Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givʻati Parking Lot). The Byzantine and early Islamic periods / Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets ; with contributions by Oriya Amichay [und 20 weiteren]. Stratum V: The Byzantine period 9789654067201, 9789654067232, 965406720X

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 66/1

Jerusalem Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot) Volume II The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods Part 1: Stratum V: The Byzantine Period

Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets

With contributions by

Oriya Amichay, Donald T. Ariel, Hagar Ben Dov, Ariel Berman, Gabriela Bijovsky, Ram Bouchnick, Salome Dan-Goor, Vitaly Gutkin, Dorit Gutreich, Masha Krakovsky, Inbar Ktalav, Omri Lernau, Inna Popov, Peretz Reuven, Irina Segal, Ariel Shatil, Michael E. Stone, David Tanami, Anna de Vincenz, Ehud Weiss, Ayala Zilberstein

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2020

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Zvi Greenhut Series and Production Editor: Shelley Sadeh Volume Editor: Shelley Sadeh Front Cover: Givati Parking Lot in the City of David, looking north (photograph, SkyView Photography Ltd.) Back Cover: Hoard of gold coins from Byzantine building (Stratum V) (photograph, Clara Amit) Cover Design and Production: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav Layout and Typesetting: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav Illustrations: Elizabeth Belashov, Natalia Zak Printing: Digiprint Zahav Ltd. Copyright © 2020, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-720-1 EISBN 978-965-406-723-2 www.antiquities.org.il

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS

vii

FOREWORD

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Doron Ben-Ami

1

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Stratigraphic Sections

Doron Ben-Ami

5 57

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Anna de Vincenz

71

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

Donald T. Ariel

159

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

Gabriela Bijovsky

183

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

Dorit Gutreich

201

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

David Tanami and Yana Tchekhanovets

219

CHAPTER 8: A MINIATURE ICON DIPTYCH Appendix 8.1: SEM-EDS Analysis of the Miniature Icon Diptych

Yana Tchekhanovets Inna Popov and Vitaly Gutkin

237 243

CHAPTER 9: PICTORIAL GRAFFITO ON A STONE PLAQUE

Ayala Zilberstein

251

CHAPTER 10: ARMENIAN GRAFFITO

Michael E. Stone

261

CHAPTER 11: THE SOUTHEASTERN HILL OF JERUSALEM DURING THE BYZANTINE PERIOD––CONCLUDING REMARKS

Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets

263

PART 1: STRATUM V: THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

iv PART 2: STRATA IV–I: THE EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD CHAPTER 12: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE Doron Ben-Ami

271

CHAPTER 13: THE EARLY ISLAMIC POTTERY

Peretz Reuven

375

CHAPTER 14: THE COINS FROM STRATA III–II

Donald T. Ariel and Ariel Berman

523

CHAPTER 15: THE EARLY ISLAMIC GLASS

Dorit Gutreich

531

CHAPTER 16: PRODUCTION OF BONE OBJECTS IN THE EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD

Ariel Shatil

585

CHAPTER 17: A MINIATURE VESSEL CONTAINING CINNABAR

Salome Dan-Goor

641

CHAPTER 18: THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS Oriya Amichay and Ehud Weiss

645

CHAPTER 19: THE SOUTHEASTERN HILL OF JERUSALEM DURING THE EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD––CONCLUDING REMARKS

703

Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets

PART 3: COMPLEMENTARY STUDIES OF VARIOUS FINDS CHAPTER 20: THE METAL OBJECTS FROM STRATA V–I Appendix 20.1: Study of a Ceramic Crucible from Stratum III

Masha Krakovsky

709

Irina Segal

727

CHAPTER 21: THE BONE OBJECTS FROM STRATA V–I

Ariel Shatil

731

CHAPTER 22: THE SPINDLE WHORLS FROM STRATA V–I

Salome Dan-Goor

787

CHAPTER 23: THE BEADS AND A PENDANT FROM STRATA V–I

Hagar Ben Dov

799

CHAPTER 24: THE MARBLE ASSEMBLAGE FROM STRATA V–I

Yana Tchekhanovets

817

v CHAPTER 25: THE MOLLUSCS FROM STRATA VII–I Appendix 25.1: Chemical and Mineralogical Analyses of a Lump of Red Pigment from Stratum VI

Inbar Ktalav Irina Segal

835 863

CHAPTER 26: THE FAUNAL REMAINS FROM STRATA V–I Appendix 26.1: Bone Measurements of Faunal Specimens from Strata V–I (mm) Appendix 26.2: Distribution of Identified Bones (NISP) According to Period and Locus

Ram Bouchnick

865

CHAPTER 27: THE FISH REMAINS FROM STRATA V–I

Omri Lernau

897 911

915

APPENDIX 1: LOCUS LIST

923

APPENDIX 2: WALL LIST

963

vi

Contributors

Amichay Oriya, Bar Ilan University Ariel Donald T., Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Ben-Ami Doron, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Ben Dov Hagar, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Berman Ariel, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Bijovsky Gabriela, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Bouchnik Ram, Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee; University of Haifa Dan-Goor Salome, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Gutkin Vitaly, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Gutreich Dorit, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Krakovsky Masha, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ktalav Inbar, University of Haifa Lernau Omri, University of Haifa Reuven Peretz, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Popov Inna, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Segal Irina, Geological Survey of Israel Shatil Ariel, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Stone Michael E., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tanami David, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Tchekhanovets Yana, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem de Vincenz Anna, W.F.Albright Institute, Jerusalem Weiss Ehud, Bar Ilan University Zilberstein Ayala, Tel Aviv University

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] vitalyg@savion huji.ac.il [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ozlernau@netmedia net.il perezreu@netvision net.il [email protected] [email protected] ariel.shatil@mail huji.ac.il stone [email protected] [email protected]  [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

vii

Abbreviations

AASOR ACOR ADAJ AIHV AJA AJPA Art History ‘Atiqot (ES) BAR BASOR BIES Givati I Givati III IAA Reports IEJ INJ JARCE JFA JGS JRA JRGZM JSRS MUSE NC NEA NEAEHL NEAEHL 5 OBO.SA OIP PEFA PEFQSt PEQ

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research American Center of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Annales du Congres de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Physical Anthropology Art History: Journal of the Association of Art Historians ‘Atiqot (English Series) Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew) Ben-Ami D. 2013. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Ben-Ami D. Forthcoming. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot) III (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Glass Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral Museums Judea and Samaria Research Studies Annual of the Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri, Columbia The Numismatic Chronicle Near Eastern Archaeology E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem 1993 E. Stern ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5: Supplementary Volume. Jerusalem 2008 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica Oriental Institute Publications Palestine Exploration Fund Annual Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly

viii QDAP RB ZDPV

Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Biblique Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ix

Foreword

This volume is the second in a series of final reports presenting the results of the excavations conducted in the Givati Parking Lot, located on the northwestern side of the City of David (the Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem), on the eastern slope of the Tyropoeon Valley. Excavations at the site were initiated in 2007 and focused on the southwestern quarter of the area (Area M1). This area was excavated to bedrock and the stratigraphic sequence of the site was determined. The first volume of the series, Givati I, presents the first season of excavation in Area M1 (2007). It was designed to serve as a stratigraphic key for the entire site, which extends over an area of c. 0.5 hectares, and to offer a glimpse into the typical material culture of each period. Subsequent volumes present specific periods in chronological order, from the latest to the earliest. The present volume deals with the later strata, Strata V–I, dated to the Byzantine and the Early Islamic periods. Before excavations in the Givati Parking Lot were initiated, the site was technically divided into four principal parts, Areas M1–M4 (see Givati I: Fig. 1.1). To these a fifth area was added during the last seasons, Area M5 (see Plan 1). Area M5 was intended to identify and delineate the borders of Kathleen Kenyon’s trench excavated in the 1960s (Kenyon’s Area M), and to separate between this trench and the later fill inside it, and the undisturbed context of the larger Givati site. The excavations in Area M5 indeed enabled us to accurately locate Kenyon’s Area M, and to measure and document the architectural remains exposed by her. These are not discussed here, as they are currently being analyzed by Kay Prag (see Prag 2008). Kenyon’s trench cut through the architectural remains of many of the strata, with wall stubs and floors abruptly ending on either side of the trench. Nevertheless, excavation of the limited undisturbed space in Area M5 has contributed additional data to the larger picture of each of the strata and periods represented at the site, and these data are included in our analyses. Kenyon’s trench appears in all the plans in this volume (and subsequent ones) only in outline, and it is hoped that eventually, the final publication of Kenyon’s excavations will provide us with the ‘missing piece’ to complete the overall picture at the Givati site. The excavations were carried out on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and financed by the Ir David Foundation. They were directed by the authors, with the assistance and participation of a large and devoted staff. Area supervisors were Stella Bechar, Hagar Ben Dov, Salome Dan-Goor, Dorit Gutreich, Sarah Hirshberg, Federico Bernardo, Kobrin Campos, Masha Krakovski, Noga Nissim Ben-Efraim (Salvadori), Giulia Roccabella, Navot Rom, Naama Sharabi, Ariel Shatil, Oskar Bejarno Souroujon, David Tanami and Ayala Zilberstein. The innumerable finds retrieved in the course of the excavations were catalogued and packed by Masha Krakovsky and Salome Dan-Goor. All

xi

Special acknowledgement must be paid to Sa‘id Amle and David Tanami, whose metal detector discovered hundreds of coins in the area. The administrative building of the Byzantine period in which the gold hoard was found (Building 1821; Stratum V) was treated by a team from the IAA Conservation Department under the supervision of Evgeny Ivanosky, focusing primarily on the stabilization of the structures. Publication of this volume could not have been accomplished without the meticulous work of the many researchers who devoted their time and knowledge, each in his own field of expertise. We would also like to express our appreciation to Salome Dan-Goor for her assistance in preparing an early manuscript and the figure layouts. Special thanks are due to the IAA publication department and the editors-in chief, Yehudit Ben-Michael and Zvi Greenhut, the IAA Reports series editors Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz and Shelley Sadeh, and the volume editor Shelley Sadeh. Last but not least, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all those who participated in the excavations and carried out the actual work at the site. They include groups and non-affiliated excavators, archaeology students and other volunteers, who all share the excitement of archaeological work in general, and that in Jerusalem in particular. We are deeply indebted to them all, and make use of this platform to thank them personally.1

Racheli Achituv, Asaf (Asu) Abraham, Yosef Abraham, Eitan Abrahami, Orit Addis, Guy Afik, Alexander Agronov, Relja Akrap, Arava Alon, Avigeil Alpert, Chanan Alter, Oria Amihai, Nissim Angel, Yair Appel, Avi Apter, Rivka Arad, Yael Ariel, Anna Aronchik, Pavel Arshavsky, Marc Aslanian, Ben Atias, Merav Atiya, Chamutal Avikar, Aviatar Ayalon, Gitit Azoulay, Netanel Bachner, Hadar Baduch, David Baich, Yonathan Baker, Itai Bar, Shiri Baram, Adi Bar-Chai, Leah Beeri, David Ben Abu, Zoar Ben Hamo, Yakir Ben Harosh, Lou-Yehi Ben-Ari, Aviv Benedix, Shirel Ben-Ezra, Hagar (Hagarsky) Ben-Meir, Avishai Ben-Moshe, Ido BenMoshe, Yochai Ben-Nun, Yair Ben-Shaul, Yeremiah Ben-Shimol, Dan Ben-Shitrit, Yonathan Ben-Simon, Gilad Ben-Zarichny, Eliahou Ben-Zgida, Aharon Berger, Rachel Berger, Andrej Berman, Eyal Bir, Odelia Blanch, Yoav Boaz, Shirli Braun, Yuda Braun, Pablo Brener, David Brumer, Alexander Bunim, David Burda, Nimrod Butil, Tomer Cahanovic, Reuven Casali, Ruth Caspi, Dr. Emilio Charabati Sonana, Peleg Charuz, Eli Chaviv, Tal Chaviv, Simer Chekol, Chanoch Cherkinsky, Eliahou Chouraki, Kessem Clein, David Cohen, Eilon Cohen, Esti Cohen, Gay Cohen, Rotem Cohen, Sarah Cohen, Sarah-Dvora Cohen, Shay Cohen, Shdema Cohen, Yair Cohen, Eti Dabash, Yeshai-Shlomo (Shushu) Dadon, Yaara Dagani, Asher Dahan, Roi Dahan, Tal Dahan, Itamar Dahari, Nadav Dan-Goor, Adva Danon, Tamar Dashevsky, Shaul Davidson, Yoav De Groot, Victor Duek, May Edri, Ohad Edri, Stav Edri, Noam Eichler, Meital Eini, Leah Eitan, Yoni Eitan, Hadar Eisental, Oria Eksman, Margalit Eliaz, Pinkhas Elimelech, Nadav Elkayam, Inbar Entman, David Epstein, Avraham Eshel, Dalia Exenhendler, Guy Eyal, David Ezer, Dana Fahima, Shaked Farhi, Julia Filipone Erez, Lior Finiyan, Halel Fisher, David Fishzon, Maayan Fogel, Maayan Frenkel, Edan Friedman, Elishama Froindlich, Yoav Fuchs, Amit Gabay, Hadas Gabay, Ohad Gadasi, Matan Gal, Steve Gardner, Yam Gazit, Moran Gefen, Meiron Gelbard, David Gelman, Yael Gerber, Gal Gershon, Ibane Gilber, Asaf Gilboa, Neta Ginat, Irit Glanz, Yonathan Gleiterman, Aharon Goel, Isaac Goel, Eli Golan, Ruth Golan, Avital Goldberg, Batsheva Golding-Vasker, Merav Goldtish, Eugeny Gordeev, Segev Gorovitz, Zak Greenberg, Viki Greenboim, Bezalel Gubi, Ariel Gudinger, Reut Gur-Arieh, Yiftah Guvrin, Noam Haber, Ilan Hadad, Keren Hadad, Rivka Hai-Zion, Sharon Hanan, Hana Har Sinai, Yonathan Harold, Aharon Harris, Ruth Har-Shoshanim, Yaara Hartom, Peleg Haruzi, Matan Har-Zahav, Hagai Hasid, Rachel Hasid, Shuki Haydo, Jackie Haynes, Lenny Haynes, Yaacov Hazan, 1

xii

R eferences Kenyon K. 1964. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1963. PEQ 96:7–18. Prag K. 2008. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967 V: Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem (Levant Suppl. S. 7). Oxford.

