriela Bijovsky

Table. 5.1. List of Coins according to Loci Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

No. of Coins

Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

570

Festus

59 CE

Festus

59 CE

65884

1

1612

Autonomous

1

1

End 2nd c. BCE –1st c. CE

64223

65887

Autonomous

End 2nd c. BCE–1st c. CE

64960

1

Unidentified

15

Total 1174

17 Constantine I

318–319 CE

65426

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63571

1

Late Roman

324–330 CE

65431

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63572

1

Constantius II

346–361 CE

64967

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63578

1

Late Roman

346–361 CE

65458

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63579

1

Constantius II

355–361 CE

64966

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63580

1

37–4 BCE

63581

1

Late Roman

383–395 CE

65488

1

Herod

Late Roman

4th c. CE

65415

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63583

1

Late Roman

4th c. CE

65514

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63587

1

123

Herod

37–4 BCE

63589

1

131

Herod

37–4 BCE

63590

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

63591

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64211

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64228

1

Unidentified Total 1387

Roman Provincial

2nd –3rd c.

65080

Constantine I

321 CE

65429

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64902

1

Late Roman

330–337 CE

85224

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64903

1

Late Roman

341–346 CE

65399

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64905

1

Late Roman

341–346 CE

85222

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64906

1

Late Roman

341–346 CE

85226

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64907

1

Late Roman

4th c. CE

65509

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64908

1

4

Herod

37–4 BCE

64909

1

11

Herod

37–4 BCE

64911

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64912

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64913

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

65118

1

Unidentified Total 1410 1612

No. of Coins

1

Total: 1

Unidentified Seleucid

2nd c. BCE

63582

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67019

1

Seleucid

2nd c. BCE

67915

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67020

1

Seleucid

2nd c. BCE

85208

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67021

1

Antiochus III

222–187 BCE

64904

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67849

1

Antiochus III

222–187 BCE

64910

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67851

1

Antiochus III

223–187 BCE

64954

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67852

1

Antiochus IV

175–164 BCE

64217

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67853

1

Autonomous

164–132 BCE

63570

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67858

1

Autonomous

164–132 BCE

64212

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67861

1

Alexander II Zebina

128–123 BCE

67884

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67862

1

Antiochus VII

138–129 BCE

64209

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67863

1

Cleopatra Thea

126/125–121 BCE

67868

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67867

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

85192

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

85204

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

85206

1

81

Chapter 5: The Coins

Table. 5.1 (cont.) Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

No. of Coins

Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

1612

Herod

37–4 BCE

Herod

37–4 BCE

Herod

85207

1

1612

64956

1

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

85211

37–4 BCE

85212

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

63576

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

85214

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

63584

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64952

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

63585

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

64901

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

63586

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

65243

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

63588

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

63577

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

63592

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64208

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64205

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64210

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64206

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64213

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64222

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64224

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64914

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64915

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64916

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64917

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64918

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

65020

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

65117

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

67018

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

67864

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

85191

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

85200

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

85201

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

85205

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

85225

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64277

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64948

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64957

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64959

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

65022

64207

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64227

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64919

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64921

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64950

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64953

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64955

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

64958

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

65107

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

85196

1

1620

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

85202

1

Total

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

85203

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37 BCE–6 CE

Herod?/ Archelaus?

64214

1

64219 64221

64920

1 1 1

1

Unidentified

314 Hadrian

117–138 CE

65924

Unidentified

37 BCE–6 CE

64949 64951

1 1

1 13 14

Constantine I

341–346 CE

65935

1

Late Roman

341–346 CE

65900

1

Unidentified Total

1 202

Total

1621

No. of Coins

11 13

82

Gabriela Bijovsky

Table. 5.1 (cont.) Locus

Ruler

1635

Unidentified

1722

Trajan

Date

IAA No.

No. of Coins

Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

Total: 1

1885

Byzantine

5th–6th c. CE

65731

Total 98–117 CE

67033

Unidentified

1725

Nero?

67–68 CE

66433

1

Trajan

111/112 CE?

66432

1

Hadrian

117–138 CE

64241

1

Hadrian

117–138 CE

66431

1

Autonomous

2nd c. CE

67433

1 4

Total 1829

1909

2

Unidentified

Unidentified

1 Late Roman

355–361 CE

65199

1

Late Roman

364–375 CE

65202

1

Late Roman

383–395 CE

65489

1

Unidentified

1

Total 1932

4 Roman Provincial

2nd–3rd c. CE

85193

Unidentified

9

Total

Total: 1

2085

Septimius Severus

193–211 CE

65909

1

Hostilian

251 CE

65796

1

Maximianus Herculeus

285-290 CE

65807

1

Maximianus

295–299 CE

65786

1

Late Roman

383–395 CE

65806

1

Unidentified

2

Total

3 Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

65244

1 1 Total: 8

2131

Unidentified

3722

Marcus Aurelius

161–180 CE

68075

1

Late Roman

355–361 CE

68079

1

Unidentified

2

Total

4

7

1847

Unidentified

1848

Tacitus

3725

Unidentified

3728

Roman Procurator under Tiberius

Total: 2

Total: 1 275–276 CE

65801

Unidentified

1 2

Total

3

30–31 CE

68092

Total

1 2nd–3rd c. CE

64003

1

Roman Provincial

2nd–3rd c. CE

64004

1

1

65720

1

Caracalla

211–217 CE

64001

1

346–361 CE

65733

1

Maximianus

236–238 CE

68272

1

Late Roman

346–361 CE

65765

1

251–253 CE

64002

1

Late Roman

364–375 CE

65766

1

Trebonianus Gallus Constantine II

330–335 CE

65848

1

Late Roman

335–341 CE

64007

1

Constantine II

337–341 CE

64251

1

Unidentified

1881

Numerianus

282–283 CE

65764

Late Roman

4th c. CE

Constantius II

Unidentified

2 7

3820

1

Roman Provincial

Total: 3

1874

Total

1 2

Total 1837

1

1 1

Total

No. of Coins

83

Chapter 5: The Coins

Table. 5.1 (cont.) Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

No. of Coins

Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

3820

Constantine I

341–346 CE

Constantius II Constantius II

67913

1

3901

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

66423

1

341–346 CE

63994

1

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

66424

1

351–354 CE

64006

1

Agrippa I

41/42 CE

66425

1

Constantius II

351–354 CE

64017

1

Constantius II

351–354 CE

64025

1

Constantius II

351–354 CE

64249

1

Constantius II

351–354 CE

64248

1

Constantius II

355–360 CE

64250

1

Constantius II

355–361 CE

64005

1

Constantius II

351–361 CE

64027

1

Late Roman

351–361 CE

64028

1

Constantine II

351–361 CE

64229

1

Constantius II

351–361 CE

64026

1

Late Roman

346–361 CE

63996

Late Roman

346–361 CE

Late Roman

346–361 CE

Late Roman

Unidentified

Total: 2

4906

Unidentified

Total: 1

4909

Unidentified

Total: 1

6007

Antoninus Pius

138–161 CE

65126

1

1

Autonomous

1st–2nd c. CE

65776

1

64008

1

65130

1

1

Roman Provincial

2nd c. CE

64029

346–361 CE

64242

1

1

383–392 CE

63990

1

2nd –3rd c. CE

65128

Valentinian II

Roman Provincial

Late Roman

4th c. CE

64252

1

1

4th c. CE

63995

1

2nd –3rd c. CE

64226

Late Roman

Roman Provincial

Late Roman

4th c. CE

63997

1

Roman Provincial

2nd –3rd c. CE

65129

1

Late Roman

4th c. CE

64018

1

1

4th c. CE

64019

1

2nd –3rd c. CE

65127

Late Roman

Roman Provincial

Byzantine

5th–6th c. CE

64019

1 5

Total

37 Late Roman

4th–5th c. CE

63998

Unidentified

Festus

59 CE

85189

Ambibulus

10 CE

85190

1

1 1

Total

2 Titus

Total 3898

1

3

Unidentified

3896

6057

2

Total

79–81 CE

66426

1 1

Unidentified

Total: 6

1

Total

2

Unidentified

3877

Unidentified

1

Total 3872

3

4892

Unidentified

3846

Total

No. of Coins

8 Gallienus

253–268 CE

65237

1

Saloninus

259 CE

65235

1

Roman Provincial

1st–3rd c. CE

65255

1

Roman Provincial

2nd c. CE

64234

1

Roman Provincial

2nd –3rd c. CE

65713

1

Roman Provincial

3rd c. CE

65723

1

Unidentified

1

Total

7

6995

Unidentified

Total: 1

6998

Unidentified

Total: 1

7410

Herod

37–4 BCE

63573

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67848

1

84

Gabriela Bijovsky

Table. 5.1 (cont.) Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

No. of Coins

Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

7410

Herod

37–4 BCE

Herod

37–4 BCE

Herod

67865

1

8749

Commodus

188–193 CE

66513

1

67866

1

Elagabalus

218–222 CE

63109

1

37–4 BCE

67872

1

Elagabalus

218–222 CE

66523

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67873

1

Autonomous

2nd c. CE

66512

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67874

1

Constantius II

351–354 CE

67055

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67882

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67907

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67908

1

Archelaus

4BCE–6 CE

67871

1

8759

Archelaus

4BCE–6 CE

85198

1

Total

Unidentified

14

8812

Total: 1

7411

Unidentified

7412

Seleucid

2nd c. BCE

67876

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67869

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67878

1

Herod?/ Archelaus?

37BCE–6CE?

64225

1

Archelaus

37–4 BCE

67879

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

67870

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

67875

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

67877

1

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

67880

1

Unidentified

4 BCE–6 CE

63574

Unidentified Total

90 CE

66530

1 1

Herod

37–4 BCE

68364

1

Roman Provincial

1st –2nd c. CE

67842

1 1 3

8816

Unidentified

8820

Herod

Total: 1 37–4 BCE

66519

Unidentified

1

Total 8823

2 Agrippa I

41/42 CE

64237

1

Festus

59 CE

66507

1

Unidentified

14

Total

1

8827

1

Total

1

1 3

Domitian

82/83 CE

66518

1 1

2 Hadrian

117–138

68339

Total 8735

Domitian

Total

8830 7497

48

Unidentified

5

Total Archelaus

41

Total

2

Total

7419

Unidentified

No. of Coins

Unidentified

8744

Unidentified

8749

Autonomous

Hasmonean

End 2nd c. BCE–1st c. CE

66525

2nd–1st c. BCE

66524

Herod

37–4 BCE

66526

1

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67013

1

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67014

1

Herod

37–4 BCE

67440

1

Total: 98

Archelaus

4 BCE–6 CE

64233

1

Coponius or Ambibulus

6–12 CE

66516

1

Total: 1

Antonius Felix

54 CE

63388

1

Unidentified

1

3

Total 1

8863 Total

10 Hadrian

117–138 CE

68336

1 1

85

Chapter 5: The Coins

Table. 5.1 (cont.) Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

8927

Domitian

85/86 CE

64230

No. of Coins

Locus

Ruler

Date

IAA No.

1

21061

Gallienus

256–257 CE

85243

1

Gallienus

256–257 CE

85250

1

Gallienus

256–257 CE

85251

1

Total 8944

1 Lucius Verus

161–169 CE

64256

1

Gallienus

253–268 CE

85233

1

Autonomous

1st–2nd c. CE

64254

1

Gallienus

253–268 CE

85234

1

Roman Provincial

1st–3rd c. CE

65714

1

Gallienus

253–268 CE

85236

1

Roman Provincial

2nd c. CE

64255

1

Salonina

240–268 CE

85239

1 1

2nd–3rd c. CE

64253

1

c. 220–260 CE

85240

Roman Provincial

Roman Provincial Roman Provincial

250–270 CE

85244

1

Claudius II Gothicus

268–270 CE

85237

1

Probus

276–282 CE

85232

1

Probus

276–282 CE

85242

1

Total 8953 21061

5 Total: 3

Unidentified Agrippa I

41/42 CE

85238

1

Probus

276–282 CE

85248

1

Roman Provincial

1st c.? CE

85230

1

Roman Provincial

2nd– 3rd c. CE

85245

1

Elagabalus

218–222 CE

85246

1

Diocletian

293–295 CE

85231

1

Late Roman

330–341 CE

85249

1

Philip Senior

244–249 CE

85247

1

Philip Senior

244–249 CE

85229

1

Philip Junior

247–249 CE

85241

1

Trebonianus Gallus

251–253 CE

85235

1

Unidentified

25

Table 5.3. Mint Distribution of the Roman Provincial Coins

Coin Group

N

%

Hellenistic (Seleucid, Hasmonean, 3rd–1st c. BCE)

17

5.9

127

44.4

Herodian (Herod I, Archelaus, 40 BCE–6 CE) Judaean (1st c. CE)

13

4.5

Roman Provincial (1st–3rd c. CE)

50

17.5

Roman Imperial (2nd–3rd c. CE)

21

7.3

Late Roman (4th–5th c. CE)

56

19.6

2

0.7

286

99.9

Byzantine (6th c. CE)

2

Total

Table 5.2. Coins by Coin Groups

Total

No. of Coins

Mint

No. of Coins

Aelia Capitolina

2

Alexandria

1

Ascalon

1

Caesarea

21

Dora

1

Gaza

1

Neapolis–Shekhem

2

Sepphoris–Diocaesarea

1

Tyre

4

Locus

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

Cat. No.

1*

2

3

4

5

6

7*

95967

96166

95850

96074

16456

15897

14189-2

Basket No.

6.49

3.28

5.48

2.78

1.20

1.80

4.95

Weight (g)

19

16

17

14

10

10

13 × 14

Diam. (mm)

á

á

á

Axis

Illegible

Radiate head r.

ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΟΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Owl stg. r. on amphora. Date, control-marks and symbols illegible

Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII (123–121 BCE)

Worn type. [- - -] ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤ[ΟΥ]

Antiochus VII (?) (138–129 BCE)

Head of Dionysos r.

Illegible

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Veiled female stg. l., holding scepter

Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE)

Same

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Apollo stg. l., holding bow and arrow

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Horse stg. r.

Alexander II Zebina (128–123 BCE)

Radiate head r.

Illegible

Same

Reverse SELEUCIDS Antiochus III (222–187 BCE)

Head of Apollo r., laureate

Obverse

Date (CE)

Antioch

Antioch

Antioch

Same

Antioch

Unknown

Mint

SNG Israel I: 322–323, Nos. 156, 157: 2441–2460

SNG Israel I: 156, Nos. 1131–1138

SNG Israel I: 156, Nos. 1131–1138

Same

Serrated

67868

64209

67884

64217

64954

64910

SNG Israel I:86, Nos. 573–590

IAA No.

64904

Serrated

Notes

SNG Israel I:90, Nos. 628–635

Reference

All the coins are bronze, unless otherwise indicated. The coins are arranged chronologically, according to coin-types. Coins bearing an asterisk have photographs in Figs. 5.1–5.3

Catalogue

86 Gabriela Bijovsky

97092

1612

1612

7412

1612

1612

1612

1612

8749

8749

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

9

10

11

12*

13

14

15

16

17

18*

19

20*

21

22

23

24

95559

96102

14174–2

95923

95735

95697

96918

88131

88131

96176

16266

96152

97076

95966

71944

97036

1612

8

Basket No.

Locus

Cat. No.

1.71

1.79

1.75

1.94

1.95

2.15

2.74

1.66

1.52

3.28

0.61

1.85

2.56

2.64

1.46

2.48

2.51

Weight (g)

13

15

13

14

14 × 17

15

17 × 19

12 × 14

12

17

12

13

15 × 17

13

12

13

12

Diam. (mm)

â

á

ã

ã

á

æ

á

á

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Double cornucopiae, between them pomegranate

HASMONEAN, prutah

War galley l.

Illegible

Palm tree

Same

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝΠΤΟΛΕΜΑ[ΙΔΙ] Cornucopia. On l. field, monogram: N

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Double cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Tripod, on it bowl, flanked on both sides by palm branches

HERODIAN Herod I (37–4 BCE), prutah

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

ΗΡWΥ ΒΛCΙΛ X within diadem

Worn

Palm tree

Same

Figure stg. l.

Autonomous

Paleo-Hebrew inscription within wreath (illegible)

Same?

Same

Turreted head of Tyche

Same

Reverse Uncertain—Second century BCE

Jugate heads of the Dioscurii, facing r.

Worn

Illegible

Same

Head r.

Obverse

2nd–1st c. BCE

Same

Same

End 2nd c. BCE–1st c. CE

Same

164–132 BCE

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Tyre

Same

‘Akko– Ptolemais

Tyre

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

AJC 2:237, No. 17

AJC 2:236, No. 8

Hill 1910:253, Nos. 246, 247

Same

Kadman 1961: 94, No. 11 (but different monogram)

Reference

Double prutah

Serrated

Serrated

Notes

85192

64228

64907

67863

67851

67849

63578

66524

66525

64223

64960

64212

63570

67876

85208

67915

63582

IAA No.

Chapter 5: The Coins

87

Locus

1612

1612

1612

1612

8830

7410

1612

1612

1612

7412

7410

8830

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

7410

1612

7410

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

Cat. No.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

95669

95735

73082

95855

95728

96193

96166

95875

15796

95875

96233

95759

96212

96211

97076

88907

95877

95921

15364

96224

95855

97159

89239

95669

72088

15799

14189–1

Basket No.

1.29

1.30

1.30

1.31

1.32

1.35

1.36

1.36

1.37

1.37

1.38

1.38

1.38

1.38

1.39

1.40

1.42

1.44

1.45

1.46

1.51

1.52

1.52

1.55

1.62

1.64

1.68

Weight (g)

14

13

14 × 16

14

14 × 16

13

14

15

14

14

13 × 16

14

14

13 × 15

15

13

14

13

14

14

14

14

13

15

14

14

13

Diam. (mm)

á

á

á

ä

â

â

â

á

ã

æ

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Illegible

Same

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Illegible

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Illegible

Same

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Illegible

Illegible

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Illegible

ΗΡW[Δ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference

Notes

67020

67852

85204

67862

67853

63581

64211

67865

64905

67866

63580

67858

63587

63591

63571

66526

67872

67878

64902

63590

67861

67907

67013

67019

85207

64908

64903

IAA No.

88 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1612

7410

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

7410

1612

8812

1612

7410

1612

7410

7410

8820

1612

1612

1612

1612

8830

1612

1612

1612

1612

7412

Cat. No.

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62*

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

95849

95669

14245-1

97037

16922

89287

16120

14174-1

16094

97076

88833

97159

95877

14263

95911

72088

100965

16831

95867

96227

73104

72044

95967

14220

95827

14184-1

Basket No.

0.72

0.73

0.75

0.77

0.77

0.80

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.91

0.92

0.98

0.99

1.07

1.13

1.14

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.21

1.24

1.26

1.27

1.27

1.29

1.29

Weight (g)

15

13

13

11 × 14

14

12

13

13 × 15

14

14

15

12

14

15

13

13

13

13

13

13

14

13

14

13

13 × 16

14

Diam. (mm)

â

á

á

ã

á

â

â

ã

æ

Axis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

[Η]Ρ[WΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Same

Same

Same

Same

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

ΗΡW[Δ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

ΗΡ[WΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Obverse

Illegible

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Two cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Same

Reverse

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference

Broken

Fragment

Half a coin

Notes

67869

67021

64911

63583

65243

67014

64901

64906

64912

63572

66519

67908

67873

65118

67874

85206

68364

64952

67882

63589

85214

85211

67867

64913

67848

64909

IAA No.

Chapter 5: The Coins

89

Locus

1612

7410

1612

8830

1612

1612

7412

7412

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

Cat. No.

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94*

95

96229

96166

96022

16332

16171

14150-2

14150-2

96141

96898

96212

95969

95921

95577

16272

88911

96920

95926

73169

Basket No.

1.08

1.11

1.18

1.25

1.45

1.19

1.32

1.41

0.80

0.88

0.92

0.97

1.01

1.07

0.53

0.60

0.61

0.61

Weight (g)

14

13

14

13

13

15

13

15

13

11 × 14

13

14

14

15

10

13

--

12

Diam. (mm)

á

á

â

â

á

â

á

â

á

á

â

Axis

[ΗΡωΔΟΥ] Anchor

[ΗΡωΔ]ΟΥ Same

Η[ΡωΔ]ΟΥ Same

ΗΡ[ωΔ]Ο[Υ] Same

[ΗΡωΔΟΥ] Same

[ΗΡωΔ]ΟΥ Same

[ΗΡω]ΔΟ[Υ] Same

Same

ΗΡω[ΔΟΥ] Anchor

Same

[ΗΡ]ω[ΔΟΥ] Anchor

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Two cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Reverse

[ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

ΕΘ[ΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

[ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

ΕΘ/ΑΝ [- - -] Same

ΕΘ/ΡΑΝ/ΥΟΧ] Same

ΕΘ/ΑΝ [- - -] Same

Same

ΕΘΝΑ[ΡΧΟΥ] Inscription within wreath

[ΕΘ]Ν[ΑΡΧ] Same

[ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

Same

Same

ΕΘ[ΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

ΕΘ[ΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Two crossed cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Herod Archelaus (4 BCE–6 CE), prutah

[ΗΡWΔ ΒΑCΙΛΕ] Anchor

Same

Same

Two cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Obverse

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

64210

AJC 2:239, No. 2

63586

85200

AJC 2:239, Nos. 2b–c

Same

64957

65022

64914

64915

Same

Same

Same

Same

85201

AJC 2:239, No. 2

63588

67877

67879

85191

64959

67440

63579

63573

85212

IAA No.

63576

Fragment

Broken

Same die on both sides. Out off flan

Notes

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference

90 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1612

7410

1612

1612

2085

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

8830

7412

1612

7419

7412

1612

1612

1612

1612

1612

Cat. No.

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107*

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

95923

16029

96078

16218

96211

95966

97115

96020

95940

89837

73082

14137

14227/1

14161

96229

18389

14157-2

96051

95930

96115

Basket No.

0.66

0.66

0.81

0.90

0.94

1.00

1.03

1.04

1.06

1.15

1.19

1.20

1.30

1.41

1.44

1.60

1.73

0.70

0.87

1.03

Weight (g)

13

13

14

13

13

14

13

13

14

12

14

13 × 15

15

14

13

15

14 × 17

13

14

13

Diam. (mm)

â

á

â

â

â

â

â

à

â

â

á

â

â

â

á

â

á

Axis

[Η Ρ ω] Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

Η[Ρ ω] Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

ΗΡω Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

Η [Ρ ω] Same

Same

Same

Same

ΗΡω Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

[Η Ρ ω] Same

ΗΡω Same

[Η Ρ ω] Prow of galley r.

Η[Ρω]ΔΟΥ] Same

Η[ΡωΔ]ΟΥ Same

[Η]ΡωΔΟΥ Same

Obverse

ΕΘ[Ν] Same

[ΕΘΝ] Same

ΕΘ[Ν] Same

[ΕΘΝ] Same

ΕΘ[Ν] Same

[ΕΘΝ] Same

ΕΘ[Ν] Same

[ΕΘΝ] Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ΕΘΝ Same

ΕΘΝ Same

ΕΘ[Ν] Same

ΕΘΝ Same

[ΕΘΝ] Inscription within wreath

ΕΘ[ΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

ΕΘΝΑ[ΡΧΟΥ] Same

Same

Reverse

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

67864

64917

64208

64948

63592

67875

63574

64213

67870

64233

85205

65020

65117

64918

63584

65244

64916

AJC 2:240, No. 5

67871

64224

IAA No.

64222

Notes

Same

Same

Same

Reference

Chapter 5: The Coins

91

1612

1612

121

122

1612

1612

1612

134

135

136

1612

1612

132

133

1612

1612

130

131

1612

1612

128

129

1612

1612

126

127

1612

1612

120

125

7410

119

1612

1612

118

1612

1612

117*

123

7412

116

124

Locus

Cat. No.

15958

16861

16456

96023

96050

96153

95990

95480

16434

16699

96113

16218

96020

96170

15966

14126

95669

95920

96229

71023

95852

Basket No.

0.89

0.96

1.03

1.12

1.12

1.14

1.21

1.31

1.32

1.39

1.39

1.42

1.47

1.60

1.75

1.13

1.80

2.23

2.25

2.70

2.73

Weight (g)

13

15

13

12

13

15

13

15

13

14

12 × 14

14

14

14

15

15

14

16

16

16

17

Diam. (mm)

â

ã

â

æ

á

â

á

á

á

á

Axis

Illegible

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Anchor

Same

ΕΘΝΑΡΧ[ΟΥ] Same

ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ Same

Same

[ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ] Same

Same

ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ Crested helmet. On lower l., caduceus

Reverse

Same

Two crossed cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Two crossed cornucopiae, between them caduceus

Uncertain (Herod I? Herod Archelaus?), prutah

ΗΡ[ωΔΟΥ] Same

Same

[ΗΡω]ΔΟΥ Same

[ΗΡωΔΟΥ] Same

[ΗΡω]ΔΟΥ Same

[ΗΡωΔ]ΟΥ Cluster of grapes

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

37 BCE–6 CE

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Cf. AJC 2:237, No. 17 (Herod I); or 239, No. 1 (Herod Archelaus)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

AJC 2:241, No. 6

Reference

fragment

Notes

65107

64958

64956

85202

85203

64227

64206

85196

64955

64951

64219

64949

64214

64221

64921

85225

67018

85198

63585

64277

67880

IAA No.

92 Gabriela Bijovsky

1612

1612

3877

8830

3728

21061

3901

3901

8823

3901

145

146*

147

148

149

150

151

152

7412

142

143

1612

141

144

1612

1612

139

140

1612

1612

137

138

Locus

Cat. No.

84629

89851

84632

84268

84974

83393

88895

84408

96078

14161

95999

14161

16623

16399

96168

96900

Basket No.

1.34

1.36

1.86

2.07

2.12

1.84

1.34

1.51

0.65

0.98

0.99

1.47

0.79

0.80

0.81

0.87

Weight (g)

15

15

16

16

18

15

15

16

10 × 13

15

14

14

13

13

13

12

Diam. (mm)

ã

á

á

á

á

æ

Axis

Illegible date within wreath

ΒΑ[CΙΛΕωC ΑΓΡΙΠΑ] Same

ΒΑCΙΛΕω[C ΑΓΡΙΠΑ] Same

Same. L – ς

Same. [L – ς]

Same. [L – ς]

Same. L – ς

Three ears of grain, stemming from two leaves. On both sides, date: [L] – ς

HERODIAN Agrippa I, prutah ΒΑ[CΙΛΕωC ΑΓΡΙ]ΠΑ Canopy

Illegible

Palm tree. Date illegible

Palm tree. On both sides, date: L – M (year 40)

Under Tiberius TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC Lituus.

KAICAPOC Same

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

ROMAN PROCURATORS IN JUDEA Under Augustus KAICA[POC] Ear of grain

Same

Same

Same

Anchor

Same

Same

Same

Anchor

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

41/42

30–31

6–12

10

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

AJC 2:249, No. 11

AJC 2:283, Nos. 23, 24

66425

64237

66424

66423

85238

68092

66516

AJC 2:281, Nos. 1–5

64207

64920

64225

64919

64953

64950

64205

63577

IAA No.

85190

Broken

Notes

AJC 2:281, No. 4

Same

Same

Same

Cf. AJC 2:237, No. 17 (Herod I); or 239, Nos. 1, 2 (Herod Archelaus)

Reference

Chapter 5: The Coins

93

Locus

8830

3872

8823

570

570

8944

6007

1725

8749

1725

Cat. No.

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160*

161

162

87930

88110

88973

60115

10036

53862

53873

88858

84609

68708

Basket No.

10.27

1.08

1.63

0.46

1.04

1.13

1.15

2.17

2.55

2.08

Weight (g)

22 × 25

10

12

10

13

14

15

15

17

16

Diam. (mm)

á

â

æ



á

á

á

á

â

Axis

Head r.

Same

Head r.

Illegible

LE K[AIC]APOC Palm branch (year 5)

Same

LE KA[ICAPOC] Palm branch (year 5)

LE KAICAPOC Palm branch (year 5)

Figure stg(?)

Nero(?) (54–68 CE)

Same?

Bull stg. r.

Ibis stg. r.

War galley

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Autonomous, Minimi Turreted head of Tyche r.

Same

Same

Inscription within wreath: ΙΟΥ / ΛΙΑ ΑΓ / ΡΙΠΠΙ / ΝΑ

Under Nero ΝΕΡ/ωΝΟ/C within wreath Same

Reverse ROMAN PROCURATORS IN JUDEA Under Claudius

[ΤΙ ΛΚΑΥΔ]ΙΟC ΚΑΙ[CΑΡ ΓΕΡΜ] Two crossed palm branches. Below: LIΔ (year 14)

Obverse

67–68?

Same

2nd c.

Same

1st–2nd c.

Same

Same

Same

59

54

Date (CE)

Caesarea?

Same

Same

Same

Caesarea

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Mint

Cf. Kadman 1957:98, Nos. 1–7

Same

Hamburger 1955:1127–129, Nos. 35–58

Hamburger 1955:132, No. 83

Hamburger 1955:131, No. 70

Same

Same

Same

AJC 2:285, No. 35

AJC 2:284, No. 32

Reference

Notes

66433

66512

67433

65776

64254

65884

65887

66507

85189

63388

IAA No.

94 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

3896

8827

8927

8759

1725

1722

Cat. No.

163

164

165*

166*

167*

168

88275

87924

88270

89921

88869

84462

Basket No.

7.78

11.39

3.07

10.85

9.61

4.27

Weight (g)

21 × 24

23

18

23

22 × 24

19

Diam. (mm)

á

á

â

á

â

á

Axis

[ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑ CΕ ΑΛωΚΥΑC] Victory stg. r., writing on shield which hangs from palm tree

ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΣ ΑΥΤΟ ΚΡΑ(ΤΩΡΕ ΔΩΚΕΝ) Laureate head r.

ΑΥΤΟΚΑΙCΝΕΡΤΡΑΙΑΝΟCC ΕΒΓΕΡΜΔΑΚ Laureate head r.

[ΣΕΠ ΦΩ / ΡΗ ΝΩΝ] Palm tree

[ΔωΡΙΕ]ΡΑC[Υ] ΛΑΥ[ΤΟΝΝΑ ΥΑΡ] Head of Doros, bearded, facing r.

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Trajan (98–117 CE)

IMP XXI COS XV CENS PPP Minerva stg. r. on prow of galley, holding a round shield and a spear. Below her feet, an owl

ROMAN IMPERIAL Domitian, Silver denar

ACKA[- - -] Tyche stg. l. on prow of galley. On l. field, altar; on r. field, dove. Above, date: ΘΠΡ (year 189)

[ΦΛΑ]ΟΥΙ / [Ν]ΕΑΠ[ΟΛ] / [ΣΑ]ΜΑ[ΡΕ / ΛΑΙ] Inscription within wreath (year 11)

Domitian (81–96 CE)

IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM PMTR P VIIII Laureate head r.

Laureate head r.

Bust r.

Reverse Titus (79–81 CE)—Judaea Capta Series

[ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΙΤΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ] Laureate head r.

Obverse

111/112?

90

85/86

82/83

71–73

Date (CE)

Sepphoris

Dora

Rome

Ascalon

Neapolis– Schechem

Caesarea

Mint

Rosenberger 1977:61, No. 4

Rosenberger 1975:35, No. 26

CRE II:333, No. 166

Rosenberger 1972:49, No. 114

Rosenberger 1977:5, No. 1

AJC 2:288, No. 2b

Reference

Notes

67033

66432

66530

64230

66518

66426

IAA No.

Chapter 5: The Coins

95

Locus

1725

8863

7497

1725

1620

6007

3722

8944

8749

Cat. No.

169*

170

171

172*

173

174*

175

176

177*

88021

100025

83333

60159

16406

89982

97812

100951

87929

Basket No.

7.23

8.52

5.88

18.74

0.86

0.94

0.75

1.25

13.40

Weight (g)

23 × 26

21

17

28 × 30

12

14

13

11

21 × 23

Diam. (mm)

á

á

á



á

á

Axis

COL PRIMA FL AVG Emperor plowing the borders of the city with a pair of oxen. Victory flies above them. In exergue: CAESAREA

ΓΑΖΑ ΕΙω Io and Tyche stg. clasping hands. Between them: In exergue, date: [- - -]IC?

Commodus (177–192 CE)

Head of Serapis r.

Lucius Verus (161–169 CE)

Illegible

Marcus Aurelius? (161–180 CE)

AVTKMAVPHKOMMOΔΟC Laureate head r.

Head r.

Bust r.

Isis’ headdress

L [ΙΔ] Three ears of grain bound together

Nude figure stg. r., rising l. arm

Wild boar

COL ILFL AVG CAESARENS Bust of Serapis r.

Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) IMP CAES ANTONINO AVG[- - -] Laureate head r., cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Laureate head r.

Reverse Hadrian (117–138 CE)

[IMP TRA HADRIA]NO CAES AVG Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped

Obverse

Date (CE)

Gaza

Caesarea

Same

Same

Caesarea

Alexandria

Same

Caesarea

Mint

Cf. Rosenberger 1975:66, Nos. 129, 130

Kadman 1957: 108, No. 53

Kadman 1957: 104, Nos. 34, 35

Hamburger 1955:134 No. 95

Hamburger 1955:133, Nos. 87, 88

Dattari 1901: No. 6202

Kadman 1957: 104, No. 32

Kadman 1957: 102, No. 28

Reference

Minima

Minima Imitation of Alexandrine type

Notes

66513

64256

68075

65126

65924

64241

68339

68336

66431

IAA No.

96 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1837

3820

8749

21061

8749

3820

Cat. No.

178

179*

180*

181

182

183*

84681

88470

84973

88080

84414

17894

Basket No.

19.37

4.94

13.81

15.70

11.21

6.4

Weight (g)

28

16 × 18

28 × 32

30

27

18

Diam. (mm)

á

ä

á

â

ä

ä

Axis

Head of Serapis r.

She-wolf stg. r., nursing Romulus and Remo

[SEPT IM TV]RO Tyche stg. leaning hand over trophy. To the r., Victory stg. on column crowning Tyche with wreath. Between them, murex shell; on l. field, below, palm tree. In exergue: [CO]LO

Elagabalus (218–222 CE)

COMM PIA FELIX Tyche stg. l., within tetrastyle temple with pediment. In exergue: COLAELC

MAXIMI NVS PIVS AVG GERM Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped

[FIDES MILITVM] Fides stg. holding two standards. On both sides: S–C

ROMAN IMPERIAL Maximianus I (236–238 CE), Sestertius

Laureate head r.

Head of Serapis r.

Caracalla (211–217 CE)

IMP CAES MA[V ANTONINVS AVG] Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped seen from back

Bust r.

Reverse Septimius Severus (193–211 CE)

ANT[ONINVS PIVS] AV[GVSTVS] Laureate bust r.

Bust r.

Obverse

Date (CE)

Rome

Caesarea

Aelia Capitolina

Tyre

Aelia Capitolina

Caesarea

Mint

RIC IV/II:146, No. 78

Cf. Kadman 1957:114, No. 83

Cf. Meshorer 1989:98, Nos. 114–118

Hill 1910:273, Nos. 388–389

Meshorer 1989: 90, No. 86

Kadman 1957: 110, No. 64

Reference

Notes

68272

63109

85246

66523

64001

65909

IAA No.

Chapter 5: The Coins

97

Locus

21061

21061

21061

3820

21061

Cat. No.

184*

185*

186*

187

188

84971

84414

84965

84973

84971

Basket No.

2.70

15.88

13.93

9.22

10.89

Weight (g)

22

22

27

22

28

Diam. (mm)

á

á

á

á

â

Axis

Reverse

[AE]QVITAS AVGG Aequitas stg. l. holding scales and cornucopiae. On both sides: S – C

COL[- - -] NEAL[- - -] Zeus seated l. on throne, holding scepter and globe. To his feet, eagle

[COL PF AVG FC CAES MET RS PAL] Dionysos stg. l., to his feet panther

IMP CC VIB. TREB GAL[LVS PF AVG] Radiate bust r., cuirassed and draped

[F]ELICITAS PV[BL] Felicitas stg. l., holding long caduceus and cornucopiae

ROMAN IMPERIAL Trebonianus Gallus, Antoninianus

[IMP CC VIB] GALLVS PF AVG Laureate head r.

Trebonianus Gallus (251–253 CE)

IMP C MIVL PHELIPPO P[F AVG] Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Philip Junior (247–249 CE)

IMP MIVL PHILIPPVS AVG Laureate bust r.

ROMAN IMPERIAL Philip Senior, Dupondius

[COL TVRO] METR Male figure stg. facing, with bare chest, head l. holding branch in r. hand. On l. field cauldron, above it, murex shell. Below it, river-god?

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Philip Senior (244–249 CE) IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS PF AVG Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped, seen from back

Obverse

Date (CE)

Antioch

Caesarea

Neapolis– Shekhem

Rome

Tyre

Mint

RIC IV/III:168, No. 82

Kadman 1957: 138, No. 210

CHL: Neapolis, p. 60, No. 206

RIC IV/III:89, No. 166 (but sestertius)

Babelon 1893: 336, No. 2283; Rouvier 1904: 90, No. 2450

Reference

Notes

85235

64002

85241

85247

85229

IAA No.

98 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1837

6057

21061

21061

21061

21061

21061

21061

21061

Cat. No.

189

190

191

192

193

194*

195*

196

197*

84978

84971

84977

84967

84965

85233

84971

60513

65234

Basket No.

15.15

2.84

3.21

3.65

3.88

3.59

2.31

3.37

3.71

Weight (g)

27

20 × 23

21

21

20 × 22

24

20

21

18

Diam. (mm)

â

â

â

å

á

æ

á

â

á

Axis

Reverse

VICTORIA AVG Victory advancing l., holding wreath and palm branch

VICTORIA GERMAN Same, but emperor holding spear and globe

VICTORIA AVG Same, but wreath above figures

VICTORIA GERMAN Emperor stg. l., holding spear, receiving wreath from Victory stg. r.

AETERNITATI AVG Sol, stg. l., holding globe and rainsing hand. In exergue: star

[SPES] PVBLICE Spes walking l., holding flower

FORTVNA REDVX Fortuna seated to l., holding rudder and cornucopiae

COL [ME]TR Cadmus stg. r., nude to waist, looking back stretching l. hand, holding diagonally a spear in r. hand. On l. field, murex shell

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Salonina (c. 240–268 CE) CORNE SALONINA AVG Bust r.

GALLIENVS Same

IMP GALLIENVS AVG Same

IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS PF AVG Same

IMP GALLIENVS AVG Same

GALLIENVS AVG Same

IMP GALLIENVS PF AVG Same

[IMP GA]LLIENVS AVG Radiate bust r., cuirassed and draped

ROMAN IMPERIAL Gallienus (253 – 268 CE), Antoninianus

Bust of Tyche r.

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Hostilian (251 CE) [HOSTIL]IANO QVI[NTO C] Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped, seen from back

Obverse

253–268

Same

Same

256–257

Date (CE)

Tyre

Asia

Same

Same

Asia

Antioch

Siscia?

Siscia

Caesarea

Mint

85243

85251

85250

85236

RIC V/I:187, No. 630

RIC V/I:104, No. 450 RIC V/I:104, No. 451 Cf. RIC V/I:189, Nos. 662, 663

85239

85233

RIC V/I:187, No. 630

Variant unpublished. Cf. Hill 1910:294, No. 489 (Gallienus)

85234

RIC V/I:182, No. 584

65796

IAA No.

65237

Notes

RIC V/I:181, No. 572

Kadman 1957: 134, No. 189

Reference

Chapter 5: The Coins

99

Locus

6057

21061

1848

21061

21061

21061

Cat. No.

198

199

200*

201

202

203

84973

84971

84965

65275

84971

60535

Basket No.

3.25

3.23

3.89

4.24

3.47

3.28

Weight (g)

20

22

22

22

20

18

Diam. (mm)

á

á

â

â

â

â

Axis

CONSERVAT AVG Sol stg. facing, holding globe and raising hand. In exergue: E

IMP C MAVR PROBVS PF AVG Same

RESTITVT ORBIS Female presenting wreath to emperor, holding spear and globe. Between them below: S In exergue: XXI

Same but below: ς•. In exergue: XXI

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor stg. l., receives Victory on globe from Jupiter stg. r. Between them below: H In exergue: XXI

Probus (276–282 CE), Antoninianus

CLEMENTIA T–EMP Emperor stg. l., receives globe from Jupiter stg. r. Between them below: star. In exergue: KA

Tacitus (275–276 CE), Antoninianus IMP C M CL TACITVS AVG Same

Same

SPES PVBLICA Spes presenting flower to prince

Claudius Gothicus (268–270 CE), Antoninianus IMP C CLAVDIVS AVG Same

Same

Reverse ROMAN IMPERIAL Saloninus, Antoninianus

SALON VALERIANVS NOB CAES Radiate bust r., cuirassed and draped

Obverse

259

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Antioch

Tripolis

Same

Antioch

Mint

85232 85248

RIC V/II:120, No. 922 RIC V/II:120, No. 925

65801

85237

65235

IAA No.

85242

Notes

RIC V/II:119, No. 920

RIC V/II:348, No. 213

Cf. RIC V/II: 119, No. 915

RIC V/I:127, No. 36

Reference

100 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1881

1837

21061

1837

21061

8812

Cat. No.

204

205

206*

207

208

209

89152

84971

65233

84971

65232

65525

Basket No.

7.42

11.40

2.64

3.37

3.50

2.96

Weight (g)

23 × 25

23 × 26

19 × 21

23

20 × 22

22

Diam. (mm)

á

á

æ

á

Axis

Reverse

CONCORDIA MI–LITVM Jupiter stg. r. presenting Victory on globe to emperor, stg. l. Between them, below: B; in exergue: XXI

CONCORDIA MI–LITVM Jupiter stg. r. presenting Victory on globe to emperor, stg. l. Between them, below: B; in exergue: XXI

Illegible. Rectangular countermark: male head r.

Illegible

Illegible

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Uncertain

IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS AVG Same

Maximianus (286–305 CE), Antoninianus

IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS AVG Same

Head r.

VIRTVS AVGGG Victory stg. l., presenting wreath to emperor, stg. r., holding scepter and globe. Between them below: TR In exergue: XXI

Diocletianus (284–305 CE), Antoninianus

IMP C MAVR VAL MAXIMIANVS PF AVG Same

Maximianus Herculius (285–290 CE), Antoninianus

VIRTVS AVGGG Emperor stg. l., receives Victory on globe from Jupiter stg. r. Between them below: A In exergue: XXI

Numerianus (282–283 CE), Antoninianus IMP C MAVR NVMERIANVS NOBC Same

Obverse

1st–2nd c.