Doron Ben Ami Jerusalem, 2020

Tomer Hemo, Hanan Herlich, Michal Hershkovitz, Shlomo Hervest, Amiad Hibsh, Deuel Horowitz, Neriya Horowitz, Moshe Ilan, Paul Incitti, Rivka Isakson, Maayan Itzkovich, Nizan Jamshy, Cayetana Johnson, Revital Kaner, Asaf Karavani, Isaac Kardon, Margo Karlin, Maayan Karlinski, Naama Karo, Tal Karo, Shalom Kaufman, Rachel Kehat, Tomer Kehat-Shor, Aviad Kelner, Ayelet Kfir, Daniel Khaykelson, Kfir Khubara, Alexander Khvesiuk, Yaacov Kikozashvili, Daniel Kinsvorsky, Hila Kinvorsky, Dina Kitrovsky, Yair Kleinbaum, Tal-Shahar Knohel, Adiel Kolman, Efraim Koppeld, Maya Koren, Shimon Korenman, Moshe Kostiner, Adi Krauss, Boris Kripak, David Krissman, Daniel Landau, Ita-El Landau, Yonathan Langbheim, Uri Lavi, Danit Lazarus, Reuven Leibler, Yonathan Leibler, Daniel Lemberg, Olga Lempert, Avigail Lev, Asaf Levi, David Levi, Yaacov Levi, Dr. Yonathan Levi, Yehuda Levian, Dani Leviashvili, Yara Lichtenberg, Nachum Lichtengold, Meir Lipa, Inga Litvak, Yonathan Lori, Elad Madai, Benyamin Maimon, Dana Maimon, Shiri Maimon, Shahar Malinovsky, Yana Malinovsky, Semyon Malkin, Yaniv Maman, Dina Marces, Maayan Margulis, Galia Marzel, Yonathan Marziano, Alex Mashkov, Talia Matar, Oz Matzkovich, Amitai Mazaki, Snir Mazar, Yehuda Meitlis, Nimrod Meser, Avishai Michaeli, Maya Michaels, Michelle Azoulay, Shulamit Miller, Sarai Mimran, Eliran Mirelashvili, Ilya Mitlin, Michael Mizrachi, Shahar Mizrachi, Shahar Mizrachi, Shmuel Mordechaev, Ayala Morgenstein, Shaul Moshkovitz, Constantin Muraviov, Nurit Nadivi, Yiska Nahshon, Anis Namus, Roni Nanikashvili, Yaala Naveh, Nazir Taha, Federico Neimo, Asher Nes, Haggai Netzer, Shira Nevo, Andrew Niggemann, Moshe Nissan, Oria Noiman, Irina Novoselsky, Shmuel O’Neil, Adam Onn, Neriya Or, Yael Oren, Yonathan Oren, Ira Ounger, Dahlia Oxenhandler, Reut Ozan, Yoav Pali, Alexander Pechuro, Zemer Peled, Anna Peleg, Elad Penkovsky, Idit Perez, Alexandro-Zvi Perldansky, Nathan Perski, Leah Pikovsky, Matan Pinhasi, Ehud Pinsky, Lior Pinsky, Selamawit Piskha, Dalia Poleg, Yiftah Poliachek, Elisha Raanan, Alla Rabinovich, Lior Rachamim, Uriel Radozkovich, Hanna Rajs-Cohen, Liora Ramati, Noa Razer, Tal Regev, Jey Regosin, Shlomi Ringel, Aviatar Rirter, Or Rose, Haim Rosenbaum, Baruch Rosenboim, Mataniya Rosin, Chaya Rosman, Avi Rosner, Nadine Ross, Efrat Rozenman, Dor Rozens, Elik Ruppo, Lior Saban, Hadass Sabato, Naama Sabato, Valentin Sama Rojo, Ayelet Segal, Ora Shabtai, Ayala Shabtai, Yosef Shakhnovski, Annie Shamir, Jessy Gabriel Shapiro, Talya Shefa, Reuven Shein, Gilad Shenkar, Eliraz Shershavsky, Zvi Shir, Boaz Shiraz, Hana Shitrit, Natan Shmuelevitz, Avraham Shmueli, Shoham Shmul, Gilad Shor, Avishai Shoresh, Sefi Shoval, Shoshana Shpigelman, Adi Shpigler, Nadav Shpigler, Amichai Shteinmatz z’’l, David Shukrun, Hod Shukrun, Shimrit Shuvali, Yosef Silverberg, Yosef Siton, Anaïs Sitruk, Lee Snitzer, Yaacov Sofer, Avigail Sonn, Yaacov Spektor, Tsvi Spiro, Avraham Stein, Tikva Steiner, Judith Sudri, Yonathan Sudri, Yan Tales, Shai Talmor, Nofar Tamam, Shalhevet Tawill, Sarah Taylor, Yinon Teitelbaum, Eitan Tempel, Gary T’harLev, Gleb Tkachuk, Yaacov Tolstoy, Zeev Trembobler, Hana Trestman, Nathan Tsairi, Gil Tuval, Amitai Uliel, Yasmin Vashdi, Sharon Vasker, David Vengrovsky, Michal Ventemilia, Jeffrey Villano, Sarah Vilner, Carmel Wazana, Yonathan Weinstein, Eli-Ana Weiss, Nadav Weiss, Itamar Weiswein, Chasdi Witt, Yair Wogg, Yotam Wolfe, Misgano Wondo, Andrej Yacovlev, Yoram Yahel, Gadi Yechieli, Harel Yekhezkel, Merav Yerbachti, Gilad Yihia, Rachel Yinon, Or Yoffe, Izchak Yonigan, Beni Yonin, Rachel Yulis, Asaf Yuval, Faran Zaira, Jonas Zianga, Shay Zipstein, Sophia Ziskind, Ayelet Zohar, Netanel Zohar, Sheli Zuckerman, Ariela Zwebner.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 1

I ntroduction Doron Ben-Ami

The first season of excavation in 2007 focused on Area M1, which was excavated to bedrock. In the following seasons (2008–2014), the excavation was expanded into Areas M2, M3 and M4, as well as Area M5, which incorporates Kathleen Kenyon’s trench (see Foreword: Plan 1), thus exposing the archaeological remains over the entire site (Fig. 1.1). The Givati Parking Lot site is rectangular in shape and covers an area of c. 0.5 hectares––one of the largest excavations in the City of David. Its extensive area resulted in the technical difficulty of presenting all the architectural remains of each stratum on a single plan. Thus, it was decided to present a schematic plan at the beginning of each stratum or phase showing the principal architectural units. Detailed plans of the architectural units are integrated into the stratigraphic discussion, each with an inset showing its location on the schematic site plan. For the same reason, cross sections of a full north–south or east–west axis could not be presented, and they were divided into several parts. Plan 2.30 presents a schematic plan of the entire site and all the sections. In the plans in Chapters 2 and 12, the locus numbers of the main features are underlined for clarity. It should be noted that building numbers were assigned according to one of the prominent rooms, and this number is underlined to distinguish it from the other room numbers. The current volume presents the remains of the Byzantine (Stratum V) and the Early Islamic (Strata IV–I) periods. While the stratigraphic outline that was initially defined in the first volume of the Givati project (Givati I: Table 1.1) is maintained here, the large-scale exposure provided significant new details, leading to a clearer understanding of the three phases of the Byzantine period (Phases VC–VA) and the stratigraphy and chronology of the Early Islamic period and its internal phasing (Phases IIB, IIA), as well as the definition of a Mamluk layer (see below, Table 1.1), none of which were fully comprehended during the first season of excavation in Area M1. Many secure, well-stratified loci, including floors, sealed installations and pits, were identified in Strata V–II and their various phases, and these provided reliable assemblages for the analyses of the small finds. In addition to these, many loci comprising fills of various kinds, most of them sealed, could be attributed to specific strata and phases following careful consideration of their stratigraphic setting, and these fulfilled a complementary role in the analyses of the finds. Many other artifacts originating in mixed contexts bear no chronological significance, and could only be attributed to a specific stratum or period based on style or comparanda.

2

DORON BEN-AMI

Fig. 1.1. Aerial view of the Givati Parking Lot excavations, looking south (Photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd.).

This volume is divided into three parts: Parts I and II are devoted to analyses of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods respectively, while Part III presents studies of findings from both periods. The Byzantine remains (Chapters 2–11) range in date from the late fourth to the beginning of the seventh centuries CE and are divided into three stratigraphic phases. Important contributions to the study of Byzantine Jerusalem include the large administrative Building 1821 in the north and Buildings 6446 and 6555 in the south; Street 1886, which is part of a central thoroughfare leading from the Siloam Pool in the south to the Upper City of Jerusalem in the north; and the agricultural terraces and plots that occupy a large area of the Stratum V layout. Two unique finds are the hoard of 264 solidi of Heraclius unearthed below the heavy destruction layer in Building 1821––providing a firm dating for its brutal end in 614 CE (Chapters 2, 5), and the miniature bone box bearing a diptych discovered on the Byzantine Street (Chapter 8).

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

3

The Early Islamic remains (Chapters 12–19) date from the early seventh to the early eleventh centuries CE and represent the Umayyad (Stratum IV) and the Abbasid (Strata III–I) periods. During the Umayyad period the area was devoted to a lime industry, as reflected by the large limekiln (L1850) uncovered on the northern side of the excavation area; this kiln was probably connected with the large-scale construction operations carried out on the Ḥaram esh-Sharif at that time. Interestingly, the area continued to serve public rather than domestic activities in the subsequent Abbasid period. At the beginning of the Abbasid period (Stratum III; second half of the eighth century CE), a large open market operated here, probably consisting of stands made of perishable material. The merchandise sold, both food and handicrafts, is vividly reflected in the rich finds from the many refuse pits excavated throughout the area. In Stratum II, ninth–late tenth centuries CE, the area changed its nature and became part of a well-planned quarter devoted mainly to smallscale industries and crafts. Two stratigraphic phases are discerned, Phases IIB and IIA. In Stratum I, which represents the final phase of the Abbasid occupation in this area during the late tenth–early eleventh centuries CE, a decline in the intensity of activities is clearly evident. Among the finds from the Early Islamic period, special note should be made of the bone industry (Chapter 16) and the rich, unparalleled assemblage of seeds and other organic material that was preserved in the Stratum III pits (Chapter 18). The analyses of these finds contribute to our knowledge of the craftsmanship and food consumption of the Jerusalem inhabitants during the Early Islamic period. The study of the Early Islamic pottery (Chapter 13) is of special importance, as until recently a comprehensive analysis of the ceramic repertoire of this period in Jerusalem was lacking. This picture is gradually changing, and the rich pottery assemblages that originated in secure, well-stratified loci in Strata IV–I of the Givati excavation comprise a significant contribution to our knowledge of the typology of the seventh–tenth-century ceramic repertoire in Jerusalem. The Mamluk period in this area is represented by 11 refuse pits. The stratigraphic setting of these pits clearly indicates that they cut through the fills that had accumulated above the Stratum I remains. These meager finds, entirely devoid of constructional remains, hardly represent an archaeological layer and were not assigned an independent stratum number (Table 1.1). Exposure of Byzantine and Early Islamic remains over an extensive area have enabled a reassessment of the nature of the transition between these two periods. This, together with aspects of settlement patterns and city planning in both periods, and the question of the city’s southern limits in the Early Islamic period, are among the issues addressed in Chapter 19. It should be noted that while the first volume in this series, Givati I, offered only a glimpse into the material culture typical of each period in this area, in those cases where types repeat themselves, no descriptions are included in the current analyses, but rather, reference is made to the relevant discussions in the first volume.

4

DORON BEN-AMI

Table 1.1. Stratigraphic Table Stratum

Period

Date

Main Features

Modern

1960s

Twentieth-century CE remains, including Kathleen Kenyon’s newly built walls in her Area M

Ottoman

Sixteenth–nineteenth centuries CE

Agricultural soil and pottery sherds

Mamluk

Thirteenth–fifteenth centuries CE

Refuse pits

Medieval

Eleventh–thirteenth centuries CE

Pottery sherds

I

Abbasid

Late tenth–early eleventh centuries CE

Architectural remains

II Phases IIB–IIA

Abbasid

Ninth–tenth centuries CE

Well-planned industrial and commercial quarter

III

Abbasid

Mid-eighth–ninth centuries CE

Many refuse pits of an open marketplace

IV

Umayyad

Early seventh–mid-eighth centuries CE

Limekiln 1850; architectural remains

V Phases VC–VA

Byzantine

Late fourth–early seventh centuries CE

Buildings 1821, 6446 and 6592; Street 1886; agricultural terraces and plots

VI

Late Roman

Late third–fourth centuries CE

Roman mansion

VII

Early Roman

First century BCE–first century CE

Large architectural complex consisting of monumental building and water installations

VIII

Hellenistic

Late third–second centuries BCE

Large architectural complex

Persian

Fifth–fourth centuries BCE

Pottery sherds, stamped handles

IX

Iron III

Seventh–sixth centuries BCE

Dwellings

X

Iron III

Seventh century BCE

Dwellings

XI

Iron III

Eighth–seventh centuries BCE

Dwellings

XII

Iron IIA

Ninth century BCE

Dwellings on bedrock

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 2

Stratigraphy and Architecture Doron Ben-Ami

The Late Roman structures at the site (Stratum VI) were destroyed by the earthquake of 363 BC (see Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2017; Givati III, forthcoming). Remains of the following Byzantine period were exposed throughout the site. They form part of a wellplanned administrative quarter, consisting mainly of large structures, a wide street, and agricultural plots bounded by terrace walls and crisscrossed with drainage and irrigation channels (Fig. 2.1). These remains contribute invaluable evidence for the layout of the Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem (the City of David) during the fifth to early seventh centuries CE, and assist in reconstructing the history of Jerusalem at the close of the Byzantine period. Three clear stratigraphic phases were discerned in Stratum V (Phases VC–VA), distinguished mainly by the raising of floor levels and the addition and removal of walls and other architectural elements.

Fig. 2.1. Artistic reconstruction of Phase VC with Building 1821 in the north, Street 1886 in the west, and Plots 1505 and 1582 stretching south; looking northwest (drawing by Mark Kunin).

8

Room 1905 in the southwestern corner of the building, the smallest of the three excavated rooms, is asymmetrical, narrowing slightly from west to east (c. 2.5 × 4.0 m; Fig. 2.3). It had a plaster floor resting upon a stone foundation (see below). On the eastern side, close to W1226, the floor was cut by an Abbasid pit. In the southern wall (W1232) a

Fig. 2.2. Aerial view of the northern part of the excavation area and Building 1821 (below) in relation to the Temple Mount; looking north (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 2.3. Southern rooms of Building 1821 with Street 1886 on right; looking south (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

Fig. 2.4. Building 1821 in background; looking north (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd.).

9

10

pair of windows, originally part of the earlier Late Roman wall below it, were incorporated into the Byzantine building (Fig. 2.6). However, these windows were not functional as they were blocked by a plastered drain channel (L1934) running along the southern face of the building (below).

Fig. 2.5. Southern wall of Building1821; looking northwest.

Fig. 2.6. Southern wall of Building 1821 standing over 4 m high; looking northeast.

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

11

Room 1821 is trapezoidal in shape, measuring 6 m in length. The northern wall (W1227) was built at a diagonal angle to the opposite wall (W1233), thus the width narrows from 2 m in the west to 1.5 m in the east (Fig. 2.7). A white-plaster floor abutted the walls and coated three steps in the east that ascended to Room 5039. Two coins were found on the floor, one of Justin I (518–527 CE; see Chapter 4: No. 42) and the other of Justinian I (527–537 CE; Chapter 4: No. 43).

Fig. 2.7. Room 1821 in lower center, Platform 1801 in upper center; looking north (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

A barrel-vault (L5037; Plan 2.30: Section 6-6) incorporated into the northern wall of Room 1821 (W1227) seems to extend between Room 1821 and Room 1801 to the north, and supports a stone platform above it (see below). The space below the vault was sealed with a thick layer of stone collapse, and the floor was not exposed here (Fig. 2.8). This vaulted space may have served as a passageway to the adjacent Room 1801, located beyond the northern border of the excavation area. Room 5039 in the southeastern corner of the building is rectangular, measuring 2 × 6 m. The entrance to the room was located in the western wall (W1293) leading down three steps (L2017) to adjacent Room 1821 (Figs. 2.9, 2.10). As this room was converted into a water reservoir in the following Early

Fig. 2.8. Barrel Vault 5037 and the stone collapse resulting from the destruction of the building; looking north.

12

Fig. 2.9. Stairs 2017 leading from Room 1821 to Room 5039; later W1267 in background; looking east.

Fig. 2.10. Room 1821 with Stairs 2017; looking west.

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

13

Islamic period, excavation here did not continue below the thick gray plaster that coated the walls and floor. Part of the earlier Late Roman wall, including two narrow elongated windows, was incorporated into the southern wall of the room (W1255; Fig. 2.11).

Fig. 2.11. The narrow, elongated windows incorporated in southern W1255 of Building 1821; looking north.

A second row of rooms to the north was only partly exposed in the excavation area: Room 1805 in the west, Room 1801 in the center, and Room 5038 in the east. Room 1805 was badly damaged in Stratum IV, when the floor and much of its western wall (W1260) were dismantled. Worth noting in this context is a chalk ossuary fragment bearing a composition of incised scenes that was discovered in Room 1805 (see Chapter 9). Room 1801 is located north of and parallel to Room 1821. The southern part of the room, comprising a long, narrow platform (1.3 m wide) resting upon Barrel Vault 5037, was paved with large flat stone slabs, some of them over 1 m in length. The platform was flanked by a stone railing (W1240) in the north (Figs. 2.7, 2.12). It descends moderately eastward, and close to W1261 it turns north and

Fig. 2.12. Platform 1801 sloping eastward; looking west.

14

slopes sharply downward. This sloping platform apparently served as a ramp leading from the lower floor in Room 1801 to the north, beyond the limit of the excavation, to the upper floor of the building. A wooden banister above the stone railing probably assisted the climb. This feature implies that Room 1801 was much larger in size than the three rooms in the southern row. It may be that the three more northerly rooms shared similar dimensions, and the addition of W1258 in Room 5058 in Phase VB strengthens this proposal. Plaster and plastered decorations (stucco) were applied to the walls of Room 1801 and in some places, herringbone engravings on the walls testify that plaster was originally applied here but not preserved. In this earliest phase, Room 5038 was bounded in the south by W1264. As the room was reduced in size in Phase VB by a new wall in the south (W1258), which was not dismantled, the limited floor area between the later wall and the northern boundary of the excavation was not exposed. An open, plastered channel (L1934) drained the runoff water from the building’s roof. It began close to the joint between W1293 and W1233 (Figs. 2.13, 2.14), where a vertical pipe must have descended from the roof. The channel runs westward c. 11 m along the southern face of the building and rests upon a thick foundation layer of pottery sherds and other small finds (L1963, not on the plan; see Chapter 3: Figs. 3.2–3.5; see also Chapter 6: Figs. 6.1–6.3) that yielded a coin dated to the fifth century CE (Chapter 4: No. 33). Interestingly, a large number of molluscs recovered on the channel floor all belong to Donax trunculus (see Chapter 25: Table 25.5). At the southwestern corner of the building, Channel 1934 meets another drainage channel, L1818, at an angle. Channel 1818, built of two parallel stone walls and covered with flat stone slabs (Figs. 2.15, 2.16), carried the water under the wide Byzantine Street 1886, part of which was exposed close to the northwestern boundary of the excavation

Fig. 2.14. Close up of the meeting point between Channel 1934 and the pipe that drained water from the roof. ◄ Fig. 2.13. Channel 1934 along the southern face of Building 1821; looking west.