1st c.?

c. 295–299

293–295

Date (CE)

Cizycus

Cizycus

Tripolis

Same

Mint

RIC VI:581, No. 15b

RIC V/II:253, No. 306

RIC V/II:294– 295, Nos. 624– 625

RIC V/II:202, No. 469

Reference

Notes

67842

85230

65786

85231

65807

65764

IAA No.

Chapter 5: The Coins

101

6057

21061

21061

3820

8944

6007

6007

6057

1387

6007

21061

1932

3820

6057

6007

6057

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

60527

60184

60518

84414

88084

84973

89701

11952

60495

60153

60149

10036

84414

84979

84978

60525

100002

100025

8944

8944

211

212

60148

6007

210

Basket No.

Locus

Cat. No.

2.33

4.01

4.49

4.95

5.61

5.62

5.96

6.01

6.02

6.23

6.95

9.16

12.67

8.78

7.78

5.04

6.85

7.04

8.27

Weight (g)

19 × 21

16

17 × 19

19

17

17

21

18

17

18 × 20

20

23

22

26

19

15

22

21

22

Diam. (mm)

â

â

á

â

á

Axis

IMP[- - -] ANVS AVG Radiate bust r., cuirassed and draped

Same

Bust r.

Laureate head r.

Head r.

Bust l.

Same

Same

Bust r.

Bust. r. Worn rectangular countermark

Head r.

Same

Bust r.

IMP C P LIC[- - -] Laureate bust r., cuirassed and draped

Head r.

Same

Same

Head r.

Illegible

Obverse

[- - -] AVG Figure stg.?

Inscription within wreath?

Same

Same

Illegible

Wreath?

Same

Illegible

Female figure within temple

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

[COL TVR] METR Europa stg. l., holding basket. On l. field, to her feet, bull. On r. field, Greek inscription: ΕΥ / Ρω / ΠΗ]

Head of Tyche l.

Head of Serapis r.?

Same

Same

Head of Serapis r.

Reverse

3rd c.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

2nd–3rd c.

c. 250–270

c. 220–260

Same

Same

Same

2nd c.

Date (CE)

Tyre

Same

Same

Same

Same

Caesarea

Mint

Cf. Hill 1910:290, No. 468

Cf. Kadman 1957:134–135, No. 190

Same

Same

Same

Cf. Kadman 1957:102, No. 28

Reference

Very poor

Notes

65723

65127

65713

64004

85193

85245

64226

65080

65255

65129

65128

64253

64003

85244

85240

64234

65714

64255

65130

IAA No.

102 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1174

1387

1174

3820

1387

3820

Cat. No.

229

230

231

232

233

234

84118

11922

16249

11861

11923

11861

Basket No.

1.46

2.32

2.06

2.47

3.01

2.46

Weight (g)

15

19

18

17

20

17 × 21

Diam. (mm)

á

â

â

å

â

Axis

Reverse

[BEATA] TRANQVILLITAS Altar with inscription on it: VOT / IS/ XX. Three stars above

GLOR–IA EXERCI–ITVS Two soldiers stg. facing, between them two standards. In exergue: SMNA

DN CONSTAN–TINVS PF AVG Head r., pearl-diademed

[GLOR–IA EXERC–ITVS] Two soldiers stg. facing, between them standard. In exergue: SMN

Constantine II (337–340 CE)

Victory stg. on prow of galley l., holding oval shield and palm branch. In exergue: SMAN

330–337 CE

CONSTANTI NVS [- - -] Bust r., pearl-diademed, draped

CONSTAN–TINOPOLI Bust of Constantinople l.

Inscription and mintmark illegible. Camp gate

330–335 CE

[FL IV]L CONSTANTIVS [PF AVG] Bust r., pearl–diademed, draped

LATE ROMAN Constantius II (337–361 CE)

CONSTAN–TINVS AVG Laureate head r.

SOLI INV[ICTO] COMITI Sol, stg. l., holding globe and raising hand. In exergue: captive seated, flanked by P–A

ROMAN IMPERIAL Constantine I (307–327 CE), Folles IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Pearl-diademed bust r., draped

Obverse

337–341

Same

321

318/319

Date (CE)

Nicomedia

Antioch

Antioch

Trier?

Arles

Mint

Cf. LRBC I:27, Nos. 1133–1135

Cf. LRBC I:30, No. 1360; 31, No. 1369

Cf. LRBC I:30, No. 1356

Cf. LRBC I:24, No. 982

64251

85224

65848

65431

65429

Cf. RIC VII:190, No. 303

IAA No.

65426

Notes

RIC VII:253, No. 184

Reference

Chapter 5: The Coins

103

Locus

6888

3820

21061

3820

1621

1387

3820

1621

1387

1387

Cat. No.

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

11925

11924

16415

84332

11927

16422

84473

84973

84414

86149

Basket No.

1.39

1.80

2.84

1.48

0.84

1.53

1.75

1.25

1.37

1.51

Weight (g)

14

15

17

16

15

13

15

15

13

15

Diam. (mm)

á

á

â

á

â

ã

â

á

Axis

Inscription within wreath: VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX Mintmark illegible

[DN CONSTAN–TIVS P]F AVG Same

Same

Same, but mintmark: [AN]TA

Same, mintmark illegible

341–346 CE [DN CONSTAN–TI]VS PF AVG Same

Same

Same

[VN – MR] Same, mintmark illegible

VN – MR Emperor, veiled and draped, stg. facing. In exergue: SMANΓ

Constantius II (337–361 CE) DN CONSTAN–TIVS PF AVG Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Same

Same

[- - -] Veiled head r.

[GLORIA E–XERC–ITVS] Same, but number of standards between is unclear. Mintmark illegible

330–341 CE

[GLORIA E–XERC–ITVS] Same, mintmark illegible

335–341 CE

[GLORIA E–XE]RC–ITVS Same. In exergue: SMANE

337–341 CE

Reverse

Constantine I (Divi)

Inscription illegible. Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Head r.

CONS[- - -] AVG Illegible

Obverse

341–346

Same

Same

341–346

Date (CE)

Antioch

Antioch

Antioch

Mint

Same

Same

Cf. LRBC I:31, No. 1401

Cf. LRBC I:31, No. 1398

Same

Same

LRBC I:31, No. 1397

Cf. LRBC I:30, No. 1356 or 31, No. 1363

Cf. LRBC I:31, No. 1363

Cf. LRBC I:31, Nos. 1375–1384

Reference

Notes

85226

65399

65900

63994

85222

65935

67913

85249

64007

66298

IAA No.

104 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1174

1881

3820

3820

1881

3820

1174

3820

3820

3820

3820

8749

3820

Cat. No.

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255*

256

257

84118

88571

84118

84307

84252

84138

11664

84307

65525

84332

84414

65557

11401

Basket No.

1.96

3.08

3.55

4.33

4.83

1.25

1.44

1.59

1.68

1.77

2.09

1.41

1.68

Weight (g)

19

20 × 22

21 × 24

20 × 23

20

14

12

17

16

13

14 × 16

15 × 18

14

Diam. (mm)

ã

á



á

á

á



á

á

ã

Axis

DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG Same

[DN CONSTAN]TIVS PF AVG Same

DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG Same

DN CONSTANTIVS [PF AVG] Same

DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Same

Same

Same Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

FEL[TEMP REPARATIO] Virtus spearing falling horseman. Mintmark illegible

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Same. In l. field: Δ in exergue: SMTSς

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Same. In l. field: Γ in r. field: • in exergue: CONSς

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Same. In l. field: Γ in exergue: [- - -] N[- - -]

[FEL T]EMP RE– PARA[TIO] Mintmark illegible

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Virtus spearing falling horseman. In l. field: Γ Mintmark illegible

Constantius II (337–361 CE)

[- - -] Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Same

[FELTEMP REPARATIO] Same

[FELTEMP REPARATIO] Virtus spearing fallen horseman. Mintmark illegible

346–361 CE

[DN CONSTAN–TIVS PF AVG] Same

Same

Reverse Constantius II (337–361 CE)

[DN CONSTAN–TIVS] PF AVG Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

351–354

Same

Same

Date (CE)

Thessalonica

Constant.

Antioch?

Mint

64025

64248

67055

64249

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2625 LRBC II:86, No. 2028 LRBC II:78, No. 1681

64017

64242

65458

64029

65765

63996

64008

Same

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2623

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2632

65733

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2632

IAA No. 64967

Notes

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2632

Reference

Chapter 5: The Coins

105

Locus

3820

3820

3820

6888

3722

1174

1909

3820

3820

3820

3820

Cat. No.

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

84172

84307

84307

84307

65628

11405

83376

86150

84118

84414

84414

Basket No.

1.03

1.31

1.61

1.85

1.10

1.32

1.51

1.89

1.78

2.32

1.93

Weight (g)

12

15

16 × 18

16

13

14

10

14

17

17

16

Diam. (mm)





á









ã

æ

Axis

[DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG] Same

Illegible

Same

DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Same [SPES REI – PVBLICE] Same

SPES REI – [PVBLICE] Same

Same

[SPES REI – PVBLICE] Virtus stg. facing, head l., holding spear and globe. Mintmark illegible

Same, but mintmark: ALEA

[FEL TEMP RE – PARATIO] Same

FEL TEMP [RE –PA] RATIO Same

[FEL TEMP] RE – PARATIO Virtus spearing falling horseman. Mintmark illegible

351–361 CE

[- - -] Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Same

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Same. In exergue: [A]QP

355–361 CE

DN CONSTANTIVS [PF AVG] Same

Same

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Same. In l. field: M in exergue: AN[- - -]

FEL TEMP RE–PARATIO Same. In exergue: ALEB

Reverse

Constantius II (337–361 CE)

[DN CON]STANTIVS PF AVG Same

DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG Same

Obverse

355–360

355–361

Same

Date (CE)

Alexandria

Aquilea

Antioch

Alexandria

Mint

64028

64229

Cf. LRBC II: 103, Nos. 2844 or 2846

64026

64027

65199

64966

68079

66304

64250

Same

Same

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2632

Same

Same

Same

Cf. LRBC II: 100, Nos. 2638–2639

Cf. LRBC II:66, No. 930

64005

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 2637

IAA No. 64006

Notes

Cf. LRBC II: 103, No. 2844

Reference

106 Gabriela Bijovsky

Locus

1909

1881

3820

1837

1174

1909

1174

1387

1174

3820

3846

3820

Cat. No.

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

84118

84396

84332

11673

11928

11650

65630

11651

65238

84223

65525

65629

Basket No.

1.13

1.46

1.48

1.66

1.65

1.68

0.81

0.97

1.23

1.47

1.75

1.56

Weight (g)

15

14 × 16

16

16 × 18

14

15

11

13

11

12

13

16

Diam. (mm)



á

á

á

á

á

Axis

Same

Same

[SA]LVS RE[IPVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., dragging captive and holding trophy. In l. field: $ Mintmark illegible

Same

Same

Same

Figure stg. facing, holding scepter

Inscription within wreath?

Illegible

Fourth century CE

[SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Same

[SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Same. In exergue: CONS

SALVS R[EIPVBLICAE] Same. Mintmark illegible

383–395 CE

Pearl-diademed bust r., draped

Same

Bust r.

Head r.

Illegible

… IVS PF AVG Same

DN… Same

[SECVRITAS REI– PVBLICAE] Victory advancing l., holding palm branch and wreath. Mintmark illegible.

GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor advancing r., dragging captive and holding a labarum. Mintmark illegible

Valentinian II (375–392 CE) DN VA[LENTINIANVS PF AVG] Pearl-diademed bust r., draped and cuirassed

Same

Reverse 364–375 CE

[- - -] Pearl-diademed bust r., draped

Obverse

383–392

Date (CE)

Constant.

Mint

65488 65489

Cf. LRBC II:89, Nos. 2183–2185 Cf. LRBC II: 102, Nos. 2768–2771

64252

63998

63995

65415

65509

65514

65806

63990

Same

LRBC II:102, No. 2768

65766

Cf. LRBC II: 100, Nos. 2656, 2657

IAA No. 65202

Notes

Cf. LRBC II: 100, No. 26 53–2655

Reference

Chapter 5: The Coins

107

Locus

3820

3820

1881

3820

1889

3820

Cat. No.

281

282

283

284

285

286

84414

65529

84252

65602

84252

84332

Basket No.

0.47

0.86

0.66

0.83

0.89

1.05

Weight (g)

7–8

9

11 × 13

10 × 12

15 × 17

14

Diam. (mm)



Axis

Head r.

Bust r.

Same

Illegible

Bust r.

… PF AVG Same

Obverse

Illegible

Cross

Fifth–Sixth centuries CE, Minimi

Figure stg. l.

Figure stg.?

Same

Same

Reverse

Date (CE)

Mint

Reference

Notes

64009

65731

64019

65720

64018

63997

IAA No.

108 Gabriela Bijovsky

Chapter 5: The Coins

109

Notes 1 The coins were cleaned at the Israel Antiquities Authority conservation laboratories under the supervision of E. Altmark, and were photographed by S. Mandrea and C. Amit. 2 I thank the late A. Kushnir-Stein for having brought this issue to my attention. 3 The fill east of Herod’s circus reached the top of the East Cavea, while the fill to the south was much shallower (see Ceasarea I, 1: Chapter 4). 4 The provenance of Coin No. 3 in the Caesarea area is quite sure; however, according to its original registration, Coin No. 4 was bought in Haifa and its original provenance is uncertain. 5 Cf. CHL: Neapolis, p. 60, No. 206. A similar coin erroneously registered as ‘Philip Senior’ is in the Institute of

Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (No. HU 2762). The coin was checked by the author (D. Barag and H. Gitler, pers. comm.). 6 Not a single Roman Imperial silver coin was published in DeRose Evans 2006. 7 The following coins are not published in this volume: Denarii—Vespasian (IAA 64301, 64371, 64372); Domitian (IAA 66530); Trajan (IAA 64196), Hadrian (IAA 65779), Antoninus Pius (IAA 64215), Marcus Aurelius (IAA 64197), Septimius Severus (IAA 66528); Tetradrachms—Caracalla (IAA 64404, 68080). 8 Numbers in table 5.1 are updated to March 2014.

R eferences AJC 1, 2: Y. Meshorer. Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols). Dix Hills, N.Y. 1982. Ariel D.T. 1986. The Coins. In L.I. Levine and E. Netzer eds. Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979— Final Report (Qedem 21). Jerusalem. Pp. 137–148. Ariel D.T. 2006. A Numismatic Approach to the Reign of Herod the Great. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Babelon E. 1893. Les Perses achéménides, les satrapes et les dynasties tributaires de leur empire: Cypre et Phénicie. Paris. Belloni G. 1965. Le monete. In A. Frova ed. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Milan. Berman A. 1999. The Coins. In R. Gersht ed. Sdot-Yam Museum Book of Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima. Pp. 69–83. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Bijovsky G. 1998. The Gush Halav Hoard Reconsidered. ‘Atiqot 35:77–106. Bijovsky G. 1999. Foundation Myths on Tyrian Coins from the Roman Period. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew) CHL: Y. Meshorer, G. Bijovsky and W. Fischer-Bossert. Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum (Ancient Coins in North American Collections 8). D. Hendin and A. Meadows eds. New York 2013. CRE II: H. Mattingly. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum II: Vespasian to Domitian. London 1930. Dattari G. 1901. Monete imperiali greche: Numi augg. alexandrini (2 vols.). Cairo. DeRose Evans J. 1995. Ancient Coins from the Drew Institute of Archaeological Research Excavations, Caesarea Maritima, 1971–1974. BA 58:156–166. DeRose Evans J. 2006. The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima. Excavation Reports. The Coins and the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Economy of Palestine. Boston.

Hamburger H. 1955. Minute Coins from Caesarea. ‘Atiqot (ES) 1:115–138. Hill G.F. 1910. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London. Hohlfelder R.L. 1992. An Introductory Note on Coin Finds at Caesarea. In R.L. Vann ed. Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea (JRA Suppl. Series 5). Ann Arbor. Pp. 167–168. Howgego C.J. 1985. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 17). London. Kadman L. 1957. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium II). Jerusalem. Kadman L. 1961. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium IV). Jerusalem. Kushnir-Stein A. 2002. Some Observations on Palestinian Coins with a Bevelled Edge. INJ 14:78–83. Lampinen P. 1992. The Coins, Preliminary Report, 1990. In R.L. Vann ed. Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea (JRA Suppl. Series 5). Ann Arbor. Pp. 169–172. Levine L.I. 1972. Some Observations on the Coins of Caesarea Maritima. IEJ 22:131–140. Levine L.I. 1975. Caesarea under Roman Rule (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 7). Leiden. LRBC I: P.V. Hill and J.P.C. Kent. The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine, A.D. 324–346. In Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498. London 1965. Pp. 4–40. LRBC II: R.A.G. Carson and J.P.C. Kent. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498. In Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498. London 1965. Pp. 41–114. Meshorer Y. 1989. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Israel Museum Catalogue 301). Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 1997. A Treasury of Jewish Coins, from the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba. Jerusalem.

110

Gabriela Bijovsky

Poole R. S. 1892. Catalogue of the Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes. London. RIC IV/II: H. Mattingly, E.A. Sydenham and C.H.V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage IV, II. London. 1938. RIC IV/III: H. Mattingly, E.A. Sydenham and C.H.V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage IV, III: Gordian III–Uranius Antoninus. London 1949. RIC V/I : P.H. Webb. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, I. London 1927. RIC V/II: P.H. Webb. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, II. London 1933. RIC VI: C.H.V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage VI: From Diocletian’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximinus (A.D. 313). London 1967. RIC VII: P.M. Bruun. The Roman Imperial Coinage VII: Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337. London 1966.

Rosenberger M. 1972. The Rosenberger Israel Collection I: Containing Aelia Kapitolina, Akko, Anthedon, Antipatris & Ascalon. Jerusalem. Rosenberger M. 1975. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel Collection) II: Caesarea, Diospolis, Dora, Eleutheropolis, Gaba, Gaza and Jaffa. Jerusalem. Rosenberger M. 1977. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel Collection) III: Hippos-Sussita, Neapolis, Nicopolis, Nysa-Scythopolis, Caesarea-Panias, Pelusium, Raphia, Sebaste, Sepphoris-Diocaesarea, Tiberias. Jerusalem. Rouvier J. 1904. Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie, Tyr. Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 7:65–108 (407–450). RPC I: A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. Ripolles. Roman Provincial Coinage I. London 1992. SNG Israel I : A. Houghton and A. Spaer. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Israel I: The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins. London 1998.

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 6

The Glass Vessels Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya K atsnelson

Introduction1 The glass vessels presented from the excavation of Herod’s Circus derive from beneath (Stratum VII, L7419), but primarily from within the massive fill poured into the depression outside the East Cavea (Stratum VIC, L1612 and L7412; see Caesarea I, 1: Table 4.1); these are of great importance for the study of ancient glass in Israel. Very few Early Imperial Roman assemblages of such scale and quality from Israel or the Levantine coast have been published to date, apart from those from Areas A and E in the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem (Gorin-Rosen 2003; 2006) and from Beirut (Jennings 2006:27–69; Foy 2005). Comparable groups do exist in the western part of the Roman Empire, e.g., the sites in the Villeneuve area of Fréjus (Var), which date from the Augustan up to the Claudian/Neronian periods (Cottam and Price 2009:185–187 with further references to sites in the western provinces). This well-dated assemblage from Caesarea is also a reflection of the significant changes that took place in glass-vessel production at that time. During the second half of the first century BCE, glass blowing was invented somewhere in the east Mediterranean and was the cause of a major revolution in the history of glass technology (Grose 1977:9–12; Israeli 1991:46; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:413). Thus, the glass from the massive fill represents an assemblage that reflects the overlap between two major Early Roman production methods: the traditional casting and the newly introduced glassblowing techniques. The ratio between cast and blown vessels is important and will be further discussed below. The numismatic evidence indicates that the massive fill was deposited in the early first century CE. The latest coin in the fill was minted under the Procurator Ambibulus (Year 40 of Augustus = 10 CE; Cat. No. 145; see above, Chapter 5 and Caesarea I, 1:76), which provides a terminus post quem for the deposit. The latest coins in the fill under Modified Complex

3800 date to the reign of Herod Agrippa (42–43 CE), indicating that the sealing of the massive fill by the preceding Initial Complex 3800 had occurred by that time or slightly later. Thus, although representing types that derive from Stratum VII, the glass assemblage in the fill was likely deposited sometime from the second through the third decades of the first century CE. The glass vessels recovered represent a group dating from the late Hellenistic period and, more predominantly, the Early Imperial Roman period. Seven hundred and fifty glass fragments were found in the fill, of which almost four hundred diagnostic fragments were registered. Seventy representative fragments were selected for this discussion. These vessels are classified according to production technique and decoration. The majority of the vessels were manufactured according to techniques common before the invention of glassblowing: Four fragments are of core-formed vessels (Fig. 6.1), but the vast majority are cast bowls (Figs. 6.2–6.9). Free-blown vessels comprise a relatively small group (Fig. 6.10). Many of the vessels are colorless, while other vessels are monochrome, appearing in pale greenish and light or deep shades of yellowish-brown, the last the so-called ‘amber’ glass. A few vessels were made of purple and deep blue glass. Bright greenish glass is characteristic of some of the cast vessels found in the fill. Bright colors, such as dark green or peacock-blue, as well as vessels of naturally colored bluish-green glass, are rare. A single tiny fragment of a polychrome mosaic glass bowl was also found, but was too small to be illustrated.2 The colors of the glass vessels are characteristic of manufacturing centers in the western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire and can point to the origin of the vessel or a group of vessels. Generally, the local glass in Palestine is of greenish-blue shades, mainly from the Roman period onward. Strong colors usually characterized Roman imperial workshops, as well as the mosaic glass vessels that are generally

112

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

connected with the western provinces and mainly with the workshops of Rome. The main goal of this work is to define and classify the groups according to their distinctive technological characteristics, which seem to be the most diagnostic feature of the material. The relatively large assemblage presented here has also enabled us to refine the existing typology, namely, to divide the major groups known from previous publications into subtypes according to more refined technological details. Parallels are given mostly to typological groups, rather than to individual specimens, thus clarifying the classification, technology and distribution of the type. In most cases, the discussion includes references from both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire, as during the Early Imperial period the glass repertoire was still limited and homogeneous.

The Finds Core-Formed Vessels Four fragments of core-formed vessels were found in the fill (Fig. 6.1: CG1, CG2a, CG2b); one was too small to be drawn, but will be mentioned below. Core-formed vessels have been produced since the beginning of glass vessel production in the mid-second millennium BCE, and were very common in the second half of the first millennium BCE, with the well-known Mediterranean core-formed Group III, of which some vessels have been discovered in Syro-Palestine and may, possibly, have been produced locally (see Grose 1989:45–56; Jackson-Tal 2004:13–16, with further references therein to some vessels dated from the third to the late first centuries BCE found in Israel). Fragments of core-formed vessels appear in firstcentury CE contexts, but are rather rare. They probably represent the earliest glass vessels in the fill. Among vessels found in Israel are two recently published coreformed vessel fragments: the first was unearthed in the palatial fortress at Cypros in a context dated from the Hasmonean period until the reign of Herod at the latest (Jackson-Tal 2013b:165, Pl. 6.1:1); the second was found in a Herodian context in the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:101, Pl. 3.1:1). Vessels CG1, CG2a and CG2b are fragments of two core-formed amphoriskoi. This type is a bottle with quite a large elongated body, a distinctive knob base, and two vertical applied handles (e.g., CG2b), which are

usually joined to the upper part of the neck (e.g., CG1; see Grose 1989:123–125: Nos. 168–174). Fragments CG1 and CG2a are characterized by the remains of horizontal trails wound around the neck. This element also points to this vessel type and strengthens the identification of these fragments as amphoriskoi. Vessels of this type are decorated with applied, marvered-in threads in a festooned or feather design on the body, usually in opaque white and yellow. A combination that is common for this type is the use of monochrome translucent glass as a base color, with transparent glass for applied details such as handles (CG2b), base-knobs, and sometimes rims. This transparent fabric is similar to that used for late Hellenistic––Early Roman cast bowls, e.g., grooved and ribbed vessels (see below, CG3–CG7). The amphoriskos was the most popular core-formed shape in the late Hellenistic period. Most excavated examples of this type are from Cyprus, where they were probably produced. The most similar amphoriskos, as well as the parallel from the nearest location, is a vessel found in a tomb dated to the middle of the second half of the first century CE at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq (Jackson-Tal 2004:15, 29, Fig. 5; Israeli and Katsnelson 2015:207–208, Fig. 1). Regarding the glass finds from Masada, Barag (1991:138) notes that “A few fragments of elongated core-formed amphoriskoi dating from the late Hellenistic period are the earliest glass objects from Masada and probably date from the period of Herod.” Several more amphoriskoi were discovered in excavations in Israel, representing other subtypes (see the examples in Jackson-Tal 2004:13–16, 22, 28–30, Figs. 3–5 and further references therein). Another small body fragment of a core-formed vessel was found (not illustrated; L1612, B73133). It was made of translucent green glass with white trails marvered and tooled to a feather design. CG1. Core-Formed Amphoriskos; L7412, B95991. Rim, mouth and neck with handle stubs. Blue glass with remains of trail decoration of unclear color. Covered by a thick shiny black and gold crust, and severe pitting. Uneven, rounded thick rim and slightly curving shallow funnel mouth. Tooling marks on and below the rim and mouth; it seems as if it was made of an additional glass trail tooled to create the shape of the mouth and the rim. Cylindrical neck, widening slightly toward the bottom. Remains of

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

113

CG2a CG1

CG2b 0

4

Fig. 6.1. Core-formed vessels.

greenish translucent trail handles on either side of the neck. Very thick wall (0.8 cm) on the lower part of the neck. D rim: ~2.8 cm. CG2a. Core-Formed Amphoriskos. L1612, B16532. Neck fragment with beginning of shoulder. Probably greenish-blue glass obscured by a black crust on interior and white and silver weathering on exterior. Severe pitting, fabric decayed. Cylindrical thick neck. Shoulder decorated with white or yellow trail, severely corroded. Fragment CG2b is probably its handle. CG2b. Core-Formed Amphoriskos Handle. L1612, B16532. Part of a handle with a wall piece attached to its base. Probably of greenish-blue glass, handle of translucent colorless glass with a greenish tinge. Black and white crust, silver weathering and iridescence; pitting. Slender trail handle drawn upward from the shoulder of a core-formed vessel. Probably same vessel as Fragment CG2a.

Cast Vessels Most of the vessels found in the fill were made by casting. The cast vessels are divided into different classes according to technological and typological characteristics. Late Hellenistic Vessels The earlier cast vessels from the Hellenistic period are rather infrequent finds at the site. They include three different vessel types: a carinated vessel with cut and scratched decoration (Fig. 6.2: CG3); a plain bowl (Fig. 6.2: CG4) and three grooved bowls (Fig. 6.2: CG5–CG7).3

While this group includes two rare examples (i.e., Fig. 6.2: CG3, CG4), it seems that they all belong to the same tradition of the late Hellenistic cast vessels, mainly bowls, which are common in the east Mediterranean in the late second to early first centuries BCE. Carinated Vessel. The original shape and orientation of CG3 are unclear and no exact parallels were found for it. Vessel CG3 is characterized by a very thick wall (0.6–0.7 cm) ornamented with some cut or ground element in relief, which might belong to a petal design. One part exhibits a rather unique and unclear scratched decoration. Although the shape of the fragment is unique, it seems to belong to a closed vessel and might be a part of a cast lagynos. This identification is also supported by a small fragment of a highly ground and polished handle base, from a high quality lagynos found in the excavations of the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, Area E (Gorin-Rosen 2006:245–246, 262, Pl. 10.2: G25). Very few glass lagynoi are known and those are mainly from private collections (see two examples from the Corning Museum; Goldstein 1979:136–137, Nos. 280, 281, Pl. 38:280, 281), dated to the second or third quarter of the first century BCE (Harden et al. 1987:36–37). CG3. Cast Vessel. L1612, B96986. Large body fragment. Greenish glass with remains of a black and silver crust (removed), pitting and iridescence. Sharply carinated wall (bi-conical profile) with traces of an elongated relief-cut design above the carination. Shallow incised decoration on wall, unclear. Unevenly thick wall, especially the lower part. Body diameter: ~15 cm.

114

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG3

CG5

CG4

CG6

CG7 0

4

Fig. 6.2. Cast vessels.

Plain Bowl. Bowl CG4 represents a simple unadorned shape. This type is nearly unknown from published material, as most of the cast bowls are grooved either inside or outside. The question is whether they were purposely made this way, or whether they represent an intermediate stage before additional cold engraving. Plain bowls are rarely found. Three plain bowls with different profiles are identical in their general shape and fabric to the well-known grooved bowls (see below): two are from Maresha and one from Dor (Jackson-Tal 2004:17, Fig. 6:1–3). A few fragmentary examples were recovered from the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, three among the remains of a glass workshop found in the fill of a miqveh dated not later than the middle of the first century BCE (Avigad 1983:186–192; Israeli 1991:47; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:424, Pl. 21.12: GL111– GL113) and one from Area E (Gorin-Rosen 2006:245, 262, Pl. 10.2: G22, with further references therein). Most of the plain bowls from Jerusalem have tooling marks on the rim’s edge, suggesting that these were

defective vessels that probably represent an intermediate stage rather than an intentional plain type. However, the profile of CG4 probably indicates that it is a completed fine vessel rather than an unfinished specimen. Plain bowls were also found in a wider distribution: two plain hemispherical bowls are displayed in the Antalya and Izmir museums (Lightfoot 1993:23, Figs. 3–5). Additional undecorated conical bowls were found at Kos in a deposit of the late second to the third quarter of the first century BCE (Triantafyllidis 2006:147–148, 151, Figs. 6.2, 6.3). Thus, in some cases, it might point to an additional type, made on purpose. CG4. Cast Bowl. L1612, B95713. Two mended rim and wall fragments. Colorless glass covered by a thick rusty black and silver crust, severe pitting and iridescence. Slightly incurving and uneven rim; partly rounded and partly pointed, with faint tooling marks on exterior. Deep curving wall. D rim: 12.5 cm.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

Conical Bowls with Internal Grooves (Fig. 6.2: CG5– CG7). These bowls are conical in shape and have an interior decoration of three horizontal wheel-cut grooves below the rim. These are the most common glass type of the late Hellenistic period throughout the east Mediterranean and, especially, in Syro-Palestine, where they were probably manufactured.4 These vessels date chiefly from the late second to the early first centuries BCE and are well-documented (they constitute Grose’s Group A; see Grose 1979:57, 58; Nenna 1993:11–19). They are rather widely distributed in Israel (see Gorin-Rosen 2003:375–377 and, for additional sites from the Syro-Palestine region, see Jackson-Tal 2004:17–19 with further references therein). Cast bowls with internal grooves were found at Caesarea (Israeli 2008: Nos. 6, 7) and its vicinity, e.g., a few bowls unearthed at Ramat Ha-Nadiv: one at Horbat ‛Aqav (Cohen 2000b: Pl. I:4) and two bowls from Horbat ‛Eleq (Cohen 2000a: Nos. 4, 7);5 another bowl was found at Tel Tanninim (Pollak 2006:159– 161, Fig. 129:25). The three bowls (CG5–CG7) are characterized by three horizontal narrow grooves on the inside (see Subtype 2—Gorin-Rosen 2003:376; 2006:240, Pl. 10.1: G2–G5). They differ in the shape of the rim and the space between the grooves. Rims CG5 and CG6 represent the very common bowls with three closely set narrow grooves, similar to the bowls found in the Jewish Quarter in Area A (Gorin-Rosen 2003:376 and see there further references to Jerusalem and Ha-Gosherim), Area E (Gorin-Rosen 2006: Pl. 10.1: G2, G4) and in the refuse of the glass workshop in Area J, which is dated to the mid-first century BCE (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:430, Pls. 21.12: GL117–GL 120, 21.14: GL140– GL141, 21.15: GL142–GL146), at Dor (Jackson-Tal 2004: Figs. 8.3, 8.4) and at Ashdod, where they were dated by their contexts to the late second and first centuries BCE (Barag 1967:36, Fig. 16:4, 6; 1971: 203, No. 5, Fig. 105:7).Three bowls of this type were found in Hasmonean and Herodian contexts in the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:102, Pl. 3.1:5, 7, 8). Finally, it is interesting to note that recent publications of cast conical bowls from Jerusalem demonstrate that these typically late Hellenistic vessels continued to appear in strata of Herod’s reign and possibly later, alongside other later forms of cast bowls (see discussion in Israeli 2014:289–290).

115

Rim CG7 is less common and is characterized by three, narrow widely spaced grooves below the rim on the interior. A conical bowl with a different profile, but with similar grooves, was found in the Jewish Quarter in Area E, Stratum 3, and dated to the second half of the first century BCE (Gorin-Rosen 2006:239, 241, Pl. 10.1: G3). A conical bowl from Delos has similarly spaced narrow grooves and is dated from the end of the second up to the middle of the first century BCE (Nenna 1999:76, Pl. 13: C90). CG5. Cast Bowl. L1612; B95757. Rim and wall fragment. Olive green glass with yellowish streaks. Black, white and silver weathering, pitting and iridescence. Ground rounded rim; thick slanting wall. Three interior horizontal grooves (very fine) below rim. Tooling marks on exterior. D rim: ~15 cm. CG6. Cast Bowl. L1612; B14272. Rim and body fragment. Colorless glass with pitting and faint iridescence. Pointed polished rim; thick slanting wall. Three fine grooves of varying width below rim on interior. Fine fabric and workmanship. D rim: ~14 cm. CG7. Cast Bowl. L1612; B73090/73076. Rim and body fragment. Yellowish-brown glass with black and silver crust (removed), pitting and iridescence. Rounded rim, polished on both sides; slanting wall. Three interior horizontal grooves below rim. Mold marks on interior. D rim: ~12 cm. Late Hellenistic–Early Roman Vessels Ribbed Bowls These vessels (Figs. 6.3, 6.4) represent variations of cast ribbed bowls. Shallow or deep ribbed bowls with slightly concave or flattened bottoms were the most popular and widespread type of drinking vessels overlapping with the late Hellenistic and Early Imperial glass traditions. The ribs start below the rim and usually taper down the side toward the base, often with horizontal grooves added on the interior below the rim. This type, which probably originated in SyroPalestine around the mid-first century BCE, became

116

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG8

CG9

CG10

CG11

CG12

CG14

CG13

CG15

0

4

Fig. 6.3. Cast ribbed bowls.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

117

CG17

CG16

CG18

CG19

CG20 0

4

Fig. 6.3 (cont.).

extremely popular, keeping its typical Hellenistic peculiarities, up to the last decades of the first century CE (Grose 1979: Group C, 61–63). In the late first century BCE, the same type inspired a Roman version that was made chiefly in Italy and became rare after the seventh decade of the first century CE. Isolated examples are known in western Europe up to the beginning of the second century CE (see Grose 1979:61–63; Price 1985:291). The bowls are similar in their general shape and production methods, with minor differences chiefly in the final shaping of the ribs and the finishing method. However, these differences have enabled several groups to be distinguished. Each group is presented, starting with the flared through upright rims, and concluding with sub-hemispherical shapes. Comparison of these ribbed bowls from Caesarea with those found in the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003:378–379; 2006) and Beirut (Jennings 2006:37–

42) provides more information about technological aspects and distribution, and allows possible identification of local manufacture. Some of these subtypes present differences that might be a result of chronological changes, as well as developments in production methods. Ribbed Bowls with Flared Rim, Thick Wall, Short Thick Ribs Rounded on Top (Fig. 6.3: CG8–CG10). In most cases, the ribs are short, upright or slanting, have prominent tooling marks above the ribs, and/or on the rim. In general, these bowls were cast in the same way as the bowls discussed below, but without any finishing stages such as grinding and polishing. In most cases, tool marks from the removal of the mold after casting are visible (see CG9; for further discussion on tooling, see Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994:70–71). Most of the bowls (CG9, CG10) have interior grooves below the rim and also further down the wall, which

118

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

has an s-shaped profile. They bear similarities to the bowls found in the Jewish Quarter, Area A (Subtype 3; Gorin-Rosen 2003:379, Pl. 15.4), although they differ in the shape of the ribs and the one horizontal groove below the rim, and Area E, which yielded such bowls with two grooves below the rim on the interior (GorinRosen 2006:246–247, Pl. 10.3: G26–G29, G32–G33). Rim CG8 is characterized by evenly spaced short ribs with no interior groove. Rims CG9 and CG10 are characterized by uneven prominent ribs and two grooves below the rim on the inside. Rim CG9 has two narrowly spaced grooves and CG10 has two closely set wide grooves; both rims are flared. Two of these bowls with prominent ribs were found at Ha-Gosherim, but differ in the shape of the rim and the grooves (Weinberg 1973:45, Profiles 53, 54). At Beirut, a few bowls with short widely spaced ribs were found; their basic profile is hemispherical with two horizontal grooves below the rim on the interior (Jennings 2006:37, Fig. 2.10:1–3). They are identified as the earliest ribbed bowls in the Beirut group and are dated from the second quarter to the last quarter of the first century CE (Jennings 2006:37–38). Bowls with prominent ribs were also uncovered at Knossos in Augustan and later deposits (Price 1990:30–31, Fig. 2:17). CG8. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B96986. Rim and wall fragment. Yellowish-brown glass obscured by a thick layer of milky-white, silver and black crust and iridescence, severely pitted. Flared rounded rim; curving wall. Regularly spaced, short ribs with rounded edges. D rim: 13.5 cm. CG9. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96265. Rim and wall fragment. Yellowish-green glass covered with iridescent film, pitted. Few bubbles. Flared rim; thick curving wall. Two interior grooves at juncture of rim and wall. Thick short ribs with rounded upper edge. Vertical tooling marks below rim and above the ribs. D rim: 13 cm. CG10. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B71946. Rim and wall fragment. Olive-green glass with pitting and iridescence. Slightly flared rim, polished on both sides; curving wall. Two interior grooves at juncture of rim and wall. Thick,

short prominent ribs, with rounded upper edges, unevenly slanting. D rim: 14 cm. Ribbed Bowls with Upright or Flared Rim, Elongated Ribs Rounded on Top (Fig. 6.3: CG11–CG14). This group represents several variants, which are characterized by narrow elongated ribs, rounded on the top and merging with the wall below the rim and tapering toward the bottom; slight vertical or horizontal tool marks are visible above the ribs. Bowls of this type were found at Tel Anafa, where they were described as bowls with ribs slightly raised above the surface that fade away at the top and bottom (Weinberg 1970:21, 25, Profiles 31–33). Bowl CG11 has a slanting wall and spaced and elongated narrow ribs with no interior groove. A bowl with similar characteristics was found at Quseir al-Qadim and dated to the Roman period (Meyer 1992:17–19, Pl. 1:18). Bowl CG12 is characterized by a flared rim, a rather thin wall, with one groove below the rim on the inside and two further ones down the wall.6 The ribs are rounded at their top. Fragments CG13 and CG14 are hemispherical bowls with interior grooves: one below the rim and two further down the wall. Bowls with flared rims and elongated ribs with rounded tops were discovered in the Jewish Quarter, Area E, but they all have only one groove below the rim and none further down the wall (Gorin-Rosen 2006:246–248, Pl. 10.3: G37, G39). A similar bowl was found at Delos, although the rounded ribs are thicker; it belongs to the same type dated to the last quarter of the first century BCE (Nenna 1999:109–111, Pl. 34: C301). Two similar bowls from Sidi Kherbish, Benghazi are dated to the last twenty or thirty years of the first century BCE and the first twenty or thirty years of the first century CE (Price 1985:291–292, Fig. 24.2:18, 19). Bowls of this type were also uncovered at Quseir al-Qadim, where some have ground rims, although the elongated ribs seem rounded on the top (Meyer 1992:17–19, Pl. 1:2, 3, 8, 19). CG11. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B14260. Rim and wall fragment. Pale purplish glass with uneven streaking. Pitting and iridescence. Slightly flared ground rim; slanting wall. Narrow ribs, merging with wall below rim.Vertical tooling above the ribs. D rim: 12 cm.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

CG12. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B16545. Rim and wall fragments (mended). Colorless bubbly glass. Pitting, slight iridescence. Flared pointed rim; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Shallow rounded ribs, merging into the wall. Horizontal tooling marks above the ribs. Polishing marks on interior. D rim: 13 cm. CG13. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B97045. Rim and body fragment. Colorless bubbly glass with greenish tinge covered with thick black, gold and silver crust, pitting and iridescence. Upright rounded rim, polished on both sides; hemispherical profile with deep curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Narrow elongated ribs slightly tooled on their tops; arrayed radially. D rim: 12 cm. CG14. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96917. Rim and wall fragment. Pale green bubbly glass covered with some patches of pitting and iridescence. Upright pointed rim. Hemispherical profile. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Shallow, narrow rib halfway down the body, merging into the wall toward the rim and the base. Mold marks on interior. D rim: 11 cm. Ribbed Bowls with Short Ribs, Sharply Ground on Top (Fig. 6.3: CG15–CG20). All the bowls included in this group are characterized mainly by the sharp triangular cuts on the rib tops and the tool marks. They differ in the shape of the rim and the additional grooves. The bowl profiles are similar to those of the previous groups, including flared and upright rims, e.g., CG15 and CG16 are similar to CG8 and CG12, as well as CG19 and CG20, which are similar to CG11 and CG14, with the major difference being the sharp cuts. This group appears in the Jewish Quarter with one horizontal groove just below the rim, but without any exact parallel to those presented here (Subtype 4; Gorin-Rosen 2003:380). Two complete bowls from the Wolf collection are the best comparanda known, so far, with similar tool marks above the ribs; they were defined as “Syro-Palestinian monochrome ribbed bowls” and dated from the second quarter to the end of first century BCE (Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994:294– 297, Nos. 84, 85).