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

15

Fig. 2.15. Channel 1818 (upper center) continuing under Byzantine Street 1886; looking west (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

area (Fig. 2.17; see Plan 2.5). This stone channel most likely met the principal drainage channel (cloaca maxima) of the street, which drained the buildings on either side (see below). Opposite the western wall of Building 1821, close to the northwestern corner of the excavation area, another drainage channel (L1889) was unearthed. Like Channel 1818, it was stone-built and covered with flat stone slabs. Its western end continued beyond the excavation area, and it most probably drained a building on the opposite (western) side of Street 1886. The principal drainage channel (cloaca maxima) running under the street Fig. 2.16. Close up of Channel 1818; looking northeast. was excavated further south by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald in 1927. There, it actually consisted of two drains, one above the other, the upper carefully plastered, the lower unplastered. The excavators noticed that smaller drains from the houses lining both sides of the street drained into this principal channel (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929:41–42).

16

Fig. 2.17. Street 1886 on the left, Building 1821 in the background; looking north (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

Northeastern Rooms (Plans 2.3, 2.4) A row of six rooms was uncovered aligned with Building 1821 to the west. They comprise remains of the earlier Late Roman mansion of Stratum VI (see above), and yielded some evidence of their reuse in the Byzantine period. However, their purpose in this period is obscure and they cannot be attributed to any specific structure. Due to severe damage in the Early Islamic period, only segments of floors were preserved inside the rooms. A compact earth floor was found in Room 2458 in the west. A patch of a plaster floor was all that remained in Room 2469, and no floor was detected in the adjoining room to its east, Room 2511. A thin plaster floor was found in the adjacent Room 2411, which was disturbed by a large Abbasid pit on the eastern side, and other disturbances were detected on the western side. Room 2416 had a similar floor, also cut by a large Abbasid pit. In Room 2418, a segment of mosaic floor was exposed, upon which a fragment of a reliquary lid bearing a cross was found (see Chapter 7: Cat. No. 37). It appears that these rooms formed the southern part of a large structure (or structures?) during the Byzantine period that extended further north and east beyond the limit of the excavation area. Their fragmentary state of preservation prevents any further conclusion as to their nature.

18

Street 1886 (Plans 2.5, 2.6; 2.30: Sections 2-2, 6-6) Along the northwestern boundary of the excavation area, a wide paved street runs on a north–south axis (Figs. 2.17, 2.18). The street was paved with large rectangular slabs of hard local limestone (Arabic mizzi), the largest measuring c. 0.8 × 1.3 m, many worn smooth by extended use (Fig. 2.18). Most of the street’s pavement in Sqs L/97–98 was completely removed in the following Umayyad period (Stratum IV; see Chapter 12). The western side is still buried beyond the excavation area, and only in one place in the northwestern corner of the site, where the excavation extended to the west, were some of the stone slabs found in situ (L1877) abutting the street’s western curb stones (W1265). On the east, the street abutted the eastern curb stones (W1387), and together they provide evidence that the width of the street was 4.8 m (Plan 2.5). Paved sidewalks extended on either Fig. 2.18. Eastern side of Street 1886; looking south. side of the street, segments of which were exposed along the eastern side (L1917, L1524, L854). They abutted curb W1387 in the west and were delineated by W1158 in the east, to a width of 2.2 m. If the sidewalk on the west had the same width as that on the east, then the street was 9.2 m wide in total. To date, a section over 25 m long of this street has been exposed. It continued to the south and the north following the course of the Tyropoeon Valley. In the 1920s, c. 40 m of this street were exposed some 100 m to the south by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald (1929:41–55). This part of the street shares similar characteristics with that exposed further north, including the width of the street and the size of the rectangular mizzi-stone slabs. Especially striking is the fact that in both stretches, buildings were constructed on either side of the street. The street sloped down to the south with a difference in height of over 1 m between its northern and southernmost points of exposure, obviously following the natural topography of the hill. The north–south oriented wall to the east of the street, W1158, was exposed for over 22 m and appears to continue further south. Originally built as the western wall of a large mansion in the Late Roman period (Stratum VI), in the Byzantine period W1158 served as a terrace wall that delineated a large agricultural field stretching south of Building 1821 (see below). During Phase VC, W1158 was a low wall only 0.5 m higher than the street level along its western face.

22

The westernmost plot in the agricultural area (L1505, Plan 2.7) is rectangular in shape (c. 300 sq m), bounded by two long walls, W1158 in the west and W1171 in the east, both abutting Building 1821 in the north. The southern boundary wall of Plot 1505 did not survive. The large mansion that stood here in the Late Roman period was destroyed, and in the Byzantine period the debris was leveled and covered with c. 1 m of brownish soil. The western wall of the mansion, projecting only 1 m above ground level, was reused in the Byzantine period (W1158) as a retaining wall for this soil fill to its east, and bounded Street L1886 to its west. In several places along its course, the wall was damaged by Early Islamic pits that cut through it (Stratum III, see Chapter 12). Wall 1171 runs parallel to W1158, c. 10 m to the east. It is less solid, constructed of small and medium-sized stones with large stones occasionally integrated. Judging by the uneven dimensions of its southern part compared to the northern part, it appears that it was built in two sections. It is evident that this wall was constructed of stones taken from the debris of the Late Roman mansion, as in some cases frescos were still attached to the stones. Wall 1171 was also cut by pits in the Early Islamic period (Figs. 2.20–2.22). In the center of Plot 1505, the openings of two shafts (L1339, L1391A) protruded slightly above the agricultural soil. These shafts open into an underground water reservoir consisting of two rooms arranged in an ‘L’ shape. It was originally constructed in the Late Roman period and reused in the Byzantine period, when the openings of the shafts were adjusted to the new surface level. This water reservoir continued to function throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid periods (Strata IV–I, Plan 2.30: Section 5-5; see also Chapter 12). At the northern end of Plot 1505, a stone-built channel (L1923) was uncovered for 16 m along the southern side of Building 1821 (Fig. 2.23), leaving only a narrow space

Fig. 2.20. Byzantine agricultural field: Plot 1505 and terrace W1171 cut by an Abbasid pit in foreground, Plot 1582 in center, Abbasid Building 1421 in background; looking east.

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

23

Fig. 2.21. Close up of western face of terrace W1171, Late Roman remains visible below the terrace wall; looking southeast.

Fig. 2.22. Stone decorated with fresco, originally from Late Roman mansion, in secondary use in terrace W1171; looking east.

(L1711) between it and the building. Channel 1923, 0.6 m wide, was built of two parallel walls of one row of stones each. Part of the original covering of the channel, consisting of flat stone slabs, was preserved in situ (Fig. 2.24). This channel functioned as an irrigation channel for the agricultural plot to the south. Unfortunately, the ends of Channel 1923 were not preserved, thus we cannot ascertain its starting point or where it led. In the east, the channel passed through and was integrated into W1171, and continued another 8.5 m until it ended abruptly. In the west, it ran toward W1158 but ended midway, where it was cut by the Umayyad Limekiln 1850 built here in Stratum IV (see Chapter 12). Excavation below Channel 1923 revealed that on the west it was set directly upon a foundation wall buried in the ground, built here to fulfill two functions: to delineate Channel 1934 (above), and to support Channel 1923. To the east of Plot 1505, Plot 1960 was delineated in the south by W1186/W1345 and in the north by W1255, the southern wall of Building 1821. Channel 1923 ran across

24

Fig. 2.23. Channel 1923 winding along the southern face of Building 1821; looking west.

Fig. 2.24. Close up of the western end of Channel 1923; looking east.

26

Fig. 2.25. Terrace W1187 in background integrating large rectangular stones in secondary use; note agricultural soil in section; looking northeast.

Fig. 2.26. Aerial view of Plot 1582 marked by rows of small and medium-sized stones; Abbasid pits cut through soil and terrace W1171 (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

Fig. 2.27. Northern part of Plot 1582 with Abbasid pits cutting through it and Late Roman collapse in background; note agricultural soil in section; looking west.

28

Fig. 2.28. Plot 1582 during excavations; note the clean, dark brown agricultural soil in sections; Late Roman collapse in background; looking southwest.

Fig. 2.29. Plot 1631 (in the center) bounded by terrace W1962 in the east; note agricultural soil in section; Late and Early Roman remains in foreground; looking east.

30

Fig. 2.30. Plot 1631 (with meter stick) and lower part of terrace W1962 with stone pillar integrated into it; looking east.

Fig. 2.32. Installation 2587; looking south.

To the east of Plot 1631 and Installation 2587, the large Plot 3824 extended to the south of W1484 (see Plan 2.4) and was bounded in the east by several adjoining, zigzagging walls, W1469/W1463/W1470 Fig. 2.31. Terrace W1962 with Plot 1631 in the west and stone collapse in the east; looking north. (Plan 2.10). These walls were built directly above the collapse and walls of Stratum VI (Late Roman) in a careless manner; none of them have straight faces (Figs. 2.33–2.35). The northern part of W1469 was built of small stones, and its southern part of large and medium-sized stones. The same phenomenon is seen in W1470. The width of W1463 varied significantly––its western end measured 1 m, its center

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

31

1.5 m, and its eastern end 1.3 m. These irregularities indicate that these were terrace walls delineating the eastern boundary of Plot 3824. The remnants of an irrigation channel (L2532) were discovered in the middle part of this plot. Further north, W1464 (1.2 × 1.2 m; see Plan 2.4) resembles Installation 2587, although smaller.

Fig. 2.33. Eastern side of Plot 3824 bounded in the east by the zigzagging walls; looking north.

Fig. 2.34. Collapse and walls of Stratum VI (Late Roman) below Plot 3824; looking north (see also Fig. 2.35).

32

Fig. 2.35. Stratum VI (Late Roman) walls and collapse after removal of the soil of Plot 3824; looking north.

Two stone rows, W1481/W1954 and W1485, may have divided Plot 3824 into two additional plots in the east, L2503 and L2502. Stone row W1481/W1954 was cut by an Abbasid pit, and its southern end abutted a shallow, rounded stone installation (L3709), only one course high. No remains of plaster were detected inside. It may have served to hold a large ceramic vessel (water container?). The agricultural fields did not extend east of W1469. Here, a somewhat rectangular space was excavated, bounded by W1461 in the north, W1469 in the west, W1463 in the south and a rock scarp, W1440, in the east (see Plan 2.4). Wall 1472 seems to have divided this space in two, with the northern unit featuring a thin plaster floor (L2423) resting directly above bedrock. This floor must have extended further south into L2444, although it was not preserved (Plan 2.10). No finds were recovered on the floor to suggest a possible function for this space. Buildings 6592 and 6446 (Plans 2.11, 2.12; 2.30: Sections 8-8, 9-9( Architectural remains apparently belonging to two separate buildings were exposed in the southeastern part of the excavation area (Fig. 2.36): Building 6592 (Sqs B–E\5–7) and Building 6446 (Sqs B–E\8–9). The walls and floors of both buildings were heavily coated with a thick layer of plaster. These architectural remains are bounded in the north by a common wall (W3127/W3085 in Building 6592 and W3083 in Building 6444), which runs parallel to the northern wall of Building 606 (W864) excavated in Area M1 in the first season (Givati I:43–45), and this long wall apparently functioned as the southern boundary of the agricultural fields that extended southward from Building 1821 in the north. The long W1962 (above) probably abutted the western end of W3127 (the actual connection did not survive) and most likely the other two long terrace walls located further west, W1171 and W1158, also ended at approximately the same line.

33

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

Building 6446

Building 6592 659 2

Fig. 2.36. Aerial view of Buildings 6592 and 6446, looking south; note Kenyon’s trench in the foreground (photograph, Sky View Photography Ltd).

Building 6592 is built of wide walls and foundations into which large stones were integrated in order to stabilize its walls. The floor levels of the rooms are c. 0.5–1.0 m lower than those in Building 6446 to the east, due to the natural topography of the hill. Many of these floors, and some of the walls, were severely damaged by pits of the Abbasid period (Stratum III, see Chapter 12). The western and northern walls of Room 6577 in the northwestern corner of the building were missing due to later disturbances, while the walls of Room 6580 to its south were preserved to their entire length. Two square rooms of similar size, Rooms 6525 and L6574, were located to the east. Here, the plaster on the walls was preserved to a considerable height (Fig. 2.37), and the remains of plain stucco found on the floor of Room 6574 testify to plaster having been utilized also on the upper parts of the walls. Room 6592 in the southwestern corner was the largest of the building’s rooms. Its western side was excavated in the 2007 season (Building 756; Givati I: Plan 2.11). A pilaster (W962) against the western wall, and presumably a second one on the opposite wall that is missing, supported a stone arch for the roofing. The need for pilasters here was probably due to the large size of the room. The thick, white-plaster floor abutted a rounded stone installation (L6598) near the southern wall of the room. Building 6592 is separated from Building 6446 by Alley 6488 (Plan 2.12). The alley’s beaten-earth surface descended moderately southward, with a stone step (W3124) integrated in its northern end.

36

Fig. 2.38. Room 6446 with threshold in situ; looking east.

lies beyond the boundary of the excavation area. The thick white-plaster floor inside the room rested directly on the bedrock, which was hewn to accommodate the new floor level. When the plaster floor was excavated and the bedrock exposed, it became evident that a Late Roman quarry and Early Roman water installations had been located here. These had been leveled by the Byzantine builders, and some of the Byzantine walls were founded directly upon them. In the northwestern corner of Room L6446, a long, shallow, rectangular depression had been quarried in the bedrock surface and coated with thick white plaster (L6519, not in plan; Fig. 2.38). The purpose of this cavity is unclear, and it was devoid of finds. Noteworthy is the concentration of numerous imbrices found upon the floor near the northern wall (W3099) of the room. They had probably functioned as water pipes connected with the underground water reservoir (L6388) located on the other side of W3099. Reservoir 6388 had been excavated by Kenyon (1964: Pl. VIA) and was cleared by us of the debris Kenyon used to fill in her trench. Kenyon noted that it made use of an Early Roman ritual bath (miqveh) originally located here. This ritual bath was later quarried during the Late Roman period, as discerned by Kenyon at the bottom of L6388, and reused again in the Byzantine period, when it was converted into a water reservoir. Following our cleaning, the line of the rock-hewn miqveh steps were clearly visible (see Plan 2.30: Section 8-8). In the Byzantine period the water reservoir was apparently roofed, as suggested by the walls built along its perimeter, and its upper surface was integrated into the building’s living surface. A long vertical plastered gutter (L6443) was carved into the wall of the reservoir close to the southeastern corner of the reservoir, probably to hold the water tube leading the run-off water from the building’s roof into the reservoir (Figs. 2.39, 2.40). East of Reservoir 6388 and close to the eastern boundary of the excavation area, the remains of two rooms were exposed by Kenyon and cleaned by us: Rooms 6386 and 6375. No floors or in-situ finds were encountered here, probably due to their removal in

38

Fig. 2.41. Kenyon’s trench: doorway in W3092 and Niche 6442; looking southwest.

Phase VB (Plans 2.13–2.21; 2.30: Sections 1-1–10-10; Figs. 2.42–2.44) The plan of the area in this phase largely follows that of the original layout of the previous phase. It is distinguished from its predecessor by some architectural changes inside Building 1821, and by some slight modifications in the agricultural plots south and southeast of Building 1821 and in the southeastern buildings (Plan 2.13). On the basis of the pottery and numismatic analyses, Phase VB can be dated to the sixth century (see Chapters 3, 4). Building 1821 (Plans 2.14; 2.30: Sections 3-3–6-6) In the southwestern room of the building, a new plaster floor was laid (L1881) c. 0.3 m higher than the plaster floor of the previous phase (L1905). Floor 1881, which sloped eastward, was almost devoid of finds due mainly to the raising of the floor level again in the following phase (VA, below). A coin of Theodosius (dated 383–395 CE; Chapter 4: No. 16) was uncovered above the floor, probably to be assigned to the make-up of the following floor (see below). While no change was noted in the adjacent Room 1821 in the east, or in Room 1801, which retained its original layout with a large stone platform, a significant change

40

Fig. 2.42. Niche 5028 in W1258; looking southwest.

Fig. 2.43. Close up of plastered Niche 5028; looking south.

50

Fig. 2.48. Three rounded sockets in one of the stones in W1231.

that the hoard was placed on a small, hidden shelf attached to the wall, a proposal that is further supported by three rounded socket holes found in one of the stones of the wall, directly above the hoard’s findspot (Fig. 2.48). Thus, when the building was destroyed and its walls collapsed, the coins fell and were covered by the accumulated debris. Apart from its direct contribution to the numismatic study (see Chapter 5), the precise two-year dating of the hoard also has important chronological and historical implications, which are discussed below (see Chapter 11). Heavy stone debris also accumulated above the floor of the adjacent Room 1821 (Figs. 2.49–2.51). A thick layer of dark ash Fig. 2.49. Heavy collapse in Room 1821; to the right: Barrel Vault 5037 in W1227; looking northwest. was found between the stones and above them, apparently the result of a fire that consumed the wooden roof construction. In the plastered channel running along the southern wall of Building 1821 (L1852), a new layer of gray plaster was laid, c. 0.2 m higher than the floor of the previous phase (Fig. 2.52). Rooms 1805 in the west and 5039 in the east were damaged in the Early Islamic period and no remains can be assigned to the Byzantine destruction debris of Phase VA.