119

The bowls included in this subtype represent different variants that lack exact parallels. Bowl CG15 has a slightly flared, rounded rim without grooves; CG16 has a flared rim, similar in shape to the first group, but with one horizontal groove just below the rim. Bowl CG17 is characterized by the grounded rim above the ribs. Bowl CG18 is slightly different: the rim is upright and the densely set ribs start close to the rim, compared with the other more spaced ribbed bowls. Bowls CG19 and CG20 are very similar and have a hemispherical shape with one groove below the rim on the interior and two further down the wall. They differ in that CG19 has a rounded rim, while CG20 has a pointed rim. CG15. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96197. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Upright rounded rim, deep curving wall; wide slanting ribs, tooled-off unevenly on top; vertical pincer marks above the ribs. Deep tooling marks on exterior below rim. Mold marks on interior. D rim: 12 cm. CG16. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B16526. Rim and wall fragment. Dark brown glass with a golden-white crust, pitting and iridescence. Flared rounded rim; curving wall. Interior groove below rim. Narrow ribs, widely spaced, tooledoff on top. Horizontal tooling marks above the ribs and some tooling marks on exterior of rim. D rim: 11 cm. CG17. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96118. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with pitting and silver-white flakes (mostly removed); purplish iridescence. Flared rounded rim; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Shallow ribs, merging into the wall, tooled-off on top. Horizontal tooling marks above the ribs. D rim: 11 cm. CG18. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B96917. Rim and wall fragment. Pale greenish-blue glass. Pitting and iridescence. Upright rim, polished on both sides, vertical wall. Interior groove just below rim. Shallow ribs, irregularly tooled-off on top; vertical pincer marks above the ribs. Mold marks on interior. D rim: ~11.2 cm.

120

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG19. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B96917. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with slight pitting and iridescence. Upright rounded rim; hemispherical profile. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Relatively shallow rib merging into the wall near the base, tooled-off on top; vertical pincers mark above. Rotary polishing marks on outside of rim. Mold marks on interior. D rim: 12 cm. CG20. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B96985. Rim and wall fragment. Deep amber glass with purple iridescence and pitting. Upright rounded rim with remains of polishing marks on exterior; hemispherical profile. Short ribs, tooled on top; vertical pincer marks above the ribs. The ribs merge into the wall toward the bottom. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 11.5 cm. Ribbed Bowls of the ‘Pillar Molded Type’ (Fig. 6.4: CG21–CG28). The so-called ‘pillar-molded bowls’are characterized by their ‘elaborate finishing process’ (Cool and Price 1995:15). The ribs are very regularly spaced and uniform in size, usually tapering toward the bottom. The upper part of the bowl below the rim was ground and perfectly polished, with a horizontal finishing line at the top of the ribbing. The bowls in this group are more homogeneous in shape and profile than the aforementioned groups and occur in two versions: deep bowls and the more common shallow bowls. The deep bowls (more than 5 cm high) usually have upright or slightly flared rims like CG21 and CG22. The shallow bowls (less than 4 cm high) usually have a slanting rim and curving walls like CG26. All the rims are even, very neatly ground and polished, and both types usually have one interior groove just below the rim and two further down the wall. The pillar-molded bowls found in Herod’s Circus show a high degree of homogeneity and all belong to the same subtype. This homogeneity contrasts with the group found in Area A in the Jewish Quarter, which includes at least four different subtypes with many variations (Gorin-Rosen 2003:379–380); all are different from those presented here. Another group of pillar molded bowls with long ribs was found in the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:105, Pl. 3.4:25–30).

The homogeneity of form may point to the same origin, whether locally made or produced elsewhere. One possible contemporary manufacturing center producing this type of ribbed bowls was identified at Beirut (Jennings 2006:28–29, with further references therein). Bowls with rims similar to CG21, CG22 and CG25 were found at Ha-Gosherim in the Upper Galilee among ribbed bowls of other subtypes (Weinberg 1973:38, 41, 44, Nos. 39, 40); many bowls of this group were also recovered from the City of David, although only three examples were drawn and catalogued, enabling some comparison with the Caesarea specimens. They were unearthed in Locus 1, which is dated no later than 70 CE (Ariel 1990:150, 161, Fig. 33: GL80, GL81; these two bowls have bases similar to CG27–CG28). A bowl similar to CG24 and G25 was found at Beirut in the fill of a cistern, which is dated to 60–70 CE (Jennings 2006:38–40, Fig. 2.13:7). Eight catalogued bowls and an additional ten bowls that were not illustrated were retrieved from the massive fill at Herod’s Circus. Bowls of this type were available throughout the Mediterranean region and they quickly spread to the northern provinces of the Roman Empire (Grose 1989:244–247). This type was very popular during the first century CE in both eastern and western Roman provinces. CG21. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B73070/73047. Rim and wall fragment. Yellowish-green glass with white and silver weathering, pitting and iridescence. Slightly flared ground rim, deep curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Narrow ribs, tooled-off on top forming a triangular section. Wide polished band from the rim down to the ribs. D rim: 11 cm. CG22. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612; B96053. Rim and wall fragment. Greenish bubbly glass. Pitting and slight iridescence. Flared, ground and polished rim; curving wall. Interior grooved step just below rim and two grooves further down. Narrow ribs, tooled-off on top forming a triangular section. Wide polished band from the rim down to the ribs. Interior mold marks. D rim: 10 cm.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

CG21

CG22

CG23

CG24

CG25

CG26

CG27

CG28 0

4

Fig. 6.4. Cast ribbed bowls.

121

122

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG23. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B16540. Body and base fragment. Light greenish bubbly glass. Pitting and iridescence. Apparently upright rim, curving wall and slightly rounded bottom. Two grooves on interior, at carination of wall. Narrow, widely spaced ribs radiating from base, tooled-off on top. Wide polished band from the rim down to the ribs. CG24. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96196. Rim and body fragment. Light green bubbly glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Flared, ground and polished rim; shallow curving wall. Interior grooved step just below rim and two grooves at juncture with floor. Narrow widely spaced ribs, tooled off on top forming a triangular section. Wide polished exterior band from the rim down to the ribs. Slight mold marks on interior. D rim: ~16.4 cm. CG25. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B73107. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Flared, ground and polished rim; shallow curving wall. Interior grooved step just below rim and two interior grooves near the bottom. Ribs tooled-off on top forming a triangular section with pincer marks. Wide polished band from the rim down to the ribs. mold marks on interior. D rim: 16 cm. CG26. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B16687. Rim and body fragments (mended). Amber bubbly glass with pitting and iridescence. Flared, ground and polished rim; shallow curving wall. Interior grooved step just below rim. Wide ribs tooledoff on top forming a triangular section. Wide polished band from the rim down to the ribs. Mold marks on interior. D rim: ~18.2 cm. CG27. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96985. Base and wall fragment. Colorless glass with greenish tinge with a few bubbles. Traces of black, white and silver crust (removed), pitting and iridescence. Two interior grooves on lower part of wall, around the bottom. Narrow, sharply defined ribs radiating from center of base. D base: 7 cm.

CG28. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B95424. Base and wall fragment. Light green bubbly glass with thick black and silver crust, pitting and iridescence. Prominent welldifferentiated ribs radiating from base. Thick curving wall. Two interior grooves at juncture with floor. D base: ~7.7 cm. Plain and Grooved Bowls This group may be divided into several overlapping subgroups. In some earlier publications, vessels of this class were called “linear-cut bowls,” whether with or without cut decorations (Grose 1989:247). The assemblage from Herod’s Circus allows at least five groups to be identified: plain deep bowls, grooved deep bowls, plain shallow bowls, grooved shallow bowls and miscellaneous bowls. Plain Deep Bowls (Fig. 6.5: CG29–CG34).These mainly small bowls have upright or slightly everted rims and S-shaped profiles. The rims are rounded and some have toolmarks below and on the rim (CG29, CG33, CG34). Grose (1989:247) wrote that they occur in highly colored fabrics, as can be seen from the six bowls discussed below: two are amber, one is brownish-yellow, two are purple, and one is colorless. The plain group has been included by Grose as part of the ‘linear cut’ group. Two complete bowls with similar shapes were published from the Toledo Collection (Grose 1989:268–269, Nos. 247, 248). He wrote that the origin of the bowls could be either Syro-Palestinian or Italian. One plain bowl found in the Jewish Quarter, Area A, is identified as part of the linear-cut bowls (Gorin-Rosen 2003:381, Pl. 15.7: G72). Two examples of plain rims come from HaGosherim (Weinberg 1973:38, 41, 45, Profiles 55, 56). These rims are identified as “bowls of some sort” and described as displaying “sorts of deformation.” HaGosherim Profile 56 is very similar to CG30–CG32. Several plain deep bowls, mostly of yellow shades of glass, were found at Beirut, in a context dated from the late first century BCE to the early first century CE (Jennings 2006:49–50, Fig. 2.20:4–6). Two plain bowls, one hemispherical and one conical, were recovered from the Herodian Palace at Jericho among a group of linear-cut bowls dated mainly to the Herodian period (Jackson-Tal 2013a:103–105, Pls. 3.2:13 light green, 3.3:17 colorless).

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

The group from Herod’s Circus seems to represent a local workshop, as suggested by the relatively large amount of plain bowls found, compared to the relatively few published parallels. These bowls could represent a final product or a preliminary stage of production, before grinding and polishing, as most have no remains of secondary cold work after casting. CG29. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16052. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless glass with severe pitting; black and silver crust; iridescence. Flared, uneven pointed rim; curving

wall. Tooling marks on exterior just beneath rim. D rim: 10 cm. CG30. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16526. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Flared rounded rim; slightly curving wall. D rim: ~11.2 cm. CG31. Cast Bowl. L1612, B97100. Rim and wall fragment. Purple glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Slightly flared rounded rim; slightly curving wall. Slight tooling marks on and below rim. D rim: 11 cm.

CG30

CG29

CG31

CG32

CG33

CG34 0

123

4

Fig. 6.5. Plain bowls.

124

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG32. Cast Bowl. L1612, B95665. Rim and wall fragment. Brownish-yellow bubbly glass with pitting and iridescence. Flared and thickened rim. D rim: 12 cm. CG33. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96985. Rim and wall fragment. Deep purple glass with parts and streaks of colorless glass probably result of de-colorization. A few bubbles. Pitting and iridescence. Flared rounded rim, slightly polished. Tooling marks below rim on exterior. D rim: 11 cm. CG34. Cast Bowl. L1612 B73107. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Upright pointed rim; slightly curving wall. Tooling marks on exterior below rim and mold marks on interior. D rim: 11 cm. Grooved Deep Bowls (Fig. 6.6: CG35–CG40). This group includes deep bowls with flared or upright rims, usually with a relatively thin wall and a concave base. They were common in the east Mediterranean from the late first century BCE to the very beginning of the first century CE, but occur no later than the Augustan period (Grose 1979:63–64, Nos. 8–10). The bowls comprise two major subtypes: Deep Bowls with Slightly Flared Rim and LinearCut Grooves on the Inside, One below the Rim and Two further down the Wall: This subtype is represented by CG35 and CG36. A bowl of this type has previously been reported from Caesarea (Israeli 2008:370–371, 396, No. 9). Such bowls were found in the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, in Area A (GorinRosen 2003: Subtype 3, 381, Pls. 15.3: G31–G33, 15.5: G48, G49), in Strata 5 and 4 dated from the end of the first century BCE up to middle of the first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003:380). Similar bowls were discovered at Ramat Ha-Nadiv: two at H.‛Aqav (Cohen 2000b: Pl. I:2–3) and one at H.‛Eleq (Cohen 2000a:471, No. 5). Another similar bowl was found at Ha-Gosherim (Weinberg 1973:40, 42, Profile 14). A complete bowl similar to CG35, made of colorless glass with a greenish tinge,was purchased in Jerusalem (Grose 1979: Group D, 63–64, No. 8). Bowls of this type were found in the Herodian Palace

at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:103, 105, Pl. 3.3:20– 21, with further references therein). Hemispherical Bowls with Upright Rim and LinearCut Grooves on the Inside, One below the Rim and Two further down the Wall: This type is represented by three bowls, CG37–CG39. A bowl of this type is already known from Caesarea (Israeli 2008:370– 371, 396, No. 8). Another bowl of this subtype was discovered at Tell Qiri (Barag 1987: Fig. 6:1). Similar bowls were recovered from the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:103–105, Pl. 3.3:14–16). Two bowls similar to CG37 and CG38 were found at Akhziv: one rim retrieved from a tomb in the Eastern Cemetery with vessels dated to the first and second centuries CE (Abu ‘Uqsa 1998:10*, Fig. 15:6), and one from the winepress (Syon 1998:94, Fig. 14:1). Bowl CG39 is similar to bowls recovered from the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, in Area A, Strata 5–4, which date from the end of the first century BCE up to the first half of the first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003: Subtype 2, 367, 380–381, Pls. 15.3: G29, 15.5: G44). Bowls of this type were found in the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:103–105, Pl. 3.3:14–16). Bowl CG40 presents a rather rare subtype, with three evenly spaced grooves below the rim. The general shape is hemispherical and, therefore, it was included in this group rather than with the previous discussed group of cast bowls (see CG4–CG7), although its spaced grooves bear similarities to the conical cast bowl, CG7. CG35. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96118. Rim and wall fragment. Olive-green glass with a thick rusty and white crust (partly removed), pitting and iridescence. Flared, ground and rounded rim, polished on both sides; nearly vertical wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 12 cm. CG36. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96067. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless bubbly glass with very light purple streaks below the rim. Pitting and iridescence. Flared pointed rim, polished on both sides; nearly vertical wall curving under to base. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 12 cm.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

CG35

125

CG36

CG37

CG38

CG39

CG40 0

4

Fig. 6.6. Grooved bowls.

CG37. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96917. Rim and body fragment. Amber glass with slight pitting and iridescence. Upright pointed rim, hemispherical profile. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Rotary polishing marks on interior rim. D rim: 12 cm. CG38. Cast Bowl. L1612, B95757. Two rim and wall fragments.

Colorless bubbly glass with pale greenish tinge. Pitting and iridescence. Upright pointed rim, polished on exterior; hemispherical profile. Wide interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: ~14.2 cm. CG39. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16545. Rim and wall fragment. Deep blue glass, pitted. Pointed rim, polished on both sides; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 12 cm.

126

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG40. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16067. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless glass with greenish tinge. Severely pitted with black and silver crust; iridescence. Upright thickened rim; slightly curving wall. Three internal horizontal grooves at regular intervals. Exterior polishing marks below rim. D rim: 12 cm. Plain Shallow Bowls (Fig. 6.7: CG41–CG43). These three bowls are sub-hemispherical, similar in shape to the grooved shallow bowls (discussed below) and were made of colorless glass. Bowl CG41, although plain, has some tooling marks on the rim’s exterior. In the same basket is another small fragment of a plain rim made of blue glass, also with tooling marks on the exterior. These bowls may present an unadorned subtype or a preliminary stage of production before additional wheel-cutting. A plain bowl of similar shape was found in the City of David (Ariel 1990:153–154, GL7, surface find). Bowls CG42 and CG43 are almost plain, with a very shallow groove or step just below the rim on the interior. Two bowls of this type found in Beirut are identified as “late plain bowls” and were distinguished from the earlier linear-cut bowls both by the naturally colored bluish-green glass and the

absence of cut grooves in the vessel walls (Jennings 2006:46–49, Fig. 2.19:1–3). They are dated either to the middle decades of the first century CE or from the second quarter of that century up to 60–70 CE. CG41. Cast Bowl. L1612, B73060/73086. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless glass with black and silver crust, pitting and iridescence. Rounded thickened, slightly slanting rim; shallow thin curving wall. Tooling marks on rim exterior and fire polishing on both surfaces. D rim: 16 cm. CG42. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16052. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless glass with black and silver crust, severe pitting and iridescence. Pointed rim; shallow thin curving wall (sub-hemispherical profile). Stepped groove just below rim on interior. Mold marks and shiny fire polishing on the interior. D rim: 15 cm. CG43. Cast Bowl. L1612, B73262. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless glass with greenish tinge. Severely pitted, with patches of rust and iridescence. Pointed rim;

CG41

CG42

CG43 0

4

Fig. 6.7. Plain shallow bowls.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

shallow curving wall (sub-hemispherical profile). Stepped groove just below rim on the interior. Shiny fire polishing on the interior. D rim: 17 cm. Grooved Shallow Bowls (Fig. 6.8: CG44–CG52). This type is the most common form of the ‘linearcut bowls’. The bowls are mostly shallow and subhemispherical, with a relatively thin wall and a flat or slightly concave base. The bowls differ slightly in their rims and height. The group is nearly homogeneous: all the bowls have one interior groove below the rim and two grooves further down the wall. Among nine of the bowls catalogued below, two are colorless, four are nearly colorless but tinged with green, two are amber, and one is a pale green. It is quite clear that the grooved shallow bowls from Herod’s Circus are predominantly colorless with a greenish tinge. Shallow grooved bowls were very common in Israel and the east Mediterranean during the Early Roman period. A bowl of this type is already known from Caesarea (Israeli 2008:370–371, 396, No. 3). A complete example was found recently in a tomb excavated at Castra.7 Three colorless shallow bowls from Tell Qiri are similar to CG47 and CG49–CG52 (Barag 1987:48–49, Fig. 6:9–11 and see therein further references to Samaria and Jericho, which are dated to the late first century BCE). A bowl similar to CG49– CG51 occurs at Ha-Gosherim (Weinberg 1973:40, 42, Profile 16). A few bowls of this type were recovered from the Jewish Quarter, Area A, in Strata 5–4, which are dated from the late first century BCE up to the middle of the first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003: Subtype 2, 380–381, Pls. 15.3: G27, G28, 15.5: G45– G47). A complete, intact, shallow bowl of colorless glass with a greenish tinge was purchased years ago in Jerusalem (Grose 1979: Group D, 64, No. 10); it probably originated there or nearby. Four colorless bowls of this subtype were discovered in the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:103–104, Pl. 3.3:9–12). Three bowls of this type were also recovered from the palatial fortress at Cypros in a context dated from the time of Herod to the first half of the first century CE (Jackson-Tal 2013b:166, Pl. 6.1:3–4). CG44. Cast Bowl. L1612, B15882. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless bubbly glass with a greenish tinge. Pitted with slight iridescence. Upright pointed rim, polished

127

on both sides; curving wall. Interior groove below rim. D rim: 13 cm. CG45. Cast Bowl. L1612, B14266. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless bubbly glass with a greenish tinge. Pitting and slight iridescence. Pointed rim; curving wall. Interior groove below rim. Mold marks on interior. D rim: 14 cm. CG46. Cast Bowl. L7412, B96196. Rim and body fragment with beginning of bottom. Colorless bubbly glass with a greenish tinge. Pitting and slight iridescence. Upright pointed rim, polished on both sides; vertical wall, curving under to the bottom. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 13 cm. CG47. Cast Bowl. L1612, B14260. Rim and body fragment. Colorless glass with a greenish tinge. Black and silver crust (removed), severe pitting and iridescence. Pointed rim, polished on both sides; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 14 cm. CG48. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16052. Rim and wall fragment. Amber glass with milky and silver crust, iridescence and pitting. Uneven pointed rim; shallow curving wall (sub-hemispherical profile). Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 14 cm. CG49. Cast Bowl. L1612, B73116. Rim and wall fragments (mended). Colorless glass, severely pitted, with black and silver crust and iridescence. Slightly pointed rim; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Polishing marks on exterior and shiny fire polishing on interior. D rim: 16 cm. CG50. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96985. Rim and body fragment (mended from two fragments). Deep amber glass. Traces of white and silver crust (removed), pitting and iridescence. Pointed rim, polished on both sides; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. D rim: 15 cm.

128

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

CG44

CG45

CG47

CG46

CG48 CG49

CG50

CG51

CG52 0

4

Fig. 6.8. Grooved shallow bowls.

CG51. Cast Bowl. L1612, B72075. Rim and body fragment. Pale greenish bubbly glass. Pitted, with lime deposits and iridescent layering. Pointed rim; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim and a pair further down. Shiny fire polishing on exterior. D rim: 15 cm. CG52. Cast Bowl. L1612, B73060. Rim and body fragment. Colorless glass. Black and silver crust (removed), pitting and iridescence. Pointed rim, polished on both sides; curving wall. Interior grooves, one below rim

and a pair further down. Mold marks on interior. D rim: 15.4 cm. Miscellaneous Cast Bowls (Fig. 6.9: CG53–CG58). These bowls represent various different shapes and are consequently discussed separately. Two bowls, CG53 and CG54, represent shallow cast bowls made of colored glass. The peacock blue bowl, CG53, has one interior groove just below the rim’s edge and the rest of the bowl is plain. Bowl CG54 is made of blue glass with a slight cut groove on the rim’s interior and two horizontal relief-cut ridges on the exterior. A similar

129

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

CG53

CG54

CG56

CG55

CG57

CG58

CG60

CG59 0

4

CG61

Fig. 6.9. Miscellaneous cast vessels.

rim with a thin relief-cut groove on the interior below the lip and with another raised groove on the exterior 2 cm below rim is in the Corning Museum (Goldstein 1979:143, No. 295, Pl. 39:295). These vessels belong to the Early Roman period. Although the deep, rich translucent colors characteristic of this group were already available in Hellenistic times, cast vessels in bright monochrome colors, such as dark green (emerald) and greenish-blue (peacock blue), were new developments of the Early Imperial period. They occurred in the last years of the first century BCE and became more predominant in the first half of the first century CE, throughout the Roman Empire, but chiefly in Italy (Grose 1989:254–256; 1991:1–2, 8–9). Bowls CG55 and CG56 were decorated with grooves on the exterior. They differ in color and

the arrangement of the grooves. Bowl CG55 is characterized by its peacock-blue color and multiple exterior grooves. It is made of a rather good fabric and fine workmanship. Bowl CG56 is of poor quality colorless glass with bubbles, probably similar to the fabric of the decolorized bowls with exterior grooves found in Beirut (Jennings 2006: 52–53, Fig. 2.23:3, 4, the latter dated by pottery to 25­–50 CE). Base fragment CG57 represents a monochrome cast bowl with a ground base. This fragment belongs to a well-known group, common in the east and west parts of the Roman Empire. Bowls with such bases were often made of colored glass, e.g., opaque red, like the bowl found in Area E in the Jewish Quarter, Stratum 3 and dated to Herod’s reign (Gorin-Rosen 2006:251– 252, Pl. 10.5: G56), and a similar bowl found at Beirut, dated to 60–100 CE (Jennings 2006:51–52, Fig. 2.22:3).

130

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

Body fragment CG58 is characterized by an aquamarine color and fine lathe-cuts. This fragment probably belongs to a very fine cast bowl, possibly with a broad collar and decorated with a relief-cut band, as on the two bowls from the Corning Museum Collection (Goldstein 1979:148–149, Nos. 312, 313, Pl. 39:312, 313). CG53. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16687. Rim and wall fragment. Peacock blue bubbly glass with pitting and scratched surface. Upright cut and polished rim; thin curving wall. A stepped grooved just below rim on interior; mold marks on interior. Fine fabric and workmanship. D rim: 13 cm. CG54. Cast bowl. L1612, B95786. Rim and body fragment (mended). Translucent blue glass covered with black and white crust, lime crust, pitting and iridescence. Flared rim with slight cut ridge on interior; shallow, sharply slanting wall. Two slender horizontal cut ridges on exterior toward base. Fine workmanship. D rim: ~20.2 cm. CG55. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96917. Rim and wall fragment. Peacock-blue bubbly glass with pitting and slight iridescence. Upright ground rim; thin vertical wall. Four exterior grooves. D rim: ~10 cm. CG56. Cast Bowl. L1612, B16294. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless bubbly glass. Pitted, with slight iridescence. Upright pointed grooved rim; vertical wall, curving under gradually. Six ground and polished wide horizontal grooves creating ridges on the exterior. D rim: ~12 cm. CG57. Cast Bowl. L1612, B97045. Base fragment with part of wall. Pale greenish glass with remains of thick black and silver crust (removed), pitting and iridescence. Ground and polished base-ring with almost flat floor. Polishing marks around the base on exterior. D base: 5 cm. CG58. Cast Vessel. L7419, B97149. Body fragment, close to rim.

Aquamarine bubbly glass, pitted with slight iridescence. Ground and polished vessel, with horizontal ridges on exterior. Thin curving wall. Fine fabric and workmanship. Bowl Bases (Fig. 6.9: CG59–CG61) Two bases seem to belong to one of the above groups. Base CG59 has remains of ribbing and CG60 is plain; both are nearly flat. Base CG61 probably belongs to a cast linear-cut bowl with shallow grooves on the exterior above the base. It is rather rare to find complete profiles of cast bowls with their bases; however, a few linear-cut bowls and ribbed bowls with their bases were recovered from the Herodian Palace at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a: Pls. 3.3:20, 3.4:25). CG59. Cast Ribbed Bowl. L1612, B96088. Base fragment. Brownish-yellow glass, uneven shading. Severe pitting, iridescence. Flat bottom with traces of the ends of a ribbed design; very thin wall. D base: 5.5 cm. CG60. Cast Bowl. L1612, B96088. Base and beginning of wall. Amber glass with darker streaks, uneven shading. Pitting and iridescence. Flat base with very slight concavity, curving gradually upward toward thin wall. D base: 7 cm. CG61. Cast Bowl? L1612, B96990. Base and wall fragment, mended from three fragments. Yellowish-brown glass. Black and silver crust, pitting and iridescence. Thin flat bottom; slanting asymmetrical thin wall. Two shallow horizontal grooves on exterior above the base. D body (at top): 8.5 cm.

Free-Blown Vessels This group represents an early assemblage of blown vessels found among a large quantity of cast vessels. The discovery of glass blowing took place sometime in the second half of the first century BCE (for further discussion of this technological revolution, see Grose 1977:9), and became widespread during the first century CE. This group is rather important and probably derives from among the earliest groups of blown vessels. Even though the fill was deposited sometime after 10 CE and probably not later than the

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

third decade of the first century CE, the glass found there represents an earlier assemblage, probably from the turn of the millennium. Very few assemblages of Early Roman blown vessels have been found and published from Israel. Thus far, the largest published groups are those from the Jewish Quarter: the group found in Area J—the famous refuse of a glass workshop dated to around the middle of the first century BCE—that included cast vessels and experimental blown vessels (Avigad 1983; Israeli 1991; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006), and the groups retrieved in Areas A and E, together with late Hellenistic and Early Roman cast vessels, which have been cited several times above (Gorin-Rosen 2003:382–384; 2006:253–255). Smaller groups were uncovered at Tell Qiri, dating from the Augustan period or perhaps the last quarter of the first century BCE to the first quarter of the first century CE (Barag 1987:36), the Officina at ‘En Boqeq, Stratum II, dating between 18/19 and 54/55 CE (Jackson-Tal 2000:73– 74), and in the Herodian Palaces at Jericho (JacksonTal 2013a:106, 116; 2013b:169). Early Roman blown vessels were also discovered at Caesarea in several areas, together with cast vessels (Israeli 2008:371– 375) and at Beirut, where blown glass was found with many examples of linear-cut cast bowls of the early first century CE (Jennings 2006:44). However, they are not presented according to their context and therefore the ratio of cast and blown is unknown. Moreover, it is worth noting that the early blown vessels found at Caesarea consist mainly of beakers. The existence of bottles or jugs might be evidenced by the few body and base fragments (but no rims) that were found. Their possible absence is rather unusual in comparison with the assemblages mentioned above from Jerusalem and Jericho. Vessels with Wheel-Cut Decoration (Fig. 6.10: CG62– CG67) The blown group consists mainly of vessels with a very thin wall, decorated with horizontal wheel-cut incisions. Four fragments probably belong to beakers (CG62–CG65), while the other two (CG66 and CG67) could also belong to closed vessels such as bottles or jugs. Beakers with horizontal wheel-cut decoration, dating to the Early Roman period, were discovered in different areas at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:373–374, Nos. 36–39 with further references). Such beakers

131

were among the early blown vessels from Area A and Area E in the Jewish Quarter, although representing different subtypes (Gorin-Rosen 2003:382–383; 2006:254, Pl. 10.5: G66, G67). Additional beakers were discovered in the Burnt House, which dates up to 70 CE (Israeli 2010:224–225, Pl. 6.2: G20–G21). Two beakers were retrieved in the palatial fortress at Cypros and were dated to the first century CE, based on the dated parallels (Jackson-Tal 2013b:167–168, Pl. 6.2:9–10 and see there for further references). A group of beakers with wheel-cut decoration was found in Beirut (Jennings 2006:61064, Figs. 3.4:1–11, 3.5:1–5). It seems that these vessels characterize the earliest blown assemblages used in Israel during the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE. Some of the types were in use until the early second century CE. Fragments CG62 and CG63 represent beakers with knocked-off rims; CG62 has a delicate, slightly incurving wall and CG63 has a slightly flared rim and an upright wall. Wall fragment CG64 has a curving upper part and a wide wheel-cut band. It probably belongs to a beaker or a bowl with an incurving rim and slightly curving wall. An example of a tall beaker with a slightly curving wall decorated with horizontal wheel-cut bands was found in Beirut, dating to the first century CE, and attributed to the local glass industry (Jennings 2006:61–62, Fig. 3.4:1). Another possible identification is a deep bowl or hemispherical cup with a decoration similar to those known mainly from the west parts of the Roman Empire (Isings 1957:27–30, Form 12, see further discussion and references therein). This form is assigned to the earliest blown shapes, dating to the Augustan–Tiberian period. Bowls of this type are also known in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, e.g., from Turkey, dating to the first century CE (Lightfoot 1989:26: No. 9, Fig. 1:1, Pl. 2:1 and see further references therein). Fragment CG65 probably represents a beaker with vertical walls, decorated with deeper horizontal wheel-cuts, almost grooves in their shape. This beaker is also characterized by a chip of purple glass, marvered into the colorless bubbly glass with a greenish tinge. A small deep bowl with similar purple and blue chips is in the Israel Museum Collection and dated to the first century CE (Israeli 2003:103, 119, Cat. No. 114, with further references to the western Roman provinces). The two body fragments, CG66 and CG67, represent the lower part of the wall with wheel-cut incisions above the join of

132

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

the wall and the base. Vessel CG67 is characterized by its high quality purple glass.

CG62. Blown beaker. L1612, B16631. Two rim and body fragments (mended).

CG62 CG63

CG64

CG65

CG66

CG67 0

4

Fig. 6.10. Free-blown vessels.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

Yellowish bubbly glass with iridescence and slight pitting. Upright knocked-off rim; thin slightly curving wall. Exterior incisions, one just below rim and a pair further down on the body. Very delicate vessel. D rim: 5 cm. CG63. Blown beaker. L1612, B96010. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless bubbly glass with pitting and iridescence. Slightly flared pointed rim; very thin, almost vertical wall. Polished exterior with a pair of slender ridges and a single ridge on the body. D rim: 9 cm. CG64. Blown beaker. L1612, B95637. Wall fragment. Bluish glass with very slight pitting and iridescent film. Blowing spirals inside the glass. Curving wall with a wide wheel-cut band flanked by two narrow bands. Traces of wheel polishing and probably the beginning of another groove. CG65. Blown beaker. B16381. Base and wall fragment. Colorless bubbly glass with greenish tinge and elongated chip of purple glass marvered in. Patches of severe pitting and iridescence. Vertical wall with three horizontal exterior grooves at regular intervals. Plain flat thickened base. Wheel-polishing on exterior. D base: 4 cm. CG66. Blown beaker. L1612, B96265. Two mended fragments of base and wall.

Bluish bubbly glass. Slight pitting, iridescent film; scratched surface. Body fragment curving under to bottom; near-vertical wall. Faint double horizontal incision at juncture of wall and base. D body (at top): 9.5 cm. CG67. Blown beaker. L1612, B95665. Wall fragment with part of bottom. Purple glass with pitting and iridescence. Vertical wall, curving under to bottom. Two horizontal incisions on lower part of wall. D body (at top): ~9.2 cm.

Glass Rods, Tessera and R aw Glass Chunks (Fig. 6.11) In addition to the glass vessels, five glass rods were found; two are narrow rods with a circular section and three are thicker and twisted. Glass rods of this type are also known from the Jewish Quarter, from the glass workshop debris in Area J, where they were identified as part of the production process (Israeli 1991:47–48, Pl. XII; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006: Pls. 21.5–21.9), as well as from Area E (Gorin-Rosen 2006:256, Pl. 10.5: G74, G75). Those from Caesarea might present Early Roman stirring rods, but they could also point to the remains of glass production activities together with the two raw glass chunks retrieved in the fill. CG68. Glass Rod. L1612, B73279. Light green with silver weathering and iridescence, severely pitted. The rod is broken at both ends. Circular section.

CG69 CG70 CG68 0

133

2

Fig. 6.11. A glass rod, a tessera and a chunk of raw glass.

134

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

One small blue glass tessera was also found in the fill.

Late Hellenistic–Early Roman Vessels

CG69. Glass Tessera. L1612, B95605. Blue glass, covered with silver weathering and iridescence, severely pitted.

The late Hellenistic–Early Roman ribbed bowls with flared, upright or ground rims presented here are small in number (22; Fig. 6.5). In general, the ribbed bowls found at Caesarea, while belonging to known subtypes, present rather individual characteristics, which are so far rare among the published material. Further study of other examples might identify this variation as local or typical of a wider phenomenon. The ribbed bowls of the so-called ‘pillar molded’ type (Fig. 6.4), although also found in small quantities, dominated this category: eighteen rim and wall fragments of this type were registered, but not catalogued. In summarizing all the subtypes of the ribbed bowls, a total of only 40 bowls was uncovered in the fill. The dominant vessel/bowl type is the plain and grooved bowl also known as ‘linear-cut bowls’ (Grose’s Group D), divided in this report into five major groups. The most common type within this division is the shallow grooved bowls also known as sub-hemispherical linear-cut bowls (147 rims). Ninety of these were made of colorless glass, with the majority having an additional greenish tinge. The second dominant color is amber or tinges of yellowishbrown, of which 48 rims were counted; seven rims are of purple glass and two were made of blue glass (Fig. 6.12). The second most common type is the grooved deep bowls (27 rims). Seventeen rims were made of colorless glass with various tinges, seven are amber, two are yellowish and one is of yellowish-green glass (Fig. 6.13). The plain bowls (17 rims) included in the linear-cut bowls are of great interest as they probably represent local production (see the above discussion). Eleven were made of amber and yellowish-brown tinges, four are colorless and two were made of blue glass (Fig. 6.14). Another five plain shallow bowls were found, of which three were made of light yellowish glass and two are colorless. No colored plain shallow bowls were found. Aside from diagnostic rim fragments, eleven non-illustrated cast bases were retrieved, of which four were made of colorless glass, four of amber color, two blue and one green.

Two raw glass chunks were retrieved from the fill; they might be connected to Early Roman glass production at Caesarea, which may be suggested cautiously, as no other remains have been found thus far. However, the typology of the Early Roman cast glass vessels might also indicate local glass production somewhere at Caesarea. CG70. Raw Glass Chunk. L1612, B95786. Color is invisible due to black crust over milky weathering, severely pitted. Triangular section. Max. L 3 cm.

Summary and Conclusions The rather large amount of glass fragments retrieved from this fill allows us to make a deeper study of the types, colors and technology, and the relations between all of these elements. We examined and counted all fragments and considered whether some might belong to the same vessel. Therefore, the quantities may be used to establish a ratio between subtypes and a general trend, but should not be considered a precise statistical study. The charts below present a color frequency analysis for three selected bowl types and is based on the registered assemblage, which was distinguished according to reliable typological characteristics established above. Late Hellenistic Vessels A total of 12 fragments of late Hellenistic cast bowls were found, of which four were illustrated (Fig. 6.2: CG4–CG7). These, along with the three fragments of core-formed vessels included in the catalogue (Fig. 6.1: CG1, CG2a, CG2b), represent the earliest material in the fill. They demonstrate the latest use of Hellenistic glass vessels at Caesarea during the Herodian period, including a unique carinated cast vessel (Fig. 6.2: CG3). A few late Hellenistic cast bowls had previously been found at Caesarea, some of which are similar to those presented above (Israeli 2008:370–371, Nos. 1–9).

Amber

135 Colorless Purple

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

Amber Blue

Blown vessels appeared in very low quantities (only 21 fragments were registered). Apart from the six catalogued fragments (Fig. 6.10), an additional 15 small fragments were identified from among a total of almost four hundred diagnostic fragments. The ratio between cast and blown vessels (18:1) in this glass assemblage is similar to that of the Jewish Quarter (20:1), as represented by the finds in Area A (Gorin-Rosen 2003:382) and Area E (Gorin-Rosen 2006:253–256). Thus, less than 5% of the glass vessels found in the Stratum VIC fill are blown. This percentage contrasts, for example, with sites in the western part of the Roman Empire, such as Frèjus, where the Augustan levels contained 35.3% cast vessels and 64.7% of a limited range of blown vessels (Cottam and Price 2009:186). The invention of glass blowing took place somewhere on the east Mediterranean coast in the second half of the first century BCE. This development is widely acknowledged by scholars, although the precise time and place is uncertain. It is worth noting that a low percentage of blown glass occurs in local contexts dated to the first decade or first quarter of the first century CE, but increases noticeably toward the middle of the first century CE. The glass assemblage from the Burnt House in Jerusalem is a case in point, as it is devoid of even a single fragment of a cast bowl (Israeli 2010). Although the fill could be dated up to the fourth decade of the first century, it seems that most of the glass vessels in the fill were not later than the latest coin in the fill, which is from 10 CE (see Chapter 5; Caesarea I, 1:76 ).

Colorless Purple Amber Blue Purple Blue Colorless Fig. 6.12. Grooved shallow bowls (N = 147). Amber Colorless Yellow Amber Yellowish green Colorless Yellow Amber Yellowish green Fig. 6.13. Grooved deep bowls (n = 27).

Yellow Yellowish green

Colorless Amber Colorless Blue Amber Fig. 6.14. Plain deep bowls (n = 17). Colorless Blue

Amber Blue

Notes The authors are indebted to the director of the IAA excavations at Caesarea, Y. Porath, who invited us to study and publish the glass finds and provided all necessary information. We also thank our draftsman, the late M. Miles, as well as C. Hersch; our photographer, C. Amit; and R.E. Jackson-Tal and M. Weingerten, for their help during the preliminary preparation of this paper. In addition to the groups described in this paper, a few fragments from the Byzantine period were found in two baskets. These probably originated in the upper strata and, therefore, are not included in this report. The catalogue number is preceded by CG (= Caesarea Glass). 1

The small mosaic glass fragment was found in L1612, B73090. It is severely corroded and therefore the colors are not visible. 3 Four additional fragments of late Hellenistic cast bowls were found, but are not illustrated. 4 For their production process, see Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994:69–71. 5 The cast bowls from the two excavations at Ramat HaNadiv were published in each chapter (Cohen 2000a; 2000b) as one group, although they include different subtypes. We separated them into subtypes and quote only those related to our division. 2

136

Yael Gorin-Rosen and Natalya Katsnelson

Nine additional bowls occur among the non-illustrated fragments, of which seven are similar to CG12 and two, to CG16 (see below). 6

Thanks are due to the excavators of the site, Z. Yeivin and G. Finkielsztejn, for permission to mention this material before the final publication. 7

R eferences Abu ‘Uqsa H. 1998. Akhziv, Eastern Cemetery. ESI 20:9*– 10*. Ariel D.T. 1990. Glass. In D.T.Ariel ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 149–166. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Barag D. 1967. The Glass Vessels. In M. Dothan and D.N. Freedman. Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations 1962 (‘Atiqot [ES] 7). Jerusalem. Pp. 36–37. Barag D. 1987. The Glass. In A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali. Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley; Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975–1977 (Qedem 24). Jerusalem. Pp. 34–36. Barag D.P. 1991. The Contribution of Masada to the History of Early Roman Glass. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass, Two Centuries of Art and Invention (Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers 13). London. Pp. 137– 140. Cohen E. 2000a. Early Roman Glass. In Y. Hirschfield. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984– 1998 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 470–472. Cohen E. 2000b. Roman and Byzantine Glass. In Y. Hirschfield. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem.Pp. 166–175. Cool H.E.M and Price J. 1995. Roman Vessel Glass from Excavations in Colchester, 1971–1985 (Colchester Archaeological Report 8). Colchester. Cottam S. and Price J. 2009. The Early Roman Vessel Glass. In C. Goudineau and D. Brentchaloff. Le camp de la flotte d’Agrippa à Fréjus: Les fouilles du quartier de Villeneuve (1979–1981). Paris. Pp. 185–275. Foy D. 2005. Une production de bols moulés à Beyrouth à la fin de l'époque hellénistique et le commerce de ces verres en Méditerranée occidentale. JGS 47:11–35. Goldstein S.M. 1979. Pre-Roman and Early-Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass. Corning. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2003. Glass Vessels from Area A. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 364–400. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2006. Glass Vessels. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969−1982 III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 239−265.

Grose D.F. 1977. Early Blown Glass: The Western Evidence. JGS 19:9–29. Grose D.F. 1979. The Syro-Palestinian Glass Industry in the Late Hellenistic Period. Muse 13:54–67. Grose D.F. 1989. The Toledo Museum of Art; Early Ancient Glass: Core-Formed, Rod-Formed, and Cast Vessels and Objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire. New York. Grose D.F. 1991. Early Imperial Roman Cast Glass: The Translucent Coloured and Colourless Fine Wares. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Innovation (Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers 13). London. Pp. 1–18. Harden D.B., Hellenkemper H., Painter K. and Whitehouse D. 1987. Glass of the Caesars. Milan. Isings C. 1957. Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Groningen. Israeli Y. 1991. The Invention of Blowing. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention (Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers 13). London. Pp. 46–55. Israeli Y. 2003. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: The Eliahui Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts. Jerusalem. Israeli Y. 2008. The Glass Vessels. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN. Final Reports I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 369–418. Israeli Y. 2010. Glass Vessels. In H. Geva ed .Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies, Jerusalem. Pp. 221–235. Israeli Y. 2014. Glass Vessels from Stratum 3, Area J. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem Pp. 288−301. Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969−1982 III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 411−460. Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2015. A Foreign Family’s Tomb? Reconsidering the Glass Finds from Geva–Abu Shusha. In Annales du 19e Congrès de l‘Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre (Tiran 2012). Tiran. Pp. 207–214.