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

51

Fig. 2.51. Vault 5037 buried under heavy collapse; note dark ash layer between the stones; looking north.

◄ Fig. 2.50. Heavy collapse in Room 1821; looking east.

Fig. 2.52. Raised floor level in Channel 1852 along the southern wall of Building 1821; looking west.

Stratigraphic Sections

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

703 00

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

703 00

704 00

705 00

L1871

#L1843 78

a

a

L1335

W1345

36 L1923

#L1536

W1106 W1103

Channel W1187

Agricultural soil

#L1333

W1114

W1142

#L1482

W1125

W1178

Kenyon seam

L1497

W1145

1'-1''

#L1489A

Agricultural soil

#L1498

W1161 W1154

#L1464

#L1477 #L149

W1151

1-1'

#L1468

#L1409 464 W1153

W1162

1#L1540 71

W1160

#L1571

a

a

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

59

691 00

692 00

693 00

694 00

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

#L1482

W1179

W1106 W1118 W1103

#L1563

W1119

W1180

W1171

W1122

2-2

W1104

W1102

W1158

W1148

W1220

L1733

#L1724

#L1449

#L1738

L1524 Pavement

#L1731 #L1732

60

692 00

693 00

694 00

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

703 00

W1104

#L1347

3-3

#L1444

L1951 pit W1164

W1222

L1923 Channel

#L1800

W1236

L1852 Channel

W1233

W1234

W1226

L1787

W1227

W1240

L1801 Ramp

61

694 00

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

703 00

704 00

#L1544

#L1629

#L1569

W1172

W1178

W1264 W1258

W1262

L5007

L1561 pit

W1177

W1175

L1532

W1255

4-4

L1923 Channel #L1474

W1136

W1130

W1159 W1163

#L1408

W1186 W1187 W1184

#L1408

W1155 W1131

L1453 Channel

62

692 00

693 00

694 00

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

#L1375

W1104

#L1341

#L1348

#L1450

W1100

#L1327 W1105

L1339

L1339A

L1365 Channel W1110

5-5

#L1453

#L1444

W1256

W1254 #L1909

W1124

W1253

W1221 L1850 Limekiln W1244 W1232

#L1772

#L1905

#L1881

W1231

63

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

703 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

7 00 702 00

703 00

b

b

W1267

W1411

a

a

WL1877 65

W1265

W1242

L1532

W1264

W1434

W1241

W1415

W1262

L1769

W1425

W1178

W1228

W1426A

6''-6'''

W1403

W1403A

W1451

W1445

W1425

W1460

W1226

L2336

W1460

6'-6''

6-6'

W1231

L2371

W1454

W1450

W1418

W1411

L2017

W1227

W1293

b

b

a

a

64

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

703 00

W1464

7-7

W1446 W1472

#L2328

W1402

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

65

694 00

695 00

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

693 00 0

694 00 0

695 00 0

696 00 0

697 00 0

698 00 0

699 00 0

700 00 0

701 00 0

702 00 0

703 00 0

7704 4 00 0

a

#L3646

W1913

#L3562

a

W1917

#L2366 #L2366

#L2282 #L 2 2

L3587

W1945

#L24 # 2411

#L6401

#L6305

#L6265

W W1453 453

W3041

L6243

#L2328 #L 3 8

W W1405 0

W3026

W W1402 402 #L2550 #L2550

W3024

W W14 15

#L 2 9 #L2279

W W1420 420

W142 4 1

#L3669

W W1427 427

#L3645

W W1441 44

#L 2 8 #L2278

#L6287

8'-8''

#L6107

8-8'

W W1407 0

W3058

L2229 L2229

W W1408 408

L2324 L 3 4

W3028

W W1463 463

W 428 W1428

#L2239 L2239

#L2 3 #L2230

L2252 L 2 2

W3091

L6388

W 466 W1466

L2272 L2272

W W1423 2

W3099

L6443

L227 2271

W1409 4 9

W W1470 470

W1449 4 9

#L6446

W191 9 1

a

a

#L6472

W3117

#L6464

#L3562 #L3 6

66

696 00

697 00

698 00

699 00

700 00

701 00

702 00

L6492

W3074

W3082 W3049 #L6288 W3048

W3038

W3066

L6299 Oven

W3067

W3068

W3080

9-9

L6384

Column

W3092 W3126

W3137

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

67

68 701 00 700 00

W1148

L1850 W1171

699 00

a

698 00 697 00 696 00 695 00

a

694 00

10-10' 703 00

W1153

L2301

702 00

W1465 701 00

W1436

b

700 00

W1345

699 00 698 00

W1500

W1524

a

697 00

b

696 00 695 00 694 00

a

693 00

10'-10''

W1458

702 00

L2229

b

699 00 698 00 697 00 696 00 695 00

W1471

L2457

W1423 W1458

701 00 700 00

W1468

b 10''-10'''

L2594

CHAPTER 2: STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

69

R eferences Ben-Ami D. and Tchekhanovets Y. 2017. The Southward Expansion of Aelia Capitolina in the Late Roman Period. In G. Avni and G.D. Stiebel eds. Roman Jerusalem: A New Old City (JRA Suppl. S. 105). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 65–71. Crowfoot J.W. and Fitzgerald G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (PEFA V). London. Gutfeld O. 2007. The Planning of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem’s Streets. Eretz-Israel 28:66–78 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 11*). Kenyon K. 1964. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1963. PEQ 96:7–18. Tsafrir Y. 1999. The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. In Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai eds. The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 CE). Jerusalem. Pp. 281–351 (Hebrew).

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 3

The Byzantine Pottery Anna de Vincenz

Introduction Following the earthquake of 363 CE, which destroyed the Late Roman (Stratum VI) structures at the site, a large administrative building was erected here in the Byzantine period (Building 1821, Stratum V; see Chapter 2). This building was in use until its destruction in 614 CE, as determined by the numismatic evidence (see Chapters 4, 5). Thus, the pottery assemblages presented below are chronologically defined by these two absolute anchors. The material discussed here comprises a selection of the ceramics retrieved in the 2008–2014 seasons, and originates in secure loci from within Building 1821 and associated Channels 1852, 1889 and 1934, and from the surface of the slabs (L1877) and a sequence of plastered floors (L1809, L1820, L1823) of Street 1886. In addition, an assemblage of pottery sherds from the soil in the agricultural field to the south of Building 1821, which is of a mixed nature, is also presented. The Byzantine Stratum V was divided stratigraphically into three main building phases, VC, VB and VA (see Chapter 2). The goal of this ceramic study was to date these phases through analysis of the associated ceramic assemblages. Due to the firm dating of the Byzantine assemblage, the stratigraphic sequence within this period provides an opportunity for a further refinement of the dating of the Byzantine repertoire in Jerusalem. The ceramic assemblages are very fragmentary, with almost no complete vessels, and only a few restorable vessels.1 The material was sorted in the field and only diagnostic sherds were retained. The diagnostic pieces were further selected according to secure loci. As the material from the three phases is largely homogenous and the ceramic types recur in most of the loci, the description of the vessels is presented in typological order. However, the assemblages from the secure loci are illustrated in the figures according to the architectural features assigned stratigraphically to a specific phase, to aid in the chronological analysis. The ware descriptions were assisted by the Munsell Soil Color Charts (1998). The table ware consists of imported fine wares, such as African Red Slip ware (ARS) from North Africa, Late Roman C ware (LRC) from Asia Minor, and some Cypriot Red Slip ware (CRS) from Cyprus, mainly plates and bowls. Local fine wares appeared alongside the imports, such as rouletted bowls and Fine Byzantine Ware (FBW) bowls and jugs, as

The digital ceramic drawings were prepared by the team of the Hebrew University.

1

72

ANNA DE VINCENZ

well as many simple local bowls; some of the local bowls were used as lamps, as testified by traces of soot. Vessels for food preparation are very prominent in the assemblages, mainly basins with arched rims that are a well-known type in the Jerusalem area, as well as other large basins and a mortarium. Cooking vessels include casseroles, frying pans with wishbone handles, closed cooking pots and jugs made of the same brittle cooking-pot ware that were presumably used as cooking jugs for liquids. Many fragments of lids, which according to their diameter would fit casseroles or frying pans, have a knob with a steam hole. The storage vessels comprise mainly local jars of various types; the so-called Gaza jars have also been identified in these assemblages. The storage jars were probably sealed or covered by bowl-lids made of fine ware related to the FBW, which are quite common at the site. Several imported amphorae are also present in the assemblages. Numerous jugs and juglets, some of them of FBW, were also recovered. Several fragments of lanterns were identified, a vessel that has been found previously in excavations in and around Jerusalem. Other lighting vessels are lamps, mostly fragments of the candlestick type. Miscellaneous artifacts include a small fragment of what may be a stand, as well as a mold-made figurine. In many of the loci in Stratum V, fragments of roof tiles were found (not illustrated), some of them with stamped decorations that are well-known from other sites in Jerusalem.

Discussion The following discussion presents the typological groups discerned in the assemblages, with a general description of each type, its ware and provenance. Parallels are cited from the first season of excavation (2007) in Area M1 at the present site, as well as from sites in and around Jerusalem; in the case of imported wares, publications that are relevant for the period are referred to.

Bowls Imported Fine-Ware Bowls Most of the fine-ware bowls are of imported wares that were common in the eastern Mediterranean during the Byzantine period, originating from North Africa, Asia Minor and Cyprus. The classification of these vessels follows Hayes (1972, 1980). The dating suggested by Hayes will be taken into consideration, but will be revised according to new finds and more recent research. African Red Slip (ARS) Ware Vessels of this group were produced in various workshops in North Africa from the end of the first century CE (Hayes 1972:13) and distributed widely throughout the eastern

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

73

Mediterranean. Their ware and slip resemble that of the Terra Sigillata of earlier periods, although it is coarser and the slip is less glossy, but still very shiny (for a detailed description of the ware, see Hayes 1972:13–14). Such vessels appear at sites in Israel from the fourth century on, but were not imported in as large quantities as the wares from Asia Minor or Cyprus. ARS Bowl Form 50 (Fig. 3.6:1). A medium-sized to large bowl with a tapered rim, and usually a very small beveled foot or a flat base (Hayes 1972:69–73, Fig. 12). The ware is rather thin walled and slipped. Hayes dated the appearance of this form toward the middle of the third century, and stated that the earlier examples are very thin walled with a goodquality slip, while the later examples are usually thicker with a thicker slip (Hayes 1972:72). Our example is made of very thin ware with a thicker slip of excellent quality––a type produced throughout the fourth century. An example of this type was found in a probable fourth-century context at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf near Jerusalem (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:32). ARS Bowl Form 61A (Fig. 3.2:1). A rather large bowl or dish with an incurved rim and a flat base (Hayes 1972:100–107, Figs. 16, 17). This type of bowl/dish was quite common in the eastern Mediterranean during the fourth century. ARS Bowls Form 67 (Figs. 3.1:1; 3.2:2, 4; 3.6:2). Bowls with a double carinated rim that ends with a hook or a roll below it (Hayes 1972:112–116, Fig. 19). The rim also has one or two grooves near the edge. The interior of this type usually has stamped decorations and grooves in the center. A common import into Israel, this bowl type has been found at many sites, for example as far south as Ḥorbat Bet Loya,2 where it is common in assemblages dated to the fifth century. In Jerusalem, this type was reported at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:33). It appeared toward the middle of the fourth century in all its variations and continued until the end of the fifth century. The variations in shape do not seem to have any chronological significance; however, the thinner and more carefully made vessels appear to be earlier (mid-fourth–beginning of fifth centuries). ARS Bowls Form 91B (Figs. 3.1:2; 3.2:3, 5; 3.6:3). Bowls characterized by a flanged rim ending in a hook or roll (Hayes 1972:140–144, Fig. 26). The interior is usually decorated with feather-rouletting (Fig. 3.2:5). The ware is of good quality and the slip is shiny. According to Hayes, this variant made its appearance around the mid-fifth century (Hayes 1972:144). It is quite common at Ḥorbat Bet Loya, where it was found in assemblages of the fifth century. ARS Bowls Form 104C (Figs. 3.12:1, 2; 3.16:1; 3.19:1). Large bowls with a rounded knob rim with a groove below it and a low ring-base (Hayes 1972:160–166, Fig. 30). Hayes states that the later examples are not decorated (Hayes 1972:160) and indeed, our complete

The material from Ḥorbat Bet Loya has been studied by the author and awaits publication.

2

74

ANNA DE VINCENZ

example bears no stamped decoration but a groove on the rim. Thus, this bowl should be dated to the mid-sixth–early seventh centuries. This type of bowl was found in the oil press at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf and is dated there to the sixth–seventh centuries (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:34). ARS Bowls Form 108 (Fig. 3.14:1, 2). Small to medium-sized bowls with an everted, thickened, flat rim (Hayes 1972:171, Fig. 33). The early vessels of this type are of fine ware with a very shiny, well-adhering slip, while the ware of our examples is rather coarse and the slip is thin and not as shiny. Thus, the ware and slip date these two vessels to the late sixth–seventh centuries. ARS Bowl Decorated with Chevrons (Fig. 3.10:1). A fragment decorated with chevrons made of strokes (Hayes 1972:243, Fig. 42; chevrons 75q) from the interior of a bowl, possibly with some other motif in the center. Such decorations are found on bowls of Form 67 (above), and thus this fragment is dated to the beginning of the fifth century. ARS Bowl Decorated with Stamped Palmette 51 and Fringed Circle 36t (Fig. 3.2:6). A bowl decorated with stamped palmettes positioned in a circle around the center of the bowl with a whirl-fringe between each palmette (Hayes 1972: Figs. 38, 40; palmette 5l and fringed circles 36t). The combination of these two decorative motifs that fill the center of the bowl leaving the sides and the rim plain, is found on bowls of Forms 61B and 67 (above). Thus, this decorative pattern should be dated to the mid-fourth–fifth centuries. Late Roman C (LRC) Ware This group of imported fine wares comes from Asia Minor, where production centers have been discovered (Hayes 1980:lix). These vessels are made of fine, well-fired ware that breaks cleanly, and are usually covered with a very thin slip of the same color as the ware. Such vessels were common throughout the region during the fifth–seventh centuries and perhaps even later (for a detailed description of the ware, see Hayes 1972:323–324). LRC Bowls Forms 3F and 3H (Form 3F: Figs. 3.6:4; 3.9:1–3; 3.10:2; 3.12:3; 3.18:2; 3.19:2–5; Form 3H: Figs. 3.2:7; 3.6:5, 6; 3.10:3–5; 3.14:3; 3.16:2; 3.17:1; 3.18:1). Bowls with a vertical triangular rim and an external flange (Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69). The characteristic external flange is less pronounced in the later examples to which our fragments belong. Form 3F has a profiled rim with a concave exterior and a short flange, while Form 3H has a heavy triangular rim with or without a ridge below it. These two variants were predominant in the sixth century in the eastern Mediterranean basin, but are also found in later assemblages. A sherd of such a bowl was recovered in Area M1 at this site (under Floor 731; Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.7:4). Examples were also found at Khirbat elJiljil near Bet Shemesh, in loci dated to the sixth century (Vincenz 2005: Figs. 1:6; 3:8). LRC Bowls Forms 10A and 10B (Form 10A: Figs. 3.12:5; 3.19:6; Form 10B: Figs. 3.10:6; 3.12:4; 3.15:9). Large, heavy, knobbed-rim bowls with a characteristic offset under the

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

75

knob (Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71). Form 10 is a common type among the LRC vessels, and is found frequently at sites in Israel. Two variants can be distinguished here: Form 10A, with a heavy, round or square knob rim, and Form 10B, with a more elongated knob rim. Both variants should be dated to the late sixth–early seventh centuries. In the bathhouse in the excavations of the Temple Mount, such bowls were found in a sixth–seventh-century context (Vincenz 2011b: Fig. 3.8:18, 19, 22). LRC Bowl Decorated with Stamped Cross 71c (Fig. 3.9:4). A fragment of a base of a bowl stamped with a cross with a double outline (Hayes 1972: Fig. 79, LRC cross 71c). This is the most common type of cross on LRC bowls and appeared from the late fifth to the early sixth centuries, although poorly impressed examples may date later. Our example can probably be dated to the sixth century due to its poorly impressed cross. Among the many fragments with stamped crosses from the Byzantine village at ‘En Gedi, Type 71 was also found (Vincenz 2007: Pl. 10:1, 2), where it was dated to the fifth–sixth centuries. Unclassified Red-Slipped Bowls (Fig. 3.2:8, 9) Bowls with flaring walls, a rounded rim, and a low tapered foot. The interior is stamped with concentric circles and perhaps an additional motif (palmette?). The ware is fine and the vessels are covered with a shiny, good-quality slip similar to that of the ARS vessels, although they are not among the ARS vessels identified by Hayes and may come from a different workshop in North Africa. The quality of ware and slip date them to the fourth– sixth centuries, but their North African origin is not certain. Egyptian Red-Slip Bowl Related to Hayes’ Form J (Fig. 3.19:7) A bowl similar in ware to ARS, with a knobbed or tilted rim. This fragment probably belongs to the group of Egyptian red slip wares termed Egyptian A by Hayes (1972:387– 397). Form J of this group seems to be an imitation of ARS Form 84. Hayes states that Form J was found in Cyprus together with a group of glassware dated to the late sixth– seventh centuries (Hayes 1972:389). Cypriot Red Slip Ware Form 9 (Figs. 3.10:7, 8; 3.12:6, 7) This group of imported fine-ware vessels common in the eastern Mediterranean during the Byzantine period originated in Cyprus. However, only a few sherds of CRS Form 9 were recovered in our assemblages. These bowls have a rounded body and an incurved rim, either pinched or rounded (Hayes 1972:379, Fig. 81). Most of these bowls are decorated with rouletting on the body and may also have a short, wavy, incised line on the rim, although in many examples the rim lacks decoration. CRS Form 9 is a common form in this group and its appearance can be dated to the mid-sixth century. It continued to be produced in the seventh century and maybe even later. It was very common in the Byzantine village at ‘En Gedi, where it was dated mainly to the seventh century (Vincenz 2007: Pl. 9:2–7). In the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Beit Jimal) near Bet Shemesh, many fragments of this bowl type were found in a sixth–seventh-century context (Vincenz 2003: Figs. 4:40, 41; 29:58–60).