Chapter 6: The Glass Vessels

Jackson-Tal R.E. 2000. Glass Vessels. In M. Fischer, M. Gichon and O. Tal eds. ‘En Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea II: The Officina; An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore. Mainz. Pp. 73–80. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2004. The Late Hellenistic Glass Industry in Syro-Palestine: A Reappraisal. JGS 46:11–32. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2013a. The Glass Finds from the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner eds. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1978 Excavations V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 100–129. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2013b. The Glass Finds from the Palatial Fortress at Cypros. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner eds. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1978 Excavations V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 165–173. Jennings S. 2006. Vessel Glass from Beirut, BEY 006, 007 and 045 (Berytus 48–49). Beirut. Lightfoot C. S. 1989. A Catalogue of Glass Vessels in Afyon Museum. Afyon Müzesindeki Cam Eserler Katalogu (BAR Int. S. 530). Oxford. Lightfoot C. S. 1993. Some Examples of Ancient Cast and Ribbed Bowls in Turkey. JGS 35:22–38. Meyer C. 1992. Glass from Quseir al-Qadim and the Indian Ocean Trade (SAOC 53). Chicago. Nenna M.D. 1993. La verrerie d’époque hellenistique à Delos. JGS 35:11–21.

137

Nenna M.D. 1999. Les verres (Exploration Archéologique de Délos 37). Paris. Pollak R. 2006. The Glass. In R.R. Stieglitz. Tel Tanninim: Excavations at Krokodeilon Polis, 1996–1999 (ASOR Archaeological Reports 10). Boston. Pp. 155–192. Price J. 1985. Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial Vessel Glass at Berenice: A Survey of Imported Tableware Found during Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi. In G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds eds. Cyrenaica in Antiquity (BAR Int. S. 236). Oxford. Pp. 287–296. Price J. 1990. A Survey of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Vessel Glass Found on the Unexplored Mansion Site at Knossos in Crete. Annales du 11e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre (Basel 1988). Amsterdam. Pp. 27–36. Stern E.M. and Schlick-Nolte B. 1994. Early Glass of the Ancient World 1600 B.C.–A.D. 50: Ernesto Wolf Collection. Ostfildern. Syon D. 1998. A Winepress at Akhziv. ‘Atiqot 34:85–99 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 7*). Triantafyllidis P. 2006. Late Hellenistic Glass from Kos, Dodecanese, Greece. JGS 48:145–162. Weinberg G.D. 1970. Hellenistic Glass from Tel Anafa in Upper Galilee. JGS 12:17–27. Weinberg G.D. 1973. Notes on Glass from Upper Galilee. JGS 15:35–51.

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 7

The Sculpture U ncovered in Herod’s Circus and R elated Buildings Rivka Gersht

Introduction1 Sculpture decorated almost every Roman public building and Herod’s Circus at Caesarea Maritima must have been no exception.2 Thus, it is very likely that the facility in all of its phases, either used as a canonical circus (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapters 3–5) or as an amphitheater (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 5), was richly decorated with both freestanding statues and reliefs. The components of the original (Stratum VII, 10 BCE to c. 10 CE), modified (Stratum VIC and VIB, c. 10 CE to c. 140 CE) and revived (Stratum VIA/Stage VIA1, c. first half of the third century CE) circus—the carceres, the South Gate, the spina, the shrine and the tribunalia (C1000, C2000), the 65 m long and 0.7 m wide freestanding wall (W669) connecting the northeast corner of the carceres with the north end of the East Cavea (Caesarea I, 1:52–53), as well as the related Pillared Gallery located between the external wall of the East Cavea (W1086) and the west bordering walls of Insulae W2S4 and W2S5 (Caesarea I, 1:109–113)—all should have boasted sculptural ornamentation in the course of their function. The aim of this chapter is not merely to study the 38 sculpted pieces uncovered in the circus and related buildings per se, which is the purpose of the catalogue (see below), but also to try and establish which of these finds could have possibly belonged to the facility’s decoration. Unfortunately, the relatively numerous changes that the structure underwent between its initial and last phases, as well as the damage it suffered afterward (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 6), would have resulted in an extensive loss of statuary. Given the facts that nearly all sculpted pieces, which were found in the vicinity of the carceres, the arena, the cavea, the vomitorium and the shrine, were discovered in either Roman or Byzantine fills in the south and east parts of the facility (Plan 7.1), and that the rest

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 139

of the decoration of the facility did not survive, the attribution of the remaining pieces to the various parts and phases is largely based on inductive reasoning (including size and theme) and comparable examples from other Roman sites and works of art with circus and amphitheater depictions. It is apparent from Humphrey’s (1986) study on Roman circuses that although the Circus Maximus was probably taken as an exemplum, at least for representations of circuses in the various media of Roman art, there was no canonical or fixed programme for decorating circuses, nor did one exist for decorating amphitheaters (Golvin 1988; Golvin and Landes 1990). Likewise, a sculptural display in a particular facility could easily be changed according to certain modes or structural modifications (e.g., Humphrey 1986:282– 287). This variability, of course, will be taken into consideration when discussing the sculpture uncovered in the area of Herod’s circus. The catalogue provides the basic information regarding the findspot, material and dimensions of each of the sculpted pieces, as well as a brief description. Where possible, a precise identification and date are offered, as well as a reconstruction of the missing parts. The corpus includes three fragmentary reliefs (Cat. Nos. 1–3), two portraits—a herm and a headless bust (Cat. Nos. 12, 13) and two fragments of drapery (Cat. Nos. 34, 35). Deities are represented by six fragmentary images: two of Asklepios (Cat. Nos. 4, 9), two of Serapis (Cat. Nos. 7, 8), one of Dionysus or Apollo (Cat. No. 5) and one of Hekate (Cat. No. 6). An ex-voto foot of Serapis (Cat. No. 24) brings the total number of his images to three, and two other exvoto feet of Isis (Cat. No. 22) and Kore or Isis-Kore (Cat. No. 21) expand the repertoire of deities’ images uncovered in the circus area. At least three hands can be associated with deities: the hand holding a bunch of grapes with the Dionysian milieu (Cat. No. 14); the

14/10/2015 11:51:00

140

OO PP QQ RR SS TT VVWW XX YY ZZ A B C D E F G H I K L M N O

Decumanus S2

Carceres 3

33

W669

132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67

28

Decumanus S3

14

36

12 18 15 11

Decumanus S4

7 27 1 10a

26

38

35 8 24

2

19 31

34

17 32

6,10b,13 25

4

5 9 20,21,22,23

29 37

Decumanus S5

16

30 0

30 m

132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67

OO PP QQ R SS TT VVWW XX YY ZZ A B C D E F G H I K L M N O

Plan 7.1. Sculpture findspots.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 140

14/10/2015 11:51:00

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

hand holding an acanthus stem, with that of Apollo or Dionysus (Cat. No. 15); and the hand holding poppy capsules, with that of Demeter/Ceres (Cat. No. 18). Among the other mythological figures, Marsyas is the only one whose identification is definite (Cat. No. 10). On the other hand, the identity of the youth holding clusters of ivy berries is enigmatic (Cat. No. 11). In addition to the hands (Cat. Nos. 14–18) and feet (Cat. Nos. 19–24), the corpus includes a group of human limbs, comprising arms (Cat. Nos. 25–30) and legs (Cat. Nos. 31–33), a single fragment of a hind leg of a canine (Cat. No. 36), and a single bench leg in the shape of a lion’s paw (Cat. No. 38). The size of the figural images, when intact, ranged from a few centimeters to over life-size. The smallest is the statuette of Serapis (Cat. No. 7) and the largest is the statue to which the left thigh of Cat. No. 33 belonged. Thirty-four pieces are made of marble, mostly white. One is carved out of dark Egyptian greywacke (Cat. No. 7), one is made of Egyptian black granite (Cat. No. 36), one of local limestone (Cat. No. 38) and one of bronze (Cat. No. 8). The marble pieces have not yet been analyzed, but many other marble statues from Caesarea, Ascalon, Bet She’an/Scythopolis, Caesarea Philippi, Gaza and Samaria-Sebaste have been tested. The results showed that most were carved in marble quarried in Asia Minor and only a few are of Greek marble that was quarried in Pentelikon, Paros and Thasos.3 It is therefore expected that future isotopic analyses of the marble pieces from Herod’s circus and related buildings may lead to similar results. The workmanship of the sculptures in this study is generally very good and while in most cases it is impossible to trace technical and stylistic features sufficiently indicative to point to the origin of sculptors or sculptures, it may be assumed that many pieces reached Caesarea when already fully or at least partially carved. Some, such as the ex-voto feet (Cat. Nos. 19–24) were sculpted or remodeled at Caesarea. The Serapis statuette (Cat. No. 7) and the canine statue (Cat. No. 36) were most likely sculpted in Egypt. The fragmentary state of preservation, the fact that many of the better preserved pieces are variations of known types of mythological images and that not a single piece was found in its original place of display, all make it rather difficult to determine a precise date for certain objects; therefore, a general Roman-period date is offered for those fragmentary sculptures lacking any clear indication for dating.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 141

141

Context and Meaning The sculpted pieces whose state of preservation, size and theme imply that they could have belonged to the decoration of the facility are the only ones discussed here. Among these are certain sculptures for which a reasonable time period of display may be estimated, based on their style and technique. The Carceres Herms4 Herms of mythological figures, deities and intellectuals, as evidenced by visual representations and archaeological remains, were standard components in the furniture of the starting gates. From the early second century CE onward herms are shown in almost every visual depiction of the carceres; Humphrey (1986:138–151, 170–171) therefore concludes that herms were in fact present in the Circus Maximus by that date at the latest. In some works of art, the exLatern and Foligno reliefs, for example, the herms are identical (Humphrey 1986: Figs. 59, 65); in other depictions, as in the British Museum relief, each herm bears the head of a different mythological image (Humphrey 1986: Fig. 60). Seven bases and a number of fragmentary shafts remain of the herms that stood in front of the starting gates of the Lepcis Magna circus in the second half of the second century CE (Humphrey 1986:47–48, 51–53, 163, 167). Herms of the Greek statesman and orator Demosthenes of Athens (384– 322 BCE), the Greek philosopher Epicurus (342/1– 271/0 BCE) and Apollo were uncovered in the early fourth-century CE circus of Maxentius outside Rome (Calza 1976:183–184, Nos. 24, 25, 192–193, No. 36; Humphrey 1986:594). In light of the above, it seems unlikely that herms were excluded from the starting gates at Caesarea. Herod’s circus had several successive sets of carceres that underwent repeated modifications. After the facility ceased to function, the starting gates, like other parts of the circus, suffered substantial damage (see Caesarea I, 1:62–63, 108, 149–150). Patrich (2001:278), who excavated the carceres, reports that a single square base (80 × 80 cm, 50 cm high) with a square hole (15 × 15 cm) cut into its upper face, was found fairly close to the carceres of the revived circus (Stratum VIA1, Patrich’s Phase III). In Patrich’s opinion, the hole’s dimensions seem too small to have held a herm; however,

14/10/2015 11:51:01

142

Rivka Gersht

a 15 × 15 cm socket, if sufficiently deep, could have easily served such a purpose. If indeed the base supported a herm, than the presence of a set of herms in front of the carceres during the last phase of Herod’s circus (third century CE) becomes more plausible. Four herms have been identified in Caesarea: Dionysus (Rosh 1950:32–33, Zemer 1997:23), Sophocles, Carneades and Olympiodoros of Gaza (Thiersch 1914; Poulsen 1920:18–26, Figs. 18–20, 23–25; Richter 1965 I:127, No. 24, II:162; Gersht 1996c:99–103, 1999b:395–396; Geiger 1997). It is tempting to include all four within the reconstructed setting of the carceres; however, only Carneades (Cat. No. 12), which was found above the dismantled tiers of the East Cavea, offers any possible association for a specific herm with the circus, in general, and the carceres, in particular. The findspots of the other three herms are unknown, yet the facts that Olympiodoros was a pupil of Carneades and that the portrait-herms of Carneades, Olympiodoros and Sophocles are all of the same type and more-or-less the same dimensions (Gersht 1996c:102), make the herms of the two intellectuals, Olympiodoros and Sophocles, no less appropriate for the ornamentation of the carceres than Carneades. However, the possibility that the herms of Sophocles, Carneades and Olympiodoros of Gaza decorated one of the public buildings of intellectual activities, as previously suggested (Gersht 1996c:102), should not be ignored. Regarding the herm of Dionysus, although its connection to the carceres cannot be proven, it could thematically fit in with the ornamentation of the facility as evidenced by other Dionysian sculptures uncovered in the earlier phases of the circus (Cat. Nos. 5, 14). Wings Patrich (2001:278–279, Fig. 11) suggested that the fragmentary wing (Cat. No. 3), found not far from the carceres, could have belonged to either an eagle or to an image of the goddess Nike/Victoria and would have served as part of the decoration of the starting gates. If an eagle was intended, the Caesarea relief was hardly reminiscent of the eagle decorating the starting gates at the Olympian hippodrome (see Humphrey 1986:8). More likely, a political message would have been behind its introduction on the Caesarea carceres, i.e., to signify the relationship between Caesarea and Rome and to indicate that the ludi taking place in the arena were under the patronage of Rome. Technically

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 142

and stylistically, the fragment can be dated as early as the Augustan period. Josephus does mention that the celebrations at the foundation of the city were dedicated to Augustus, and that the emperor, from his own revenues, διεπέμπετο τ¾ν φιλοτιμίαν ™πικοσμîν (‘sent out of love of honor additional ornaments’) to those dedicated by Herod. Likewise, the emperor’s wife Julia [Augusta], on her behalf, sent very expensive presents to guarantee that the celebrations will be respectable (Josephus, Ant. XVI.136–139; War I.415). If the wing was part of the goddess Victory and not of an eagle, the sculpted image could have symbolized, like the statue of Victory placed within the Roman Curia (Senate house) in 29 BCE (Dio Cassius, Roman History LI.22.1), the victory of Octavian over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium (31 BCE). we learn of Herod’s tribute to the Actian victory from the fragmentary ‘Palladium relief’ (see discussion below and Cat. No. 1), as well as from the Isactium games that he established at Caesarea in honor of Augustus. The latter is deduced from a 221 CE dedicatory inscription recording the victories in athletic games of Aurelius Septimius Irenaeus from Laodicea ad Mare (Latakia) in Syria (CIG III: No. 4472; Schwartz 1989, 1992:167– 180; Weiss 1996:443, n. 4, 2014:182). The symbolism of the Victory relief could also be directed toward arena activities, as it was in Circus Maximus in Rome. Statues of winged Victories on columns are frequently seen in pictorial representations of circuses since the mid-first century CE (see Humphrey 1986:697, Index 2, statues of Victory on column), where they usually decorate the spina. The earliest example believed to depict the monuments of Circus Maximus is the Castel S. Elia relief (Humphrey 1986:193–194, Fig. 95). In later examples, such as the ex-Lateran relief, dated to the Trajanic Period, and on second- and third-century sarcophagi, the statue of Victory is set close to the obelisk (Humphrey 1986:177–178, 196–203, Figs. 78, 97, 99, 102). The absence of the obelisk in the Castel S. Elia relief suggests that the prototype for this depiction was created during Augustus’ reign, before 10 BCE, which is the date attributed to the erection of the obelisk in Circus Maximus (Humphrey 1986:194, 269), and that the presence of the Statue of Victory at Circus Maximus preceded the obelisk. The fragmentary statue of Victory uncovered near the west end of the second main basin of the euripus of Maxentius’ circus outside Rome (Calza 1976:190–191, No. 33;

14/10/2015 11:51:01

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

Humphrey 1986:285) is further evidence of the general idea that sculpted images of Victory were considered an appropriate decoration for a structure where games took place. The heavily restored relief in the Vatican, in which a Victory is shown to the left of the upperstory box (Humphrey 1986:145, Fig. 67), strengthens Patrich’s supposition that the Caesarea wing fragments (Cat. No. 3) originally decorated the carceres. Monumental Statues Like the herms and Victories, statues of charioteers can be considered standard circus decoration. As depicted on Trajan’s coins (sestertii), each of the arched entrances to the Circus Maximus was crowned with a quadriga group (Donaldson 1965:285–287, No. LXXVI; Humphrey 1986:103–105, Fig. 42). The bronze fragments of an arm and left hand holding reins, according to Patrich (2001:278–279, Fig. 12), could have belonged to a slightly over life-size charioteer that decorated the central arch of the starting gates of Herod’s Circus. However, the bronze fragments were found in front of the scriptorium (Area CC/13), about 60 m from the carceres, in an area beyond the limits of this study. For that reason they have been excluded from the catalogue, regardless of whether the charioteer decorated the carceres or not. The fragmentary left leg of a male figure (Cat. No. 33) was found between the meta secunda and the carceres, about 5 m west of the freestanding W669 which runs north from the end of the East Cavea to the east end of the carceres (Caesarea I, 1:52–53). The dimensions of the fragment and its musculature suggest that it belonged to an over life-size standing figure. The statue could have been displayed on top of the carceres or on top of W669, whose 0.7 m width was sufficient to support statues even larger than the one being considered. The Spina and the Tribunalia Only limited foundation segments of the barrier that bisected the arena of Herod’s Circus in its initial phase are preserved. The reconstruction suggested by Porath includes two or three constructed segments situated on the line between the metae with relatively long intervals (Stratum VII, 10 BCE– c. 10 CE; see Caesarea I, 1:59– 62). This segmented barrier was wide enough (more than 2 m) to support built and sculpted monuments, apart from those devices essential for the games—i.e.,

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 143

143

turning posts and one or two counting mechanism (eggs and/or dolphins). In addition, the intervals could have been delineated with statues on top of columns. Following the alterations made to the structure in the first half of the first century CE (Stratum VIC, c. 10–66 CE), the barrier, as suggested by Porath, began to function as a euripus with water basins (Caesarea I, 1:89, 98, 103–105). In this stage, most likely, new statues were added to decorate the basins and the euripus walls, in a manner reflected in circus depictions on mosaic pavements, such as those in Piazza Armerina and Barcelona (Humphrey 1986: Figs. 112, 114, 115, 119). It is unclear why Herod’s Circus ceased to function as a chariot-racing facility for a short period of time in the second half of the first century CE (Intermediate Phase VIC/B, c. 66–70 CE?; see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4). Although the structure of the barrier probably remained untouched, the fate of any decoration of the euripus during this hiatus in the circus’ functioning is dubious. Whether left untouched or temporarily removed, perhaps along with the disconnection of the water supply to the basins, sometime between the end of Stratum VIC and the beginning of Stratum VIB, it is possible that the euripus ornamentation of Stratum VIC continued to be used for a while after the reopening of the Stratum VIB circus. The sculpted decoration of the spina could have been removed temporarily or remodeled, perhaps more than once, to accommodate the alterations carried out on the spina throughout Stratum VIB. In the second century CE (end of Stratum VIB), when the circus went out of use and its southern third was altered to accommodate an amphitheater, any sculpture decorating the spina in this area would have been removed. It is likely that at least some of the pieces were shifted to other public buildings or stored and later used in decorating the revived circus (Stages VIA3–VIA1). The Paladium Relief Not a single sculpture uncovered in the circus can be unequivocally related to Strata VII or VIC of the barrier. There are, however, several sculpted finds that thematically and stylistically could have fit into the barrier’s ornamentation between 10 BCE and 66 CE. The palladium relief (Cat. No. 1; Gersht 2008:518– 522) is one of them. The composition of a column surmounted by a palladium amid a male warrior and a winged Victory is

14/10/2015 11:51:01

144

Rivka Gersht

well-known from the Louvre, Dresden, and the Berlin reliefs and has been interpreted as an allegory—a commemoration of Octavian’s victory over Anthony and Cleopatra at Actium as an analogy to the Athenian victory over the Persians at Salamis (Smith 1916:84– 85; Poulsen 1935; Hölscher 1984, 1985:92–94, Fig. 7, 1988:370–371, Cat. No. 203, 1994:180–190). Such an analogy is implied in Virgil’s depiction of the battle of Actium (Aeneid VIII.671–730) as well as in the performance of the naval battle between the Persians and the Athenians produced by Augustus during the dedicatory ceremonies of Mars Ultor’s temple in 2 BCE (Dio Cassius, Roman History LV.10. 7). In the reliefs, however, the link between these two battles is not at all obvious; the presence of Athena and the serpent has been inadequately explained and the identity of the warrior remains a mystery.5 By reading Aeneas’ shield as prophetic ekphrasis by Virgil (Aeneid VIII.671–730), it becomes clear that the depiction in the reliefs is not allegorical but a visual ‘panegyric’ commemoration of Augustus, the hero of Actium, and of Aeneas, his ancestor. Thus, the shield behind the column is both Aeneas’ shield and Augustus’ clipeus virtutis, symbolizing the virtues of the emperor and his ancestor. The golden clipeus virtutis, awarded to Augustus by the Senate and the Roman people in 27 BCE, was displayed in the Curia, where the statue of Victoria was placed about two years earlier (see the above discussion of the ‘wing’). Zanker (1990:97) argues that “the result was that in the future the shield was almost always combined with the goddess of victory and became a symbol of perpetual and god-given right to rule.” The palladium, a symbol of Rome’s eternity and of the long-lasting salus publica (Hölscher 1984:202; Beard, North and Price 1998 I:258),6 is the one brought to Rome, from Troy, possibly by Aeneas (Ovid, Fasti VI.417–436).7 Like the clipeus, the palladium juxtaposes past and present, Roman mythic history and Roman actuality. In Virgil, Athena/Minerva, along with Venus, Neptune, Apollo, Mars and Bellona, takes an active part in the Actian victory (Aeneid VIII.699–704). Like Athena/Minerva, the other deities are symbolically portrayed in the reliefs: Venus, Augustus’ ancestress by Aeneas;8 Neptune by the stern; Apollo by the serpent;9 and the war deities, Mars and Bellona, by the columna bellica (column of war).10 The act of feeding the serpent may be interpreted as the fulfillment of the duty of pietas toward these deities,

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 144

in general, and toward the Actian Apollo, in particular. The serpent can also be interpreted as the embodiment of the religious force of the genius of the place (i.e., Rome),11 as suggested by the palladium on top of the column, or even of Aeneas, the dead hero.12 Hölscher claims (1984:202) that the serpent, like the palladium, stands for the salus publica. In Caesarea, as in the other Greek East Mediterranean provincial cities, the palladium could also stand for Dea Roma,13 who under Augustus began the transition from deification of the Roman people to the symbol of the Empire. Her joint cult with Augustus, as monumentalized in Caesarea, created a symbol of the unity of the new Empire.14 The Augustan attitude toward Roma is well-reflected in poetry (Mellor 1981:1005–1010). In Horace, for example, Augustus is designated guardian of Imperial Rome and Roma is referred to as regia, potens and domina (Horace, Carmina IV.14.41–44; Epistulae I.7.44 and II.1.61), which imply Roma as an emblem, not only of the city of Rome but also of the entire state. This may explain why the palladium in the relief was positioned right in the middle and on top of a column. How did the neo-Attic relief honoring Augustus, his ancestors and Rome, reach Caesarea? Josephus (Ant. XVI.136–139) notes that Augustus sent to Herod ornaments for the Caesarea inauguration festival and that, together with the treasures given by Livia, the value of the presents sent from Rome reached the sum of five hundred talents. Although Josephus does not specify the ornaments donated by Augustus, it is enticing to presume that the relief was among them. All the same, it could be Herod’s own idea to express his unmistakable loyalty and esteem for the emperor Augustus and his divine protectors, as well as his complete recognition of Augustus’ right to rule not only with games, but also with sculpture. Considering the aforementioned symbolism, the spina would seem the most suitable place to exhibit the relief. The Mounted Gladiator Another relief that, thematically and stylistically, could fit into the circus ornamentation between 10 BCE and 66 CE is the mounted gladiator relief. That mounted gladiators (equites) belonged to the amphitheater milieu is known from the writings of Isidore of Seville (Etymologies [Origines] 18.53) and from several works of art.15 Based on existing visual depictions of mounted gladiators, the Caesarea fragmentary relief (Cat. No. 2)

14/10/2015 11:51:01

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

can be dated from the late first century BCE to the late first century CE. This time span accords with the information provided by Josephus on gladiatorial combats having taken place at Caesarea (Ant. XVI.137; Weiss 2014:16, 33), and allows us to link the relief with the Initial Circus. However, as the fragment was found in front of the tribunal and shrine (C2000), it likely decorated the tribunal banister above the shrine. Porath relates the foundation of this tribunal to Stratum VIA (the transformation of the circus into an amphitheater; Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 5), which dates no earlier than the Hadrianic period (117–138 CE). Given that the relief’s identification and dating are correct, its fate prior to its display on a second-century banister needs clarification. The only explanation one can offer is that the relief could have decorated an earlier tribunal before it was shifted to the tribunal on top of the shrine. According to Porath, the tribunal above the vomitorium (Complex 1000) was dismantled and replaced with ordinary tiers of seating in Stratum VIC (c. 10–66 CE). He assumes that the abolishment of the tribunal coincided with the construction of a similar one on the tiers of the West Cavea, on a segment that was not preserved (Caesarea I, 1:84–87). If Porath’s assumption is correct, then the relief could theoretically have shifted from the tribunal above the vomitorium to the one on the tiers of the West Cavea, and then to the tribunal above the shrine in the East Cavea. Such a scenario is difficult to believe and, in this author’s opinion, the tribunal above the shrine replaced the one above the vomitorium (see comments below regarding the chronology of the circus shrines) and the mounted gladiator relief was shifted to adorn either the inner or the outer face of the banister of the new tribunal. Images Holding Vegetal Symbols or Attributes Several other sculpted fragments would seem to belong with the Initial Circus (Strata VII, VIC and VIB). The young male torso holding ivy-berries (Cat. No. 11) and the right hand holding acanthus stem (Cat. No. 15), both found within the vomitorium, and the right hand holding poppy capsules (Cat. No. 18) uncovered close by, could originally have been displayed on the tribunal above the vomitorium (Complex 1000). When the tribunal was dismantled the statues could have possibly been shifted to the barrier. Another possibility is that they were originally displayed on the north segment of the barrier, where they remained until the

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 145

145

end of Stratum VIA. The hand holding a bunch of grapes (Cat. No. 14), found about 60 m to the north of the vomitorium, could also have been related to this group of images. All four vegetal symbols—the ivy, the acanthus, the grapes and the poppies—can be interpreted either as a reflection of the agrarian deities worshiped in and next to the Circus Maximus16 or, more likely, as a propagandistic gesture toward Rome, similar to the ‘Palladium relief’ (Cat. No. 1) discussed above. The ivy and the acanthus are, first and foremost, attributes of both Dionysus and Apollo, the grapes are Dionysian (Pollini 1993; Castriota 1995:6, 32, 52, 55, 57, 73, 74, 79, 83, 106–107, 121–122, 135) and the poppy is an attribute of Demeter/Ceres,17 but as is discussed in relation to Cat No. 18, it is also an attribute of other deities associated with her, such as Cybele/Magna Mater, Aphrodite/Venus and Dionysus. All four of these vegetal symbols also fit in well with the Augustan propaganda of peace, fertility and abundance as reflected in the Ara-Pacis (see Pollini 1993; Castriota 1995; Spaeth 1996:125–151; Gersht 2006:37–38),18 a propaganda with which Herod was familiar and to which he was committed, not only because he had been a guest of the imperial court, but also because the territory of Caesarea, established in honor of the Emperor, had been given to Herod by Octavian as a token of the Judaean monarch’s support (Josephus, Ant. XV.217).19 Hekate The Augustan date proposed for the Triple Hekataia (Cat. No. 6) and the findspot at the sphendone, not far from the meta prima and the shrine, suggest that the statue could have been included in the decoration of the Initial Circus, and that it was removed and placed again, perhaps more than once, next to the meta prima, which is the most dangerous spot for chariot competitors and hence the most appropriate place for this goddess.20 As the Triple Hekataia from Caesarea is rather small, it was probably placed upon a column with a tenon that fit into the circular socket on the statue’s underside.21 When removed from the spina, the statue was probably housed in the shrine. It cannot be ascertained under what circumstances the oval hole in one of the Graces’ legs was drilled, yet it seems that it was not intended as a repair, but rather to provide the statue with additional support.

14/10/2015 11:51:01

146

Rivka Gersht

Hekate was a goddess of manifold character and functions; she was credited with power in heaven, on earth and in the sea. She could grant victory in athletics and success in horsemanship, as well as in any other competition performed in the circus or amphitheater (Hesiod, Theogonia 411–452; Hornum 1993:309– 310, No. 273). Hekate, wrote Lowe (1992:11) “is the goddess worshipped above all other deities by all who practice magical arts. She is generally represented in literature as a kind of trinity, being identified with Luna in heaven, with Diana on earth, and with Proserpina [= Kore Persephone] in hell [= Hades], though these three goddesses retain their own individual persons and characteristics.” She was likewise allied with many other deities including Demeter, Cybele, Isis, Apollo Apotropaios, Asklepios, Hermes, Priapos and Hades. She was considered a celestial, healing and chthonian goddess, and, like the Agathoi Daimones, became the patroness of cities and private houses, the protectress of crossroads, entrances, gates and city walls (Griffiths 1975:118, 147–148, 152–153; Farnell 1992b:31–32; Sarian 1992:985–988; West 1995:188–292; Werth 2006). Like her, the Graces functioned as gate protectors (Harrison 1986:192–193, 198) and have been regarded as “divinities of increase and growth” (Farnell 1992a:44–45; 1992b:28–29). All of these qualities and functions correspond well with the successive settings suggested for the goddess surrounded by the three Graces on the spina and then within the shrine (see below for a discussion of the shrine). The Hanging Marsyas The drilled eyelids, the beard and the genital hair of Marsyas (Cat. No. 10) suggest that the satyr could not have been part of the circus decoration before the late second or early third century CE. Marsyas’ association with the spina ornamentations is made possible through the findspot of the head next to the barrier, in a fill layer earlier and 2 m lower than the fill wherein the torso was found. The only explanation to the difference in elevation is the shifting of remains from one side of the arena to the other after the Revived Circus went out of use sometime before the middle of the third century. Other fragments like Cat. Nos. 6, 13, 27 and 30 might have had the same fate. Like the youth holding ivy-berries (Cat. No. 11), Marsyas was also of an appropriate size for a barrier decoration. There are several possible reasons for the

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 146

inclusion of statues of Marsyas, the Phrygian satyr, in a circus decoration: 1. His association with Cybele22 and Apollo:23 Both the Ludi Apollinares in honor of Apollo and the Ludi Megalenses in honor of Cybele came to include circus performances (Scullard 1981:97–100, 159–160; Humphrey 1986:275, 281; Golvin 1988:62, n. 210). No evidence exists for these games being held in Caesarea. 2. Marsyas’ association with water: A local tributary of the Meander was named ‘Marsyas’, and the satyr’s askos became a source of river springs (Herodotus, V.118; Pausanias, Description of Greece X.30.9; Xenophon, Anabasis I.2.8). Therefore, a display of his image in a basin or on the barrier wall would be plausible in spite of the absence of a water supply to the Stratum VIAI barrier. 3. The association of Marsyas with libertas (Small 1982:77–83; Klimowsky 1982–1983:93–95):24 Statues of Marsyas, especially of the Forum type, were adopted by provincial colonies to demonstrate their relationship with Rome. In some cases, statues of Marsyas also indicate that the citizens had been granted the Ius Italicum privileges (Salmon 1970:156–157; Klimowsky 1982–1983:95–96). Caesarea gained the status of Colonia under Vespasian, but its citizens were not granted the Ius Italicum privileges (Millar 1993:73; Patrich 2011:89–90). The title FC (Fidelis Constans or Felix Concordia) was awarded to Caesarea by Septimius Severus as a token of her loyalty during the war against Pescennius Niger (193–194 CE). Levine (1975:47) notes that “Such recognition probably carried with it the extension of municipal privileges, and may have been bestowed on the occasion of the emperor’s visit to Palestine in the year 201.” That the ‘World Severan Pythian Games’ took place at Caesarea in the beginning of the third century is learned from the inscription of Aurelius Septimius Irenaios, a renowned boxer from Laodicaea (Weiss 2014:147). The inscription does not mention where exactly the games were held, i.e., in the West or the East Circus, and whether they were a solitary event or one of several; in any case, the ‘World Severan Pythian Games’ mentioned in the inscription were perhaps celebrated in honor of the Severans as was the erection of a statue of the Hanging Marsyas in the Revived Circus.25 Of all the above reasons, the one connecting Marsyas with Septimius Severus’ beneficia seems the most reasonable explanation for the presence of this statue.

14/10/2015 11:51:01

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

In fact, the Caesarea Marsyas is not the only example found in a circus. A head of Marsyas, albeit of the type attributed to Myron, was found in the circus of Maxentius outside Rome (Calza 1976:193–194, No. 37, Pl. XXI/1–2; Humphrey 1986:286, 594). Dionysus or Apollo Like the images holding vegetal symbols/attributes, the torso of either Dionysus or Apollo (Cat. No. 5) would seem to belong with the Initial Circus, similarly chosen to honor the emperor. Augustus had a special fondness for archaistic forms. Under his rule, the archaistic style was employed for ideological reasons (Simon 1986:117, 120–122; Zanker 1990:243–252). The size (over 90 cm) and style—both archaistic and classicizing—of the statue, as well as its propagandistic significance,26 made it suitable for the Stratum VII barrier. The fact that the statue was found in a Byzantine fill above the East Cavea should not be an obstacle in associating it with the spina’s decoration, considering the shifting of statuary-waste from one place to another in later periods, as in the case of the Hanging Marsyas whose head was found in one place and the body in another (Cat. No. 10). When the circus was transformed into an amphitheater (Stratum VIA; Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 5), the statue of Dionysus or Apollo could have been relocated within the shrine (C2000) or the tribunal above the shrine. The Lion’s Paw Foot Seats Presumably, the seats of the tribunal (pulvinar) in Complex 2000 that were utilized by the dignitaries in the ordinary course of performances were fixed and made of stone. Hence, the side of the bench shaped as a lion’s paw foot (Cat. No. 38), which was reused in a Byzantine wall west of the shrine, could have originally belonged to the furnishings of this tribunal above the C2000 shrine (Caesarea I, 1:133–134, Figs. 5.15, 5.16). The possibility that it was first used in the tribunal of Complex 1000, situated above the vomitorium (Caesarea I, 1:46–49) should also be considered.

The Shrine of Isis and Serapis Herod’s Circus is not the only example where cults and shrines were incorporated into the entertainment structure. The cults of Consus and Murica in the Circus Maximus (Humphrey 1986:11–12, 60–62,

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 147

147

95–97), Nemesis in the amphitheaters of Carnuntum and Deva/Chester and Hercules in the amphitheater in Senlis (Golvin 1988:81, Cat. No. 21; 128, Cat. No. 107; 136, Cat. No. 122), are but a few examples of similar cases.27 In some, the cults were earlier than the structure, while in others the shrines were incorporated into the circus because of the deities’ connection to the athletic performances and games that took place in circuses and amphitheaters. Since death was frequently the result of chariot racing and amphitheater performances, gods and goddesses with chthonian qualities were often among the deities worshiped in circuses and amphiteaters. The shrine in Herod’s Circus had three phases, of which the earliest—the subterranean Shrine 1909 (henceforth, Shrine/Crypt 1909)—is related by Porath (Caesarea I, 1:106–107) to Stratum VIB (c. 70–140 CE). In his opinion, the floors of Strata VII (the initial phase of Herod’s Circus: c. 10 BCE–10 CE) and VIC (c. 10–66 CE) would have been too high to allow access to the underground shrine. Such an explanation is not sufficiently solid to negate a Herodian or even pre-Herodian date for Shrine/Crypt 1909, especially given the lack of precise stratigraphic evidence. Indeed Porath himself (Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4, p. 120, n. 20) points to the “possibility that some form of an earlier and smaller sacred location, either carved into the kurkar or arranged over the lower tiers, existed there during Stratum VIC or even earlier.” Why cannot Shrine/Crypt 1909 be this earlier sacred location? The division of the vaulted Shrine/Crypt 1909 into two semicircular niches (Caesarea I, 1:107, Plan 4.10) and the material evidence uncovered in L1756, L1844 and L6985 indicates that the shrine, through all its phases, was consecrated to Isis and Serapis (see discussion below). Isis was the patron deity of Straton’s Tower, the settlement that preceded Caesarea (Oxyrhynchus Papyri XI.1380, Invocation of Isis 94–95), but no evidence exists of Serapis’ role in the Hellenistic settlement. Based on the evidence linking Serapis with Isis in other Hellenistic sites, such as Delos, Eretria, Gortyn, Priene, Thera and Thessalonica (Fraser 1972 I:254, 260–262, 264–267; Wild 1981:9, 163–166), as well as in Samaria-Sebaste (Magness 2001), we may assume that Serapis was worshiped at Straton’s Tower together with Isis. We may also assume that the subterranean Shrine/Crypt 1909 with its two semicircular niches (one perhaps consecrated to Isis and the other to Serapis), each facing an opening, was

14/10/2015 11:51:01

148

Rivka Gersht

incorporated into Herod’s Circus because the site was already consecrated to Isis and Serapis. According to Wild (1981:155), at least six out of sixteen Hellenistic and three out of thirty-one Roman sanctuaries of Isis and Serapis had water crypts beneath or next to the temple; the crypts “served as places in which the Nile flood (symbolically) recurred and from which this sacred flood water could be drawn out for the needs of the cult” (Wild 1981:28). If Shrine/Crypt 1909 at Caesarea functioned as a ‘Nile water facility’, one would expect it to be, if not within the precincts of the sanctuary, then in close proximity.28 In the opinion of this author, Shrine/Crypt 1909 was quarried in pre-Herodian times and it was part of a larger sanctuary. Although there is no archaeological evidence yet for the limits and the other features of this sanctuary, it may be assumed that the temple that probably stood on the kurkar ridge next to the crypt was removed during the preparations for the erection of the Herodian facility.29 Likewise, it is suggested here that the temple associated with the crypt in the Initial Phase (Stratum VII) was an open-air shrine quarried into the kurkar ridge along with part, if not all, of the niches associated by Porath with the second-century CE Shrine of Complex 2000 in Stratum VIA (Caesarea I, 1:133–139). Somewhere between the first and the second centuries CE, and obviously before the replacement of the open-air shrine with the threeroom roofed Shrine C2000, the crypt ceased to function, possibly since in “the Roman period the Nilometer crypts gradually ceased to be meaningful within the IsisSerapis cult” (Wild 1981:47). Six ex-voto feet (Cat. Nos. 19–24) were found in the area of the shrine. Four were found in a fill, beneath the robbed pavement of the south room of Shrine C2000 (Fig. 7.1); they were purposely assembled in one spot as a hoard—a deed that indicates the importance of the deities to whom the feet were dedicated. A fifth foot (Cat. No. 24) was found at the front of the south room; and the sixth (Cat. No. 19) was found a few centimeters west of the north–south wall of the shrine. One foot carried the bust of Serapis (Cat. No. 24); one is entwined with Isis’ Cobra (Cat. No. 22); and two others, with serpents (Cat. Nos. 19, 20). Two of the feet bear inscriptions (Cat. Nos. 21, 23); the readable one is a dedication by Barbaros to Kore (See Chapter 8: Inscription No. 2). Since in Metelite Nome and other places Isis was named Kore,30 it is difficult to know whether Barbaros’ dedication was addressed to KorePersephone or to Isis-Kore.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 148

The findspots of the ex-voto feet neither indicate the phases in which they were introduced into the shrine, nor the circumstances of removal from their original display.31 However, one piece, the foot of Serapis, provides a terminus post quem. This type, which is known from a few other surviving examples, made its appearance during Vespasian’s reign and is elucidated by an anecdote of this emperor, who as representative of Serapis cured a blind man and a cripple by stepping on the sick organs with his foot. The miracle occurred within the temple of Serapis during Vespasian’s visit to Alexandria in 69 CE.32 Following this event, sculpted feet bearing the head of Serapis became a token of the healing quality of this god, which resulted from his association with Osor-Hapi as well as with Asklepios. Serapis, like Asklepios, talked to his believers in dreams, whether during incubation at the temple or when they were sleeping at home.33 In July, 69 CE, while he was staying at Caesarea, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor (Tacitus, Historiae II.79). According to Pliny (NH V.14.69), Vespasian raised Caesarea to the rank of a Roman colony. It was perhaps in honor of one of these occasions that the foot of Serapis (Cat. No. 24) was introduced into the shrine. Feet were usually offered to healing deities to ensure recovery or as gratitude after a cure. Yet, healing was not necessarily the only reason for the presence of the serpent entwined feet within the shrine. The serpent was not just a symbol of healing, but also a symbol of fertility. Thus, deities connected with procreation and/ or fertility, like Isis, Serapis, Artemis, Hekate, Athena, Cybele, Demeter, Kore-Persephone and Dionysus, often had the snake as their attribute. In relation to Hekate, Kore-Persephone and Dionysus, the serpent is also considered a symbol of the chthonian world. In addition, deities classified as Agathoi Daimones and considered patron deities of cities and of domestic properties, as Isis and Serapis were, sometimes appear in the form of a serpent in addition to their human representations. In such cases, the snake is considered the deity’s embodiment rather than its attribute. The foot coiled with a cobra (Cat. No. 22), the sacred serpent of Isis, belongs to the Agathoi Daimones category. Isis conceived as a cobra, sometimes bearing the goddess’ portrait instead of the serpent’s head, is Thermouthis, the mate of Serapis Agathos Daimon.34 As the cobra in the Caesarea foot is headless, it is impossible to determine whether it carried the head of the goddess or the serpent. It is likely though, based

14/10/2015 11:51:01

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

149

a statue of the Caesarean Tyche accompanied by the personification of Sebastos, the harbor of Caesarea.36 A further evidence for the sharing of the Caesarea amphitheater shrine by Isis, Serapis and Tyche is their depiction on the Caesarea cup in the Louvre, dated to the second or third quarter of the fourth century CE (Will 1983). As previously noted (Gersht 1996a:307), the niches depicted on the cup, both on the temple and to its right, while differently arranged, are somewhat similar to those carved into the rear wall of the C2000 shrine. The rectangular niche between Tyche and Hygieia on the cup, bearing the busts of AthenaMinerva, Helios-Sol, Isis-Tyche? and an unidentified male and a female—perhaps portraits of members of the imperial court—has exactly the same shape of Niche 1849 in the shrine’s south room (L1880);37 even the remains of the frame and ledge look similar. It is thus tempting to argue by analogy that the oblong niche in the shrine also held busts. The size of the niche (H 0.44 m, W 1.70 m, D 0.54 m) is certainly more than

on the foot of Serapis uncovered within a bench in the Late Antique bath in Insula W2S3 (Gersht 1996a:310, Fig. 6; 1999a:20–21, Fig. 5),35 that like Serapis’ serpent terminating with the bust of the god, the Isis’ cobra terminated with the head of the goddess. There is no evidence, however, to a serpent in the fragmentary foot of Serapis found in L1756 (Cat. No. 24). All of the above evidence suggests that Isis and Serapis were worshiped at the circus shrine, but the pair must have shared it with another deity. That the shrine housed a triad is evident from the division of Shrine C2000 (Stratum VIA) into three rooms, as well as from the three niches cut into W1780 of the central room (Plan 7.2; L1879; see Caesarea I, 1:138, Table 5.3, Plan 5.5). As the two rectangular niches in this room, the northernmost (L1846: H 0.60 m, W. 0.56 m, D 0.43 m) and southernmost (L1848: H 0.60 m, W 0.58 m, D 0.41 m) are smaller than the vaulted one between them (L1847: H 0.82–0.92 m, W 0.67 m, D 0.30 m), they were likely furnished with the images of Isis and Serapis. The central niche (L1847) could have housed an image of Agathe Tyche that became closely associated with Serapis Agathos Daimon and Isis Thermouthis in the Hellenistic period (Fraser 1972 I:210, 243; Griffiths 1975:241–242). The remains of an opus sectile coating on the lower left corner of Niche 1848 suggest that the three niches were veneered with marble. Accordingly, the dimensions of each of the niches should be reduced by about 4 to 8 cm in width and height (or only 4 or 5 cm in the case that the ceiling was only plastered) and about 7 cm in depth. Hence, the estimated height of the images displayed in Niches 1846 and 1848 is between 0.50 and 0.54 m at the most, including the base. The image displayed in the central Niche 1847 was much larger; it reached the height of about 0.80–0.86 m, excluding the base, which was probably inserted into the depression (H 0.11 m, W 0.36 m, D 0.30 m) at the bottom of the niche. The basedepression seems to be large enough to have supported

Fig. 7.1. Niches in the south room of Complex 2000; looking east. in foreground and detail, the ex-voto feet.