76

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Local Fine-Ware Bowls Rouletted Bowls Another group of local fine-ware bowls is characterized by a rouletted decoration over the entire body. This group is characteristic of Late Roman and Byzantine sites in and around Jerusalem, and can be divided into two main types based on body shape––carinated and rounded. There is often a drippy slip on the rim and body. From the complete example (Fig. 3.2:10) and two bases (Figs. 3.6:7; 3.9:5), it is evident that they are characterized by a ring-base. Magness, who studied these bowls in depth, claims that they were produced in Jerusalem and/or its vicinity (Magness 1993:153–156). Following the discovery of the kilns at the site of Binyene Ha-Umma in Jerusalem, she has revised her dating for the initial appearance of the carinated type to no later than 200 CE, suggesting that they “are either direct imitations of or were inspired by the products of this site” (Magness 2005:105). The carinated type continued until the late fifth–beginning of the sixth centuries, when it began to be replaced by the rounded rouletted bowls (Magness 1993:185–187), which remained in use during the sixth–early seventh centuries. Both types were recovered in the excavations of the Cardo and the Nea Church in the Jewish Quarter (Magness 2012: Pls. 9.1:6–12; 9.3:10–14). Other derived types were in use even later, until the early eighth century. Carinated Rouletted Bowls (Figs. 3.1:3; 3.2:14, 15; 3.17:2; 3.20:1–10). Carinated rouletted bowls, usually with a heavy profiled rim that is flat on top and has bulges on the exterior. These bowls have been found in and around Jerusalem in large quantities, for example in Area M1 of the present excavation (Balouka 2013: Figs. 6.2:1–4; 6.3:1; 6.4:1; 6.5:5; 6.6:1, 2, 8, 9), in Area E of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2006: Pl. 7.1:3–6), and in the Temple Mount excavations in the bathhouse complex together with lamps and ceramic vessels of the second–fifth centuries (Vincenz 2011b: Figs. 3.6:1; 3.9:5, 6) and in the bakery building in loci dated to the fourth–fifth centuries (Vincenz 2011a: Figs. 8.2:1–3). In an additional structure adjacent to the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount enclosure, quite a few carinated rouletted bowls appeared in an assemblage dated to the third–fifth centuries (Peleg-Barkat and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9). Outside Jerusalem, these bowls have been found in a rock-cut shaft leading to an underground complex at Khirbat el-Jiljil (Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14), where the earliest material comprises Bet Naṭṭif-type lamps dated to the third–fourth centuries. Rounded Rouletted Bowls (Figs. 3.1:4, 5; 3.2:10–13; 3.6:7–9). Rounded bowls with a folded rim, either smooth (Figs. 3.1:4, 5; 3.2:10, 11; 3.6:8, 9) or grooved (Fig. 3.2:12, 13). A single fragment was recovered in Area M1 of this excavation (Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.4:2). Examples with smooth folded and grooved folded rims were found at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:45–51), and in a dwelling cave on the Mount of Olives where the ceramic finds are dated to the third–seventh centuries (Seligman and Abu Raya 2000: Fig. 8:5). During the excavations beneath the Nea Church in Jerusalem, many bowls of this type, with both smooth and grooved rims, were retrieved (Magness 2012: Fig. 9.1:10–12).

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

77

Rouletted Bowl with Plain Flat Rim (Fig. 3.20:11). This is an additional variant of the rounded rouletted bowls (Magness 1993:187–188), although the rim is plain and flat and the exterior is covered with a reddish slip. According to Magness, the rounded rouletted bowl appeared during the sixth–early seventh centuries (Magness 1993:189–190), and thus this fragment should be dated similarly. Rouletted Bowl Related to Form 3A (Fig. 3.14:4). A bowl with a profiled rim and light rouletting visible on the body. This bowl can probably be identified as a rouletted bowl of Form 3A, which is dated by Magness to the sixth–early seventh centuries (Magness 1993:189). Rouletted Bowl Related to Form 3B (Fig. 3.22:4). A rather large bowl with a rounded body and a slightly arched ledge rim, its exterior covered with a dark reddish gray slip. A similar bowl was found in Jerusalem in a sixth-century context (Magness 1993:191), and another in the fill of the courtyard of the Southern House in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Fig. 15.8:1). Fine Byzantine Ware (FBW) Bowls This group of vessels is distinguished by its ware and surface treatment. The term Fine Byzantine Ware (FBW) was coined by Gichon (1974), who studied these vessels in depth. Vessels from Jerusalem of similar shape were studied by Magness, who proposed Jerusalem as a production center (Magness 1993:165–171). FBW bowls of Forms 1A and 1B are the most common and well-known types of local fine-ware bowls in the Jerusalem area during the Byzantine period. In the following discussion, the identification of the bowl forms follows Magness’ typology (Magness 1993:193–201, with additional parallels). These bowls are made of fine thin ware, usually hard-fired, and the surface often bears burnished bands. Most of the bowls do not have any additional decoration except an incised wavy line characteristic of the rounded FBW bowls (Form 1A). In the present assemblages, a large number of FBW bowls of different shapes are present, strengthening Magness’ proposal that they were manufactured in or around Jerusalem. FBW bowls began to appear around the mid-sixth century and continued to be produced into the Islamic period with changes in morphology and decoration (Magness 1993:193). The types in our assemblages can be dated to the Byzantine period; compare, for example, the many variants of FBW bowls from a Byzantine building on the Temple Mount (Peleg and Adler 2007:24, Figs. 2.1:1–10; 2.4:6). It is noteworthy that some of the small FBW bowls in the present assemblage have traces of soot inside the bowl and on the rim, which would suggest they were used as lamps. This was also observed on similar small bowls from the Temple Mount excavations (Vincenz 2011b:101). FBW Bowls Form 1A (Figs. 3.10:9; 3.12:9, 10; 3.15:1, 2; 3.16:3, 4; 3.17:3; 3.18:3). Rounded bowls with an incurved or pinched rim and a low ring-base (Magness 1993:193), characterized by an incised wavy line on the body. This type ranges in date from the mid-

78

ANNA DE VINCENZ

sixth to the early eighth centuries. However, the ware of the Early Islamic period is quite different, as it is thinner and almost metallic. Only one fragment of this form is associated with Stratum V from Area M1 of the present excavations (Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.4:3). In several of the Byzantine buildings on the Temple Mount, these bowls were dated to the sixth–seventh centuries (Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.1:8, 9; Adler and Peleg 2007: Figs. 8.4:1, 2; 8.5:3). Similar bowls were also found in late sixth–early seventh-century layers in the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Vincenz 2003: Fig. 24:203–206, 209). FBW Bowls Form 1B (Figs. 3.9:6; 3.12:11; 3.15:3; 3.21:1). Similar to Form 1A but lacking the incised line on the body (Magness 1993:193, 195). This type was found together with Form 1A in the Byzantine church at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Vincenz 2003: Fig. 24:215–220); thus, on the basis of similarity in both form and ware, it should be dated to the mid-sixth– seventh centuries. A base made of the same ware (Fig. 3.6:18) probably belongs to a bowl of Form 1A or 1B. FBW Bowl Form 1E (Fig. 3.10:10). A deep, hemispherical bowl of very thin ware, sometimes even eggshell thin. The rim is rounded and the base is usually flat (Magness 1993:194, 196). This type is the continuation of earlier Byzantine FBW bowl types and already shows characteristics of Early Islamic material. Magness dates it to the eighth– ninth centuries; however, on the basis of its presence in this assemblage (Phase VA), it should be dated earlier, to the late sixth–seventh centuries. FBW Bowl Form 1F (Fig. 3.21:2). A rim of a deep bowl or beaker, similar to one published by Magness (1993:197, Fig. 3). The ware is characteristic FBW, and based on the fragment published by Magness, the vessel should be dated to the seventh century, perhaps later. FBW Bowls Form 2B and Variants Other bowl types of fine ware appear in the present assemblages, some of which are included in Magness’ Form 2B (Magness 1993:198–200). Her proposed dating for most of the FBW Form 2B bowls is from the mid-seventh to the ninth or even tenth centuries. FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 2 (Figs. 3.6:11, 12; 3.9:7; 3.10:11–13; 3.17:4). Small bowls with a sharply inverted rim (Magness 1993:198–199, FBW Bowls Form 2B: No. 2). The example published by Magness was found in a late sixth–seventh-century context. Examples of this variant have been found in the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Vincenz 2003: Fig. 1:14). Thus, they should be dated similarly, to the sixth–seventh centuries. FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3 (Figs. 3.6:13–15; 3.10:14; 3.12:13, 14; 3.14:5; 3.15:10). Small bowls with flaring walls and an inverted, rounded rim (Magness 1993:198–199, FBW Bowls Form 2B: No. 3), similar to Variant 2. Based on their similarity to the previous variant, these bowls should be dated to the late sixth–seventh centuries.

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

79

FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 4 (Fig. 3.16:5, 6). Shallow bowls with flaring walls and an inverted, rounded rim (Magness 1993:198–199, FBW Bowls Form 2B: No. 4). A bowl of this type was found in the Byzantine building in Area XVI on the Temple Mount in a sixth– seventh-century context (Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.1:2), and another in a late Byzantine context in the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Vincenz 2003: Fig. 1:15). FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 5 (Figs. 3.12:15, 16; 3.14:6). Small shallow bowls with a folded rim (Magness 1993:198–199, FBW Bowls Form 2B: No. 5). Another bowl (Fig. 3.9:8) has a prominent flange and is possibly an additional variant of the type. As with the other Form 2B variants, these should also be dated to the late sixth–seventh centuries. FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 6 (Fig. 3.21:3). A shallow bowl with an incurved, rounded rim. A similar bowl was reported from the Byzantine building in Area XVI in the Temple Mount excavations, supporting a date for this bowl in the sixth–seventh centuries (Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.1:4). FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 13 (Fig. 3.10:15). A small shallow bowl with a flattened, everted rim. Magness has published a similar example (Magness 1993:198, 200, FBW Bowls Form 2B: No. 13), and she proposes a date beginning in the mid-seventh century. FBW Bowl with Rounded Rim (Fig. 3.21:4). A shallow bowl similar in shape to FBW bowls of Form 2B Variant 12 (Magness 1993:198). It is, however, also similar to a bowlshaped lid (Magness 1993:248), which is quite common and made of the characteristic FBW (see Figs. 3.8:15, 16; 3.9:19; 3.11:18). As our fragment is very small, a more precise identification is not possible. Lids with similar rims were found in one of the Byzantine buildings on the Temple Mount (Peleg and Adler 2007: Figs. 8.4:8; 8.5:7), where they are dated to the sixth–late seventh centuries. FBW Bowl with Short Ledge Rim (Fig. 3.6:16). A shallow bowl characterized by a rather thick ledge rim with a rounded end. Magness published similar examples, but with a deeper body (Magness 1993:200, FBW Bowl Form 2C), and these are possibly a variant of that FBW Bowl Form 2C, and thus dated to the sixth–seventh centuries. FBW Bowl with Profiled Rim (Fig. 3.6:17). A large bowl with a shallow body and a profiled rim with an external flange, considered FBW due to its fine ware. No published parallels are known. FBW Bowls Related to Form 2C (Figs. 3.12:17, 18; 3.16:7; 3.17:5). Shallow, rounded bowls with a short ledge rim that can be horizontal (Fig. 3.17:5) or downturned (Figs. 3.12:17, 18; 3.16:7). These bowls are probably related to Magness’ FBW Bowl Form 2C (Magness 1993:198, 200). They are similar in shape to, and perhaps an imitation

80

ANNA DE VINCENZ

of Hayes’ ARS Form 32/58, dated to the third–fourth centuries (Hayes 1972:92–96). The ware and surface treatment, however, classify them as FBW. All the fragments were found in Phase VA and should be dated to the sixth–seventh century. FBW Bowls Form 2D (Figs. 3.12:19; 3.21:5). Large bowls with rounded walls, a horizontal ledge rim, and usually a ring-base. The bowl in Fig. 3.21:5 has a slightly upturned rim, apparently a variant of the type. Magness has published several examples from Jerusalem and dates them from the mid-seventh century onward (Magness 1993:198, 201). Miscellaneous Fine and Semi-Fine Ware Bowls Alongside the imported and local fine-ware bowls, a number of fine and semi-fine ware bowls in the assemblages have no known parallels, and their dating is proposed by the assemblage in which they were found. Bowls with Folded Flanged Rim (Figs. 3.1:6, 7; 3.10:18, 19). Small and large bowls with a characteristic folded rim. This shape resembles that of rouletted bowls of Form 2A (Magness 1993:188), although the bowls discussed here are of hard-fired, semi-fine ware, with or without a core. The surface is usually smooth and occasionally burnished. As their shape is reminiscent of the rounded rouletted bowls, and they were possibly produced at the same time, they should be dated to the sixth century. Bowl with Everted Rounded Rim (Fig. 3.10:16). Similar in shape to FBW bowls of Form 2B Variant 11 (Magness 1993:200, FBW Bowl Form 2B: No. 11) but of coarser ware with thicker walls and burnished surface. Magness’ Form 2B bowls are dated by her from the mid-seventh century onward (see above); however, on the basis of their presence in this assemblage (Phase VA), they should be dated earlier, to the sixth and/or early seventh centuries. Bowl with Knob Rim (Fig. 3.10:17). A bowl with flaring walls and a knob rim. It seems to be related to, or an imitation of LRC bowls of Form 10A with a round knob rim (Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71). This bowl is indeed made of fine ware but lacks the slip and surface treatment characteristic of LRC bowls. Hayes’ Form 10A is dated to the sixth– seventh centuries, and the same dating should be assigned to this fragment. Simple Rounded Bowls or Bowl-Lids with Rounded Rim (Figs. 3.2:16, 17; 3.6:19–24; 3.16:8; 3.22:3). Medium-sized, rounded bowls with a rounded rim that is either plain or thickened. The ware is semi-fine, well levigated and hard fired. The surface treatment consists of smoothing and occasional burnishing. Some of these vessels are very similar to FBW bowls in ware and surface treatment (Magness 1993:193–195), but cannot be attributed to any of Magness’ forms. Bowls of similar shape and surface treatment were identified in the Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Fig. 15.7:1). In

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

81

her discussion of the rouletted bowls, Magness mentions two bowls with ‘widely-spaced burnished lines’ from under the pavement of the Nea Church that are dated to the mid-sixth century (Magness 1993:192, Rouletted Bowls Form 4: Nos. 7, 8); these seem to be similar in shape and surface treatment to the bowls under discussion. It is, however, also possible that some of these fragments belonged to bell-shaped lids, of which only one knob-handle without a rim was recovered (L1963; Fig. 3.5:11). Clearly, if the knob-handle is not found, such rims can easily be misidentified as bowls. Large numbers of bell-shaped lids with similar rims were retrieved in Area E of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2) and, as Magness states, petrographic analysis confirms that they were produced in the kilns of Naḥal Refa’im. They are dated there to the third–fourth centuries. Bowl with Everted Thickened Rim (Fig. 3.22:1). A rather large bowl with an everted, thickened rim. It is made of fine ware similar to that of FBW bowls and may be related to them, although it does not fit any of Magness’ forms. It was found in a mixed locus in the agricultural field, and has no known parallels. However, due to its similarity to FBW bowls, it should be dated to the mid-sixth–seventh centuries. Large Bowl with Flaring Walls and Rim with Deep Groove (Fig. 3.6:10). A large bowl made of hard-fired, semi-fine ware with a smoothed surface. No clear parallel has been found, although a large bowl from Caesarea (Johnson 2008:44, No. 370) is similar in ware and shape, but with a much deeper groove in the rim. The Caesarea bowl was dated roughly to the Roman–Byzantine period, and our fragment was recovered in Phase VB, dated to the sixth century. Miniature Bowl with Round Rim (Fig. 3.12:20). A very small, possibly miniature bowl, with a rounded body, a rounded rim and a smoothed but undecorated surface. No clear parallel has been found, but it resembles FBW bowls of Form 1A and was probably connected with Byzantine-period FBW production. FBW bowls of Form 1A are dated to the sixth–seventh centuries and such a dating is applicable to this bowl as well. Bowl with Pinched Everted Rim (Fig. 3.22:2). A bowl with a rounded body and a pinched, everted rim, similar in shape to FBW bowls of Form 1B (cf. Magness 1993:193–194), although the walls of this bowl are thicker. This bowl should be dated, therefore, to the sixth–seventh centuries.

Vessels for Food Preparation Basins Large bowls or basins were very common during the Byzantine period and appear in large quantities at every site with a Byzantine occupation.

82

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Arched-Rim Basins Arched-rim basins were the most common basin type during the Byzantine period in Israel, and continued to be produced well into the Early Islamic period (see Chapter 13; Magness 1993:204–207). The date of their first appearance has been debated recently with the discovery of the kilns at Binyene Ha-Umma in Jerusalem. Magness argues that these basins, together with the rouletted bowls and the rilled-rim basins, were “either directly influenced or inspired by the local production”, and thus their initial appearance must be dated no later than 200 CE (Magness 2005:105). The basic shape of all the forms is a deep basin with flaring walls and an arched rim that varies in shape from more arched to more rounded. They were produced either of thin, well-levigated and well-fired ware, or of coarse, thick-walled ware. The early basins (Form 1) lack decoration of any kind, but by the sixth century combed, straight and wavy lines were applied to the body and sometimes also the rim of the vessel (Form 2A). Complete examples testify that the bases are usually flat or rounded, which suit well vessels of such large size. Some vessels have small loop handles applied to the walls, which could not have served any practical purpose, as they are too small to bear the weight of such a large vessel, even more so if there were contents inside. It could be suggested that ropes were tied through these handles to lift the vessel. The function of these vessels is unknown, although they were likely employed in food production or some other household activity (e.g., kneading dough or washing vegetables, dishes, clothes and/or children). Arched-rim basins have been found at sites in Jerusalem and in other parts of the country, mainly in the south but not exclusively (for distribution patterns, see Magness 1993:159, Fig. 7). They were recovered in Strata VI–V, Area M1, of the present excavations (Balouka 2013: Figs. 6.1:1–4; 6.6:3; 6.4:16; 6.5:6; 6.6:3, 4, 10, 11; 6.7:1, 6). Elsewhere in Jerusalem, they were found, for example, in the Temple Mount excavations (Peleg and Adler 2007:26; Mazar and Gordon 2007:150–151; Vincenz 2011b:110), in the Jewish Quarter Area A (Magness 2003:10) and Area W (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.2:13), at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999:176), at Deir Ghazali (Avner 2000: Fig. 18:13–17), and at Khirbat Ṭabaliya–Giv‘at Ha-Maṭos (Kogan-Zehavi 2000: Fig. 13:6–8). Arched-Rim Basins Forms 1 and 2A (Form 1: Figs. 3.1:10; 3.7:2–4, 7, 9; 3.10:20–24; 3.12:24; 3.14:7; 3.15:11; 3.16:9–13; 3.17:6; 3.18:4; 3.23:1–6; Form 2A: Figs. 3.1:9, 11; 3.3:2–5; 3.7:5, 6, 8; 3.9:9; 3.10:25; 3.12:21–23; 3.23:7). In the present assemblages, the basins range from the earlier (late third–sixth centuries) undecorated type (Form 1) to the later ones with combed decoration on the body (Form 2A) that are more common during the sixth–seventh centuries (Magness 1993:204). A restored example of an arched-rim basin of Form 2A (Fig. 3.3:5) turned out to be an oval basin with loop handles, with combed straight and wavy lines on the body. The base was probably rounded. No parallels have been found so far. The basin in Fig. 3.3:2 has a short, profiled arched rim and horizontal handles. The body is decorated with combed straight and wavy lines. A similar basin with horizontal handles and combed straight and wavy lines was recovered in Area W of the Jewish Quarter

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

83

excavations, where it was dated to the sixth–early eighth centuries (cf. Magness 2003: Pl. 18.2:11). Another large, arched-rim basin has painted strokes on the rim (Fig. 3.23:8) that seem to be a variation of the combed decorations on the rim of Form 2A. These decorated basins began to appear during the sixth century (Magness 1993:206). An example with painted strokes on the rim that seems to be of the same type was found in the excavations at the northwestern corner of the city wall in Jerusalem (Weksler-Bdolah 2006: Fig. 6:9) and dated to the sixth century; thus, the same dating is proposed here. Arched-Rim Basin Form 3 (Fig. 3.17:7). A small fragment identified as part of a basin with straight walls and a short knob rim. Combed straight lines are visible on the body. Basins of this type have been dated by Magness to the sixth–early eighth centuries (Magness 1993:209). Basins with Ledge Rim (Fig. 3.16:14, 15) Two basins with a horizontal ledge rim, possibly to be identified as variations of the archedrim basins (Magness 1993:204–206) and thus dated to the late third/early fourth–sixth centuries. A similar basin originated in Area A of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:9). Shelf-Rim Basin (Fig. 3.24:1) A basin with an upturned shelf-rim. This is the earliest example of a basin in the present assemblages, predating both arched-rim and rilled-rim basins. In Jerusalem, many examples were found in contexts dated to the first–second centuries (Magness 1993:202); however, it continued to be produced in the third century. Rilled-Rim Basins (Figs. 3.3:1; 3.24:2, 3) These are large basins with an upward-turned ledge rim with ridges on the interior and a hook at the edge of the rim (Magness 1993:203), flaring walls and a round base; they are usually undecorated. Like the arched-rim basins, these also began to appear no later than 200 CE (Magness 2005:105), and were quite common during the fourth–sixth centuries (Magness 1993:203). In Area M1 of the present excavations, this type of basin appeared mainly in Phase VIB of the Late Roman–early Byzantine period (Balouka 2013: Figs. 6.2:5–10; 6.3:2; 6.4:5). Elsewhere in Jerusalem, they have been found, for example, in the Temple Mount excavations: in a Byzantine building (Peleg and Alder 2007: Figs. 8.3:4; 8.4:11), in the Peristyle and Southern Houses (Mazar and Gordon 2007:150, Figs. 15.1:5; 15.2:15–19; 15.3:12; 15.6:11; 15.8:6–8; 15.9:5–10; 15.10:9, 10; 15.13:6, 7) and in the bakery (Vincenz 2011a:187, Figs. 8.2:4, 5; 8.3:4, 9). Large Basin with Triangular Rim (Fig. 3.24:5) A large basin with a triangular rim and flaring walls. Among Magness’ arched-rim basins of Form 3, there is one variant with a rather short almost triangular rim similar to ours

84

ANNA DE VINCENZ

(Magness 1993:209, Arched-Rim Basins: No. 1); therefore, this fragment may also be a variant of an arched-rim basin, dated to the sixth–seventh centuries. Basin with Everted Thumb-Impressed Rim (Fig. 3.7:1) A basin characterized by thumb-impressed decoration on the everted, rather short rim. Similar basins have been found at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 5:73, 74, 77, with additional parallels), where they were identified as Magness’ Arched-Rim Basin Form 2B and thus dated to the sixth–early eighth centuries (Rapuano 1999:193). However, it is also possible that this is a fragment of a wide-necked jar (Magness 1993:236, Wide Neck Jars Form 2) dated to the third–fifth centuries. Basin or Krater(?) with Arched Rim (Fig. 3.1:8) A basin or krater with a deep body that narrows toward an arched, sharply everted rim. The body is decorated with combed straight lines. A similar krater was found in the Temple Mount excavations, where it was identified as a jar (Vincenz 2011b: Fig. 3.9:7). It is indeed possible that this vessel type is related to Magness’ Wide Neck Jars Form 1 (Magness 1993:235) and therefore dates to the third–fifth centuries. Basin or Krater with Folded, Everted Rim and Combed Wavy Lines (Fig. 3.24:4) A peculiar vessel with an everted rim that is covered with a fold, the fold decorated with combed wavy lines. No parallel has been found, but combed wavy lines are a well-known decorative pattern on arched-rim basins (above) and also appear on storage jars (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Fig. 15.9:15). The coarse execution of the decoration is similar to that on arched-rim basins dated to the sixth–seventh centuries (cf. Magness 1993:208, Fig. 2). Mortarium (Fig. 3.12:25) A mortarium or large basin with a deeply grooved arched rim, for use in a domestic environment. The ware is coarse, but the surface is slipped and burnished. Mortaria of this type have been identified by Hayes as originating in Ras el-Basit in northern Syria and dated to the third–fourth centuries (Hayes 1967:347). Many examples of such mortaria with stamped names on the rim have been found not only at eastern Mediterranean sites, but as far west as Rome, Germany and Britain. Cooking Vessels Although Building 1821 had an administrative function, it is quite possible that there was an area for cooking, as indicated by the presence of cooking vessels. All these vessels are made of the characteristic, brittle cooking ware and very often are burnt on the bottom, rim and handles. Cooking vessels have been used throughout the ages and their forms are basic, and the few variations in rim shape and handle position do not seem to have chronological significance within the Byzantine period.

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

85

Casseroles (Figs. 3.4:1; 3.7:10–12; 3.14:8). Casseroles have a deep (Figs. 3.4:1; 3.7:10, 12; 3.14:8) or shallow (Fig. 3.7:11) body, a beveled rim fashioned to hold a lid, either horizontal (Figs. 3.4:1; 3.7:10;) or down-turned (Fig. 3.7:11) handles, and a plain (Fig. 3.7:10, 11) or more commonly ribbed body (Figs. 3.4:1; 3.7:12; 3.14:8). In the Byzantine period, casseroles with rounded or deep bodies replaced the carinated Roman cooking pot during the late third century and were widespread as late as the beginning of the Islamic period (see Chapter 13). While the variations in rim shape, handle position and ribbing do not seem to have had any chronological significance, it is possible that later examples are coarser with thicker walls. Casseroles are found in most excavations in Jerusalem, such as the Temple Mount excavations (Vincenz 2011a: Figs. 8.1:7; 8.2:14; 2011b: Figs. 3.1:3; 3.2:19). All the examples in the present assemblages have relatively thin walls and can be tentatively dated no later than the seventh century. Frying Pans with Wishbone Handle (Figs. 3.4:2; 3.11:1; 3.13:1). Vessels similar to the casseroles described above but with a characteristic single wishbone handle, and therefore often called ‘frying pan’. Such pans with a wishbone handle were common during the Byzantine period and can be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries. In Jerusalem they have been found, for example, in the Temple Mount excavations (Vincenz 2011a: Fig. 8.1:6), in Area W of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.2:14), and also beneath the Cardo in the Jewish Quarter (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.4:1, 2). Casserole Lids (Figs. 3.1:13; 3.7:13; 3.11:2–4; 3.13:2–4; 3.14:9, 10; 3.18:7, 8). As mentioned above, casseroles and pans have a beveled rim to hold a lid. Complete lids and many fragments, made of the same cooking ware and some with signs of burning, have been recovered in excavations of Byzantine strata and their diameters suggest they fit casseroles rather than closed cooking pots. They are plain or ribbed, and some have an everted rim (Figs. 3.11:4; 3.13:3; 3.14:9, 10; 3.18:7). There is usually a knob in the center of the lid, often with a steam hole (Figs. 3.9:13; 3.13:4; 3.18:8); sometimes the hole is surrounded by a depression. The variations in shape do not seem to have chronological significance. These lids appear throughout the Byzantine period, and have been found in Jerusalem, for example, in the Temple Mount excavations (Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.3:16) and at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:91–94). Closed Cooking Pots Form 1A (Figs. 3.4:3–5; 3.11:7; 3.25:1–4). Cooking pots with a slightly bulging neck, a rounded (Figs. 3.4:3–5; 3.25:1, 2) or grooved (Fig. 3.25:3, 4) rim, and large loop handles drawn from the rim to the ribbed body––sometimes they rise above the rim. These vessels are related to Magness’ Form 1A (Magness 1993:216), which is dated to the second–third centuries. A few sherds of this type were recovered in Area M1 of the present excavations (Balouka 2013: Figs. 6.1:5; 6.6:12), and examples with a grooved rim were reported from the Peristyle and Southern Houses in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2:31; 15.4:8; 15.6:17; 15.8:11; 15.9:11; 15.13:12) and

86

ANNA DE VINCENZ

should be dated there, according to Magness (1993:216), to the second–third centuries.3 The fragment in Fig. 3.11:7 could be a variation of Form 1A. Cooking Pot Form 4A (Fig. 3.9:10). A cooking pot with a short neck and an everted grooved rim (Magness 1993:219–220). Magness dates this type to the fifth–seventh centuries. A similar cooking pot originates in Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:87). Cooking Pots Form 4B (Figs. 3.4:6, 7; 3.9:11, 12; 3.11:5, 6; 3.13:5; 3.16:16, 17). A common cooking-pot form during the Byzantine period, made of relatively thin ware with a globular to squat body, a characteristic everted neck with a hooked rim, a flat base (Fig. 3.13:5), and a usually ribbed body. Such cooking pots, classified by Magness as Form 4B (Magness 1993:219–220), were common in the fifth–late seventh centuries. They were found in Jerusalem at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 6:85–87), but quite surprisingly, this type is not very common at the Temple Mount excavations (Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.2:2). Cooking pots with a long or short hooked rim (Form 4B) were reported from ‘En Gedi, where they were also dated to the fifth–seventh centuries (Vincenz 2007: Pl. 20:9, 10, 12). Cooking Pots Form 4C (Figs. 3.1:12; 3.9:13; 3.16:18; 3.25:5). Cooking pots with a usually rounded rim, a rather short neck that widens at the top, and large loop handles that rise above the rim (Magness 1993:219–220). These cooking pots are dated by Magness to the fifth–late seventh centuries. Cooking pots of the same type were found in the drainage channels of the Cardo in Jerusalem (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.4:19). Miscellaneous Cooking Pots (Figs. 3.11:8; 3.18:5). One cooking-pot variant has a long flaring neck ending in a rounded rim and the transition from neck to shoulder is sharp (Fig. 3.11:8). A similar one-handled cooking pot was published by Magness from a context of the second half of the sixth century (Magness 1993:218, Cooking Pots Form 3B: No. 2). A neckless cooking pot or casserole with a ledge rim (Fig. 3.18:5) has a parallel at ‘En Gedi, where it is dated to the sixth–seventh centuries (Vincenz 2007: Pl. 20:7). Cooking Jugs and Juglets (Figs. 3.4:8–11; 3.9:14; 3.11:9; 3.18:6). Many variants of cooking jugs were recovered in the present excavations, made of the same brittle ware as the cooking pots. The most common form has an elongated, ribbed body with a round or slightly pointed base (Figs. 3.4:11; 3.11:9). Other examples have a narrow neck with a ridged upper part (Figs. 3.4:8; 3.9:14), a long narrow neck with an everted rim (Fig. 3.4:9), a narrow neck with a folded rim (Fig. 3.4:10), and a short, everted neck with a triangular rim (Fig. 3.18:6). Cooking jugs were common in the Roman period, less so during the Byzantine period, except for the type characterized by a globular body, a flaring neck and a spout (see Vincenz 2007:275–276, Fig. 85), which does not appear here. The juglet in Fig.

3

Mazar and Gordon (2007) omitted to identify the variant.