6.00

6.00

W1780 L1850 L1851

5.00

W1918

L1829

L1846

L1847

L1848 L1849, L1849a

L1830

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 149

L1853L1854 L1852

3.00

2.00

W1882

W1920

4.00

5.00

L1879

L1880

W8609

4.00

L1855 3.00

L1856

Plan 7.2. The niches in W1780 of the Complex 2000 shrine (based on Caesarea I, 1: Plan 5.5).

2.00

14/10/2015 11:51:02

150

Rivka Gersht

enough to hold five busts less than 0.40 m in height each. The bare-breasted bust found in 1994 (Cat. No. 13) could have belonged to this niche. Further examination of the Louvre cup offers a very convincing argument that its depiction of the religious ceremonies in honor of the Caesarean Tyche and of Asklepios and Hygieia, all identified by inscriptions, reflects the nature of the deities and cults related to Shrine C2000. Although the temple on the cup is only a free artistic interpretation of the Caesarea shrine, the image of Tyche, in honor of whom a priest and an attendant are performing a ceremony, is an accurate depiction of the goddess’ Amazon-type statues at Caesarea. The representations of Asklepios and Hygieia on the cup differ from their sculpted images. In all sculpted images discovered to date at Caesarea, the upper body of Asklepios is partially exposed and he is, or was, accompanied by his serpent (Gersht 1987:12–14, Cat. Nos. 1–3; 1996a:315–316; 1996b:434–435). On the cup, Asklepios is fully dressed in a long-sleeved tunic and cloak. His most common attribute, the snake, is missing; instead, a small kalathos/modius is seen on the crown of his head. The dress and the kalathos enable the identification of the figure as Asklepios-Serapis; the two were associated and often shown as syncretic images (cf. Hornbostel 1973: Figs. 33, 326–330; Tran Tam Tinh 1983:91, Cat. No. IA 5, Pl. VI:6, 246, Cat. No. V 4, Pl. CI:262; Clerc and Leclant 1994: Nos. 25, 47a, 48, 66, 69). The staff coiled with serpent (Cat. No. 9), which was found in a Byzantine fill within the shrine, could have belonged to a statue of Asklepios-Serapis. In all Caesarean statues of Hygieia, the goddess is or was feeding a snake from a patera (Gersht 1987:26–27, Cat. Nos. 18, 19; 1996b:436, Figs. 3, 4; 1999c:21–23, Fig. 12; 2001a:79–80, Fig. 20; 2008:530–531, Fig. 8:1, 533, Fig. 9:1). On the cup, however, Hygieia, at Asklepios’ side, holds a palm branch in one hand instead of the expected snake, and an egg instead of the patera in the other.38 Apparently, a small snake is depicted rising from behind the egg. As the egg was used in purifying ships during the Navigium Isidis celebrations (Apuleius, Metamorphosis XI.16; Griffiths 1975:261)39 and the palm branch was an attribute of both Hygieia and Isis (Griffiths 1975:201– 202),40 it may be suggested that Hygieia on the cup is assimilated with Isis. Thus, it becomes clear that, at Caesarea, Isis and Serapis did not only personify the city’s fortune, but were also considered healers, associated with Asklepios

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 150

and Hygieia, whose images most probably decorated one or more niches of the shrine (on Isis and Serapis as healers, see Gersht 1999a with bibliography). An image of Asklepios, like the one in the Sdot-Yam Museum (H 0.26 m; Gersht 1996a:316, Fig. 12), for instance, could easily fit inside Niche 1829 in the north room (L1830); in fact, the niche (H. 0.47 m, W. 0.91 m, D. 0.50 m) could hold at least three images of the same size; one of these could possibly be the bronze statuette to which the right foot in Cat. No. 8 belonged. The six small niches (L1850, L1851, L1853–L1856; H 0.18–0.28 m, W 0.23–0.35 m, D 0.19–0.27 m) flanking the vaulted niche (L1852; H 0.52–0.67 m, W. 0.62 m, D 0.25 m) in the south room (L1880), are probably where the ex-voto feet were held, provided that the niches were already quarried at the time the feet were introduced to the shrine. Each of these niches could house more than one votive; thus, sufficient room was left for other dedications such as lamps (e.g., the one bearing the head of Isis found in L6985) and statuettes. In size, the Serapis-Hades piece (Cat. No. 7) could fit into one of the six niches and would also suit the shrine due to the chthonic character of Serapis (Gersht 1996a:313, Fig. 8). However, the statuette’s findspot east of the vomitorium makes a definite association of the statuette with the shrine impossible. It does, however, reinforce the hypothesis that the whole area along the shore was consecrated to Isis and Serapis. The statue held in Niche 1852 could have been either of Tyche, Isis, Serapis, Hygieia, Asklepios, or of any other deity with whom they were associated. Each one of the deities, Demeter/Ceres,41 Kore-Persephone, Apollo or Dionysus, can be justifiably related to the shrine as a potential ‘visiting deity’;42 thus a candidate to be an occupant of Niche 1852. Demeter/Ceres usually shared her worship with her daughter Kore-Persephone, whose name Kore—unless the name refers to Isis—is inscribed on one of the ex-voto feet (Cat. No. 21); both mother and daughter were associated with Isis.43 Although no statue of Demeter/Ceres or Kore-Persephone has yet been conclusively identified at Caesarea, the foot dedicated to Kore implies that her image could have been displayed if not in the shrine then elsewhere in the circus, perhaps alongside that of her mother. The association of the fragmentary hand holding poppies with Demeter/Ceres has already been discussed from the propagandistic point of view (Cat. No. 18; see discussion above on the spina and tribunalia). However, the poppy, the sacred flower of Demeter, had

14/10/2015 11:51:02

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

an important cultic role in the Eleusinian Mysteries; like the ears of corn, it became a regular attribute of the goddess and her circle (Kerényi 1967:55, 74–75, 180, 184, 1976:23–24; Burkert 1987:108–109). Thus, the hand could belong, if not to a cultic statue of the goddess herself, then to her daughter or to one of her mythological or contemporary attendants or initiates. Yet, since the poppy was not only a symbol of fertility but also a symbol of healing,44 it may be suggested that in Caesarea, where Demeter was equated with Isis and Isis with Hygieia, both qualities of the poppy—fertility and healing—might have been honored. Like the image that held the poppies, so those holding clusters of ivy berries and an acanthus stem (respectively, Cat. Nos. 11, 15) could have been associated with the shrine as ‘visiting deities’, i.e., not present physically, but related to its chief cult figures. As mentioned above, Demeter/Ceres and KorePersephone are not the only deities whose images can hypothetically be suggested for the vaulted Niche 1852 of Room 1880. Apollo can be proposed based on his depiction on the Caesarea cup in the Louvre.45 Apollo shared some aspects with the deities to whom the shrine was dedicated and with whom they were associated: the chthonic, healing and growth-and-vegetation, as well as the protection of shores, embarkations, dwelling entrances and streets (Gersht 1996a:317). Unlike the seated image on the cup, Apollo is shown standing on Caesarea’s coins (Kadman 1957:58–59; Rosenberger 1975: Nos. 25, 31, 34, 119, 120) and sculpture (Gersht 1987:14–15, Cat. No. 4; 1996a: Fig. 13), and is represented as a laureate bust on gems (Hamburger 1968: Nos. 15–17). Dionysus’ association with the shrine is made possible through his depiction on Caesarea coins together with Tyche and Demeter (Kadman 1957:53– 56; Rosenberger 1975: Nos. 50–53, 69–70). Kadman refers to the three deities as the Caesarean Triad, saying that “when the Triad appears in a temple, it is the temple of Astarte which is represented, the goddess [Tyche] always standing under the central arch, flanked in the outer intercolumniations by smaller figures of her consorts” (Kadman 1957:54). The temple depicted on the coins is neither the C2000 shrine, nor a temple of Astarte. There is no evidence of Astarte’s cult at Caesarea; the Tyche of the city, as the above discussion demonstrated, was associated with Isis from the Hellenistic period onward. Dionysus’ link to the circus, as the hand holding a bunch of grapes (Cat. No. 14)

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 151

151

and the torso found above the East Cavea (Cat. No. 5) indicate, preceded his appearance on the city coins. Dionysus related to Isis through Osiris, whose identification with Dionysus was already known in the fifth century BCE (Herodotus, II.42). After the Revived Circus (Stratum VIA1) ceased to function, sometime before the middle of the third century CE, the shrine was expanded westward (Stratum V; Caesarea I, 1:164–167), the tribunal was dismantled and a colonnade was built along the east side of Herod’s Circus. It is possible that at least some of the sculpture that decorated the tribunal and possibly also the longitudinal strip that preceded the colonnade, was collected and housed in the area of the expanded shrine, which continued to be an active place of worship almost to the end of the fourth century CE (Stratum V; see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 6).

conclusion This study has not only documented the sculpture uncovered in the excavated area of Herod’s Circus and related buildings, but has also shown that, although not a single piece survived in situ, many can be related to the Circus’ ornamentation. Almost all of the pieces dating to the Julio-Claudian period (Cat. Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18) are appropriate to be included in the decoration of Herod’s circus. They fit in well with Augustan propaganda, in general, and with Herod’s approach of honoring the imperial family, in particular. After Herod’s death, the Julio-Claudian family continued to be honored at Caesarea; this continuity is well-evidenced by some of the statues uncovered in the circus and by the statues that decorated the Nymphaeum at the west facade wall of the Augustus and Roma Temple Platform, as well as by the erection of the Tiberieum (31–36 CE) under Pontius Pilatus46 and by the games performed in honor of Claudius in 44 CE under Herod Agrippa (Josephus, Ant. XIX.343). The pieces dated to the Julio-Claudian period and those of later date put Caesarea in line with other Roman cities affluent with propagandistic, religious and mythical sculpture. The images of Asklepios (Cat. No. 4), Dionysus/Apollo (Cat. No. 5), Hekate (Cat. No. 6), Serapis/Hades (Cat. No. 7) and Marsyas (Cat. No. 10), are all familiar Hellenic types. The supremacy of Isis and Serapis in all of the circus’ phases should not be questioned. The evidence for Isis’ presence along the shore between the harbor temple and

14/10/2015 11:51:02

152

Rivka Gersht

the Temple of Isis located west of the theater47 includes two existing temples, oil lamps, and sculpted images in stone, bronze and terracotta. A terracotta head of a Hellenistic statuette of Isis was found within vault No. 3 at the west facade of the Augustus and Roma temple platform. A fragment of a life-size statue of Isis was found about 5 m from the facade of Isis’ temple located to the west of the theater (Gersht 2008:513, Fig. 216). A fragment of a smaller image of the goddess came from an intersection between two insulae to the north of the theater and a fragmentary head of another image of Isis, or one of her priests or followers, was found on the seashore. At least fifteen first- and secondcentury CE oil lamps decorated with Isis’s head were found in the region between the Roman praetorium and the circus;48 one as mentioned above came from the circus shrine of Isis and Serapis. The evidence for the presence of Serapis along the shore is scantier: two feet, one from the circus (Cat. No. 24), the other from the W2S3 bath (Gersht 1996a: Fig. 6); two statuettes (Cat. No. 7, 8); and a single fragmentary oil lamp.49 However, unlike Isis, he appears on coins and his depictions on gems are more identifiable than those of Isis. His bust carved onto an architectural member (see n. 35) and his bronze figurines (Gersht 1996a:313, Fig. 9; Zemer 1997:38) reinforce the body of evidence of his presence at Caesarea. The syncretic nature of Isis and Serapis, their depiction on the Caesarea cup and the serpent entwined staff (Cat. No. 9) made possible the incorporation of Tyche, Asklepios and Hygieia into the circus’ shrine. The other deities whose images were found in the Circus were linked to the shrine as ‘visiting deities’, yet not necessarily present within its physical limits. All the deities were responsible, in some way or another, for the welfare of the Caesareans in either this or the nether world. Hekate, unlike the other deities, was also involved in the arena affairs. Her presence at the circus’ turning point sealed the fate of the racers. The fact that the shrine continued to function long after the facility ceased to operate indicates that the duties of the deities revered in the shrine surpassed the importance of the arena activities. Apart from Hekate, the only piece which can be linked directly with the arena performances is the relief with a horse rider (Cat. No. 2). The other sculpted pieces, mostly human limbs, are too fragmentary to enable a constructive interpretation besides conjecturing the gesture of the limb, gender and posture of the missing figure.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 152

Catalogue50 Reliefs 1. Palladium Relief, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq YY/84, L8615, B87617. Found in the fill within the east–west passage (L6967) of C1900 (1.07 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small glittering crystals. H 16 cm, W 19.2 cm, Th 3.3–4.9 cm. Description: The relief is broken on three sides; its surface is worn and its back smoothed. Remains of mortar on the back and the upper edge suggest that the relief was attached to a stone structure. Traces of red coloring are present on the garment and around the right hand and spear. This fragmentary relief shows the frontal image of Athena/Minerva (palladium) between a stern (aphlaston/aplustre) and part of the crest of a Corinthian helmet.51 The goddess is represented standing with her legs (broken from above the knees down) held tightly together, holding a spear in her raised right arm and a large oval shield in her left. Her face and the Attic helmet atop her head are damaged. Athena/Minerva is dressed in a long peplos with a very long apoptygma; her chest is protected by an aegis. The swallowtail and the folds falling between the legs are archaistic style features. Discussion: The relief, originally measuring about 45 × 50 cm, joins a group of three similar neo-Attic reliefs now on display in the Louvre, the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen in Dresden, and the Antikenmuseum in Berlin (Smith 1916:84; Poulsen 1935; Hölscher 1984, 1985:92–94, Fig. 7, 1988:370–371, Cat. 203, 1994:180–190). Based on these reliefs, the Caesarea fragment can be fully reconstructed as having included a column surmounted by a palladium in the middle, a male warrior, holding a lance on the right-hand side of the relief, and a winged Victory holding a stern and feeding an egg to a serpent on the left. The serpent is entwined on the column in front of a shield. The Victory’s left hand holding the stern (aphlaston/ aplustre) can be faintly observed. A flared lotus with central apex crowns the stern. The style of the Caesarea relief, as of the other three of this kind, was a conflation of archaistic and classicizing trends. This style was widely employed, for ideological reasons, in Augustan propagandistic

14/10/2015 11:51:02

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

153

Cat. No. 1

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 153

14/10/2015 11:51:04

154

Rivka Gersht

art (Simon 1986:117, 120–122; Zanker 1990:243– 252). Date: Augustan period. Reference: Gersht 2008:518–522. 2. Horse Rider, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq D/81–82, L1756, B65869. Found in Byzantine or later fill within the arena in front of the Stratum VIA shrine of C2000 (2.7 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Marble. H 14 cm, L 15.5 cm, Th 6.5 cm. Description: Only the rear of the horse, from the loin to the partly broken tail, survives. The hind limbs are missing below the hocks. A piece of tunic and part of a lance is all that remain from the rider. The rider’s clothing and the horse’s tail and anatomy are detailed and accurate. A deep groove separates the tail from the buttock.

Cat. No. 2

Discussion: The thickness of the fragment indicates that the relief was used as a wall decoration and, as it was found in front of the tribunal and shrine (C2000), it seems reasonable, despite its fragmentary state of preservation, to relate the scene to the arena performances of fighting equites (mounted gladiators). The eques typically wore a tunic, a helmet, and was equipped with a medium-sized round shield, a lance and a short sword. From Isidore of Seville (Etymologies [Origines]18.53)52 and from a number of works of art, we learn that the equites had the honor of being the first to compete in gladiatorial games. Combat began on horseback, using a lance, and continued dismounted, using a sword (Junkelmann 2000:37, 47–49; Dunkle 2008:99–100). A first-century CE relief from the tomb of Umbricius Scaurus near the Porta Herculanea at Pompeii shows two combatting mounted gladiators (equites)—Bebryx on the left, Nobilior on the right—along with other gladiators; a venatio scene is depicted in the frieze below (Kockel 1983:80, Pls. 20, 21a; Futrell 2006:100, Fig. 3:5). A single mounted gladiator is depicted on a first-century CE terracotta oil lamp in the Musée des Beaux Arts in Vienne, France (Dejean 2012:34, Lamp M665). An earlier depiction, which dates from the beginning of the first century BCE, is painted on a wall in the House of the Sacerdos Amandus, on the south side of the Via dell’Abbondanza in Pompeii. The painting depicts a pair of mounted gladiators, one chasing the

other (Jacobelli 2003:75–76, Fig. 62). A fragmentary wall painting uncovered in the Appellhofplatz in Köln depicts another pair of mounted gladiators, according to Thomas (2008:394–402, 415, Figs. 54, 55, 60, 74), but her reconstruction and dating to the late first or early second century are too hypothetical to be seriously considered in dating the Caesarea relief. Unlike the missing Caesarea eques, who rode bareback, the equites in the Scaurus relief and the Appellhofplatz painting (provided that the reconstruction is correct) used saddle-blankets (ephippium).53 In a gladiatorial relief from the tomb of Clodius Flaccus (20–50 CE), outside Porta Stabiana at Pompeii, attendants lead the bareback horses of the equites and carry their helmets and shields in the pompa (entry procession) that opens the games. Below, on the left-hand side of the middle section of the relief, the triumphant eques stands next to his defeated rival, who is lying wounded on the arena floor (Junkelmann 2000:48, Fig. 34). All other depictions of equites, dating from the first to the fourth centuries, show them on foot. Amongst the extant examples worth mentioning are the first-century funerary frieze of Lusius Storax (Golvin and Landes 1990:187), the second-century Zliten mosaic (Dunkle 2008:96, Fig. 11) and the third-century Symmachius mosaic in the National Archaeological Museum, Madrid (Dunkle 2008:100, Fig. 12). Date: First century BCE–first century CE.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 154

14/10/2015 11:51:04

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

3. Wing, Fragment Findspot: CCE,54 Area KK/7, Sq 001, L000, surface find. Found east of the carceres. Material and Dimensions: Marble. H 45 cm, L 60 cm, Th 10–12.5 cm. Description: These two joined fragments are broken on all sides; the wing was attached to the wall by means of a ridge on the back (2.5 cm high). The fragment depicts a number of layers of short and long feathers in low relief. The feathers are separated by grooves; most of them are modeled, those of the lesser and middle coverts are more elaborate, having circumference grooves in addition to those signifying the feather’s rachis; the others are plain. Date: Early Roman period. Reference: Patrich 2001:278, Fig. 11. Deities and Mythological Figures 4. Young Asklepios Findspot: Area I, Sq H/87, L6156, B62093. Found in Byzantine fill above the East Cavea in a drainage channel, Stratum V (6.56 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small glittering crystals. H 55 cm. Description: This figure is missing the head, neck, right arm from below the shoulder, left forearm and feet. The legs are broken above the ankles; the upper back is worn. The staff is damaged and the serpent’s existence is manifested only by a few stumps where its body touched the staff. The surface is carefully rendered and highly polished on the front, and carelessly smoothed on the back side, where tool marks are still visible between folds. A few holes between the drapery and upper back, and within the channel at the lower part of the staff, point to the use of a drill tool for shaping the statue. The drapery folds on front and back are chipped, with greater damage to the abdomen, left thigh and back. Some of the nicks are new. The statue depicts a draped young male figure leaning on a serpent-entwined staff which is placed under his left armpit. The weight of his body is borne by the right leg; the left leg is slightly bent. The right arm was bent at the elbow, and the hand, as evidenced by the remnants of the palm and fingers, was supported on the right hip, above the curved folds of the himation. The left arm is bent and the missing forearm probably

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 155

155

stretched forward as in the statue of Asklepios at the Villa Doria Pamphili, Rome (Bieber 1957:81, Fig. 20; Holtzmann 1984:889, No. 373). The mantle covers part of the left shoulder, the left upper-arm, most of the back except for the right shoulder blade and part of the left one, leaving exposed the right arm, the entire right breast and half of the left one. The himation enfolds the body from above the right hip to the left shoulder and down to the feet, while forming curved folds, fewer and wider at the front, denser at the back. The left corner of the voluminously rolled upper ridge of the himation slopes down from the back side of the left shoulder to cover the upper arm from outside to inside and hangs over the upper end of the serpent-entwined staff. The right upper corner of the mantle is drooped over the same shoulder and arm and is seen at the back. The two vertical edges of the mantle, which hang down at the left side, are partly hidden between the figure’s body and staff. Discussion: The Caesarea variant shares features with both the type of Asklepios depicted on a secondcentury BCE silver tetradrachm of the island of Kos signed by the magistrate Nikostratos (Bieber 1957:76, 82, Fig. 11; Holtzmann 1984:885, No. 296) and the socalled Argos type (Marcadé 1980:148–150, Fig. 19; Holtzmann 1984:870, Nos. 32–35). However, unlike other variants of these types with the left shoulder either entirely covered or exposed, the Caesarea Asklepios variant has its left shoulder only partially exposed. There is also a noticeable difference in the fashion of the mantle enveloping the body. Instead of covering the front and then the back, in the Caesarea Asklepios, as in the Miletus Asklepios in Istanbul (Bieber 1957:87, n. 69; Holtzmann 1984:885, No. 294) and the Ampurias’ Asklepios in Barcelona (Holtzmann 1984:879, No. 153), the himation covers the back before it is drawn over the chest and left shoulder. Date: Second century CE. 5. Torso of Dionysus or Apollo Findspot: Area I, Sq G/83, L1825, B17790. Found in Byzantine fill above the East Cavea (8.17 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Semi-transparent white marble, tiny glittering crystals. H 49 cm. Description: The head, half of the neck, arms, and legs from below the upper thigh are missing; the genitals are damaged, chipped mostly at the lower abdomen and

14/10/2015 11:51:04

156

Cat. No. 4

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 156

14/10/2015 11:51:07

157

Cat. No. 5

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 157

14/10/2015 11:51:10

158

Rivka Gersht

groin; the right lock of hair and buttocks are worn. Drill holes occur between the neck and the left hair lock. The front surface is smoothed; the back is rough, as though unfinished, and bears conspicuous flat chisel marks.55 The nude god is shown standing with the weight of the body borne by the right leg; the left leg was slightly bent forward, then drawn back and aside. The raised right shoulder and exposed armpit indicate that the right arm was either stretched or bent back over the head; the dropped shoulder and the diagonal break of the upper left arm show that the arm was slightly pushed toward the back, while pulling the shoulder downward. The flowing hair at the nape of the neck, as well as the length and course of the locks on both sides of the neck, suggests that the head was leaning somewhat toward the right raised arm, and slightly turned to the left. The recessed section below the buttocks is not broken, but roughly cut to receive some sort of support, which is also evidenced by the protuberance with a small drill hole at the side of the left thigh (see below). Discussion: The delicate musculature and the locks resting on the chest suggest that the torso is of either Apollo or Dionysus. It shares its posture with the so-called Apollo Lykeios type (Milleker 1987)56 and with images of Dionysus, like the one in the Museo Arqueologóco, Valladolid (García y Bellido 1949:98, Cat. No. 84, Pl. 72). However, the long wavy locks rendered on each side of the neck and over the chest are more characteristic of Dionysus.57 Dionysus with a raised shoulder and exposed right armpit is also shown leaning on his left leg. In a statue from Cyrene in Libya, for example, the left forearm of the god rests on a trunk entwined with grapevine shoots, tendrils, leaves, and clusters of grapes (Paribeni 1959:117, Cat. No. 330, Pl. 155). In view of the recessed section below the buttocks and the protuberance at the side of the left thigh, a support to the left of the Caesarea Dionysus seems like a plausible reconstruction. The stylized hairstyle endows the image with a certain archaistic look, which makes it possible to date the torso to the Augustan era; however, a later date, even Hadrianic, might as well be appropriate. Date: Augustan period or later. Reference: Gersht 1996a:317–318, Fig. 14.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 158

6. Triple Hekataia Surrounded by Three Dancing Graces (Charites), Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq C/75, L6984, B86699. Found in Byzantine fill within the arena, about 15 m south of the shrine (4.5 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small glittering crystals. H 33.5 cm, W 16 cm max. Description: This fragment is extensively damaged and its surface worn. The upper part of the post around which the three figures of Hekate and the three Graces are carved is missing; one of the three Hekates, one of the Graces, and all of the heads are also missing. The lower legs of one of the figures of Hekate are broken diagonally; from the other, only the left part of the front remains. Only one of the three Graces is preserved from shoulder to foot (the left foot is broken); the remains of her neck and the curl of her hair on the right shoulder indicate that her head was turned to the left. Two curls are also seen on the right shoulder of the third Grace whose right hand and the side of her upper body are preserved in a relatively good state. A circular socket at the underside (4.9 cm in diameter and 4.7 cm in depth), of which only half is preserved, indicates that the statue was supported by a column with a tenon fitting in the socket. About 7.5 cm above the socket an oval hole (1.3– 1.6 × 1.9–2.7 cm) was drilled into and through one of the Grace’s legs. The hole was probably meant to provide additional support for the statue, perhaps by a rope. Discussion: It is clear from the better preserved Hekate figure that the two other bodies of the goddess stood in a frontal-symmetrical pose wearing, like her, an archaistic peplos, belted over a long apoptygma with shallow folds and swallowtails. In each skirt, all the fullness of the garment was gathered into a central double fold which fell vertically all the way down between the legs. The right arm of all three figures of Hekate was bent, with the forearm laid diagonally in front of the chest. Nothing is left to suggest the position of the left arm. The dancing Graces are holding hands, moving from right to left. Like the three bodies of Hekate, they wear peplos with swallowtails apoptygma, but with the addition of an epiblema that is held over their right shoulder.

14/10/2015 11:51:10

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

Two main types of Hekataia with Graces are known to exist: in one, the three Graces dance around three full figures of Hekate; and, in the other, they dance around a herm-like pillar with the three heads of the goddess (Kraus 1960:129–152, Pls. 7–15; Sarian 1992:1004–1005; Werth 2006:76–80). They are dated

159

from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods (Ridgway 1990:378, n. 36), based on their style and context of discovery. The Caesarean Hekataia belongs to the first type; its style is entirely archaistic. Date: Augustan period. References: Gersht 1996a:313–314; 2008:523.

Cat. No. 6

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 159

14/10/2015 11:51:11

160

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 6

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 160

14/10/2015 11:51:15

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

7. Serapis as Hades/Pluto, Statuette Findspot: Area I, Sq I/90, L1654, B70287. Found in a surface layer east of the vomitorium of C1000 (9.24 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Dark greenish-gray Egyptian greywacke from the Wadi Hammamat quarries.58 H 9 cm, W 6.87 cm, Th 5.4 cm. Description: Serapis’ head, right arm below the shoulder, left shoulder and arm, left side of the upper body and right foot are missing, as are one of Cerberus’ heads and his right foreleg. Cerberos’ left foreleg, its median face, Serapis’ throne and the statuette base are damaged. Drill holes and short channels separate the image from the throne. All sides are highly polished. The back of the throne bears the remains of three incised horizontal lines.59 Serapis is shown seated on a throne, his left leg more sharply bent, with the hip slightly raised and the calf turned backward. He is dressed in a long-sleeved chiton and himation; both accentuate his physical appearance and posture. The folds of the chiton, apart

161

from the V-shaped ones on the chest, are vertical and uneven in width. Those of the himation are heavier and deeper. The himation covers the lower body from right to left and hangs down at Serapis’ left side. The sandal on the god’s left foot is either a trochades or a mixture of a krepides and a trochades.60 Cerberus at Serapis’ right makes the identification of the image as Serapis-Hades/Pluto possible. The head was likely crowned with a modius, the right hand stretched toward Cerberus’ heads and the left one raised to hold a scepter (cf. Hornbostel 1973: Figs. 9, 23, 26, 128, 146, 274). Discussion: The Caesarea statuette is perhaps a smallscale copy of the Alexandrian cult statue of Serapis attributed to Bryaxis, either the Athenian sculptor or another of the same name (Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 4). The type is familiar from many Hellenistic and Roman statues and statuettes (e.g., Hornbostel 1973: Figs. 5, 6, 11, 18, 19, 21, 23–26, 59, 124, 127, 128, 146, 274). Date: Late Hellenistic or Early Roman period. Reference: Gersht 1996a:312–313, Fig. 8.

Cat. No. 7

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 161

14/10/2015 11:51:16

162

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 7

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 162

14/10/2015 11:51:20

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

8. Right Foot of a Bronze Statuette of Serapis Findspot: Area I, Sqs A–B/82, L8877, B89922. Found between two levels of the arena, below Stratum VIA and above VIB, late first to late second centuries CE (1.71–1.78 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Bronze. H 3.1 cm, L 5.3 cm. Description: The foot is broken a bit above the ankle; the heel, most of the longitudinal arch and the inner side of the ankle are missing. The sole is squashed in at the break and has a triangular hole. This sandaled foot belonged to a 40 cm high male figure, if standing, or about 25 cm, if seated. The sandal, of the lingula family type (Morrow 1985:118– 120), has a solid heel cap and an overhanging tongue (lingula) ending with prongs. The lingula is divided into two vertical parts and bordered by incisions, and is decorated with zigzag lines and dots. Dots also decorate the remainder of the upper sandal, which is held to the foot by two pairs of straps. The heel cap straps—as indicated by the loops on the sandal’s outer side—are knotted at the ankle-front; the other pair of straps reaches up over the instep. The meeting point of each pair is covered with the lingula, which hangs

163

down to the exposed toes. The toes, apart from the little one, are very detailed with their phalangeal joints and nails carefully rendered; overall, the workmanship is excellent. Discussion: Lingula types were mostly worn by standing or seated philosophers and gods (e.g., Stewart 1990 II: Pls. 579, 612, 632, 859). Although it is hard to tell whether the foot was part of a standing or of a seated figure, it seems likely that it did not rest completely on the missing base, but instead touched the base or a footstool, if there was one, with the toes. It is also possible that only the heel of the foot was supported, as in the bronze statuette of Jupiter Capitolinus in New York (Stewart 1990 II: Pl. 859). As Serapis is often shown with lingula footwear (Hornbostel 1973: Figs. 11, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 46, 52, 53, 60, 118, 127, 128, 146, 191, 214, 274, 327–329; Tran Tam Tinh 1983: Figs. 4, 6, 41, 43, 46, 126, 263), even when embodied solely as a foot (see Cat. No. 24; Dow and Upson 1944; Hornbostel 1973: Fig. 37), the possibility that the Caesarea bronze fragment was part of an image of Serapis cannot be ruled out. Date: Early Roman period.

Cat. No. 8

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 163

14/10/2015 11:51:22

164

Rivka Gersht

9. Serpent Entwined Staff, Two Joining Fragments Findspot: Area I, Sqs D–E/81–82, L1756, B17543. Found in Byzantine fill within the shrine (3.78–4.46 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble. H 22.6 cm, W 10 cm max. Description: In addition to the diagonal break at the join of the two fragments, the sculpted piece is unevenly broken at both ends; the surface is encrusted and partly worn. Discussion: The piece, probably from a statue of Asklepios, represents a section of a tree-trunk staff with a serpent coiling around it. If indeed belonging to Asklepios, the serpent entwined staff was placed either to the figure’s right as in the Salamis Asklepios (Karageorghis and Vermeule 1964:15, Cat. No. 5, Pl. XIII), or to its left (for examples of both types, see Bieber 1957:73–87). Date: Roman period.

10. Torso of the Hanging Marsyas, Two Joining Fragments Findspot: Area I. Head: Sq YY/82, L1710, B65819. Found in a fill c. 0.5 m above the Revived Circus arena Stratum VIA1, L6955 (3.17 m msl). Torso: Sq C/75, L6984, B86618. Found in a Byzantine fill within the arena, west of W1332 not far from where the East Cavea starts to curve (5.11–5.20 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small to medium glittering crystals. H 44.5 cm. Description: The crown of the head, right eye, right side of the nose, the shoulders, arms and hands, legs from below the upper thighs and both ends of the tree trunk are missing; the genitals are damaged. The vertical break on the right side of the head reaches the cheekbone below the missing eye and the broken nose. Another break runs across the upper part of the tree trunk, the nape of the neck and across the beard from below the chin to the left shoulder. A vertical crack extends along the back of the head, more or less where the head meets the trunk; a horizontal crack extends along the trunk to the head’s left side. There

Cat. No. 9

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 164

14/10/2015 11:51:24

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

165

Cat. No. 10

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 165

14/10/2015 11:51:26

166

Rivka Gersht

is considerable chipping on the forehead above the left eye and on the body, especially on the sides; some of the damage is new. Marsyas’ surface is polished; his hair, long beard and pubic hair are coarsely fashioned with rather deep drill holes. Drilling was also used to signify the tear duct, the pupil and nostrils, to shape the mouth, and to separate the body from the trunk. Discussion: The statue type portrayed is that of Marsyas suspended by his wrists from a tree trunk. The coarse carving bestows a naturalistic look to the realistic image of the pathetic satyr, whose body extends tautly with the upper back attached to the tree trunk and skin stretched tightly over his bare muscles and rib cage. The legs, or at least the thighs, were entirely or partly removed from the trunk. The groin is uneven—the right side is somewhat higher than the left—and the left thigh is pushed forward slightly. The head is somewhat fallen toward the chest

and the left raised arm; the mouth is open revealing the teeth. Marsyas’ left eye is partially closed as if looking down, perhaps toward the Scythian slave who in other sculpted examples is shown sharpening a knife in preparation for the flaying of the satyr.61 No evidence of a Scythian slave has yet been found at Caesarea, but the cause of punishment is hinted by the rope on the left side of the trunk, from which a double flute presumably hung. Unfortunately, while the rope survived nearly complete, the flute is missing. The original height of the statue was no less than 1.50 m. Another statue of the Hanging Marsyas, which was found west of the East Circus, was at least twice in size. Only the head and upper arms of this image, which is now on display in the Sdot-Yam Museum, survived (Gersht 1987:37, Cat. No. 31; 1996b:443, Fig. 18; 1999c:15–16, Fig. 1). Date: Late second or early third century CE. Reference: Gersht 2008:522–523.

Cat. No. 10

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 166

14/10/2015 11:51:27

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

11. Torso of a Youth Holding Clusters of Ivy Berries62 Findspot: Area I, Sq E/93, L1398, B13121. Found in the fill within the vomitorium. The statue was thrown into the vomitorium after the Extended Amphitheater was shortened and C7000 was no longer in use (Stage VIA2) (2.84–3.04 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Whitish marble with gray veins, small glittering crystals. H 46.5 cm. Description: The head, neck, collar bone between the shoulders, and both legs below the groin and buttocks are missing; genitals are broken off diagonally and lefthand fingernails are damaged. The surface is highly polished, but has many ancient and modern nicks; the most prominent ones are on the back, between the left shoulder blade and spinal cord, above the waist on the right, on the buttocks, along the right forearm, on both hands and on the ivy-berry clusters. Good workmanship. The short chest, pudgy hips and thighs, protruding belly and soft musculature indicate that the torso

167

portrayed a youth. This youth, whose original height was around 1.30 m, stood with his weight resting on his left leg. His right thigh was slightly pushed forward and to the side, and the calf crossed over the weight-bearing limb, at or below the knee. Likewise, his right arm crosses over the left. The hands, which are detached from the belly by an obscured strut, have their index, middle, ring and little fingers curved diagonally; the right hand over the left wrist, the left hand over the clusters’ stems. The short band at the ivy-berry crown probably bound the cluster. The ivy berries were reddish as evidenced by remains of color on the rearmost berries. Patches of reddish pigment are also visible on the strut. The upper body and head, as suggested by the spine and shoulder blades, were slightly turned to the left. Discussion: The crossed-leg pose became a popular one in sculpture during the fourth century BCE. It continued to be common throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods, in particular for personifications,

Cat. No. 11

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 167

14/10/2015 11:51:29

168

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 11

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 168

14/10/2015 11:51:32

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

deities and other mythological figures, but also for mortals.63 Because the head of the Caesarean youth is missing, it is impossible to determine the identity of the image. However, the ivy berries, being an attribute of both Dionysus and Apollo, may suggest that the figure was associated with one or both of them. Date: Augustan period. References: Gersht 2008:516–517. Portraits 12. Carneades, Herm Findspot: Area I, Sq G/97, L1185, B6915. Found in Byzantine fill above the dismantled tiers of the East Cavea (6.66–6.95 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble with gray veins, small glittering crystals. H 42 cm. Description: The nose is broken, but two drill holes (one is deeper) indicate the missing nostrils. The lobes and rims of the ears are chipped. The beard, forehead, front hair locks and right temple are worn on an otherwise polished face. Nicks on the left eye, behind the damaged left earlobe, on the neck, and on the hair occurred when the portrait was uncovered. An ancient crack runs from the bridge of the nose upward to the forehead, above the right eye and temple, then down through the temple and along the neck. The herm is broken and of the two depressions originally carved on both sides of a herm, only part of the right one is preserved. The piece portrays a middle-aged man, 50 to 60 years old, with a long face, a furrowed forehead incised with a cross, deep sunken eyes and a short beard. The hair consists of rather short S-shaped locks brushed from a central point at the back in all directions and arranged in not quite regular tiers. A group of locks is brushed onto the forehead, so as to hide the recession of the hair, which is cut straight on the nape of the neck. The relatively short beard is rendered in tight locks that become fuller and curled in the lowest part, around

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 169

169

the chin toward the throat. The furrowed forehead and, especially, the two short vertical lines at the bridge of the nose, endow the figure with a pensive expression. The cross carelessly engraved on the forehead is a later addition, likely carved by a Christian.64 The wide open eyes with incised irises are set under prominent eyebrows and framed by heavy lids. A close look at the eyes with suitable lighting made it clear that the pupils were not carved, as formerly suggested (Gersht 1996c:99), but were left plain or perhaps painted; hence, a pre-Hadrianic date can be offered for the bust. Running-drill technique was used to shape the orbits of the eyes above the upper lids and the partition between the lips. The upper lip is covered with a thick moustache which is parted in the middle and merges with the beard; the full lower lip is emphasized with a double incised contour. The comparatively broad cheeks are sunken, emphasizing prominent cheek bones. Discussion: The portrait is a Roman copy of a secondcentury BCE original. Several features point to the identification of this portrait with the Greek Sceptic philosopher Carneades. The most prominent ones are the furrowed forehead, the upraised eyebrows, sunken eye sockets, mouth and ears. The rendering of the hair, moustache and beard are also of great significance. Ten portraits of Carneades are recorded by Richter (1965 II:249–251), and their dating is dealt with by Stähli (1991). Among the known Carneades portraits, the most comparable to the Caesarea portrait is the one in the Antiken Museum at Basel, No. 5 on Richter’s list. Even more remarkable is the resemblance of the Caesarea piece to an unidentified portrait in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Richter 1953:122, Pl. 100a), which should be also identified as Carneades. Likewise, the other examples of this type listed by Dillon should be identified as Carneades (Dillon 2006:17–20). Date: First or early second century CE. References: Gersht 1996c:99–103; 1999b:395.

14/10/2015 11:51:32

170

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 12

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 170

14/10/2015 11:51:37

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

13. Bare-Breasted Bust Findspot: Area I, Sq C/75, L6984, B86742/1. Found in Byzantine fill within the arena south of the shrine (4.5 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Semi-transparent white marble, small glittering crystals. H 17.9 cm, W 20 cm, neck circumference 20.5 cm. Description: The head, left shoulder and left armpit are broken with heavy chipping on the edges. There is also considerable chipping on the right shoulder edge and much smaller chips all along the bust’s delineated edge. The bust-support is diagonally broken toward its narrow end.

171

Discussion: The head, according to the neck’s circumference and muscles, was about half lifesize and slightly turned toward the left shoulder. The carving is of a very good quality with accurate rendering of the shoulder, collarbones and breasts. The outer surface was highly polished; the back is hollowed on both sides of the bust-support and bears marks of a flat chisel and either a scraper or a rasp. As the lower part of the bust-support is broken, it is not clear whether it also functioned as a base for the bust or that both, bust and support, rested on a bust-foot.65 During the first century CE, most male busts were bare, and as the custom continued into the second century, it is impossible to determine whether the Caesarea piece was shaped in the first or the second century CE (cf. the male bust in the Museo Nazionale Romano; Fejfer 2008:246, Fig. 163). Date: First or second century CE. Hands 14. Right Hand Holding a Bunch of Grapes Findspot: Area I, Sqs F–G/111, B59461. Found in a Byzantine fill above the arena, slightly south of the northmost scalarium (Stairway 3952) of the East Cavea (3.62–5.16 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Semi-transparent white marble, medium glittering crystals. L 7.8 cm. Description: Polished surface. Only three fingers and less than half of the remaining hand remain. Fingernails and grapes are damaged. A vertical shallow channel formed by a sequence of drill marks is visible in the inner part of the bunch of grapes.

Cat. No. 13

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 171

Discussion: The hand was part of a small Dionysiac figure, about 55 cm high. The figure held the bunch of grapes with outstretched fingers, in a way similar to the depiction of the young Dionysus in the Capitoline Museum (Stuart Jones 1912:112–113, Cat. No. 38, Pl. 20). Date: Augustan period. Reference: Gersht 2001b:98, Fig. 4.

14/10/2015 11:51:39

172

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 14

15. Right Hand Holding an Acanthus Stem Findspot: Area I, Sq F/93, L1398, B13075. Found in a Late Roman or Byzantine fill within the vomitorium (2.25 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small glittering crystals. L 14.8 cm. Description: The hand is broken diagonally at the wrist. A drill hole with remains of iron rust at the break indicates that the hand was sculpted separately and joined to the forearm by a metal pin. The dorsal side of the hand and especially the middle and little fingers are damaged. Two-thirds of the thumb and index finger, and both ends of the acanthus stem are missing. The middle, ring and little fingers are curved diagonally around a grooved stem, of which two successive sections remain; the thumb and index finger were stretched out along it. Drill work was used for channeling the separation between the fingers. Discussion: The hand belonged to a life-size figure, possibly a male. The stem is obviously that of an

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 172

acanthus; however, as in Roman art, acanthus stems often sprout other plant forms—such as ivy leaves and berries, vine leaves and bunches of grapes, and poppy capsules and flowers (Pollini 1993:185–193)—it is impossible to determine what plant was intended. Date: Augustan period. Reference: Gersht 2008:517. 16. Right Hand Findspot: Area I, Sq YY/72, L6523, B66317. Found in a fill 6 cm above the Revived Circus arena Stratum VIA1, L6955 (2.71 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Semi-transparent white marble, medium-size glittering crystals. L 10.5 cm. Description: The hand is broken at the lower palm below wrist; remains of two drill holes are visible at the break, one of which still has the remains of iron rust. The thumb and index finger are missing; the tips and fingernails of the middle, ring and little fingers are broken. These three fingers are curved in, touching the palm. The thumb and index finger—as evidenced

14/10/2015 11:51:41

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

173

Cat. No. 15

Cat. No. 16

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 173

14/10/2015 11:51:45

174

Rivka Gersht

by the thumb muscles and the smoothed area between the missing index finger and middle finger—were stretched out to hold something. Both palm and dorsal surface of hand are well-polished. Discussion: The hand belonged to a life-size figure, possibly a female. The holes at the break indicate that the hand was attached to the forearm with a metal pin and possibly also strengthened with a strut.66 A selvage or fold of clothing would be a plausible suggestion for the object once held by the missing fingers. Date: Roman period.

18. Left Hand Holding Poppy Capsules Findspot: Area I, Sq E/94, B74426; Reg. No. 2006568. Found in a fill slightly north of the west entrance to the vomitorium (2.01 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Semi-transparent white marble, small-to-medium glittering crystals. L 11.5 cm, W 7 cm.

Description: Only four fingers remain from the metacarpals to above the fingernails; the thumb is missing. The inner break has the remains of a drilled channel (4.5 cm long, 1 cm wide) with rust marks. Surface encrusted and partly worn.

Description: The hand is broken more or less at the wrist; the fingertips, fingernails and part of the inner side of the poppy capsules were left unfinished. The thumb’s outline is marked, but the marble has not been fully removed. The index, middle, ring and little fingers curve diagonally around the poppy stalks. The seed capsules emerge from between the index finger and the thumb. A few faded drill holes are visible within the channels separating the fingers from each other and from the poppy capsules. The dorsal side of the hand is smoothed; the palm bears marks of drilling and of flat and point chisels. The incomplete state of the fingers on the palm side of the hand indicates that it was partially obscured. The hand must have been close to the body, regardless of the position of the arm, either straight or bent.

Discussion: The fragment belonged to an over life-size figure, possibly a female, as suggested by the delicate fingers, which are separated by deep drill work. The diagonal curving of the fingers with the index finger slightly stretched out indicates that the hand held some kind of object which was attached to the palm with a metal pin. Date: Roman period.

Discussion: The hand is small and delicate, most likely of an under life-size female figure or a youth. As the figure that originally held the poppy heads in its left hand is missing, its identity can only be conjectured. If female, it may have been a depiction of Demeter/Ceres or Kore/Persephone, or of a woman in the guise of either the goddess or her daughter. Portrayals of women holding poppy heads in the left

17. Right Hand Findspot: Area I, Sq ZZ/77, L8633, B88395. Found in Byzantine or later fill (3.31 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble. L 8.1 cm, W 9.2 cm, Th 5.3 cm.

Cat. No. 17

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 174

14/10/2015 11:51:47

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

175

Cat. No. 18

hand are claimed to represent priestesses or devotees of Ceres (Spaeth 1996:119–120; Vorster 2007:109).67 The poppy is an attribute not only of Demeter/Ceres, but also of other deities associated with her, such as Cybele/Magna Mater, Aphrodite/Venus and Dionysus (Castriota 1995:55, 57, 78, 121, 142–143, 168, 221 n. 58; Spaeth 1996:25, 28, 127–128, 133; GuillaumeCoirier 2001; Gersht 2006). The hand therefore could belong to any of the above-mentioned deities or to a portrait statue. Date: Augustan/Julio-Claudian period. References: Gersht 2006:38, 100, 102, Fig. 45; 2008:516–517. Ex-Voto Feet 19. Right Foot Findspot: Area I, Sq C/80, B69753. Found in a sand fill a few centimeters west of W1922 (north–south wall of the C2000 shrine) (2.52 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small translucent crystals. H 7.2 cm, L 14.2 cm, max W 5.9 cm. Description: Bare flat foot entwined with a serpent. Inner heel, inner ankle, about half of the serpent and

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 175

the toes are broken. The surface of the foot stump is covered with tool marks. The bottom is flattened and polished, as are two small sections on the right side of the serpent and foot. These flattened and polished areas indicate that the foot was sculpted from an already carved piece of marble. Date: Roman period. 20. Right Foot on Base Findspot: Area I, Sqs D–E/81, L1844, B65098; Reg. No. 94-1945. Found in the fill of the south room of the C2000 shrine (2.07–2.40 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small to medium glittering crystals. H 11.7 cm, L 21.2 cm. Description: The left corner of the base next to the inner part of heel is broken. The circumferential edge of the leg and the serpent are worn. The big toe and toenail of the index toe are damaged. The edges of the base are chipped. The piece shows a long and narrow bare foot with a small section of a leg above ankle. The leg stump is encircled with an anklet-like stylized serpent, whose tail and head meet at the front. The base is U-shaped, extending the foot’s contours. The surface and underside are polished. It seems that the votive was

14/10/2015 11:51:50

176

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 19

Cat. No. 20

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 176

14/10/2015 11:51:54

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

carved from a polished block of marble and that the purpose of the two rows of holes, either made by point chisel or drilled into the extremely polished underside, was to steady the foot. Date: Roman period. Reference: Gersht 2008:515, Fig. 4. 21. Inscribed Right Sandaled Foot Findspot: Area I, Sqs D–E/81, L1844, B65099; Reg. No. 6/94-86867. Found in the fill of the south room of the C2000 shrine (2.24–2.34 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small to medium glittering crystals. H 12.4 cm, L 22 cm. Description: The big toe is broken, the index toe is damaged, the sandal sole is chipped and worn; the inner strap, tips and toenails are worn. The inscribed flat face on top of the leg stump is partially worn with chipped edges. The surface and underside are polished. This female foot wears a variation of a Hellenistic thong sandal type.68 The sole is held to the foot by a thong inserted between the big and index toes; the thong is attached to two wide, serrated upper straps that are attached to the sole’s sides.69

177

The single-layered sole curves along the foot’s contours, but its height is uneven, flattening toward the heel where it ends. The wide side straps are incised with two parallel lines; an ivy-leaf-like button at the thong’s division point enhances the sandal’s ornamentation. Drilled holes are visible between the big and index toes, and between the toenails of the third, fourth and little toes; a drilled channel separates the little toe from the sandal’s sole. The workmanship is quite good. The four lines inscribed into the upper surface of the leg are read (see Chapter 8: Inscription No. 2): ..... [.]H KOPH [.]APBA POC ..... | [τṼ ΚόρV| [Β] άρβα|ρος Barbaros (dedicated this foot) to … Kore Date: Roman period. Reference: Gersht 1996a:310–311, 2008:515, Fig. 4; CIIP II:39–41, No. 1130).

Cat. No. 21

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 177

14/10/2015 11:51:57

178

Rivka Gersht

22. Right Sandaled Foot of Isis Findspot: Area I, Sqs D–E/81, L1844, B65100; Reg. No. 95-1706. Found in fill of the south room of the C2000 shrine (2.27–2.30 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble. H 13.2 cm, L 23 cm. Description: The head of the cobra is missing, the big toe is broken; the tip and toenail of the index toe are damaged. The tip of the middle toe, the serpent and the foot’s underside are worn. This female foot wears a thong sandal similar to that worn by Cat. No. 21, but with plain straps and a doublelayered sole. The sole, as in Cat. No. 21, flattens toward the back so that the heel seems to extend beyond the edge. The serpent entwines the foot from left to right: its tail touches the inner strap, where it joins the sole, between the arch and the heel; it then encircles the ankle and climbs the leg stump at the front, displaying the anterior portion of its upper body (hood), where

the skin is well-defined with shallow wavy incisions. Horizontal, rather deep, incisions define the length of the toes’ phalanges. The workmanship is quite good, perhaps by the hand of the same craftsman that carved Cat. No. 21. Surface is polished, underside smoothed. Date: Roman period. References: Gersht 1996a:310, Fig. 5; 1999a:19–21, Fig. 4; 2008:515, Fig. 4. 23. Inscribed Right Foot on Base Findspot: Area I, Sqs D–E/81, L1844, B65101; Reg. No. 6/94-1944. Found in fill of the south room of the C2000 shrine (2.19–2.27 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble with gray and yellowish veins, small-to-medium glittering crystals. H 10 cm, L 19.3 cm. Description: The heel and its base and index toe are missing. The first and middle toes and the inner and front edge of the base are worn; the inscribed upper

Cat. No. 22

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 178

14/10/2015 11:52:00

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

face of the leg stump is similarly worn. The ankle is damaged and there is a new break next to the little toe. The bare foot is poised upon a low base which extends the foot contours like Cat. No. 20. The toes are parted by deep drill work and the surface is polished. The underside was flattened with a tooth chisel and then smoothed. The dedication letters are badly damaged and cannot be read, apart from Auge(?), which was perhaps the name of the dedicant (see Chapter 8: Inscription No. 3). Date: Roman period. Reference: Gersht 1996a:310; CIIP II:41–42, No.1131. 24. Serapis’ Foot Findspot: Area I, Sqs C–D/80–81, L1756, B65852. Found in fill within the arena in front of Room 1880, above the remains of the C2000 shrine (2.40 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small to medium glittering crystals. H 16.4 cm, W 9.5 cm. Medallion: H 10 cm, W 8.5 cm.

179

Description and Discussion: This over life-size right foot is broken diagonally at the back and at the front. The sandaled forefoot, heel and ankle, rear part of the leg stump, and Serapis’ head did not survive. Only a few centimeters (4 × 7 cm) of the sandal’s sole remain. The whole piece is covered with incrustation; the ribbon loop at the foot’s inner side and Serapis’ dress are worn. The foot wore a lingula (an overlapping tongue) style sandal of the type depicted in Cat. No. 8.70 Only the tongue folded over the laces and the loops hanging at either side remain; the end of the lingula, which commonly terminates with three prongs, did not survive. The bust of Serapis, emerging out of a medallion (H 10 cm, W 8.5 cm), is represented at the front of the ankle and leg stump. The outlines of the break of the head indicate that Serapis had long hair and a beard. His dress, typical of many of Serapis’ images, comprises a sleeved chiton with V-shaped folds on his chest and a himation that hangs over his left shoulder

Cat. No. 23

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 179

14/10/2015 11:52:02

180

Rivka Gersht

Cat. No. 24

(cf. the Enthroned Serapis, Cat. No. 7 above; Dow and Upson 1944: Figs. 1, 2, 8, 9; Hornbostel 1973:90–91, Fig. 37; Le Glay 1978: Pls. CXXXI, CXXXII; Tran Tam Tinh 1983:137, Cat. No. II 3, Fig. 77a, 167, Cat. No. IVA 4, Fig. 121a). Since the heel and forefoot are missing, it is unclear how the sandal looked; however, it may be assumed, based on other Serapis feet, that the toes were exposed (Dow and Upson 1944; Hornbostel 1973: Fig. 37). The serpent, present in other Serapis feet (Dow and Upson 1944: Nos. 1, 3, 5; Le Glay 1978:574–576, Nos. 1, 6), is absent in this foot, but is depicted on a Serapis foot found in Insula W2S3 at Caesarea (Gersht 1996a:310, Fig. 6; 1999a:20–21, Fig. 5). Date: After 69 CE. Reference: Gersht 2008:513–515, Figs. 3, 4.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 180

Limbs 25. Right Upper Arm Findspot: Area I, Sq XX/71, L6542, B66460. Found in the South Gate area within a Byzantine or later fill above a Byzantine pavement (3.95–4.12 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small translucent crystals, L 8.3 cm. Description and Discussion: This arm is preserved from the shoulder to above the elbow; it is highly polished. The upper arm was part of a figure about 42 cm high if standing. The muscles at the back and the anterior axillary fold in front suggest that the upper arm was a bit pushed backward and the forearm a little bit forward, leaving the elbow loose, but not bent. Date: Roman period.

14/10/2015 11:52:07

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

181

Cat. No. 25

26. Right Upper Arm Findspot: Area I, Sq A/82, B86991. Found in a Roman–Byzantine fill above the arena, west of the C2000 shrine (2.56–2.69 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White-grained marble, L 13.4 cm, W 6.5–7.5 cm. Description: Both ends of this arm are diagonally broken: from shoulder to armpit on top and a bit above the elbow at the bottom. The carving is of good

quality and emphasizes simplified molded volumes. The surface was well-polished, now partly covered by incrustation. The fragment was part of a half lifesize figure. The shaping of the anatomical features indicates that the arm was bent with the upper arm pushed backward and the forearm stretched forward. As the elbow has not survived, the angle cannot be determined. Date: Roman period.

Cat. No. 26

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 181

14/10/2015 11:52:09

182

Rivka Gersht

27. Left Forearm, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sqs E/87–88, B71267. Found in a Byzantine fill, fifth to sixth centuries CE (4.37–5.17 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, medium translucent crystals. L 11.6 cm, W 4.8–5.6 cm. Description: About two-thirds of the forearm remains, broken diagonally at the wrist. The workmanship is good; polished. Date: Roman period.

Description: The elbow, part of the upper-arm and a squashed hemispherical strut below the elbow remain. The back of the upper arm is scratched. The surface is polished, the outer more so than the inner face. Discussion: The arm was part of a life-size figure, if male, and over life-size, if female. The strut below the elbow suggests that the figure’s left arm was resting on a column or trunk, as in certain types of Apollo (e.g., in the Museo Nazionale Romano—Milleker 1987:208– 214, Cat. No. 2) and Dionysus (e.g., García y Bellido 1949:95–96, Cat. No. 81, Pl. 70; Paribeni 1959:117, Cat. No. 330, Pl. 155). However, sculpted figures with their left arm supported at the elbow are numerous and, as the arm is fragmentary, any association with a figure type would be speculative. Date: Roman period.

Cat. No. 27

28. Left Arm, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sqs F–H/118, B25321. Found in a post-circus fill above the arena. Material and Dimensions: White marble; small glittering crystals. L 14.6 cm including support, W 8.6 cm, Th 6.8 cm.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 182

Cat. No. 28

14/10/2015 11:52:11

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

29. Left Arm and Hand, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sqs B/76, C/75, L6984, B86786. Found in a Byzantine fill within the arena (3.69 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble. L 16.9 cm, W 6.4–8.5 cm, Th 9.8 cm. Description and Discussion: The arm about 7.5 cm above the wrist, all of the fingers, the strut and the object held next to the thumb are broken. The strut has a drilled hole in its inner break. The surface was polished, but now is mostly worn. The arm and hand belonged to an over life-size figure. They were joined to the figure with a rectangular

183

strut positioned at the inner side of wrist. Attached to the strut, while occupying part of the palm, is a flat object, broken in line with the thumb. The rest of the palm is hollowed, but not sculpted. The hole, drilled into the strut, suggests that something was affixed into the hollowed palm, possibly a drapery. Based on the position of the hand and the strut, the upper arm hung at the side of the upper body, the forearm slightly stretched forward and to the side, and the hand placed upon the drapery(?) as in the Museo Nazionale Romano Aphrodite (Papadopoulos 1979:67–69, Cat. No. 56). Date: Roman period.

Cat. No. 29

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 183

14/10/2015 11:52:13

184

Rivka Gersht

30. Right Elbow Findspot: Area I, Sq WW/71, B13430. Found in a postcircus fill above the robbed sphendone together with pottery dated up to the Byzantine period (6.81 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble. 8.7 × 9.4 cm, upper arm section 6.0 × 6.6 cm, forearm section 4.9 × 5.5 cm.

31. Right Leg Findspot: Area I, Sq XX/77, B87179. Found in a late fill above the meta prima not far from where the left leg (Cat. No. 32) was found. Material and Dimensions: White marble, small glittering crystals. H 22.8 cm, max. circumference of muscles 25 cm.

Description and Discussion: The surface was polished, but now is mostly worn and partially covered with mortar. The fragmentary bent arm belonged to a figure smaller than half life-size. Two drilled holes, one in the upper arm (2.5 cm deep), the other in the forearm (2 cm deep), indicate that the arm was composed of at least three parts. The mortar remains suggest that the fragment was reused as building material. Date: Roman period.

Description and Discussion: The leg is broken below the knee and above the ankle. The uneven diagonal breaks below the knee are directed one to the front and the other to the back side of the leg. It is highly polished, apart from back side, where tool marks are clearly observed. The leg belonged to a male figure about 1.20 m high. The workmanship is excellent with the structure of the shin and calf executed with utmost accuracy. Date: Roman period.

Cat. No. 30

Cat. No. 31

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 184

14/10/2015 11:52:16

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

32. Left Leg, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq A/75, L8133, B87185. Found in a Late Roman/Byzantine post-arena fill above Floor 8134, not far from where the right leg (Cat. No. 31) was found (3.77 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble, small glittering crystals. H 14.7 cm, max. circumference of muscles 25 cm. Description: About two-thirds of the leg is preserved, from below the knee to above the ankle. Scratches occur on the surface; the top and bottom breaks have heavy chipping on edges and large pieces are chipped off the shin. The calf and shin are accurately modeled. It seems that this fragment and Cat. No. 31 belonged to the same figure. Date: Roman period.

185

33. Left Thigh, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq G/128, B28317. Found in a fill at the north part of the arena between the meta secunda and the carceres, west of W669. Material and Dimensions: White marble with gray veins, medium glittering crystals. L 18.3 cm, top break 13.5 × 15.7 cm, bottom break 11.5 × 14.5 cm. Description: The thigh survived from about 15 cm above the knee down to the upper part of the patella. Heavy chipping on bottom break, shallow breaks at left side and back, excellent quality carving, highly polished. Discussion: The rendering of the muscles, especially at the back of the knee, and the dimensions indicate that the fragmentary thigh belonged to the left leg of an over life-size standing male figure. The leg was somewhat outstretched as the weight of the figure was laid on the right leg. Date: Roman period.

Cat. No. 32

Cat. No. 33

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 185

14/10/2015 11:52:18

186

Rivka Gersht

Miscellanea 34. Drapery, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sqs YY–ZZ/77, L8633, B87458. Found in a Byzantine or later fill (2.42–3.40 m msl). Material and Dimensions: White marble. 10.1 × 10.5 cm, Th 3.1 cm. Description and Discussion: Top and right sides are broken; the edges of folds are chipped. The front surface was highly polished; the rear face is less defined and smoothed. Both faces are covered with patina. The three-dimensional fragment shows a corner of a dress of a draped figure. Two deep and curvy folds are preserved. The external one, shaped as an open omega, is folded over twice, and ends in a broken strut. The fragment seems to be derived from an image depicted in motion; however, the exact part of the dress, the orientation of the drapery, and the figure’s gender and role are difficult to reconstruct. Date: Augustan period or later. 35. Drapery, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq A/83, L8140, B87081. Found in a Byzantine or later fill above the amphitheater arena. Material and Dimensions: White marble, small to medium glittering crystals. L15.4 cm, W 6.2 × 7.2 cm. Description: The piece is broken on the top, bottom and back. The uneven fresh break on the left side, opposite the damaged strut, occurred when the fragment was found. The front face is hardly worn but partly encrusted. The fragment shows part of a drapery with voluminous folds, separated by deep drilled channels.

Cat. No. 35

Marks of drill holes and a rasp are seen in the channels. The surface is highly polished. Discussion: The fact that the fragment was carved on all sides before the damage on its left side occurred suggests that it hung over the left forearm of a figure— either male or female—and attached to her left side with a strut. Date: Roman period. 36. Right Hind Leg of a Canine, Fragment Findspot: Area I, Sq D/110, B10535. Found in a Byzantine fill above the arena (7.60 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Egyptian black granite. L 11.7 cm.

Cat. No. 34

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 186

14/10/2015 11:52:21

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

187

37. Tree Trunk with Branch Findspot: Area I, Sq G/75, L3819, B84086. Found in front of W3811/W3805 of Stratum V within a floor of C4000. Material and Dimensions: White marble with gray veins, small glittering crystals. H 12.1 cm, max. W 7.0 × 9.3 cm.

Cat. No. 36

Description: The leg is broken on both the top and the bottom. The upper break runs diagonally across the lower thigh; the lower break runs straight across the hock. A protrusion, broken diagonally, extends from the inner back of the leg. Discussion: The fragment depicts part of the right hindleg of a canine—perhaps of a Molossian dog—and the remains of a tail, which was curved down between the legs. The carving is of good quality and presents wellmodeled forms of the bones, muscles and hair, which is marked by a sequence of incisions that runs along the back side of the leg; the outer face is highly polished. Date: Roman period.

Description: The trunk and the upwardly diagonal branch are broken about 3.5 cm from where the two connect. The bottom of trunk is broken diagonally from below the branch. The remains of a strut with a partly preserved drilled channel at the inner side indicate that the fragment functioned as a statue support. A flat chisel was used on the front face to bestow a naturalistic expression of the outer bark; the inner side is only smoothed. Date: Roman period. 38. Lion’s Paw Foot, Bench Leg Findspot: Area I, Sqs C–D/82–83, W6976/6977, B89741. Found reused in a Byzantine wall west of the C2000 shrine (Stratum V, 2.66–2.86 m msl). Material and Dimensions: Hard whitish limestone. H 33 cm, L 57 cm, W 21 cm. Description: The block is almost intact apart from a single gouge and some chips around the base supporting the paw at the front, and a number of breaks at the corners along the plain faces; all breaks are worn. The whole block is covered with tooth chisel marks.

Cat. No. 37

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 187

14/10/2015 11:52:22

188

Rivka Gersht

The block has its short facade decorated with a stylized lion’s paw. Discussion: Similar bench legs are seen at the end of the seating rows of the cavea in many theaters, among them those of Magnesia on the Meander (Bingöl 1998:81–83), Ephesus, Prusias ad Hypium, Miletus,

Kaunos (Krauss 1973:89–90, Figs. 90–96; de Bernardi Ferrero 1974: Figs. 111, 152–154), Priene and Iasos (de Bernardi Ferrero 1970: Fig. 3, Pl. XI), all in Asia Minor. Among the variations of the type also worth mentioning are those from the theater of Phlius in Greece, which has molding instead of the paw (Biers 1975:56–57, Fig. 3, Pl. 13c), and from the theater of

Cat. No. 38

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 188

14/10/2015 11:52:25

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

Vienne, France, where eight griffin feet supported the seat of the magistrates in the orchestra (Sear 2006:6, Pl. 76). Similar seat supports are found in the theater at Leptis Magna (Caputo 1987: Pls. 49–52). Bench legs of the kind found in the Caesarea circus were also in

189

use in private dwellings; a close, but smaller, example was found in Terrace House 2 in Ephesus (Thür 2005: Pl. 243:1). Date: Roman period. Reference: Caesarea I, 1:134, Figs. 5.15, 5.16.

Notes 1

I thank Y. Porath, Director of the IAA Excavation Project at Caesarea Maritima 1992–1998, for inviting me to join the team and for granting me permission to study and publish the sculpture. I also thank J. Patrich, co-director of the CCE, who gave me permission to include two of the items uncovered in his field in this study. Thanks go to G. Rosenblum and P. Gendelman, in particular, for providing me with the relevant data, to V. Sussman and A. Beeri for providing me with the information on the oil lamps, and to H. Sivan, R. Angert and A. Angert whose constant friendship and help will always be appreciated. Drawings are by R. Mishayev and B. Hayimov, and photographs by P. Gendelman and A. Peri (Cat. No. 2). 2 On the variety of sculpted decoration of Roman arenas for chariot racing, see Calza 1976: Nos. 1, 12–19, 21, 23(?), 24–45, 47, 50, 51; Humphrey 1986. On the sculptural decoration of amphitheaters, see Lugli 1971:15–17, 21–23; Golvin 1988:81, 117, 158, 178, 182, 187, 189, 199, 204–205, 337–40, 366–367, 377; Golvin and Landes 1990:80, 97, 99, 120, 124, 134, 136–137, 140. 3 The information and references concerning the marble analyses of sculpture discovered in the Land of Israel are reported by Friedland (2012a:60–61; 2012b:21–24, 33–34). 4 Herms are composed of a head and a shaft, often with male genitalia (membra virilia). 5 Themistocles, Cimon, Aias (Ajax) or an anonymous warrior has been suggested for the male figure (Hölscher 1984:198 and n. 56). 6 In the eye of the beholder, the image of Athena could also stand for Dea Roma. On this matter, see Gersht 2001a:73–74; 2008:521–522. 7 In Ovid, Fasti VI.417–436, we are told that it was either Diomedes, Odysseus or Aeneas who carried off the Palladium and brought it to Rome, where it was guarded by Vesta. Aeneas bearing Anchises on his shoulders and the palladium on his right palm is shown on a denarius of Caesar 47/6 BCE (Zanker 1990: Fig. 27a). 8 The identification of the male figure as Aeneas has been suggested before, but rejected because Aeneas had no role in a naval victory (Hölscher 1984:197). Similar depictions of Aeneas dressed in armor are familiar from the Cività Castellana base (Hölscher 1988:382–383, Cat. 213; Kleiner 1992:51, Fig. 32, and further references on p. 57) and from the Lavinium terracotta relief depicting Aeneas’ arrival to Italy (Settis 1988:411–412, Fig. 190), though Aeneas is without a helmet in the latter.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 189

9

Apollo was the mythical father and patron deity of Octavian/Augustus (Kleiner 1992:59, 62, 71, 82–84, 88, 92, 99, 103, 113–114; Castriota 1995:87 ff.; Gurval 1995:87– 136). The serpent is a reminder of the legend of Octavian’s conception by Apollo, who appeared to his mother Atia in the form of a serpent (Suetonius, Augustus 94.4). 10 The column stood in front of the Temple of Bellona, which was situated in the Circus Flaminius within the Campus Martius in Rome. “In order to formally declare war on an overseas enemy, the fetialis would hurl a spear over the column into ‘enemy territory.’ This rite continued until at least the time of Marcus Aurelius” (Adkins and Adkins 1996:30). That the fetial ritual for the declaration of war was performed in front of Bellona’s temple is known from Servius’ commentary on Virgil’s Aeneid IX.52 (cited and explained by Beard, North and Price 1998 II:131–132, No. 5.5d). 11 On serpents as guardians of place and as symbols of the life force, see Orr 1978:1573 with references. 12 Compare Virgil’s description of the serpent drinking from the libation in Anchises funeral (Aeneid V.84–93). 13 The origin of the worship of Roma in the Greek-Hellenistic world, its link to the ruler cult, the derivation of her imagery in statuary, gems and coins from Greek prototypes of Athena and her dominion over land and sea, have all been studied comprehensively (Bowra 1957; Vermeule 1959:105–106; Fayer 1975; Mellor 1975, 1981; Price 1984:40–47, 162–163, 267–268). 14 Although it was not until the time of Hadrian that Roma began to be worshiped in Rome itself (Mellor 1981:997, 1005, 1027; Boatwright 1987:129–130). 15 For more detailed information regarding the literary source and related works of art, see the discussion of Cat. No. 2. 16 On the cults and images of the agrarian deities in the Circus Maximus, with ancient references, see Humphrey 1986:63, 268. 17 The Cerialia (April 12–19), an agricultural festival in honor of Ceres, Liber/Dionysus and Libra was held in Rome in charge of plebeian aediles (Scullard 1981:102–103; Sumi 2005:118, 131). The final day of the festival was devoted to circus performances (Ludi Ceriales) and to the cult ritual of letting foxes loose in the circus with lighted torches tied to their backs (Ovid, Fasti IV.679–712; Humphrey 1986:63; Richardson 1992:81). Although festivals with Ludi performances have been celebrated at Caesarea in honor of deities (Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine III.2; XI.30), no

14/10/2015 11:52:25

190

Rivka Gersht

direct evidence exists for the aforementioned custom being practiced in Herod’s Circus, nor of the celebration there of the Ludi Ceriales. 18 For other early Augustan depictions of these symbols, see Bertoletti, Cima and Talamo 2007:75, 78–79, 83, 86. 19 On Herod's lasting connections with Augustus and Rome, see Richardson 1996:226–234; Roller 1998:10–75. 20 A lead curse tablet, dating to the fourth or fifth century CE, was found in 2003 by Y. Porath next to the meta prima of the East Circus at Caesarea. The invocation ¢ναστατόσ[α]τη (r. ¢ναστατώσατε) in line 8 was used to address Selene/ Hekate in magical charms, yet, here, Hekate, as the name of the mighty goddess invoked at the beginning of the charm, is not explicitly mentioned. Domninus the charioteer asks the goddess to blind and bind the opposing charioteers and horses, so that they will not be able to see either him or the turning post (CIIP II 2011:559–562, No. 1679). 21 Statues on columns were a common sight in circuses, as shown by archaeological remains and visual representations of circuses; see Humphrey 1986:697, index under statue on column and Figs. 78, 79, 81, 82, 86, 87, 88, 95, 102, 105b, 112, 119, 122, 125, 126, 128, 130. 22 This association can be deduced from Diodorus Siculus (Library of History III.58–59) and from Pausanias (Description of Greece X.30.9). According to Stephanus Byzantinus (Ethnica, Pessinous), Marsyas’ tomb was at Pessinus, the original cult center of Cybele (Rawson 1987:9– 11, 91, n. 15). 23 Ptolemaeus Chennus (cited in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 190) says that Marsyas was born on the day of a festival for Apollo and that his flaying is an intriguing coincidence with the flaying of sacrificed animals on that day (Dowden 1996). 24 A list of imperial coins bearing the image of Marsyas along with a distribution table and a list of inscriptions referring to Marsyas are included in Small (1982:132–142). 25 Small (1982:83) notes, however, while referring to the Forum type, that Marsyas “appears primarily in those areas, North Africa and especially Asia Minor, which were most favored by the Severans’ provincial policy.” No statue of the Forum Marsyas type can be unquestionably identified among the statues found at Caesarea, unless the bronze fragmentary statuette uncovered by the CCE was meant to depict the Scythian slave, as had been suggested by the late Professor Avner Raban. The author of this chapter suggested identifying this image as a stevedore in the harbor (Gersht 1995:37*). A second Caesarea statue of the Hanging Marsyas, now on display in the Sdot-Yam Museum, could have been placed in one of the city’s fora to indicate the stroke of good fortune Caesarea received from Rome (Gersht 1999c:15, 45, Fig. 1). 26 The role that Apollo and Dionysus fulfilled in Augustan propaganda before and after the battle of Actium has been comprehensively discussed by various scholars (e.g., Pollini 1993; Castriota 1995). 27 A number of small-sized statues recovered in the amphitheater of Carthage corroborates the presence of sacella beneath the vaulting of the seating or as open-air shrines in the summa cavea. An open-air shrine to the Ephesian Artemis was found in the south section of the summa cavea of the

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 190

amphitheater at Lepcis Magna (Bomgardner 1989:99, 101). For shrines beneath the cavea of the Flavian amphitheater at Puteoli, see Maiuri 1955:42–52, 54–56. Many other examples of amphitheater shrines are dealt with in Golvin 1988:337–340; Golvin and Landes 1990:99, 120, 140; Kloner and Hübsch 1996:93–94. 28 For other possible functions of such subterranean structures at sanctuaries of Isis and Serapis, as either crypts for cultic assemblies, for storing cultic equipment or for performing mystery rites while contemplating the crypt as a ‘lower world’, see Wild 1981:190–206. 29 On the pre-Herodian topography, the foundation and infrastructure of the circus, see Caesarea I, 1:31–33. 30 See Grenfell and Hunt in 1899:192, 201, 202; Griffiths 1975:147. 31 An additional ex-voto foot from Caesarea, entwined with a snake (likely a cobra) and inscribed, is published in the CIIP II: 42–43, No. 1132. The findspot of the fragmentary foot, which is in the Hendler Collection, Hadera, is unknown. 32 Henrichs 1968; for some other examples of the foot of Serapis, see Dow and Upson 1944. 33 Fraser 1972 I:256–258; Henrichs (1968:70) believes that the ex-voto feet represent the foot of the Alexandrian cult-image of Serapis, which was destroyed by Christian iconoclasts in the fourth century, and that the worshipers of the god probably used them at home or in private chapels as a substitute for the lost cult-image. 34 On the serpent as an attribute of Hekate, see Farnell 1992a:45, 1992b:29; Werth 2006:201–203. On the various qualities of the snake, see Cook 1965 II:1127–1129; Mitropoulou 1977; Edelstein and Edelstein 1998 II: 227– 229. On Isis Thermouthis and Serapis Agathos Daimon, see Griffiths 1961:114, 1975:151, 212, 324, 325; Fraser 1972 I:211; Hornbostel 1973: Fig. 310; Pietrzykowski 1978; Dunand 1979:173–176, Cat. Nos. 24–31, 252, Cat. No. 298, 1981:277–282; Gallo 1982; Merkelbach 2001:80 § 139; Bailey 2008:11, 27–28, Nos. 3017–3022, Pls. 5, 6. 35 Its original display location was probably in one of the temples dedicated to Isis and Serapis at Caesarea. The architectural member showing the bust of Serapis to the right of an acanthus scroll (Turnheim and Ovadiah 1996:300, Fig. 45) could have decorated one of these temples. 36 On the Caesarea statues of Tyche with Sebastos, see Rahmani 1978; Gersht 1984, 1987:27–31, Cat. Nos. 20–24; Wenning 1986; Holum et al. 1988:11–16, Cat. No. 1. 37 In an earlier stage, this oblong plastered niche consisted of two separated niches (L1849 and L1849a; see Caesarea I, 1:138, Table 5.3). 38 Previously, the palm branch was identified as an ear of corn, the attribute of Kore-Persephone, Demeter and Isis (Gersht 1996a:316). 39 The idea that the religious ceremonies performed on the cup are the Navigium Isidis and Tyche’s birthday, both celebrated on the fifth day of March, has already been offered in Gersht 1996a:311, 316. 40 Apuleius in his Metamorphosis XI.4 notes that the sandals of Isis were made of ‘leaves of victory’.

14/10/2015 11:52:25

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

41

Herodotus (II.59) informs that at Busiris, a town in the middle of the Egyptian Delta, there was a large temple of Isis which the Greeks named Demeter. 42 The term was coined by Alroth (1987; 1989:65–66, 108– 113) to refer to anthropomorphic dedications of one deity to another. Friedland (2012b:53–57) applied the term broadly to include sculpted images of deities that are not ‘identified as main cult figures of the sanctuary’ of Pan. In this study, Friedland’s approach is adopted. The ‘visiting deities’ phenomenon is also known from literary sources; at Aigeira in Achaia, for example, it was the sanctuary of Apollo that hosted statues of Asklepios, Isis and Serapis (Pausanias, Description of Greece VII.26.7). 43 Jesi 1961; Fraser 1972 I:199, II:335, n. 73; Dunand 1973 I:71, 86–93; Griffiths 1975:126–127, 142, 147, 151, with further bibliography; Burkert 1987:26–27; Magness 2001. 44 On the medicinal qualities of the various kinds of poppies (capsules, seeds, leaves and roots) and their products: the meconium and opium, see Guillaume-Coirier 2001:1005– 1007; Crawford 1973:231–232; Soranus, Gynaeceion Pathon II. 17. 31; Pliny, NH XX.200–208. 45 See above, n. 42, regarding the statues of Asklepios, Isis and Serapis in the Temple of Apollo at Aigeira. The connection between Apollo with Isis and Serapis may also be learned from the temple built by Antoninus Pius (138– 161 CE) at Epidaurus in honor of the goddess Health, the Egyptian Asklepios and the Egyptian Apollo (Pausanias, Description of Greece II.27.6). It has been suggested that the three were Isis, Serapis and Horus/Harpocrates (Dunand 1973 II:155–156, III:259). Herodotus (II.156) states that, for the Egyptians, Apollo is called Horus and Demeter is called Isis. 46 On the Tiberieum, see Lehmann and Holum 2000:67–70, Ins. No. 43; CIIP II:228–230, No. 1277. 47 The temple was excavated by the Italians in 1959–1960 (Frova 1965:158–159). For the location of the theater, see Caesarea I, I: Plan 1.1:14. 48 The lamps are being studied by Varda Sussman and Ahuva Beeri. 49 The lamp came from the Roman Praetorium and is being studied by Varda Sussman. 50 Illustrations are not to scale; measurements appear in the catalogue entries. 51 Previously, the crest was interpreted as a stem (prora) and, hence, the figure was erroneously interpreted as standing in a galley (Gersht 2001a:73–76). 52 The equestrian game (De ludoequestri): “There are several kinds of gladiatorial games, of which the first is the equestrian game. In it, after military standards had first entered, two horsemen would come out, one from the east side and the other from the west, on white horses, bearing small gilded helmets and light weapons. In this way, with fierce perseverance, they would bravely enter combat, fighting until one of them should spring forward upon the death of the other, so that the one who fell would have defeat, the one who slew, glory. People armed like this used to fight for the sake of Mars Duellius” (translated by Barney et al. 2006). This seventh-century source, the only text describing the equites

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 191

191

in a munus in detail, accords well with other ancient sources and visual representations of equites in action. 53 On the ephippium, see Nickel 1989. 54 For a discussion of this excavation and its relation to the IAA excavations of Herod’s Circus, see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 3, pp. 62–63). 55 Note that the youth with downturned torch in the Princeton University Art Museum is similarly finished and has a support below the left buttock (Laird 2001:240–243, Cat. No. 84). Laird claims, based on the carving of the area at the base of neck and between the shoulders, that the piece was carved out of reused stone, possibly a draped figure. Unlike the Princeton piece, the Caesarea torso is not re-carved. 56 Particularly similar are the torsi in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin (Milleker 1987:241–242, Cat. No. 11, Pls. 34–36) and the Louvre (Milleker 1987:243, Cat. No. 12, Pls. 37, 38). 57 The so-called ‘Apollo in riposo’ in the Uffizi Gallery has similar posture and long locks (Mansuelli 1958:151–152, Cat. No. 122); the Kitharoidos Apollo from Caesarea is also similar, although the figure is not completely nude (Gersht 1996a:318, Fig. 13). 58 On the Wadi Hammamat greywacke, see Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000:57–58. 59 Similar incisions are found on the back of an Egyptian limestone statuette of Serapis Enthroned, now in the Allard Pierson Museum, Inv. No. 7825 (Moormann 2000:23–24, Cat. No. 26, Pl. 10d). The Allard Pierson piece is dated to the third or second century BCE. 60 On the trochades and krepides, see Morrow 1985:97–118; Goldman 2001:109, 114. 61 Cf. the restored statues of Marsyas and the Scythian slave in the Uffizi Gallery (Mansuelli 1958:84–90, Cat. Nos. 55– 57). For other sculpted depictions of the Hanging Marsyas as a sole figure or with the Scythian slave, see Rawson (1987) and Weis (1992). 62 Previously identified as poppies (Gersht 2001b:98, Fig. 3). For representations of ivy berries, see the Ara Pacis floral frieze (Simon 1986: Figs. 265–267; Castriota 1995: Figs. 10, 12), the fillet worn around Pan’s head in the Princeton University Museum (Moss 2001:108–111, Cat. No. 28) and the column bearing the garden herm of Dionysus and Ariadne in the House of the Vettii (Jashemski 1979: Fig. 59). 63 A crossed-leg satyr with a panther was found at Caesarea (Gersht 1987:39–40, Cat. No. 34; 1996b: 442, Fig. 16). For other examples of crossed-leg depictions, see Stewart 1977: Fig. 7, Pls. 45a, 45b; Paribeni 1981:279–282, Cat. No. 6 (Dionysus); Smith 1991: Fig. 51 (Tralles Boy), Figs. 148–150 (Satyrs); Stefanidou-Tiberiou 1993: Cat. Nos. 23, 48–50, 63–64 (Dionysus and Satyrs), 94–97, 112 (Eros), 113 (Psyche), 119–120, 129–131 (Ganymedes); Pasinli 1996:64– 65, Cat. No. 77 (Artemis). 64 On this, see Gersht 1996c:102. For other examples and the purposes of placing crosses on the body and forehead, see Marinescu 1996:287–292; Jacobs 2010:279–281 with references to other studies. 65 Both practices were in use until the Trajanic period (Fejfer 2008:245).