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

87

3.4:9 has a clear parallel from Area W of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2003: Fig. 18.2:21), found in an assemblage dated to the fourth–mid-sixth centuries. The juglet in Fig. 3.18:6, although without a handle, can be compared to a juglet fragment from Area A of the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:25), a type dated by Magness to the second–fifth centuries (Magness 2003:426). Storage Vessels There are several groups of storage vessels in the Byzantine assemblages discussed here: local storage jars and holemouth jars, the so-called Gaza jars, and imported amphorae. Storage jars from Jerusalem have been classified into forms by Magness (1993) and this classification is followed here. There are, however, several types that do not fit into this classification and may be considered variants. Storage Jars Form 3 (Figs. 3.4:13; 3.13:8, 9; 3.15:12; 3.17:8). Jars with a rather long neck, sometimes thickened or with a roll on the exterior (Magness 1993:222–223), usually with a ridge at the bottom of the neck. Magness dates these to the second–fourth centuries, but she notes that according to the parallels, they seem to continue into the fifth century (Magness 1993:223, Storage Jars Form 3: Nos. 2–5). Storage Jars Form 4 Variants A, B, C (Figs. 3.1:14; 3.4:12; 3.8:1–5; 3.16:19, 20). Common storage jars with a bag-shaped body, a rim that is thickened or folded on the interior, and a ridge at the base of the neck (Magness 1993:223–226). The height of the neck varies between long (4.5 cm), medium (3.5–4.2 cm) and short (2.4 cm). Jars with a long neck are probably the earliest (Form 4A), dating to the third–fourth centuries, while the mediumlength neck (Form 4B) dates to the fourth–fifth centuries and the short neck (Form 4C) seems to date to the late sixth–seventh centuries (see Magness 1993:223–226). Storage jars of Forms 4A and 4B were found in Strata VI–V of Area M1 in the present excavations (Balouka 2013: Figs. 6.4:8, 9; 6.3:6; 6.5:4). Form 4B jars were recovered at Khirbat el-Jiljil (Vincenz 2005: Fig. 6:6), and were the most common storage-jar form in the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir, where all three variants appeared (Vincenz 2003: Figs. 16:124–134; 17:135–141; 43:353–366). Form 4C was very common at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:99–102), where it dates, according to Magness, to the sixth–seventh centuries (Magness 1993: 224). Storage Jars Form 5 Variants A and B (Fig. 3.15:4, 5). These two variants are characterized by a rather short neck (3.4–3.8 cm), either straight with a ridge at the bottom, or slightly everted without a ridge (Magness 1993:226–227), and the body is usually ribbed. They are dated by Magness to the late sixth–early eighth centuries. A fragment of Form 5B was reported from the drainage channel of the Cardo in Jerusalem (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.4:20). Storage Jars Form 6A (Figs. 3.11:10, 11; 3.16:21; 3.26:1). Jars with a straight neck and a ridge at the bottom, the body usually decorated with combing (Magness 1993:227–229).

88

ANNA DE VINCENZ

The type is datable to the late sixth–eighth centuries. They were recovered in the later phases of the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Vincenz 2003: Figs. 17:142; 44:367–378), and in Jerusalem they were found at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:107) and in the bakery in the Temple Mount excavations (Vincenz 2011a: Fig. 8.2:10), where they were dated to the late sixth–eighth centuries. Storage Jars Form 7 (Fig. 3.11:12; 3.26:2–4). Jars with a beveled rim, a swollen neck with a ridge at the bottom, and sometimes combed bands on the body (Magness 1993:230– 231). Magness dates this type to the late seventh century onward (Magness 1993:230). Fragments were found in the drainage channel of the Cardo in Jerusalem and dated to the late seventh–mid-eighth centuries (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.4:21). Storage Jar with Ribbed Neck (Fig. 3.26:5). A jar with an everted, rounded rim and a protruding ridge in the middle of the neck. A similar jar was reported from Area B at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir, in a Byzantine fill that could not be precisely dated (Vincenz 2003: Fig. 20:173). Miscellaneous Storage Jars (Figs. 3.8:6; 3.9:15; 3.13:7). The jar in Fig. 3.8:6 has an externally thickened rim and an everted neck. Several types of imported amphorae show a similar rim profile (see Johnson 2008: Nos. 1201, 1239, 1241), although no precise parallel was found. The jar in Fig. 3.13:7 has an everted rim and a long narrow neck. This rim shape recalls that of a variant of a Late Roman 1 amphora from Caesarea published by Johnson (2008: No. 1256) and dated to the fourth century. The jar in Fig. 3.9:15 is characterized by an externally folded rim and a rather short neck. A similar jar was published by Johnson (2008: No. 1094) from a seventh-century context in Caesarea. Holemouth Jars Form 1A (Figs. 3.1:15, 16; 3.4:14; 3.11:13; 3.13:11; 3.17:9). A holemouth jar with an everted rim and a ridge at the base of the very short neck (Magness 1993:230– 231), dated to the second–fifth centuries. Such holemouth jars were found, for example, in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Gordon 2007:151–152). Holemouth Jar Form 2 (Fig. 3.8:7). A jar with a double rolled rim (Magness 1993:233– 234), dated to the sixth–early eighth centuries. Such jars were found, for example, at Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:109–110), and a complete example was recovered in the public kitchen in the large Byzantine structure in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:24). Holemouth Jars with Rounded Rim (Figs. 3.11:14; 3.13:10). Two neck-less jars with a rounded rim. Although their rim diameter is much smaller than that of the other holemouth jars, they may be considered holemouth jars. No clear parallel was found and a sixth- or

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

89

seventh-century dating can only be suggested on the basis of the Phase VA context in which they were found (see Conclusions, below). Gaza Jars (Figs. 3.4:15; 3.8:8–10; 3.9:16, 17; 3.15:6, 7). Gaza jars are a well-known and well-studied group of jars (see, e.g., Mayerson 1994; Majcherek 1995). Complete examples from various sites have a cigar-shaped body with ribbing below the shoulders, two small loop handles and a pointed or rounded omphalos base. Many Gaza jars were recovered in a Byzantine warehouse near Ashqelon, and analyses of those jars revealed that they had contained resined wine, probably the famous Gaza wine produced in the Gaza–Ashqelon area during the Byzantine period (Fabian and Goren 2001:213). It seems, therefore, that this warehouse was a storage depot for wine jars before they were shipped throughout the Mediterranean world. Moreover, several large winepresses and pottery workshops for the production of such jars were discovered in the Ashqelon area (Israel 1993:100–103; 1995). Many fragments of these jars were found in the present excavation, all made of the characteristic coarse ware with clay accretions on the rim and upper body, which can be assigned to Majchereks’ Types 3 (Figs. 3.1:17, 18; 3.4:15; 3.8:9; 3.9:16, 17; 3.15:6, 7) and 4 (Figs. 3.1:19; 3.8:8, 10), dated to the fifth–seventh centuries (Majcherek 1995:168–169). Large numbers of these jars were also found in the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir4 (Vincenz 2003: Figs. 20:178; 47:404–410). These jars may be evidence that Gaza wine was brought to Jerusalem. Late Roman 1 Amphorae (Figs. 3.1:20, 21; 3.8:11). Cylindrical amphorae with two large, deeply grooved handles drawn from mid-neck to the upper body. These were the most common type of amphorae imported into Israel during the Byzantine period, and seem to have been produced in the area of Antioch, where kilns have been located (see Johnson 2008:105). Late Roman 1 amphorae are reported from many sites in Israel, such as Ras Abu Ma‘aruf in Jerusalem (Rapuano 1999:113) and Caesarea (Johnson 2008: Nos. 1257–1265). They are commonly dated to the fourth–seventh centuries. Benghazi Early Amphora 11a (Fig. 3.4:16). A cylindrical body with a pointed toe and two heavy handles drawn from below the rim to the upper body. This type of amphora originated in the Tripolitanian area and was used for transporting olive oil. It is dated to the first century CE onward (for a discussion, see Johnson 2008:99–100). Unidentified Amphora (Fig. 3.4:17). An amphora with a straight neck, a grooved, everted rim, and handles drawn from below the rim to the upper shoulder. There are remains of black slip on the vessel.

At that time they were erroneously identified as wide-neck jars.

4

90

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Jugs and Juglets A fairly large number of jug and juglet fragments were identified in the assemblage. They can be divided into two major groups according to their ware: FBW and miscellaneous jugs/juglets. FBW Jugs and Juglets These jugs and juglets are characterized by their ware and surface treatment, which is that of the FBW bowls (see above). The ware is fine and hard fired, sometimes even of metallic quality, and the vessels are often burnished and decorated with incised nicks. As with the FBW bowls, Magness’ typology is adopted here (Magness 1993:236–241). Parallels to FBW jugs and juglets originating in and around Jerusalem are cited below for each type. FBW Jugs Form 1B (Figs. 3.5:1; 3.13:13; 3.16:22; 3.27:1–3). Jugs with an everted, triangular rim and a bulging neck, one or two handles drawn from the rim to the upper body, and combed straight and wavy lines on the body (Magness 1993:236–239). They are usually decorated with incised nicks and many of them have a spout (Fig. 3.27:2). This was the characteristic FBW jug during the mid-sixth–early eighth centuries. A similar jug was found in the final phase of a cistern in the Temple Mount excavations and dated to the end of the Byzantine period (Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.5:1). FBW Jugs Form 1C (Figs. 3.8:12; 3.9:18; 3.13:12; 3.15:8; 3.27:4–7). Biconical jugs with a short, flaring neck that ends in a triangular or rounded rim, a flat base, one loop handle drawn from the rim to the lower body, and frequently decorated with a combed band on the body (Magness 1993:236–239). They are commonly dated to the mid-sixth–early eighth centuries and found at sites in and around Jerusalem. In Stratum V of Area M1 in the present excavations, a single fragment of such a jug was recovered (Balouka 2013: Fig. 6.4:13). Complete examples were found in the final phase of a cistern in the Temple Mount excavations and dated to the end of the Byzantine period (Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.5:3–6), and in the Byzantine public kitchen in the same excavation (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:28, 29). Fragments of such jugs were also reported from the excavation in the northwestern corner of the Old City Wall in Jerusalem (Weksler-Bdolah 2006: Fig. 7:16–19). FBW Juglets Form 2A (Figs. 3.8:14; 3.17:10). Characteristic FBW juglets with a stepped rim, a globular body and a flat base (Magness 1993:239–240). Although these juglets are usually very common at Byzantine sites, only a few fragments were identified in our assemblages. They are dated by Magness to the mid-sixth–early eighth centuries (Magness 1993:239). Complete examples were recovered from the Byzantine public kitchen in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:32–36) and a fragment similar to ours comes from Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Rapuano 1999: Fig. 9:133).

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

91

Miscellaneous FBW Juglet and Base of Jug(let) (Fig. 3.27:8, 11). Two vessel fragments made of characteristic FBW ware, one with the typical burnished bands on the body. Thus, they should be dated no earlier than the mid-sixth century, when FBW began to appear (see Magness 1993:166). The juglet in Fig. 3.27:11 has a rounded body and a handle drawn from mid-body; incised nicks are visible on the body. The fragment in Fig. 3.27:8 is a low ring-base of a FBW jug(let) bearing burnished bands on the exterior surface. Jugs with Ribbed Neck (Figs. 3.8:13; 3.11:15) Jugs characterized by a ribbed neck, either bulging (Fig. 3.8:13) or slightly flared (Fig. 3.11:15). A jug with a ribbed, bulging neck was found in a dwelling cave on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (Seligman and Abu Raya 2000: Fig. 9), and others with similar bulging necks in a Byzantine-period cistern in the Temple Mount excavations, where they were dated to the mid-sixth century onward (Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.5:8–11, with additional parallels). Jugs with a ribbed neck were quite common in the Byzantine village at ‘En Gedi, where they were dated to the fourth–seventh centuries (Vincenz 2007: Pl. 25:30–32). Thus, the two jugs in the present assemblages should be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries. Jugs with Bulging Neck (Figs. 3.5:3; 3.27:9) Jugs with a bulging neck, round rim and one loop handle drawn from the rim. The neck and rim resemble those of jugs from the Byzantine cistern in the Temple Mount excavations (see above), although our jugs have a plain neck. Thus, a similar date from the mid-sixth century onward can be proposed here. Jug with Combed Bands (Fig. 3.11:16) A fragment of a jug with a triangular rim, a flaring neck, and combed straight and wavy lines. Combed decoration is a feature that was common during the sixth–seventh centuries on basins, jars and jugs, and thus this jug, which lacks any parallels, can also be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries. Jug with Trefoil Rim (Fig. 3.5:2) A jug with a trefoil rim, a narrow neck, and one handle drawn from the rim to the upper, apparently globular body, positioned opposite the spout. A similar jug was published by Magness (1993:243:1) and dated to the first half of the sixth century. A trefoil-rimmed jug with incised nicks and lines on the body was reported from the Byzantine cistern on the Temple Mount (Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.5:14). Jug with Thickened Rim and Wide Flaring Neck (Fig. 3.27:10) A jug with a triangular, slightly inverted rim and a plain, narrow neck that widens toward the top. Similar jugs were reported from the Peristyle and Southern Houses in the Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem and dated to the Byzantine period in general (Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2:36; 15.9:16).

92

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Juglet with Everted Rim (Fig. 3.5:5) A fragment of a juglet with an everted rounded rim, a neck that narrows toward the top, and a wide body. It is possibly similar to a juglet from the Byzantine public kitchen in the Temple Mount excavations and dated there by a parallel to the sixth century (Mazar 2003a:102, Pl. I.16:38). Miscellaneous Jugs and Juglets with Surface Treatment These fragments of jugs and juglets are distinguished by their surface treatment, which appears on the body or the handles. Jug with Incised Decoration (Fig. 3.11:17). A fragment of a jug with an incised decoration (animal? bird?). Jugs/jars with incised decorations were found at ‘En Gedi, where they were dated to the Byzantine period (Vincenz 2007:252, Pl. 24:2, 3). Black-Slipped Juglet (Fig. 3.5:6). A juglet with a rounded rim, a narrow, flaring neck and a loop handle drawn from the rim to the upper body; the upper body is black slipped. No clear parallel has been found. Jug with Impressed Decoration (Fig. 3.5:4). A fragment of a jug with an impressed decoration, for which no clear parallel has been found. Jug(let) with Potter’s Mark (Fig. 3.17:11). A jug or juglet with an everted, rounded rim and a handle bearing an incised, criss-cross potter’s mark. Jug with Decorated Handle (Fig. 3.16:23). A jug with a rounded rim, a flaring neck and a heavy handle drawn from the rim that is decorated with incised lines and a decorative knob. Although no exact parallel has been found for this handle, it may be related to a group of jars and jugs from the late Byzantine period at Khirbat el-Jiljil with rouletted, incised and impressed decorations (Vincenz 2005:132–137, Figs. 8, 9). Bases of Jugs and Juglets (Figs. 3.5:7–10; 3.13:14) To complete the picture of jugs and juglets in these assemblages, unidentified bases are illustrated here also, including a flat base of a jug (Fig. 3.13:14), flat stump-bases (Fig. 3.5:7–9) and a small omphalos base (Fig. 3.5:10) of juglets. Base/Stand(?) (Fig. 3.28:1). A relatively small fragment of what seems to be the lower part or base of a stand or similar vessel, although not made of cooking ware. A parallel from the public kitchen of the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:31), called a ‘Thermos Jug’, is a cylindrical stand with a high ring-base made of cooking ware. With no clear parallels, we can only propose a date in the Byzantine period in general.

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

93

Lids Apart from the lids made of cooking ware used with casseroles and pans (see above), other types of lids were also found. Two very common types made of FBW are lid-bowls in the shape of a small bowl, and small shallow lids with a central interior knob handle. Lid-Bowls (Figs. 3.8:15, 16; 3.9:19; 3.11:18; 3.13:18). Lid-bowls of FBW with an everted, rounded rim and a small flat base. They were relatively common in the Byzantine period and were found in Jerusalem, for example, in the Byzantine monastery and the public kitchen in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pls. I.14:3, 4; I.16:1), and in Area E (Magness 2006: Pl. 7.1:23) and below the Nea Church (Magness 2012: Pl. 9.2:34) of the Jewish Quarter excavations. Elsewhere, they were recovered in the compound of the Byzantine monastery at Khirbat ‘Ein Faṭṭir (Vincenz 2003:363, Figs. 4:4, 4.5) and in a rock-cut shaft leading to an underground chamber at Khirbat el-Jiljil (Vincenz 2005: Fig. 6:15). Based on Magness (1993:247) and the parallels, these lid-bowls can be dated in general to the sixth–eighth centuries. Lids with Knob (Figs. 3.11:19; 3.13:15–17; 3.16:24, 25; 3.17:12; 3.18:9). Shallow bowls with a usually rounded rim, flaring walls, an internal central knob and a string-cut or flat base. At ‘En Gedi, several of these lids were discovered in situ covering cooking pots (Vincenz 2007: Figs. 74–76). Lids made of the same FBW were found in a Byzantine building on the Temple Mount (Peleg and Adler 2007: Figs. 8.4:8; 8.5:7). This type of lid is dated to the sixth–late seventh centuries based on Magness (1993:248) and these parallels. Bell-Shaped Lid (Fig. 3.5:11). A fragment of what appears to belong to a bell-shaped lid is made of fine ware with a concave knob on the top. Bell-shaped lids were found in Stratum I of Area E in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 2006:185–186, Pl. 7:2) and according to Magness, they were produced in Naḥal Refa’im, where a third–fourth-century kiln was discovered. Thus, the fragment here can also be dated to the third–fourth centuries. As stated above, several fragments of simple rounded bowls may have belonged to such lids, although the knob was not preserved (see above, Simple Rounded Bowls or Bowl-Lids).

Lighting Devices Lanterns (Figs. 3.5:12; 3.8:17; 3.17:13) Lanterns were fairly common vessels during the Byzantine period. In Jerusalem, fragments of lanterns were identified in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Magness 1993: Figs. 3:1–4; 4:9, 10, with additional references), and complete examples were found in the Temple Mount excavations (Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.7:5). The complete examples attest to a cylindrical body with pierced holes to let the light shine through, and a loop handle to hold or hang it. The lanterns in the present assemblages can be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries (Magness 1993:128–129).