14/10/2015 11:52:25

192

Rivka Gersht

66

On struts in Greek and Roman sculpture, see Hollinshead 2002. 67 Twenty-one portrait statues of women holding poppy capsules belong to the Large Herculaneum woman type (Bieber 1962:124, 133; Trimble 2011:130–132). Scholars assume that the poppies were not part of the Greek original and that they first appeared on these statues in the Hadrianic period. It is also claimed that, at that time, the poppies and wheat ears held in one hand by imperial women lost their association with deification in favor of fecunditas, which ensured the flourishing and prosperity of the family and the

empire (Spaeth 1996:119–123; Vorster 2007:122; Trimble 2011:130–131, nn. 48–49). 68 On Greek and Roman thong sandal styles, see Morrow 1985:91–97, 165–169 and Goldman 2001:105–109. 69 Two sculpted images uncovered in Caesarea wear similar thong sandals: Athena/Minerva (Gersht 1987:24–25, Cat. No. 16; 1999c: 21–22, Fig. 10) and a standing female (Gersht 1987:50–51, Cat. No. 50). 70 On lingula types of footwear, see Morrow 1985:118–120; Goldman 2001:114–115.

R eferences Adkins L. and Adkins R.A. 1996. Dictionary of Roman Religion. New York. Alroth B. 1987. Visiting Gods—Who and Why. In T. Linders and G. Nordquist eds. Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Boreas, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 15). Uppsala. Pp. 9–19. Alroth B. 1989. Greek Gods and Figurines: Aspects of the Anthropomorphic Dedications (Boreas, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 18). Uppsala. Aston B.G., Harrell J.A. and Shaw I. 2000. Stone. In P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw eds. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge. Pp. 5–77. Bailey D.M. 2008. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum IV: Ptolemaic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. London. Barney S.A., Lewis W.J., Beach J.A. and Berghof O. 2006. The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Cambridge. Beard M., North J. and Price S. 1998. Religions of Rome I–II. Cambridge. Bertoletti M., Cima M. and Talamo E. 2007. Centrale Montemartini Musei Capitolini. Milan. Bieber M. 1957. A Bronze Statuette in Cincinnati and Its Place in the History of the Asklepios Types. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 101:70–92. Bieber M. 1962. The Copies of the Herculaneum Women. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106:111–134. Biers W.R. 1975. The Theater at Phlius: Excavations 1973. Hesperia 44:51–68. Bingöl O. 1998. Magnesia on the Meander. Ankara. Boatwright M.T. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton. Bomgardner D.L. 1989. The Carthage Amphitheater: A Reappraisal. AJA 93:85–103. Bowra C. M. 1957. Melinno’s Hymn to Rome. JRS 47:21–28 Burkert W. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, Mass. Calza R. 1976. Le opere d’arte. In G. Pisani Sartorio and R. Calza. La Villa di Massenzio Sulla Via Appia: Il Palazzo— Le Opere D’Arte. Rome. Pp. 159–213.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 192

Caputo G. 1987. Il Teatro Augusteo di Leptis Magna: Scavo e Restauro (1937–1951). Rome. Castriota D. 1995. The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art. Princeton. Clerc G. and Leclant J. 1994. Sarapis. LIMC VII/1:666–692. Cook A.B. 1965. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion II: Zeus God of the Dark Sky (Thunder and Lightning) Part II: Appendixes and Index. New York. Crawford D.J. 1973. The Opium Poppy: A Study in Ptolemaic Agriculture. In M.I. Finley ed. Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne. Paris. Pp. 223–251. de Bernardi Ferrero D. 1970. Teatri Classici in Asia Minore III. Rome. de Bernardi Ferrero D. 1974. Teatri Classici in Asia Minore IV. Rome. Dejean H. 2012. Gladiateurs sur les lampes à huile antiques. Draguignan. Dillon S. 2006. Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture: Contexts, Subjects and Styles. Cambridge, Mass. Donaldson T.L. 1965. Ancient Architecture on Greek and Roman Coins and Medals. Chicago. Dow S. and Upson F.S. 1944. The Foot of Sarapis. Hesperia 13:58–77. Dowden K. 1996. Marsyas (1). In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford. p. 930. Dunand F. 1973. Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée I–III. Leiden. Dunand F. 1979. Religion populaire en Égypte romaine: Les terres cuites isiaques du Musée du Caire. Leiden. Dunand F. 1981. Agathodaimon. LIMC I/1:277–282. Dunkle R. 2008. Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome. London. Edelstein E.J. and Edelsein L. 1998. Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies I–II. Baltimore. Farnell L.R. 1992a. Hekate in Art. In S. Ronan ed. The Goddess Hekate: Studies in Ancient Pagan and Christian Religion and Philosophy 1. Hastings. Pp. 36–47.

14/10/2015 11:52:25

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

Farnell L.R. 1992b. Hekate’s Cult. In S. Ronan ed. The Goddess Hekate: Studies in Ancient Pagan and Christian Religion and Philosophy 1. Hastings. Pp. 17–35. Fayer C. 1975. La “Dea Roma” sulle monete greche. Studi Romani—Rivista Trimestrale dell’Instituto di Studi Romani 23:273–288. Fejfer J. 2008. Roman Portraits in Context. Berlin. Fraser P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria I–III. Oxford. Friedland E.A. 2012a. Marble Sculpture in the Roman Near East: Remarks on Import, Production, and Impact. In T.M. Kristensen and B. Poulsen eds. Ateliers and Artisans in Roman Art and Archaeology (JRA Suppl. Series 92). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 55–73. Friedland E.A. 2012b. The Roman Marble Sculptures from the Sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi/Panias (Israel) (ASOR Archaeological Reports 17). Boston. Frova A. 1965. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Milan. Futrell A. 2006. The Roman Games: A Sourcebook. Oxford. Gallo D. 1982. Una rappresentazione di SerapisAgathodaimon a Roma. In U. Bianchi and M.J. Vermaseren eds. La Soteriologia dei Culti Orientali nell’ Impero Romano: Atti del Colloquio internazionale su La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero Romano, Roma, 24–28 Settembre 1979. Leiden. Pp. 139–144. García y Bellido A. 1949. Esculturas romanas de España y Portugal. Madrid. Geiger J. 1997. Die Olympiodorbüste aus Caesarea. ZDPV 113:70–74. Gersht R. 1984. The Tyche of Caesarea Maritima. PEQ 116:110–114. Gersht R. 1987. The Sculpture of Caesarea Maritima. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English abstract, pp. I–IX). Gersht R. 1995. The Importation of Sculpture to Caesarea. In O. Rimon ed. Caesarea—a Mercantile City by the Sea (The Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Catalogue 12). Haifa. Pp. 34*–38*. Gersht R. 1996a. Representations of Deities and the Cults of Caesarea. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 305–324. Gersht R. 1996b. Roman Copies Discovered in the Land of Israel. In R. Katzoff, Y. Petroff and D. Schaps eds. Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg. Ramat Gan. Pp. 433–450. Gersht R. 1996c. Three Greek and Roman Portrait Statues from Caesarea Maritima. ‘Atiqot 28:99–113. Gersht R. 1999a. Isis and Serapis the Healers. Michmanim 13:17–27 (Hebrew; English abstract, pp. 71*–72*). Gersht R. 1999b. Roman Statuary Used in Byzantine Caesarea. In K.G. Holum, A. Raban and J. Patrich eds. Caesarea Papers II: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard, and other studies (JRA Suppl. Series 35). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 389–398. Gersht R. 1999c. Sculpture. In R. Gersht ed. The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima in

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 193

193

Memory of Aharon Wegman. Tel Aviv. Pp. 15–47, 186–188 (Hebrew; English abstract, pp. 3*–5*). Gersht R. 2001a. Aquatic Figure Types from CaesareaMaritima. Assaph Studies in Art History 6:63–90. Gersht R. 2001b. Life and Afterlife: The Dionysiac Realm in Roman Palestine. In I. Zinguer ed. Dionysos: Origines et résurgences. Paris. Pp. 96–102, 177–180. Gersht R. 2006. Visual Representations of the Poppy in Greek and Roman Art. In E. Ayalon, Z. Yaniv, R. Gersht, Z. Amar and T. Shezaf. Forbidden Fields: The Poppy and Opium from Ancient Times till Today (Eretz Israel Museum Catalogue ). Tel Aviv. Pp. 30–41 (Hebrew, pp. 88–107). Gersht R. 2008. Caesarean Sculpture in Context. In Y.Z. Eliav, E.A. Friedland and S. Herbert eds. The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology and Power. Leuven. Pp. 509–538. Goldman N. 2001. Roman Footwear. In J.L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante eds. The World of Roman Costume. Madison, Wis. Pp. 101–130. Golvin J.C. 1988. L’amphithéâtre romain: Essai sur la théorisation de sa forme et de ses fonctions. Paris. Golvin J.C. and Landes C. 1990. Amphithéâtres et gladiateurs. Paris. Grenfell B.P. and Hunt A.S. 1899. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part XI . London. Griffiths J.G. 1961. The Death of Cleopatra VII. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47:113–118. Griffiths J.G. 1975. Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI). Leiden. Guillaume-Coirier G. 2001. Le pavot fertile dans les mondes mycénien, grec et romain: Réalité et symbolique. Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome Antiquité 113:999–1044. Gurval R.A. 1995. Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor. Hamburger A. 1968. Gems from Caesarea Maritima (‘Atiqot [ES] 8). Jerusalem. Harrison E.B. 1986. Charis, Charites. LIMC III/1:191–203. Henrichs A. 1968. Vespasian’s Visit to Alexandria. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 3:51–80. Hollinshead M.B. 2002. Extending the Reach of Marble: Struts in Greek and Roman Sculpture. In E.K. Gazda ed. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Suppl. 1). Ann Arbor. Pp. 117–152. Hölscher T. 1984. Actium und Salamis. JDAI 99:187–214. Hölscher T. 1985. Denkmäler der Schlacht von Actium. Propaganda und Resonanz. Klio 67:81–102. Hölscher T. 1988. Historische Reliefs. In M. Hofter ed. Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. Berlin. Pp. 351–400. Hölscher T. 1994. Monumenti statali e pubblico. Rome. Holtzmann B. 1984. Asklepios. LIMC II/1:863–897. Holum K.G., Hohlfelder R.L., Bull R.J. and Raban A. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York. Hornbostel W. 1973. Sarapis: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte, den Erscheinungsformen und Wandlungen der Gestalt eines Gottes. Leiden.

14/10/2015 11:52:25

194

Rivka Gersht

Hornum M.B. 1993. Nemesis, the Roman State and the Games. Leiden. Humphrey J.H. 1986. Roman Circuses, Arenas for Chariot Racing. Berkeley. Jacobelli L. 2003. Gladiators at Pompeii. Los Angeles. Jacobs I. 2010. Production to Destruction? Pagan and Mythological Statuary in Asia Minor. AJA 114:267–303. Jashemski W.F. 1979. The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius. New Rochelle. Jesi F. 1961. Iside in figura di Kore? Aegyptus 41:74–87. Junkelmann M. 2000. Familia Gladiatoria: The Heroes of the Amphitheatre. In E. Köhne and C. Ewigleben (English version edited by R. Jackson). Gladiators and Caesars: The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome. London. Pp. 31–74. Kadman L. 1957. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium II). Jerusalem. Karageorghis V. and Vermeule C.C. 1964. Sculpture from Salamis I. Nicosia. Kerényi C. 1967. Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. R. Manheim transl. Princeton. Kerényi C. 1976. Dionysos, Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life. R. Manheim transl. Princeton. Kleiner D.E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven. Klimowsky E.W. 1982–1983. The Origin and Meaning of Marsyas in the Greek Imperial Coinage. INJ 6–7:88–101. Kloner A. and Hübsch A. 1996. The Roman Amphitheater of Bet Guvrin: A Preliminary Report on the 1992, 1993 and 1994 Seasons.‘Atiqot 30:85–106. Kockel V. 1983. Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner Tor in Pompeji. Mainz am Rhein. Kraus T. 1960. Hekate: Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland. Heidelberg. Krauss F. 1973. Das Theater von Milet 1: Das hellenistische Theater. Der römische Zuschauerbau. Berlin. Laird M.L. 2001. Youth with a Downturned Torch. In J.M. Padgett ed. Roman Sculpture in the Art Museum Princeton University. Princeton. Pp. 240–243. Le Glay M. 1978. «Un pied de Sarapis» à Timgad, en Numidie. In M.B. de Boer and T.A. Edridge eds. Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren II. Leiden. Pp. 573–589. Lehmann C.M. and Holum K.G. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima. (The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Excavation Reports 5). Boston. Levine L.I. 1975. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden. Lowe J.E. 1992. Magical Hekate. In S. Ronan ed. The Goddess Hekate: Studies in Ancient Pagan and Christian Religion and Philosophy 1. Hastings. Pp. 11–15. Lugli G. 1971. The Flavian Amphitheatre (The Colosseum). Rome. Magness J. 2001. The Cults of Isis and Kore at SamariaSebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. The Harvard Theological Review 94:157–177. Maiuri A. 1955. Studi e ricerche sull’anfiteatro flavio puteolano. Naples. Mansuelli G.A. 1958. Galleria degli Uffizi: Le Sculture Parte I. Rome.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 194

Marcadé J. 1980. Sculptures argiennes (III). Supplément du Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 6:133–184. Marinescu C.A. 1996. Transformations: Classical Objects and Their Re-Use during Late Antiquity. In R.W. Mathisen and H.S. Sivan eds. Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Aldershot. Pp. 285–298. Mellor R. 1975. ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. Göttingen. Mellor R. 1981. The Goddess Roma. ANRW II 17/2:950– 1030. Merkelbach R. 2001. Isis Regina—Zeus Sarapis. Munich– Leipzig. Millar F. 1993. The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge. Milleker E.J. 1987. The Statue of Apollo Lykeios in Athens. Ph.D. diss. Ann Arbor, Mich. Mitropoulou E. 1977. Deities and Heroes in the Form of Snakes. Athens. Moormann E.M. 2000. Ancient Sculpture in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam (Collection of the Allard Pierson Museum 1). Amsterdam. Morrow K.D. 1985. Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture. Madison, Wis. Moss C. 2001. Herm Bust of Pan. In J.M. Padgett ed. Roman Sculpture in the Art Museum Princeton University. Princeton. Pp. 108–111. Nickel H. 1989. The Emperor’s New Saddle Cloth: The Ephippium of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius. Metropolitan Museum Journal 24:17–24. Orr D.G. 1978. Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of the Household Shrines. ANRW II 16/2:1557–1591. Papadopoulos J. 1979. Statua di Afrodite: tipo Cnidia (inv. n. 113266). In A. Giuliano ed. Museo Nazionale Romano: Le Sculture I, 1. Rome. Pp. 67–69. Paribeni E. 1959. Catalogo del Sculture di Cirene. Rome. Paribeni E. 1981. Statua di Dioniso Ebbro (inv. n. 74026). In A. Giuliano ed. Museo Nazionale Romano: Le Sculture I, 2. Rome. Pp. 279–282. Pasinli A. 1996. Istanbul Archaeological Museum. Istanbul. Patrich J. 2001. The Carceres of the Herodian Hippodrome/ Stadium at Caesarea Maritima and Connections with the Circus Maximus. JRA 14:269–283. Patrich J. 2011. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae. Leiden. Pietrzykowski M. 1978. Sarapis—Agathos Daimon. In M.B. de Boer and T.A. Edridge eds. Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren III. Leiden. Pp. 959–966. Pollini J. 1993. The Acanthus of the Ara Pacis as an Apolline and Dionysiac Symbol of Anamorphosis, Anakyklosis and Numen Mixtum. In M. Kubelik and M. Schwarz eds. Festschrift für Alois Machatschek zum 65 Geburtstag. Vienna. Pp. 181–217. Poulsen F. 1920. La Collection Ustinow. La Sculpture. Oslo. Poulsen V.H. 1935. A Late-Greek Relief in Beirut. Berytus 2:51–56. Price S.R.F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

14/10/2015 11:52:25

Chapter 7: The Sculpture Uncovered in Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings

Rahmani L.Y. 1978. Un autel funéraire romain à Césarée Maritime. RB 85:268–276. Rawson P.B. 1987. The Myth of Marsyas in the Roman Visual Arts (BAR Int. S. 347). Oxford. Richardson L. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore. Richardson P. 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia, S.C. Richter G.M.A. 1953. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Handbook of the Greek Collection. Cambridge, Mass. Richter G.M.A. 1965. The Portraits of the Greeks I–III. London. Ridgway B.S. 1990. Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. Madison, Wis. Roller D.W. 1998. The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley. Rosenberger M. 1975. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel Collection) II: Caesarea, Diospolis, Dora, Eleutheropolis, Gaba, Gaza & Joppa. Jerusalem. Rosh A. 1950. Handbook to the Collection of Ancient Art I: Provincial Sculpture. Haifa. Salmon E.T. 1970. Roman Colonization under the Republic. Ithaca. Sarian H. 1992. Hekate. LIMC VI/1:985–1018. Scullard H.H. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Ithaca. Schwartz D.R. 1989. ‘Caesarea’ and Its ‘Isactium’. Cathedra 51:21–34 (Hebrew). Schwartz D.R. 1992. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Tübingen. Sear F. 2006. Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study. Oxford. Settis S. 1988. Die Ara Pacis. In M.R. Hofter ed. Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik Mainz. Pp. 400–426. Small J.P. 1982. Cacus and Marsyas in Etrusco-Roman Legend. Princeton. Simon E. 1986. Augustus Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende. Munich. Smith A.H. 1916. Some Recently Acquired Reliefs in the British Museum. JHS 36:65–86. Smith R.R.R. 1991. Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook. London. Spaeth B.S. 1996. The Roman Goddess Ceres. Austin, Tex. Stähli A. 1991. Die Datierung des Karneades-Bildnisses. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 219–252. Stefanidou-Tiberiou 1993. Τραπεζοφόρα με πλαστική διακόσμηση. Η Αττική Ομάδα. Athens (Greek). Stewart A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (2 vols.). New Haven.

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 195

195

Stewart A.F. 1977. Skopas of Paros. Park Ridge, N.J. Stuart Jones H. ed. 1912. A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino. Oxford. Sumi G.S. 2005. Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire. Ann Arbor. Thiersch H. 1914. Caesarea Palestinae. ZDPV 37:62–63. Thomas R. 2008. Die Gladiatoren vom Apellhofplatz in Köln. Kölner Jahrbuch 41:345–442. Thür H. 2005. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde (Forschungen in Ephesos VIII/6).Vienna. Tran Tam Tinh V. 1983. Sérapis debout: Corpus des monuments de Sérapis debout et étude iconographique. Leiden. Trimble J. 2011. Women and Visual Replication in Roman Imperial Art and Culture. Cambridge–New York. Turnheim Y. and Ovadiah A. 1996. Miscellaneous Ornamented Architectural Elements in Roman Caesarea. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 262–304. Vermeule C.C. 1959. The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire. Cambridge, Mass. Vorster C. 2007. Greek Origins: The Herculaneum Women in the Pre-Roman World. In J. Daehner ed. The Herculaneum Women: History, Context, Identities. Los Angeles. Pp. 113–139. Weis H.A. 1992. The Hanging Marsyas Statue and Its Copies: Roman Innovations in a Hellenistic Sculptural Tradition. Rome. Weiss Z. 1996. The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 443–453. Weiss Z. 2014. Public Spectacles in Roman and Late Antique Palestine. Cambridge, Mass. Wenning R. 1986. Die Stadtgöttin von Caesarea Maritima. Boreas, Münstersche Beiträge zur Archäologie 9:113–129. Werth N. 2006. Hekate: Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Göttin. Hamburg. West D.R. 1995. Some Cults of Greek Goddesses and Female Daemons of Oriental Origin. Kevelaer. Wild R.A. 1981. Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis. Leiden. Will E. 1983. La coupe de Césarée de Palestine au Musée du Louvre. Monuments et Mémoires de la Fondation Piot 65:1–24. Zanker P. 1990. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. A. Shapiro transl. Ann Arbor. Zemer A. 1997. From the Treasures of Caesarea (The National Maritime Museum Catalogue). Haifa.

14/10/2015 11:52:25

Ceasarea-I-1a-chap-7.indd 196

14/10/2015 11:52:25

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 8

The Greek I nscriptions from the Shrine Hannah M. Cotton and Werner Eck1

Three marble artifacts bearing Greek inscriptions were found in Fill 1844 of Shrine 1909, which was quarried under the East Cavea of the Stratum VIB circus. The space continued to be used as part of the Stratum VIA shrine of Complex 2000 and may have served as a favissa in Stratum V (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapters 4, 5). A marble slab (Inscription No. 1) was found in the foundation trench of Well 8624 (dated to the postByzantine period) that penetrated Fill 1844. Four marble feet, two of which are inscribed, were discovered nearby (Inscription Nos. 2, 3; see Chapter 7: Cat. Nos. 21, 23). Together, they form what may be a favissa under Room 1880 of the C2000 shrine (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapters 4, 5), although the context is disturbed and may be assigned from Stratum VI (first century CE) to as late as Stratum V (Byzantine period).

Marble Slab (Second –Third Centuries CE) Inscription No. 1 (Reg. No. 6/94-86867; Fig. 8.1; Porath 1995; Gersht 1996:305–324; Humphrey 1996:125; CIIP II: No. 1136)2 This small blue marble slab (11.5 cm high, 21 cm wide and 2 cm thick) was prepared from a larger marble slab by chiseling very roughly rather than by sawing, although lines intended to mark where the slab should have been sawn are visible at the top and at the bottom. The inscription consists of two lines. The letters are 1.6–1.9 cm high in the first line, and 1.4–1.8 cm high in the second. A plant, perhaps a palm branch, was incised in the middle of the slab. The word in Line 1 is flanked on both sides by an ivy leaf.

Fig 8.1. Inscription No. 1.

Μύρισμος ¹νίοχος

Myrismos (the) charioteer

Each of the two words is attested both as a noun and as a proper name. Μυρισμός in its literal meaning of ‘anointing’ occurs in extremely rare instances (cf. Liddell, Scott and Jones 1940:1154). As a proper name, Μύρισμος is not that rare in antiquity, but most of the evidence dates from imperial Roman times (see Lexicon I:321; II:322; IIIA:307; cf. also Robert and Robert 1953:175, 1974:295, No. 572, 7; Petzl 1987: No. 699), with quite a few attestations in Rome itself (Solin 1982:1153; 14 examples). Bearers of the name are of diverse social standing; e.g., note a pantomime player from Magnesia also bears this name (Kern 1900: No. 165). The Μύρισμος in our inscription is described as an ¹niίocoj, i.e., one who holds the reins, a driver, a charioteer—a meaning attested already in the Iliad. It is highly unlikely that it is used here in the general sense of ‘a driver’ or ‘a transporter of goods’, as it is used for example in the Diocletian price edict, where it denotes a profession that earns its bearer two drachmas (SEG 37: No. 335). Such humble occupations are seldom recorded

198

Hannah M. Cotton and Werner Eck

in inscriptions. It would be strange indeed to have this sense of ¹νίοχος as the sole attribute after the name, especially after a name with distinguished associations; in fact, the name Myrismos would be quite exceptional for an ordinary driver. Here, it must mean a charioteer, a man who appears in the circus in chariot races—an occupation which in some circles earned its bearer social status, at least among the chariot-racing fans. ‘Ηνίοχος in the sense of ‘charioteer in circus chariotraces’ is attested, for instance, in many curse tablets from Carthage, in which chariots and their riders were relegated to the gods of the Underworld (IGR I: Nos. 940–945, 952; SEG 40: No. 921). An epitaph in Rome of a certain Ζώιλος reads ¹νιόχων προφερέστατος, ‘the most outstanding charioteer’ (IG XIV: No. 1628; IGR I: No. 259; IGUR III: No. 1223). Another text from the city of Rome mentions a κλυτòς ¹νίοχος Πολυνείκh; in the Latin part of the funerary titulus, his numerous and glorious victories in chariot-races are enumerated (CIL VI: No. 10049; IGR I: No. 223; IGUR III: No. 1171). Discussion Although this slab was found in the circus area inside the remains of a small shrine, where four out of six marble feet were excavated (see below and Chapter 7: Cat. Nos. 19–24), it was not found in situ, but deposited in a fill that may be as late as the Byzantine period. Thus, neither the archaeological context nor the words of the text can conclusively reveal its original function. Moreover, as a small slab, it could easily have been removed from its original location and reused elsewhere. If its original context is the circus, the natural inclination would be to link a tablet mentioning a charioteer with this facility. Yet, what function could the tablet have had in a circus area? The possibility that the tablet served as a name plate, i.e., a seat reserved among the spectators for Myrismos, is excluded by the fact that both name and occupation appear in the nominative and not in the genitive case. The nominative case may suggest that the small tablet stood under a portrait located perhaps inside the chariot-racing facility, where the inscription was found. Occasionally, the nominative is found under such statues or busts instead of the dative or accusative usually employed for the honorand’s name (cf.

Knoepfler 1977:304 ff.; Clinton 1989:58 f.).3 Thus, for instance, Πόпλιος А‡lioj 'Alkandr…daj Damokrat…daj LakedaimÒnioj is inscribed under the late secondcentury CE statue of a victorious athlete in Olympia (Dittenberger and Purgold 1896: No. 238). In this case, one must assume that, at least formally, this is not an honorary statue, but a dedication by the victorious athlete himself of his own statue to Zeus. This intention is true of many inscriptions in Olympia. It is unclear whether this was permissible in the case of a successful charioteer in Caesarea. The main arguments, however, against assigning our tablet to the context of a public circus, where portraits of other victorious competitors are surely to have been erected, is the small size of the tablet and the poor craftsmanship in the execution of the inscription. In the public domain one would expect a more impressive tablet, clearer writing and a more careful ordinatio.4 Instead, a different context for this tablet should be sought. Two other possibilities may be proffered. One, the inscription could have been placed under a votive gift in the small shrine in which it was found. In such a case, the careless workmanship would be less offensive and the size of the slab acceptable. Two, the tablet could have been placed in a funerary context, e.g., in the outer wall of a burial monument to signify an individual burial place, or a loculus where an urn with ashes was placed.5 It should be pointed out, that ordinary funerary texts in Greek found so far in Caesarea refer directly to the grave, employing phrasing that follows the name of the deceased in the genitive: θ»kh, μημόριον, μνÁμα, τόπος.6 Here, however, we have the name and the occupation in the nominative as they are also found, for instance, in an inscription from Tyre.7 This text is one example of epigraphic evidence for the activity of charioteers in Caesarea.8 Chariot races took place in Herod’s Circus, with some periods of hiatus, from the end of the first century until the third century CE (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapters 3–5) and, subsequently, in the East Circus. The stratigraphy of the shrine where the tablet was found was disturbed, and as it continued to function in various forms until the fourth century CE, it is impossible to know the date of this particular Myrismos and in which Caesarea circus he raced.9

Chapter 8: The Greek Inscriptions from the Shrine

Marble Feet (Second –Fourth Centuries CE) Inscription No. 2 (Reg. No. 6/94-65099; Fig. 8.2; see Chapter 7: Cat. No. 21; CIIP II: No. 1130)10 This sandaled right foot of a female figure, of white marble, measures 22 cm long, 8 cm wide and 12.4 cm high. The laces of the sandal are well-preserved, but the first toe is broken. The letter height is irregular, between 0.9 and 1.1 cm high. There are four lines of text on the flat surface created by the section of the calf above the ankle. A foot dedicated to Isis, which comes from Alexandria, is inscribed in an identical manner (Adriani 1961: No. 190; Castiglione 1971:36, No. 7 (“Sarapis Füße”).11 The text reads as follows: ..... [.]H KOPH [.]APBA POC In Line 1, there are remains of three letters: a vertical stroke, followed by an oblique hasta going up right, followed by the remains of another vertical hasta. In Line 2, before the Κ, a vertical stroke is visible. It is uncertain whether or not the remains of a horizontal line preceding this vertical stroke belong to it. The text must be restored as follows:12 ..... | [τṼ ΚόρV| [Β] άρβα|ρος Barbarus (dedicated this foot) to ... Kore

This dedication is to the goddess Kore, whose name can be spelt either Κόρα or Κόρη. The name of the dedicant should probably to be restored as [Β]£ρβαρος. Barbarus is a Roman cognomen,13 hitherto unattested in the Greek and Latin inscriptions of Caesarea (Gersht 1996; Lehmann and Holum 2000). The Roman cognomen does not prove that the dedicant is a Roman citizen, while at the same time the use of Greek does not automatically make him a person of a peregrine or servile status.14 A Roman official coming from the Greek-speaking East could use his mother tongue in a private dedication to a god or to the emperor, as does the procurator Antipater in a Greek inscription from Caesarea (CIIP II 1289). Inscription No. 3 (Reg. No. 6/94-1944; Fig. 8.3; see Chapter 7: Cat. No. 23; CIIP II: No. 1131) This white marble right foot greatly resembles No. 2 (Porath 1995:21, Fig. 10), although, unlike No. 2 it bears no sign of sandal-straps. It is poised on a flat thin base, which does not look very different from the sandal of No. 2. The second toe is broken. It measures 19.3 cm in length, 10 cm in height and 9.2 cm in width; the letter height is c. 9 mm. Similarly to No. 2, this foot also bears an inscription on the flat surface created by the section of the calf above the ankle, possibly four lines. Its poor state of preservation does not allow us to decide where the text begins. The assumed beginning is marked on the photograph. No letters can be recognized in Lines 1 and 2. In Line 3 we should read perhaps Α[.]ΓΗε, and in the last line, perhaps an O. If it follows the model of No. 2, then the name of the deity occupied the first and second

→

Fig 8.2. Inscription No. 2.

199

Fig 8.3. Inscription No. 3.

200

Hannah M. Cotton and Werner Eck

lines, and the letters Α[Υ]ΓΗ . . . belong to the (male or female) dedicant.15 Since the surface is badly worn out, this reading, too, must remain uncertain. Discussion The mention here of the goddess Kore or Persephone is the first such attestation in Caesarea.16 However, the total number of gods known to be worshiped in the capital of the province is quite small (Gersht 1996; Lehmann and Holum 2000; CIIP II:53–54). The other votive feet found in the shrine can be shown to be linked to the worship of the Egyptian gods Isis and Serapis, with their entwined snakes (see Porath 1995; Gersht 1996; and literature in Dunand 1973:129, n. 2). Serapis appears on coins from Caesarea from Hadrian’s time onward. The same is true of Demeter, Kore’s divine mother. The latter’s portrait, however, appears on coins only toward the end of the second century CE (Levine 1975:42 f.). In our sources, Kore is sporadically mentioned together with these three gods. Harpocrates, the son of Isis and Serapis, is called Δήμητρος καˆ Κόρης καˆ Διονύσου . . . ¢δελφός in an inscription from Euboea (Harder 1943: No. 14, 1 ff.; Vidmann 1969:40 f., No. 88).17 Kore is often worshiped together with her mother, Demeter, in inscriptions (IGR I: No. 195; IV: No. 1692), but sometimes she appears alone (cf., e.g., IGR I: Nos. 88, 89, 603; IV: No. 164). Individual human limbs, like the feet described here, cast in a variety of materials—bronze, stone, marble or terracotta—serve as votive gifts and are found in shrines. The dedications constitute an act of thanksgiving for the healing of the corresponding part of the body. However, this meaning is not present—at least in the cult of the Egyptian gods, and especially

of Serapis—in a foot with a sandal or in one placed on a small base. In such cases, the objects should be considered cultic, representing the deity to which a bond is symbolized. Typically, the outstretched right foot of the colossal statues of Serapis was the object of worship.18 Thus, no wonder that only the right foot of the god is found as an autonomous object. The same is probably true of the feet found in the small shrine in Herod’s Circus. The dedication of such a foot to the goddess Kore demonstrates that this form of worship could be transferred from the worship of Serapis to that of other gods in his circle. However, as this instance is the first, and sole, presentation of a foot to the goddess Kore, it is uncertain that Barbarus, in dedicating the foot to her, had in mind the same symbolic content as is present in such dedications to Serapis. Another example of such a sandaled foot from the Roman province of Iudaea/Syria Palaestina was found in Jerusalem. It is of similar size (18 cm in length, 13 cm in height and also bears an inscription, Πονπε‹α Λουκίλια ¢νέθηκεν (CIIP I: No. 709; Dussaud 1912:28 ff.; Castiglione 1971:42, No. 36 with Pl. 19; see, finally, Arnould 1997:255 f.), but no divinity is mentioned. The snake wound around the ankle is missing as well. Its cultic role, if any, is unknown. Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence does not allow us to determine to which period of the shrine these objects belong; any date between the second and fourth centuries CE is possible. The shrine was obviously of a syncretistic character, but it is not clear to which deity it was dedicated. Three other feet are ‘entwined with snakes’; thus, their shape and specific variety may be associated either with Isis or Serapis (See Chapter 7: Cat. Nos. 19, 20, 22 and Gersht 1996:310).

Notes Professor Hannah M. Cotton holds the Shalom Horowitz Chair in Classics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Professor Werner Eck is from the Historisches Institut–Alte Geschichte, Universität zu Köln. 2 For Porath, see esp. pp. 21 and 23, where Μύρισμο was read, and for Gersht, see esp. p. 315. 3 Clinton refers to inscriptions under imperial statues on an arch in Eleusis. We are grateful to Michael Wörrle (Munich) for his helpful suggestions. 1

Notwithstanding the reservations given in the text, if the inscription did belong to such a context, then it would have been placed under the charioteer’s statue. 5 See, e.g., a small slab with a funerary inscription from Caesarea published by Lifshitz (1965:99, No. 4 = AE 1967 No. 527 = Lehmann and Holum 2000: No. 164). 6 See examples in Lehmann and Holum 2000. 7 Among the funerary inscriptions of Tyre in Syria-Phoenicia, where the occupations of the deceased are mentioned much 4

Chapter 8: The Greek Inscriptions from the Shrine

more frequently than usual, there is only a single example in which only the name and occupation are recorded in the nominative; see Rey-Coquais 1977:68, No. 117: Δόμνος οÙετράριος. On the other hand, more inscriptions of this kind can be found among Greek funerary inscriptions from Rome; see IGUR II Nos. 480, 497, 524 (?), 612, 723, 726, 746, 771, 857, 892, 981, 1049, 1954. 8 A curse tablet was recovered in the East Circus that was clearly devised by one charioteer against another (CIIP II: No. 1679). 9 For entertainments in Caesarea, see Weiss 1996; 1999. 10 Note that the registration numbers for this and the subsequent inscribed foot are different from those in CIIP II; those published here are the correct ones. 11 See text below for a foot from Jerusalem. 12 Gersht (1996:311) reads [τ]Í ΚόρV [Β]άρβαρος. 13 It is not to be interpreted as a Greek proper name; Solin (1982) does not include Barbarus, but see Solin (1996:128) where the name is listed among Latin slave names. However, it is attested many times for persons of senatorial and equestrian rank, cf. PIR vol. I:352. A complete list of the

201

names in PIR is now available at http://www.bbaw.de/vh/pir/ index.html. 14 We wish to thank Georg Petzl (Cologne) for his help with this reading. 15 The important book by Zuntz (1971) has nothing to say on the issues discussed below. 16 The association of the Isis-Serapis cult with that of Demeter-Kore is apparent also in the list of priesthoods borne by Fabia Anconia Paulina, wife of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, as well as that of her initiations, CIL VI No. 1780 = ILS No. 1260. In general, on the connections between Kore and Isis, see Merkelbach 1995: Nos. 38, 51, 96, 184; Dunand 1973:269. 17 For the evidence and its interpretation, see Dow and Upson 1944:58–77; Castiglione 1971:30 ff.; Adriani 1961: Pls. 86–88; Le Glay 1978:573–589; Lemke 1994:219. We are grateful to Henner v. Hesberg (Cologne) for the information. 18 It was found in the foundations of the medieval vaults c. 50 m to the northwest of St. Anne’s Church. Present location: Museum of Louvre, Paris, Inv. No. AO 5061.

R eferences Adriani A. 1961. Repertorio d’arte dell’ Egitto GrecoRomano. Palermo. AE: Année épigraphique, Paris 1888—. Arnould C. 1997. Les arcs romaines de Jérusalem: Architecture, décor et urbanisme. Göttingen. Castiglione L. 1971. Zur Frage der Sarapis Füße. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 97:30–43. CIL: Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Clinton K. 1989. Hadrian’s Contribution to the Renaissance of Eleusis. In S. Walker and A. Cameron eds. The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire: Papers from the Tenth British Museum Classical Colloquium (University of London, Institute for Classical Studies, Bulletin Suppl. 55). London. Pp. 56–68. Dittenberger W. and Purgold K. 1896. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin. Dow S. and Upson F.S. 1944. The Foot of Sarapis. Hesperia 13:58–77. Dunand F. 1973. Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la méditerranée III: Le culte d’Isis en Asie mineure; Clergé et rituel des sanctuaires isiaques. Leiden. Dussaud N. 1912. Les monument palestiniens et judaiques du Louvre. Paris. Gersht R. 1996. Representations of Deities and the Cults of Caesarea. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 305–324.

Harder R. 1943. Karpokrates von Chalkis und die memphitische Isispropaganda (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 14). Jahrgang. Humphrey J.H. 1996. Amphitheatrical” Hippo-Stadia’. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 121–129. IG: Inscriptiones Graecae. IGR: Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes I–IV. R. Cagnat ed. Paris 1906–1927. IGUR: Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae I–III. L. Moretti ed. Rome 1968–1990. ILS: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae I–III. H. Dessau ed. Berlin 1896–1916. Kern O. 1900. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander I. Berlin. Knoepfler D. 1977. Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalcis I. Trois bases de statue et un sculpteur athénien. BCH 101:297–312. Le Glay M. 1978. Un “pied de Sarapis” à Timgad, en Numidie. In M.B.de Boer and T.A. Edridge eds. Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren II. Leiden. Pp. 573–589. Lehmann C.M. and Holum K.G. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima. Boston. Lemke K. 1994. Das Iseum Campense in Rom. Heidelberg. Levine L.I. 1975. Caesarea under the Roman Rule (Studies in Judaics in Late Antiquity VII). Leiden.

202

Hannah M. Cotton and Werner Eck

Lexicon I: P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names I: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica. Oxford 1987. Lexicon II: M.J. Osborne and S.G. Byrne. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica. Oxford 1994. Lexicon IIIA: P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names IIIA: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia. Oxford 1997. Liddell H.G., Scott R. and Jones H.S. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.). Oxford. Lifshitz B. 1965. Inscriptions grecques de Césarée en Palestine. RB 72:98:107. Merkelbach R. 1995. Isis regina-Zeus Sarapis: Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart. Petzl G. 1987. Die Inschriften von Smyrna II.1 (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 24). Bonn. PIR: Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Berlin 1933–. http:// www.bbaw.de/vh/pir/index.html. Porath Y. 1995. Herod’s “Amphitheatre” at Caesarea: A Multipurpose Entertainment Building. In J.H. Humphrey ed. The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA Suppl. Series 14). Ann Arbor. Pp. 15–27.

Rey-Coquais J.-P. 1977. Inscriptions Grecques et Latines découvertes dans les fouilles de Tyr (1963–1974) I: Inscriptions de la nécropole I. Paris. Robert J. and Robert L. 1953. Bulletin épigraphique. Revue des Études Grecques 66:113–212. Robert J. and Robert L. 1974. Bulletin épigraphique. Revue des Études Grecques 87:186–340. SEG: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden 1923–, Amsterdam 1979–. Solin H. 1982. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch. Berlin. Solin H. 1996. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen: Ein Namenbuch. Stuttgart. Vidmann L. 1969. Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapicae. Berlin. Weiss Z. 1996. The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea. In A. Raban and K.G. Holum eds. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden. Pp. 443–453. Weiss Z. 1999. Adopting a Novelty: the Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine. In J.H. Humphrey ed. The Roman and Byzantine Near East II: Some Recent Archaeological Research. Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 23–49. Zuntz G. 1971. Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia. Oxford.

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Chapter 9

Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus Omri Lernau1

Introduction Excavations carried out east of Herod’s Circus in Caesarea exposed Cesspit 3898, which was connected to Basin 3856 inside Room 3900 of the ‘Modified’ ‘Pillared Gallery’ C3800, next to the East Cavea (for details see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4, Plans 4.1, 4.12). Soil samples from this cesspit yielded 1431 fish remains. This report presents the identified bones and their analysis and considers their significance within the archaeological context of this site. This installation may have served for small-scale salting of fish that was subsequently sold to spectators in the circus.

Materials and Methods Some bones and scales were hand-picked during the excavation of the cesspit. Once it was realized that there were many small fish remains in the soil, the decision was made to sample the cesspit’s contents at different depths. Four dried samples, weighing a total of 20.1 kg (about 15 liters of soil), were wet-sieved through a 1.0 mm mesh. The dried residuum (4.35 kg) was placed on an inclined black plastic tray and, by gently tapping the tray, was moved below a wide circular magnifying glass (×2). This procedure enabled the recovery of all fish remains. Bones were identified by comparing them with the author’s reference collection of modern fish; no attempt was made to identify fish scales. The names of skeletal elements follow Wheeler and Jones (1989); the nomenclature suggested by Lepiksaar (1983) for anatomical details of bones was used; and taxonomic nomenclature and particulars regarding fish are according to Nelson (1994), Whitehead et al. (1986) and Golani and Darom (1997). The identification of fish bones is, to some extent, an exercise in pattern recognition, which calls for constant skeptical criticism. Thus, the relative taxonomic certainty for each identified bone is presented in an explicit manner, ranking it either as “certain” or

“consistent with.” A two-digit designation is attached to each identification (for details, see Table 9.2, legend; Lernau 1996). Bones with an equivocal identification were not included among the identified ones. Well-preserved bones were measured with a digital Mitutoyo caliper with a precision of 0.1 mm. Measurements were carried out between consistent anatomical landmarks, following Morales and Rosenlund (1979). Available published data for some species, which describe the relations between standard measurements of different skeletal elements and the sizes of the fish, were used in the present study (Sternberg 1992; Desse and Desse-Berset 1996; Desse, Desse-Berset and Rocheteau 1987). Size was also estimated using the author’s personal reference collection of fish bones. Assessments of size are typically based on several poorly controlled variables and should therefore be considered as crude approximations only. Thus, for this reason, they are specified in terms of ranges rather than exact sizes, but these are considered adequate for the purpose of this study. The number and variety of fish are smaller on the eastern than on the western side of the Mediterranean Sea. The maximum sizes of many species of fish, which do occur on both sides, are smaller on the eastern side. This phenomenon was taken into consideration when referring to the maximum sizes of fish in this report. The values currently known for the Israeli coast follow Golani and Darom (1997). The minimum number of individuals (MNI) was calculated based on the types, frequencies and sizes of the skeletal elements for each kind of fish. All four samples were considered as one unit for this purpose (i.e., bones found at different levels inside the pit were not assumed to belong to different individual fish). Bones were allocated to different individuals according to their difference in size, only when the estimated lengths of the respective fish varied by more than an arbitrary value of 20%.

204

Omri Lernau

The Archaeological Context

converted into a row of rooms or shops, which presumably provided services to the audience attending the circus spectacles (Fig. 9.1). One of these, Room 3900, was a rather narrow elongated space (1.8 × 6.0 m), wedged between two somewhat larger rooms; a plastered basin (L3856; c. 1.8 × 0.7 m) was located at its western end (Plan 9.1). A plastered, stone-covered,

During the first half of the first century CE, after the area east of Herod’s Circus was leveled to the elevation of the uppermost tier, a ‘Pillared Gallery’ (C3800) was constructed parallel to the East Cavea (see Caesarea I, 1: Chapter 4, pp. 113–116). This gallery was later

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

East Cavea

80

80

79

79

9.27

W3860

78

78

L3862 W3811

W1086

W3844 9.13

L3856 W1781

76

W3854

9.19

L3900

L3898

9.04

8.47 5.89

L3836

L3896

8.49

77

L3872

L3901 W3849

9.85 10.25

L3828

L9385 W3905

L3820

75

8.85

L9300 W9163

8.76

L3836

8.75

LL

76

W9388 10.35 Stairway L9381 W9389 LL

8.94

8.86

W9244

77

9.12

10.35

W9164 10.40

75

9.95

74

74

Decumanus S5

W3853

D

E

73

W3929

W3914

73

W3853

W3843

F

0

G

10 m

H

I

K

Plan 9.1. Plan of Modified Complex 3800 east of Herod’s Circus showing Room 3900 with Plastered Basin 3856 and Channel 3896 draining into Cesspit 3898 (based on Caesarea I, 1: Plan 4.12).

Chapter 9: Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

2.25 m long channel (L3896) drained this basin from an outlet below the west wall of the room and led to Cesspit 3898, which was dug into a sandy fill. The cesspit (2.4 m deep, upper radius 0.55 m, lower radius 0.9 m) was lined with kurkar stones and covered with two large flat blocks, which could be removed for periodic cleaning. These three components, the basin, the drainage channel and the cesspit, obviously belonged to one integrated installation. When the east end of Channel 3896 was blocked, the installation went

205

out of use, leaving Cesspit 3898 intact, well-sealed and hidden, and with its original contents undisturbed. The pit was largely empty with only 0.25 m of grayish soil, the accumulation of the flushed material. This soil was covered by a thin layer of sand, which had filtered in between the lining stones. The volume of the grayish soil was about 635 liters with fish remains equally distributed throughout. There were also a few eggshells and a few bones of small rodents, but no bones of large mammals or other recognizable remains

1m

1m N

0 1m

Fig. 9.1. Reconstruction of Room 3900, Plastered Basin 3856 and Channel 3896 draining into Cesspit 3898 (Artist: Rivka Mishayev).

206

Omri Lernau

of food. Among the ceramic finds were several sherds of Early Roman vessels, including broken Eastern Terra Sigillata bowls (Gendelman, forthcoming) and one intact Herodian oil lamp (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.4:2). Three coins, the latest dated to the reign of Titus (79–81 CE; see Chapter 5: Table 5.1; Cat. No. 163), were found in the feeding channel.

Description and Identification of the Bones (Fig. 9.2; Table 9.1) The assemblage of 1431 fish remains from the cesspit contained 729 scales and 702 bones. Forty different skeletal elements could be recognized for 332 bones. The rest consisted mainly of elongated fragments of spines, vertebrae or ribs, but also fractured skull bones and other unrecognizable elements. The state of preservation of the identified elements was considered to be ‘poor’ (7%), ‘fair’ (72%) and ‘good’ (21%). One hundred and seven bones (32% of the recognizable skeletal elements) were identified taxonomically. This proportion is relatively low compared to other archaeoichthyological assemblages in Israel. These bones, comprising 23 different skeletal elements, belonged to nine families: six families of marine fish (n = 95) and three families of freshwater fish (n = 12). The minimum number of individuals (MNI) is 21 (Table 11.1), comprising 17 marine and 4 freshwater fish. The identified bones are described below according to the frequency of their occurrence. Family Mugilidae (Grey Mullets) Thirty-eight bones belonged to this family: nine vertebrae and fifteen bones from the region of the head (twelve different skeletal elements; Fig. 9.2:1–4; Table 9.2). The identification of this family is certain for thirty-one of these bones. Eight bones could be further identified to the species Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758) or the flathead grey mullet (local name, buri); and two bones to the species Liza ramada (Risso 1826) or thinlip grey mullet. Estimations of the length of these fish, based on the measurements of twenty-two bones, range from less than 15 to 45 cm. Several vertebrae and one post-temporal bone, for which no estimations of sizes were possible, were tiny and belonged to very small fish; their MNI is 6. Grey mullets live in groups in shallow waters near the Mediterranean coast down to a depth of 40 m.

Table 9.1. Identified Fish Bones (NISP = Number of Identified Specimens; MNI = Minimum Number of Individuals) Identification

NISP

MNI

Mugilidae

38

6

Identification of family only

28

Marine Fish

Mugil cephalus

8

Liza ramada

2

Sparidae

34

Identification of family only

20

Sparus auratus

8

Diplodus sp.

4

Sarpa salpa

2

Clupeidae

15

Identification of family only

12

Sardinella sp.

3

Serranidae

4

Identification of family only

2

Epinephelus sp.

1

Epinephelus guaza

1

Moronidae

2

Dicentrarchus labrax

2

Sciaenidae

2

Identification of family only

1

Argyrosomus regius

1

4

3

1

1 2

Fresh-Water Fish Cichlidae

7

Identification of family only

7

Clariidae

3

Clarias gariepinus

3

Cyprinidae

2

Identification of family only

2

Total

107

2 1 1 21

M. cephalus and L. ramada are two of the three most common species of this family found along the Israeli coast. In the East Mediterranean, they may attain a maximum length of about 60 and 70 cm, respectively. Mugilidae can survive in a broad range of salinity, from salty lagoons to freshwater coastal streams, where they spend part of their early life-cycle before maturing and, later, returning to the sea for spawning.

Chapter 9: Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

Table 9.2. Bones of the Family Mugilidae Skeletal Element

Identification

Side

Degree of Certainty*

Estimated Standard Length (cm)

Post-temporal

Family only

L

20

Post-temporal

Family only

L

10

Very small

Family only

L

20

20–25

Neurocranium

Branchiocranium Premaxilla Dentary

Family only

R

10

25–30

Articular

Mugil cephalus

R

21

40–45

Palatine

Family only

L

20

Palatine

Family only

L

20

Palatine

Family only

L

20

Hyomandibular

Family only

L

20

35–40

Opercular

Mugil cephalus

L

22

40–45

Opercular

Mugil cephalus

R

22

35–40

Opercular

Mugil cephalus

R

22

30–40

Opercular

Mugil cephalus

R

22

40–45

Opercular

Family only

L

20

35–40

Opercular

Family only

L

20

30–35

Opercular

Family only

L

20

25–30 25–30

Opercular

Family only

L

20

Preopercular

Family only

L

10

Preopercular

Family only

R

10

Preopercular

Family only

R

20

10–15

Interopercular

Family only

L

20

20–25

Interopercular

Family only

L

20

30–35

Interopercular

Family only

R

20

20–25

Subopercular

Family only

L

10

Urohyal

Family only

20

35–40

Urohyal

Family only

20

25–30

Urohyal

Family only

20

20–25

Mugil cephalus

21

35–40

Vertebral column First vertebra Second vertebra

Mugil cephalus

21

30–35

Abdominal vertebra

Family only

20

Very small

Abdominal vertebra

Family only

20

Very small

Abdominal vertebra

Family only

20

Very small

Abdominal vertebra

Family only

10

Very small

Abdominal vertebra

Mugil cephalus

21

Abdominal vertebra

Liza ramada

21

Abdominal vertebra

Liza ramada

21

Coracoid

Family only

10

Coracoid

Family only

10

Appendicular Skeleton

R = Right L = Left * Degree of certainty (after Lernau 1996) 22 = certain identification of family and genus or species 21 = certain identification of the family, but identification of species or genus is compatible with the find 20 = certain identification only of the family 10 = identification of the family is compatible with the find

207

208

Omri Lernau

Family Sparidae (Porgies) Thirty-four bones belonged to this family: nineteen vertebrae and fifteen bones from the region of the

head (nine different skeletal elements; Fig. 9.2:5–7; Table 9.3). The identification of family was certain for thirty-three of these bones. Eight bones could be further identified to the species Sparus auratus

a 1

a

3

b

b 2

a

4

5

b

7

6 0

4

Fig. 9.2. Fish bones: (1) a—Left palatine bone of the family Mugilidae, superior view, b—inferior view. The palatine is the anterior bone in the palatoquadrate complex of five bones that comprise the ‘cheek’ of the fish. The wide process in front lies in close contact to the ‘head’ of the maxilla forming the upper jaw. (2) Right hyomandibular bone of the family Mugilidae, lateral view. The hyomandibular is the upper part of the hyoid arch supporting the roof of the mouth to the skull. (3) a—Right opercular bone of the family Mugilidae, lateral view;b—medial view. The opercular bone serves as a cover for the gill opening. It has an articular socket that can be seen on the medial view. This socket, connected to the hyomandibular bone, functions as a hinge, which lets water out between the gills. Note the thin flat surface that has been very well preserved in this case. (4) First and second vertebrae of Mugil cephalus, lateral view. The head lies to the left. Note the typical puckered surfaces of these vertebrae. (5) a—Right premaxilla of Sparus auratus, medial view; b—lateral view. Note rows of alveolar sockets for flat molariform teeth (the teeth themselves have fallen). The premaxilla is the anterior bone comprising the upper jaw. (6) Right post-temporal bone of the family Sparidae, medial view. The post-temporal bone is the upper-most component of the pectoral girdle, which links it to the skull. (7) Abdominal (precaudal) vertebra of Sparus auratus, anterior view. This is the 7th vertebra along the spine. The height, width and length of the vertebra are 5.2, 5.0 and 6.8 mm, respectively, and the estimated standard length of the fish is 20–25 cm.

Chapter 9: Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

(Linnaeus 1758) or the gilthead seabream (locally, denis and chipura); three to Diplodus sp. and two to Sarpa salpa (Linnaeus 1758) or salema (locally called solbi). Twenty measured bones allowed estimations of lengths with most between about 10 and 30 cm; six additional tiny bones belonged to very small fish. The MNI for Sparidae is 4. There are twenty species of porgies in the Mediterranean, at least seventeen of which can be found along the Israeli coast. S. auratus is a carnivorous

209

sedentary solitary fish, living among rocks at depths of 5 to 60 m. It may be found along the open coast, but prefers closed bodies of brackish waters, like the Bardawil lagoon of North Sinai, where large numbers are caught annually. Gilthead seabream usually measure 15–35 cm when caught, but may attain a maximum size of about 60 cm; they feed on mollusks, mainly mussels, crustaceans and small fish. The Sparid fish found in the cesspit seem to be rather small when considering the potential size range of this family. Sparid remains

10

8

9

a 11 12

b

13 14 0

4

Fig. 9.2 (cont.). Fish bones: (8) Right opercular bone of the family Clupeidae, medial view. (9) Right hyomandibular bone of the family Cichlidae, lateral view. (10) Fin spine of the family Cichlidae, anterior view. (11) a—Broken right dentary of the family Serranidae, probably Epinephelus guaza, lateral view. b—medial view. The dentary is the anterior bone of the lower jaw. Note empty sockets from rows of teeth. (12) Basioccipital of the family Serranidae, inferior view. This bone extends backward from the base of the skull and is attached to the first vertebra, to the left. (13) Abdominal vertebra of Clarias gariepinus, frontal view. (14) Second and third vertebrae of Dicentrarchus labrax, lateral view. The head lies to the left. Note the characteristic puckered texture of the bones.

210

Omri Lernau

Table 9.3. Bones of the Family Sparidae Skeletal Element

Identification

Side

Degree of certainty *

Estimated Standard Length (cm)

Neurocranium Post-temporal

Family only

L

20

Post-temporal

Family only

L

20

Post-temporal

Family only

R

20

Sparus auratus

R

22

Branchiocranium Premaxilla

20–25

Dentary

Diplodus sp.

R

21

Very small

Articular

Family only

R

20

10–15

Palatine

Family only

L

10

Very small

Palatine

Sarpa salpa

L

21

Very small

Palatine

Sarpa salpa

R

21

Very small

Hyomandibular

Family only

L

20

15–20

Opercular

Sparus auratus

L

22

20–25

Opercular

Sparus auratus

R

22

Subopercular

Family only

R

20

Vertebral Column Second vertebra

Sparus auratus

21

Third vertebra

Sparus auratus

21

15–20

Abdominal vertebra

Sparus auratus

21

20–25

Abdominal vertebra

Sparus auratus

21

20–25

Abdominal vertebra

Sparus auratus

21

20–25

Abdominal vertebra

Diplodus sp.

21

20–25

Abdominal vertebra

Diplodus sp.

21

20–25

Abdominal vertebra

Diplodus sp.

21

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

25–30

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

25–30

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

25–30

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

20

20–25

Caudal vertebra

Family only

10

Very small

Caudal vertebra

Family only

10

Very small

Appendicular Skeleton Cleithrum

Family only

R

20

Cleithrum

Family only

R

20

R = Right L = Left * Degree of certainty (after Lernau 1996) 22 = certain identification of family and genus or species 21 = certain identification of the family, but identification of species or genus is compatible with the find 20 = certain identification only of the family 10 = identification of the family is compatible with the find

Chapter 9: Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

are the most common fish found in excavated sites in Israel, with the species S. auratus being by far the most common. This widespread distribution may be attributed to their abundance in shallow waters along the coast, to the relative ease with which they are caught, to the durability of their bones (mainly jaw bones) and to the ease of their identification. Family Clupeidae (Herrings) Fifteen bones belonged to this family: two vertebrae and thirteen bones from the region of the head (four different skeletal elements; Fig. 9.2:8; Table 9.4). The identification of the family is certain for twelve bones. One bone probably belonged to the genus Sardinella. The bones were very small and delicate, quite well preserved. A rough estimation of the lengths of the fish, derived from three measured bones, would be 15–18 cm. The MNI was estimated at 3. Four species of the herring family inhabit the Mediterranean coast of Israel, the important ones

being Sardinella aurita (Valenciennes 1847) or round sardinella (local name,, sardine), and Sardinella maderensis (Lowe 1838) or the Madeiran sardinella. These are migratory fish living in shoals and feeding on plankton and small crustaceans and attain a maximum size of 30 to 35 cm. These fish are caught in large quantities at night with nets by attracting them with lights, but their abundance and commercial value have declined following the construction of the Nile dam, which reduced the amount of nutrients flowing into the East Mediterranean (Dowidar 1984; El-Sayed and van Dijken 2007). Typically, there is little likelihood of finding the small, delicate remains of herring without meticulous sieving, which may explain why their bones have been identified in only a few sites in Israel, e.g., at Masada (Cotton, Lernau and Goren 1996). There, the tiny bones, which belonged to much smaller fish (4–5 cm long), were found inside a jar. These bones had been processed to form allec, a Roman fish sauce that had presumably been imported from Spain.

Table 9.4. Bones of the Family Clupeidae Skeletal Element

Identification

Side

Degree of certainty *

Sardinella sp.

L

21

Estimated Standard Length (cm)

Branchiocranium Articular

211

Hyomandibular

Family only

L

20

Hyomandibular

Family only

L

20

Hyomandibular

Family only

L

20

Hyomandibular

Family only

R

20

Opercular

Family only

L

20

Opercular

Family only

L

20

15–18

Opercular

Family only

R

20

15–18

Opercular

Family only

R

20

15–18

Preopercular

Family only

L

20

Preopercular

Family only

L

20

Preopercular

Family only

R

20

Preopercular

Family only

R

10

Vertebral Column Caudal vertebra

Family only

10

Caudal vertebra

Family only

10

R = Right L = Left * Degree of certainty (after Lernau 1996) 22 = certain identification of family and genus or species 21 = certain identification of the family, but identification of species or genus is compatible with the find 20 = certain identification only of the family 10 = identification of the family is compatible with the find

212

Omri Lernau

Family Cichlidae (Mouth Breeders)

Family Clariidae (Air-Breathing Catfishes)

Seven bones of this family were identified: right premaxilla; right maxilla; right hyomandibular; complete left hyoid; right ceratohyoid and two spines of the dorsal fin (Fig. 9.2:9, 10). Some bones were very small. Thus, estimated lengths based on the measured premaxilla and hyomandibular were approximately 10 cm. The spines were larger and one of them belonged to a fish with an estimated length of about 25 cm. The MNI is 2. The family Cichlidae consists of about 600 tropical species of rather small fish, with a wide range of forms and adaptations. There are seven Cichlid species currently inhabiting the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River and the coastal rivers of Israel. Four of them are large enough to have nutritional value; Tilapia zillii (Gervais 1848) or the redbelly tilapia (locally, musht), is the most widespread among them. Israeli Cichlids may attain a maximum size of 30 to 40 cm. They have interesting breeding behaviors including territoriality, nesting and sheltering the fertilized eggs, sometimes carrying their young offspring in their mouths (Goren 1983). Cichlidae have always been popular for their tasty flesh, and their remains have been found in many excavated sites in Israel.

Three anterior abdominal vertebrae belonged to Clarias gariepinus (Burschell 1822) or Nile catfish (locally, barbut; Fig. 9.2:13). Their identification is certain. They were well-preserved and could be assigned to the 8th, 11th and 14th position along the vertebral column of presumably one individual fish with an estimated length of 45 to 50 cm. The MNI is 1. C. gariepinus is the largest freshwater fish in Israel. It may attain a maximum length of 120 to 150 cm and a weight of over 15 kg. It belongs to the AfricanNilotic fauna, and inhabits inland streams and lakes as well as the coastal rivers of the Levant up to the verge of the Anatolian mountains (Steinitz 1954). It feeds on small fish, plants and detritus. This fish has an auxiliary air-breathing organ that enables it to occupy swamps and other shallow, poorly oxygenated bodies of water, where it may be easy to catch. The bones of C. gariepinus have distinctive features that are typical of members of this family. The Nile catfish is forbidden for both Jews and Muslims and also has little appeal to the modern consumer, either because of its ugly appearance or the taste of its flesh. Nevertheless, the ease of catch must have been an important factor in the past, as it has been found in many excavations in Israel, but usually only in small numbers.

Family Serranidae (Sea Basses) Four small bones belonged to this family. Two could be identified with certainty solely to the level of the family (one right epihyal and one basioccipital). Both of the other bones could be further identified to the genus Epinephelus, including one left ceratohyal and one right dentary, the latter probably belonging to Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe 1834) or the dusky grouper (locally, irbi; Fig. 9.2:11, 12). The dentary bone was measurable and gave an estimated total length of about 20 cm. Serranidae are large, solitary, predatory fish found in shallow coastal waters. There are eleven species in the east Mediterranean, among them some of the best local edible fish. The largest and most important along the coast of Israel belong to the genus Epinephelus. They occupy rocky shelters, feed on smaller fish and large crustaceans, and may attain maximum sizes of 80 to 120 cm depending on the species. They may be caught with simple fishing gear (spears and fishing rods), with long lines and by trawling. Sea bass remains have been found in most excavated sites in Israel.

Family Cyprinidae (Carps) One left operculum and one abdominal vertebra belonged to this family. Both bones belonged to fish with an estimated length of 30 to 35 cm. The family Cyprinidae comprises a large number of freshwater fish with ten species in Israel, but most of them are too small to have any nutritional value. The larger kinds inhabit the Jordan River system. Only one, Capoeta damascina (Valenciennes 1842) or Damascus barbell (local name, hafafi), occurs today in coastal rivers flowing into the Mediterranean. It feeds mainly on plants and may attain a maximum size of about 45 cm. Family Moronidae (Temperate Basses) Two well-preserved vertebrae, the second and the third along the spine, were identified with certainty to the species Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus 1758) or the European sea bass (locally, lavrak; Fig. 9.2:14).

213

Chapter 9: Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

They fit well together and probably belong to the same individual fish with an estimated length of about 40 cm. This family includes about 20 genera of marine, brackish and freshwater fish of the tropical and temperate regions of the world. Two species are found along the Mediterranean coast of Israel: D. labrax and D. punctatus (Bloch 1792). These two species occupy shallow waters, brackish lagoons and sometimes upstream rivers. They feed on crustaceans and smaller fish and may attain a maximum size of 80 and 50 cm, respectively. D. labrax is a clever and cautious fish, and may be caught with spears, fishing rods, lines and beach seines. Its flesh is highly prized. Temperate basses are similar to sea basses, but less common, and their commercial value in Israel is limited. Few of their remains have been recovered in excavated sites in Israel. Family Sciaenidae (Drums, Croakers) One preopercular and one quadrate bone belonged to this family. The preopercular was of medium-size and broken, but consistent with an identification to the species Argyrosomus regius (Asso 1801) or meager (locally, musar). The bone was poorly preserved and only allowed an imprecise estimation of a length of about 40 cm. The quadrate is small and better

preserved, but its identification is somewhat less certain. It belonged to a very small fish of less than 10 cm. The MNI is 2. Croakers derive their English name from an ability to produce sounds by using the swimming bladder as a resonating chamber. The Mediterranean supports three commercially important species, which belong to three different genera. The meager is a large predatory marine fish, with a maximum size of up to 150 cm, usually measuring 30–80 cm when caught. Small-to-medium sized fish reside along the coasts and occasionally enter river mouths and lagoons where they may be caught with simple fishing gear including various nets and lines. Older, larger fish live further offshore at greater depths, and call for more advanced fishing techniques. Croakers feed on small fish and crustaceans and have been always regarded as an excellent food. They have been found in many excavated sites throughout Israel.

Size Distribution of the Fish Size estimates of individual fish were possible for all nine families in this assemblage. Comparison of these estimated sizes with the maximum known size for the same species suggests that there was a selection preference toward smaller individuals, not larger than 40–50 cm (Fig. 9.3).

Sciaenidae Clariidae Serranidae Moronidae Mugilidae Sparidae Maximum size for kind

Cyprinidae

Largest measured fish

Cichlidae

Smallest measured fish

Clupeidae 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Centimeters

Fig. 9.3. Comparison of the estimated size range of the fish from Cesspit 3898 with the maximum known size for each individual family.

160

214

Omri Lernau

Discussion Given the quantity of bones, the MNI and the volume of the cesspit, one could extrapolate a total of about 60,000 fish remains, but calculating a total MNI for the cesspit would be misleading as bones in the unstudied sections of the soil could belong to the same individual fish in the studied part.2 Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to assume that the cesspit contained remains of several hundred fish that had been swept in from the adjoining room. As to the kind of activity that took place in that room, one possibility, which this author tends to reject, is that the cesspit had been connected to a toilet. One such cesspit containing remains of fish was excavated in the Iron Age City of David in Jerusalem (Lernau and Lernau 1992). It also held fecal remains, organic matter and human parasite eggs. However, those fish bones were too large to have been swallowed unawares, therefore it was concluded that they had been deposited in the pit as garbage and did not pass through the human digestive system. The same was true for other studied toilets, where refuse was found together with remains of human excretions (Ijzereef 1988). In those installations, the squatting-board must have been placed directly above the pit, allowing refuse to be thrown in. Nicholson’s (1993) study of the survival of fish bones ingested by humans showed that, following ingestion of whole herrings, only small proportions of eleven skeletal elements could be recovered from human feces. It is interesting to note that three out of five skeletal elements of herrings reported in the present study were among those surviving the human alimentary tract in Nicholson’s report, namely articulars, hyomandibulars and vertebrae. Yet, these bones did not display the characteristic compression or damaged surfaces that had been shown in her study. The floor of the room did not survive and the connection of the channel leading out into the cesspit from the basin could not be demonstrated with certainty. Therefore, the channel might have opened onto the floor itself for the sake of cleaning the room. This would necessitate flushing the floor with water, at a time when running household water was scarce, if available at all. It would make more sense to collect the refuse and dispose of it out of town, which was the usual procedure at that period. In any case, one would expect all sorts of refuse items in the cesspit in addition to the remains

of fish. In fact, the few items that were found inside the connecting channel (coins and ceramic sherds) support the assumption that the activities taking place in this room involved the use of pottery and the exchange of money. One can therefore argue that the basin was indeed connected to the channel and to the pit, that it was the source of the remains of fish, and that it had to be part of some fish enterprise occurring in that room. Room 3900 belonged to a row of compartments along the ‘Pillared Gallery’, which supposedly provided services for the audience attending Herod’s Circus. If we accept that this particular room served as a kind of shop selling fish as food, we are still faced with several questions concerning the function of the plastered basin. The plastered basin could have been filled with water to hold live fish. As both marine and freshwater fish remains occur in the faunal assemblage, the shop owner could have kept both, but not at the same time. In order to keep the fish alive, water should have been brought either from the nearby sea or the municipal water system. Such an arrangement would offer a logical interpretation of the finds, as dead fish would have been swept through the channel into the cesspit. However, at least two objections may be raised to this interpretation. The first concerns the transport of live fish to the shop. Fish caught with lines or nets and taken aboard fishing-boats remain alive only for a short time, unless the fishing boats are equipped with special water tanks. Such boats did in fact exist in Roman times, like the small fishing boat found in Ostia which was equipped with a fish-well for maintaining live fish (Testaguzza 1970:132, 143–144). However, these fish were expensive and probably consumed only by the most affluent citizens of the capital. One may therefore assume that the fish brought to the harbor of Caesarea were fresh, but dead. Even if some fish could be purchased alive, they would have to be carried in water to the shop, which was probably beyond the technical capabilities of the time. The second objection concerns the difficulty in keeping the fish alive in the shop’s small basin. Marine fish, in contrast to freshwater fish, do not survive in aquariums unless they are provided with special conditions. The bones in the cesspit belonged to fish of considerable sizes, so that the operation to keep them alive would have been impractical if not impossible (D. Golani, pers. comm. 1999).

Chapter 9: Fish Bones from a Cesspit adjacent to Herod’s Circus

The need to avoid spoilage of the fish and prolong shelf-life might have called for a different approach, namely salting them. The Roman world consumed large amounts of salted fish and fish sauces, which were produced in abundant quantities in special plants called salteries, and were shipped in amphorae throughout the empire. The nutritional value of these products was so significant that they formed part of the regular diet of the Roman soldier, and amphorae carrying salted fish and fish sauces found their way to distant military outposts (Davies 1989). At the same time, they also enjoyed popularity in Rome and in the provinces. Famous large salteries that had been operating for centuries were excavated in Baelo on the Rio Del Valle in the province of Cadiz in Spain (Curtis 1991:51–53), in Lixus in modern Morocco (Ponsich and Tarradell 1965) and in many other locations. These were elaborate plants with many salting vats built at locations that could provide large catches of small- and medium-sized fish, large quantities of sundried sea salt, and readily available water for cleaning the fish and the plant. Salting was done in sinks of different sizes. The basic procedure involved placing alternating layers of fish, which could be whole or cut, and gutted or not, with layers of sun-dried seasalt. The length of time spent in the vat determined the preservation potential of the final product, whether hard dried, soft-fleshed or partially to completely macerated and turned into a sauce (Curtis 1991:6– 15). Remains of salteries have not yet been found in the region of the East Mediterranean. The closest plant that might have manufactured fish products was excavated at Ras Abaruk in the Persian Gulf, where a mound of discarded fish bones was described, but no salting vats were found (Garlake 1978). There are many literary references to the use of and commerce in fish products in Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Jewish writings. It is often difficult or impossible to decide where these products had originated. A few sources specifically allude to local production plants. Julius Pollux mentions the manufacture of salted tunny fish in Tyre (Onomasticon 6.63) and Strabo writes about a large fish-salting industry at Tarichaeae, i.e., Migdal on the Sea of Galilee (Strabo, Geography XVI.ii.45). Fish salting in Pelusium in the fifth century BCE is mentioned by Herodotus (Histories 2.15) and again 800 years later by Rabbi Abbahu, who declared their products imported to Caesarea to be kosher

215

(Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah 39a). There is no doubt that the salting of fish in Roman times was also done on a small household-type scale, although there is little literary or archaeological evidence to support this claim. Thus, Marcus Manilius described fishermen engaged in salting their personal catch of fish (Astronomica 5.565–581) and salting of fish for local use was probably done in villas along the southern coast of Lusitania (Edmondson 1987). The nature of the installation in the shop east of Herod’s Circus was too complex for simply stocking purchased salted fish that were processed elsewhere; that would have required only a box or some wooden shelves. This author suggests that the basin and its draining system served for small-scale preparation of salted fish. The shop owner in Caesarea would have been satisfied with a short salting process that could keep his small stock unspoiled for a few days. Owing to his small salting basin, he did not purchase fish that were larger than about 40–50 cm. Marine and freshwater fish were suitable, while sun dried sea-salt was available from evaporation pools along the coast. Periodic cleaning of the basin would flush crushed and macerated fish remains down the drain. Excavations at Pompeii exposed a shop with a series of dolia (large earthenware containers) for the preparation of fish products. The dolia contained bones of small fish, and it has been suggested that the shop was both producing and selling fish sauces and condiments (Curtis 1991:92–94). This small-scale fish-processing installation was clearly engaged in the production of garum, allec and other types of fish sauces through a fermentation process of tiny little fish. On the other hand, the bones found in the Caesarea cesspit belonged to small and medium-sized fish, indicating that the shop was preparing and selling fish dishes and not a condiment. There are no further excavated finds in this locus that might shed more light on the workings of the shop beyond the production of salted fish. The room seems too small to have accommodated sitting clients. The concept of a kiosk-type enterprise specializing in fish dishes and selling them across the counter to the circus audience is tempting. This kind of shop seems to best fit the excavated finds in and around that particular room and, if correct, manifests the first archaeological evidence for a fish-salting venture in this region, albeit on a very small scale.

216

Omri Lernau

Notes Zinman Institue of Archaeology, University of Haifa.

The studied sample represents 1/42 of the total volume. Thus, by straight multiplication, the total MNI is 21 × 42 = 882.

1

2

R eferences Cotton H., Lernau O. and Goren Y. 1996. Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada. JRA 9:223–238. Curtis R.I. 1991. Garum and Salsamenta: Production and Commerce in Materia Medica. Leiden. Davies R.W. 1989. The Roman Military Diet. In D. Breeze and V.A. Maxfield eds. Service in the Roman Army. Edinburgh. Pp. 187–206. Desse J. and Desse-Berset N. 1996. Ostéometrie et archéologie de la Daurade royale. Sparus aurata (Linné, 1758) (Fiches d’ostéologie animale pour l’archéologie. Série A: Poissons 9). Juan-les-Pins. Desse J., Desse-Berset N. and Rocheteau M. 1987. Contribution à l’ostéometrie du Mulet. Liza (Liza) ramada (Risso, 1826) (= Mugil capito Cuvier, 1829) (Fiches d’ostéologie animale pour l’archéologie. Série A: Poissons 2). Juan-les-Pins. Dowidar N.M. 1984. Phytoplankton Biomass and Primary Productivity of the south-eastern Mediterranean. Deep-Sea Resources 31:983–1000. Edmondson J.C. 1987. Two Industries in Roman Lusitania: Mining and Garum production (BAR Int. S. 362). Oxford. El-Sayed S. and van Dijken G.L. 2007. The Southeastern Mediterranean Ecosystem Revisited: Thirty Years after the Construction of the Aswan High Dam. http://ocean.tamu. edu/Quarterdeck/QD3.1/Elsayed/elsayed.html (accessed June 17, 2014). Garlake P.S.A. 1978. A Fish-Curing Complex on Ras Abaruk, Site 6. In B. de Cardi ed. Qatar Archaeological Report: Excavations 1973. Oxford. Pp. 136–147. Gendelman P. Forthcoming. In Y. Porath and P. Gendelman. Caesarea Maritima I, 3 (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Golani D. and Darom D. 1997. Handbook of the Fishes of Israel. Jerusalem. Goren M. 1983. Fresh Water Fishes of Israel: Biology and Taxonomy. Tel Aviv.

Ijzereef G.F. 1988. Animal Bones and Social Stratification. A Preliminary Analysis of the Faunal Remains from Cesspits in Amsterdam (1600–1850 AD) Archaeozoologia 2:283– 292. Lepiksaar J. 1983. Osteologia I: Pisces. Göteborg. Lernau H. and Lernau O. 1992. Fish Remains. In A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985—Final Report III (Qedem 33). Jerusalem. Pp. 131–148. Lernau O. 1996. Identification of Fish Bones—How Certain Is It? Archaeofauna 5:49–53. Morales A. and Rosenlund K. 1979. Fish Bone Measurements: An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites. Copenhagen. Nelson J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World. New York. Nicholson R.A. 1993. An Investigation into the Effects on Fish Bone of Passage through the Human Gut: Some Experiments and Comparisons with Archaeological Material. Circaea 10:38–50. Ponsich M. and Tarradell M. 1965. Garum et industries antiques de salaison dans la Méditerranée occidentale. Paris. Steinitz H. 1954. The distribution and evolution of the fishes of Palestine. Publications of the Hydrobiological Research Institute, Faculty of Science, University of Istanbul 1:225–275. Sternberg M. 1992. Ostéologie du Loup Dicentrarchus labrax (Linné, 1758) = (Labrax lupus Cuvier, 1828) (Fiches d’ostéologie animale pour l’archéologie. Série A: Poissons 7). Juan-les-Pins. Testaguzza O. 1970. Portus. Illustrazione dei porti di Claudio e Traiano e della città di Porto a Fiumicino. Rome. Wheeler A. and Jones A.K.G. 1989 Fishes. Cambridge. Whitehead P.J.P., Bauchot M.L., Hureau J.C., Nielsen J. and Tortonese E. eds. 1986. Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Paris.

Y. Porath, 2015, Caesarea I, 2 (IAA Reports 57)

Appendix 1

Additions to the Locus List (see Caesarea I, 1: Appendix 2)

Locus

Description

Square

Stratum

466

Late fill above circus arena

G/117

VIA–V

695

Fill above bedrock beneath earliest arena surface

G/118

VII

732

Fill in the caldarium of the bathhouse (see Caesarea I, 3)

K–I/113–114

IV

1090

Late fill east of East Cavea

H/93

V

1135

Tabun/oven east of East Cavea

Q/91

VI

1266

Late fill above East Cavea

F/91

V

1327

Late fill above arena area

E/91

V

1616

First phase of massive fill outside East Cavea (= L1612)

K/93–94

VIC

1617

Fill within L7127

F/91–92

VIA–V

1633

Fill in arena area

E/94

VIA

1765

Late fill above arena

C/77

VIA–V

1831

Late fill above C2000 shrine

D–E/82

V

2062

Late fill east of East Cavea

I/104

V

2092

Late fill east of East Cavea

F/106

V

2110

Late fill above East Cavea

G/108

V

2139

Fill on rear of East Cavea

K/107

V

3803

Late fill above C3800 floor

F–H/72–80

V

3819

Portico floor east of East Cavea (= L3846)

E–G/73–80

V

4881

Later fill above circus arena

D–F/112

V

6061

Fill under amphitheater arena (= L6007)

D/86

VIA3

6331

Foundation fill from salvage excavation along north side of Crusader moat (Area V) in 1995 (see Caesarea I, 1: Plan 1.2, Table 1.1)

6508

Fairly homogeneous earth fill south of the sphendone, south of L6028 and under L6620

YY/69

VI

6521

Late fill above arena

YY/71

V

6609

Fill beneath arena surface

WW/72

VIA1

6620

Fill in drainage channel L6528 south of Herod’s Circus

6887

Fill within L1909

D/79–80

VIA1

6895

Late fill within C1900

XX/84

VIA1

6985

Fill beneath L1830 at C2000

D/82

VIA3–V

7084

Cesspit within L1612

K/93

VIB

7105

Robber trench

K/90

V

7116

Kurkar fill above L1612

K/93

Intermediate Phase VIC/B–VIB

7223

Fill beneath L7208 arena of amphitheater

B/91

VIA4–VIA3

7288

Late fill above arena

C/95

V

7420

Massive fill outside East Cavea (= L1612)

GH/94

VIC

7456

Arena layer of amphitheater

D/89, B–C/89–90

VIA4

Hellenistic

218

Yosef Porath

Locus

Description

Square

Stratum

7474

Preparatory layer for the arena

A–B/87, D/87–90, B–D/90

VII

7540

Later fill above circus arena

E/103

V

7906

Late fill above arena

SS/78

V

8134

Post-circus floor on arena area

A/75

V

8140

Later fill above circus arena

A/83

V

8624

Well dug into the debris of C2000

D/80–81

Post-Byzantine

9238+9251

Fill east of East Cavea

I/75

VIC/B–VIB

12137

Excavation on temple podium (Area II) in 1992 (see Caesarea I, 1: Plan 1.2, Table 1.1)

F/111

IAA R eports

No. 1 G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1996, 129 pp.

No. 16 Y. Goren and P. Fabian, Kissufim Road: A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site, 2002, 97 pp.

No. 2 E. Braun, Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel, 1997, 249 pp.

No. 17 A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, 2003, 183 pp.

No. 3 G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant, Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987– 1989, 1998, 149 pp. No. 4 C. Epstein, The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan, 1998, 352 pp. + plans. hardcover. No. 5 T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, 1998, 137 pp. No. 6 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev I: The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (Hebrew, English Summary), 1999, 396 pp. No. 7 R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period, 1999, 202 pp. No. 8 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, 2000, 247 pp. No. 9 U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period: The Archaeological Remains, 2000, 250 pp. No. 10 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim: The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (Hebrew, English Summary), 2000, 216 pp. No. 11 M. Hartal, The al-Subayba (Nimrod) Fortress: Towers 11 and 9, 2001, 129 pp. No. 12 R. Gonen, Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, 2001, 153 pp. No. 13 E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 2001, 227 pp.

Report

I:

No. 18 A. Golani, Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat ‘Ata, 2003, 261 pp. No. 19 H. Khalaily and O. Marder, The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh: The 1995 Excavations, 2003, 146 pp. No. 20 R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II: The Iron Age and Persian Period (Hebrew, English Summary), 2004, 258 pp. No. 21 D. Stacey, Exavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods, 2004, 259 pp. No. 22 Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, 2004, 234 pp. No. 23 S. Ben-Arieh, Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, 2004, 212 pp. No. 24 M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969), 2005, 320 pp. No. 25 M. Avissar, Tel Yoqne‘am: Excavations on the Acropolis, 2005, 142 pp. No. 26 M. Avissar and E.J. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel, 2005, 187 pp. No. 27 E.C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna, Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel, 2005, 214 pp. No. 28 N. Getzov, The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995, 2006, 204 pp. No. 29 A.M. Berlin, Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2006, 181 pp.

No. 14 R. Frankel, N. Getzov, M. Aviam and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, 2001, 175 pp.

No. 30 R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz and Y. Paz, Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 1933–1986, 2006, 500 pp.

No. 15 M. Dayagi-Mendels, The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-dor Excavations, 1941–1944, 2002, 176 pp.

No. 31 E. Yannai, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, 2006, 308 pp.

No. 32 T.J. Barako, Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960, 2007, 276 pp. No. 33 g. mazor and a. najjar, Bet She’an I: nysa-scythopolis: the caesareum and the odeum, 2007, 316 pp. No. 34 R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982, 2007. In 2 parts. Part 1: Text, 410 pp.; Part 2: Plates, Plans and Sections, 332 pp.

No. 45 A. Kloner, E. Eshel, H.B. Korzakova and G. Finkielsztejn, Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons, 2010, 247 pp. No. 46 Y. Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer, 2010, 360 pp. No. 47 Y. Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: Landscape of Settlement: From the Paleolithic to the Ottoman Periods, 2011, 356 pp.

No. 35 A. Erlich and A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989–1996 Seasons, 2008, 208 pp.

No. 48 R. Bar-Nathan and W. Atrash, Bet She’an II: Baysān: The Theater Pottery Workshop, 2011, 411 pp.

No. 36 G. Avni, U. Dahari and A. Kloner, The Necropolis of Bet Guvrin—Eleutheropolis, 2008, 238 pp.

No. 49 Y. Alexandre, Mary’s Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods, 2012, 180 pp.

No. 37 V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli, Paneas I: The Roman to Early Islamic Periods: Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H, 2008, 196 pp.

No. 50 D. Ben-Shlomo, the azor cemetery: moshe dothan’s excavations, 1958 and 1960, 2012, 238 pp.

No. 38 V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli, Paneas II: Small Finds and Other Studies, 2008, 256 pp. No. 39 Z. Greenhut and A. De Groot, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza: The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, 2009, 363 pp. No. 40 M. Hartal, Paneas IV: The Aqueduct and the Northern Suburbs, 2009, 212 pp. No. 41 N. Getzov, R. Lieberman-Wander, H. Smithline, and D. Syon, Horbat ‘Uza, the 1991 Excavations I: The Early Periods, 2009, 168 pp. No. 42 N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y. Gorin-Rosen, E.J. Stern, D. Syon, and A. Tatcher, Horbat ‘Uza, the 1991 Excavations II: The Late Periods, 2009, 232 pp. No. 43 J. Seligman, Nahal Haggit: A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the Southern Carmel, 2010, 277 pp. No. 44 D. Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla II: The Architecture, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2010, 216 pp.

No. 51/1 E.J. Stern, ‘akko i: the 1991–1998 excavations, the crusader-period pottery, part 1: Text, 2012, 192 pp. No. 51/2 E.J. Stern, ‘akko i: the 1991–1998 excavations, the crusader-period pottery, part 2: plates, 2012, 172 pp. No. 52 D. Ben-Ami, Jerusalem, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot) I, 2013, 396 pp. No. 53 Y. Porath, Caesarea Maritima Volume I: Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings Part I: Architecture and Stratigraphy, 2013, 244 pp. No. 54 R. Greenberg, Bet Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound II: Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933–1986 Excavations, 2014, 316 pp. No. 55 E. Yannai, Y. Nagar, Bet Dagan, Intermediate Bronze Age and Mamluk-Period Cemeteries, 2004–2005 Excavations, 2014, 260 pp. No. 56 D. Syon, Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989, Finds and Studies, Part 1, 2014, 260 pp. No. 57 Y. Porath, Caesarea Maritima I: Herod’s and Related Buildings Part 2: The Finds, 2015, 224 pp.

Circus