94

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Lamps Unexpectedly, only a very limited number of oil lamps were unearthed in the present excavations, including several complete lamps and a few fragments. It would seem that other vessels were used as lamps, for example the small bowls with traces of soot on the rims and interior (see above). In addition, it is possible that lamps were also made of other materials, such as glass, metal or stone. Candlestick Lamps This well-known lamp type was common throughout the Byzantine period and has been studied extensively. These lamps are oval in shape with a small circular ring-base. They appear in two sizes, large and small, and are decorated with a radiating pattern on the rim and a cross or palmette on the nozzle. These lamps usually do not have a handle, and the rear of the lamp, where a handle would have been, is decorated with dots, semicircles, an anchor or other pattern. Large lamps may be inscribed with Greek inscriptions, which also have been the subject of detailed study. Small Candlestick Lamp (Fig. 3.9:20). A small candlestick lamp with a cross on the nozzle (Loffreda 1995:10, No. 8). These small lamps date to the second half of the fourth–midsixth centuries (Loffreda 1995:11). Large Candlestick Lamp (Fig. 3.9:21). A large candlestick lamp with a dotted semicircle in place of a handle. This type is dated to the mid-sixth–early eighth centuries (Loffreda 1995:11). Large Candlestick Lamp with Greek Inscription (Fig. 3.13:19). A large candlestick lamp with a cross on the nozzle and the standard Greek inscription on the rim that reads: “The light of Christ shines for all. Good evening”. Inscribed lamps date to the mid-sixth–early eighth centuries (Magness 1993:251–253). Miscellaneous Lamps Pear-Shaped Lamp (Fig. 3.5:13). A complete lamp with a pear-shaped body, a round nozzle set off from the rest of the body by an elevated ridge, the sides of the nozzle fashioned to imitate volutes, and a small circular ring-base. The narrow rim is decorated with a radiating pattern, and an oval line with dots at each end adorns the rim between the nozzle and the filling hole, while a small knob handle is marked by a semicircle. Similar lamps were found in a burial cave in the Naḥalat Aḥim Quarter in Jerusalem (Kogan-Zehavi 2006: Fig. 14:72, 74–80) and dated to the fourth–fifth centuries. Ovoid Lamp (Fig. 3.11:20). A fragment of a lamp with a broken discus, a mold-made handle with grooves, and a rim decorated with a deeply impressed line pattern. This lamp type has been found at many sites in the north of Israel and was apparently typical of the northern part of the country in the fourth–fifth centuries (Hadad 2002:26, Type 16, with references).

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

95

African Red Slip Lamp (Fig. 3.13:20). A fragment of a lamp with a sunken discus; the decoration unfortunately is not preserved. The ware and slip suggest that this is a lamp of the ARS group, which was studied by Hayes and dated to the fifth century (1972:310– 314). ARS lamps are usually ovoid in shape, with a deep channel surrounded by a ridge connecting the sunken discus with the wick-hole. Decorations appear on the discus and the rim, while the nozzle remains undecorated. Mold-Made Lamp with Fish (Fig. 3.28:2). A fragment of a lamp with a fish and a dotted motif of concentric circles. A lamp with a loop handle and a fish was found in Byzantine Building XVI in the Temple Mount excavations (Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.4:3) and this type was related by the authors to the polilychnoi of the Bet Naṭṭif type (Peleg and Adler 2007:33), which also bear fish decorations (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: Nos. 445, 447) and are dated to the fourth–fifth centuries. Thus, a similar dating is proposed for our fragment. Mold-Made Lamp with Peacock and Amphora (Fig. 3.28:3). A fragment of a lamp with a peacock and an amphora. Depictions of amphorae are known on Bet Naṭṭif lamps, where they are found mainly on the nozzle and in combination with grapes or pellets (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: Nos. 438, 439). This fragment should also be dated to the fourth–fifth centuries. Decorated Lamp Handle (Fig. 3.8:18). Many lamps used during the Byzantine period were without handles, while some lamps had a raised handle with a loop below it to carry the lamp (Hadad 2002:66). These handles were mold made and frequently decorated with Christian motifs such as crosses or rosettes, like the example here. Hadad points out that the distribution pattern of these lamps indicates that they were most common in the Jerusalem area and thus may have originated there (Hadad 2002:66). Indeed, Magness published several handles of this type from various locations in Jerusalem (Magness 1993:254), and they were also found in the Temple Mount excavations (Shapira and Peleg 2003:105, Pl. I.17:9–12, with additional parallels). Based on these parallels and Hadad’s discussion, this handle should be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries. Figurine (Fig. 3.5:14) A mold-made fragment with incisions that could be the rendition of the woolly coat of an animal, such as a sheep. A fragment of a figurine and a fragment of a votive incense altar bearing the same renditions of wool were found at Caesarea (Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:315). The figurine from Caesarea is dated to the Early Islamic period, while the votive incense altar is from the Hellenistic period. Due to the partial nature of our object, no date is suggested.

96

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Conclusions The Byzantine pottery assemblages from the three phases of Stratum V (Phases VA, VB, VC) are homogenous and fit well within the regional setting of Jerusalem ceramic traditions. While local production was predominant during this period, imported items characteristic of the Byzantine period are present in the assemblage: bowls from North Africa, Asia Minor and Cyprus, and amphorae from North Africa and Syria. Building 1821 of Stratum V was erected following the earthquake of 363 CE and probably continued in use throughout the Byzantine period until it was destroyed in 614 CE (see Chapter 2). On the basis of the pottery analysis from secure loci of the three phases distinguished mainly in Building 1821, a more precise dating for each phase is suggested. The assemblage from the mixed Byzantine loci of the agricultural field is also described. Building 1821 Phase VC The material associated with the earliest phase comes from Floors 1905 and 1908 in the western room (Fig. 3.1), and from L1963 below Channel 1964 (Figs. 3.2–3.5). This assemblage includes imported ARS bowls of three types that can be dated to the fourth– fifth centuries (Figs. 3.1:1, 2; 3.2:1–6). A single fragment of an LRC bowl from L1963 (Fig. 3.2:7) is dated to the sixth century, and two fragments of imported red-slipped bowls (Fig. 3.2:8, 9) date to the fourth–sixth centuries. Rouletted bowls of both the carinated and rounded types are represented (Figs. 3.1:3–5; 3.2:10–15). As noted above, the first appearance of the carinated type can now be dated, on the basis of finds from the kiln site at Binyene Ha-Umma, to no later than 200 CE (Magness 2005:105), while the initial appearance of the rounded type is still unclear. A bowl type that seems to imitate the rounded rouletted bowls, although without rouletting (Fig. 3.1:6, 7) probably dates to the sixth century. The first appearance of arched-rim basins with combed lines, which seem to imitate or were inspired by the Roman deep basins and mortaria (Magness 2005:105), is dated, following the excavation of the kiln site at Binyene Ha-Umma, no later than 200 CE. Arched-rim basins and variants with deep combing, both straight and wavy lines, dated to the sixth century onward, appear in the Phase VC assemblage in L1963 (Fig. 3.3:2–5). A plain, undecorated arched-rim basin (Fig. 3.1:10) and two fragments with combing (Fig. 3.1:9, 11) originate in Building 1821. The holemouth jars (Figs. 3.1:15, 16; 3.4:14), which began to appear in the second century, are considered a common vessel in Jerusalem until the fifth century. Several fragments of the so-called Gaza jars of Majcherek’s Types 3 and 4 (Figs. 3.1:17–19; 3.4:15) are types that were in use during the fifth century and continued into the seventh century. Imported Late Roman 1 amphorae (Fig. 3.1:20, 21) were used throughout the Mediterranean region during the fourth–seventh centuries. Cooking vessels (Fig. 3.4:1, 2, 6–11), jugs and juglets (Fig. 3.5:1–10) found below Channel 1964 are dated to the fourth–late seventh centuries.

97

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

In conclusion, most of the material from Phase VC can be dated to the fourth–sixth centuries, together with a few types that continued into the seventh century; however, there are some vessel types that date earlier than the founding of Building 1821 in the late fourth century. For example, several cooking-pot fragments (Fig. 3.4:3–5) date to the second– third centuries, while storage jars (Fig. 3.4:12, 13) date to the second–fourth and second– fifth centuries respectively. A large fragment of a Benghazi amphora (Fig. 3.4:16) is dated to the first century. The earlier fragments were all found below Channel 1934 and may be residual from earlier phases at the site. The earliest date for this phase is the fourth–late fifth centuries based on the bulk of the ceramics.

Fig. 3.1 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

1908

25188/7

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; light red 10R 6/6 slip on the interior and exterior, burnished

Hayes 1972:112–116, Fig. 19 (ARS Form 67)

2

ARS bowl

1905

25070/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the interior and exterior, burnished

Hayes 1972:140–144, Fig. 26 (ARS Form 91B)

3

Rouletted bowl

1908

25117/1?

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; black slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:186– 187 (Form 1)

4

Rouletted bowl

1905

25192/10

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with thick gray core and few medium-size angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:187– 188 (Form 2A)

5

Rouletted bowl

1905

25070/3

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with many small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior; discolored rim

Magness 1993:187– 188 ( Form 2A)

6

Bowl

1905

25070/25

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick brown core and few large and small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:187–188 (Form 2A)

7

Bowl

1905

25117/16

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:187–188 (Form 2A)

8

Basin or krater?

1905

25070/11

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3 on the exterior

Vincenz 2011a: Fig. 3.10:7

9

Arched-rim basin

1905

25192/2

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few large round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206– 207 (Form 2A)

10

Arched-rim basin

1905

25117/1

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204– 205 (Form 1)

11

Arched-rim basin

1905

25117/20

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware; light reddish brown 2.5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206– 207 (Form 2A)

12

Cooking pot

1905

25117/18

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior.

Magness 1993:219– 220 (Form 4C)

98

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.1 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

13

Casserole lid

1905

25117/7

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round gray inclusions; yellowish red 5YR 5/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215

14

Storage jar

1905

25070/7

Pink 5YR 7/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:223– 225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

15

Holemouth jar

1905

25117/11

Light red 2.5YR 7/5 ware; very pale brown slip 10YR 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:231– 232 (Holemouth Jars Form 1A)

16

Holemouth jar

1905

25192/1

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware; very pale brown 10YR 8/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:231– 232 (Holemouth Jars Form 1A)

17

Gaza jar

1908

25188/2

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 6 (Form 3)

18

Gaza jar

1905

25117/6

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with many small round black and gray inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 6 (Form 3)

19

Gaza jar

1905

25117/13

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 8 (Form 4)

20

Amphora

1905

25192/17

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with thick gray core and few large round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Johnson 2008:105 (Nos. 1257–1265)

21

Amphora

1908

25188/9

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with many small round and angular black; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 on the exterior

Johnson 2008:105 (Nos. 1257–1265)

99

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

2

1

4

3

5

6

7 8

9

10

11

13

12

16

15

14

19 18 17

20 21 0

10

Fig. 3.1. Phase VC: Building 1821, Floors L1905 and L1908.

100

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.2 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

26246/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with very few small round and angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/8 slip on the exterior, burnished

Hayes 1972:100–107, Figs. 16, 17 (ARS Form 61A)

2

ARS bowl

26340/13

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with very few small angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/8 slip on the exterior, burnished

Hayes 1972:112–116, Fig. 19 (ARS Form 67)

3

ARS bowl

26337/8

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 10R 6/6 slip on the exterior, burnished

Hayes 1972:140–144, Fig. 26 (ARS Form 91B)

4

ARS bowl

26341/1

Light red 10R 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 10R 6/8 slip on the exterior, burnished

Hayes 1972:112–116, Fig. 19 (ARS Form 67)

5

ARS bowl

26474/21

Red 10R 5/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:140–144, Fig. 26 (ARS Form 91)

6

ARS bowl

26539/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior

7

LRC bowl

26188/23

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior

8

Imported red-slipped bowl

26362/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

9

Imported red-slipped bowl

26415/12

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with very few small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior

10

Rouletted bowl

26860/16

Light reddish brown to reddish yellow 5YR 6/4–6/6 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; light red 10R 6/6 on the exterior, burnished

Magness 1993:187– 188 (Rouletted Bowls Form 2A)

11

Rouletted bowl

26859/15

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink and burnished 5YR 7/4 on the interior; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:187– 188 (Rouletted Bowls Form 2A)

12

Rouletted bowl

26682/8

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many medium-sized round and angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior; remains of reddish brown 2.5YR 4/3 slip

Magness 1993:187– 189 (Rouletted Bowls Form 2B)

13

Rouletted bowl

26775/11

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick pink 7.5YR 7/4 core and few small angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the interior; very pale brown 10YR 7/4 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:187– 189 (Rouletted Bowls Form 2B)

14

Rouletted bowl

27143/12

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and many small round and angular white and few small round black inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the interior; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior, burnished;

Magness 1993:185– 187 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1)

15

Rouletted bowl

27026/2

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with many small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior; remains of reddish brown 5YR 4/4 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185– 187 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1)

16

Bowl or bowl-lid

27143/24

Light yellowish brown 10YR 6/4 ware with few small round black and white inclusions; light reddish brown to reddish yellow 5YR 6/4–6/6 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:192 Nos. 7, 8; 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

17

Bowl or bowl-lid

26682/6

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4, pink to light brown 7.5YR 7/4–6/4 on exterior, burnished bands

Related to Magness 1993:192 Nos. 7, 8; 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

101

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

2

1

3

4

0

8

7

6

5 2

2

0

10

9

12

11

13 14

15

17 16 0

10

Fig. 3.2. Phase VC: L1963 below Channel L1934: bowls.

102

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.3 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Rilled-rim basin

26246/2

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and many small round and angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:203–204 (Rilled-Rim Basin)

2

Arched-rim basin

26433/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few very small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 2A); 2003: Pl. 18.2:11

3

Arched-rim basin

26858/5

Light red 10R 6/8 ware with thin brown 7.5YR 5/4 core with few very small round and angular white inclusions; pinkish white 7.5YR 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 2A)

4

Arched-rim basin

26465/28

Brown 7.5YR 4/3 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 2A)

5

Arched-rim basin

26434/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 2A)

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

2

3

4

5 0

10

Fig. 3.3. Phase VC: L1963 below Channel 1934: basins.

103

104

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.4 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Casserole

26706/1

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small angular and white and few small angular black inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:211–213 (Casseroles Form 1)

2

Deep frying pan

26777/5

Reddish brown 5YR 4/3 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 and burnt on the exterior

Magness 1993:213–214 (Casseroles Form 2)

3

Cooking pot

26415/1

Red 10R 5/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pale red 10R 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A)

4

Cooking pot

26776/10

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with thick burnt core and many small and medium-sized round and angular white inclusions; weak red 10R 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A)

5

Cooking pot

26339/5

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 2.5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A)

6

Cooking pot

26860/1

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few very small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

7

Cooking pot

26860/3

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

8

Cooking jug

26705/5

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

9

Cooking juglet

26539/2

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few very small angular white inclusions, burnt on the exterior

10

Cooking jug

26666/38

Red 2.5YR 5/6–5/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

11

Cooking jug

26581/2

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 4/4 on the exterior

12

Storage jar

26777/4

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with many small round white and few large round black inclusions; light gray to very pale brown 10YR 7/2–7/3; neck height 4.5 cm

Magness 1993:223–224 (Storage Jars Form 4A)

13

Storage jar

26363/1

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thin reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 core with many very small round white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/3 on the exterior; neck height 4 cm

Magness 1993:222–223 (Storage Jars Form 3)

14

Holemouth jar

26705

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few large round black and white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:231–232 (Holemouth Jars Form 1A)

15

Gaza jar

26334/1

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6-6/8 ware with few medium-size round white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/3 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 6 (Form 3)

16

Amphora

26540/3

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 on the exterior

Johnson 2008:99–100 (Benghazi Early Amphora 11a).

17

Amphora

26363/33

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few very small angular white inclusions; black slip on the exterior

Magness 2003: Pl. 18.2:21

105

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

2

3

4

5

7

6

10

9

8

11

13 12

14

15

17

16 0

10

Fig. 3.4. Phase VC: L1963 below Channel 1934: cooking vessels, storage jars, jugs and amphorae.

106

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.5 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

FBW jug

26858/4

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with many very small round and angular white inclusions; very pale brown to light gray 10YR 8/2–7/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:236–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1B)

2

Trefoil-rim jug

26858/1

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white and angular black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:243 (Jug and Juglets Form 2A, No.1); Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.5:14

3

Jug

26464/9

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few large round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 to reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 bands on the exterior

Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.5:8– 11

4

Jug with decoration

26336/13

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; brown 7.5YR 4/3 slip on the exterior

5

Juglet

27026/4

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

6

Juglet

26706/4

Brown to strong brown 7.5YR 5/4–5/6 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/3 on the surface; black slip on neck and upper interior and handle

7

Juglet base

26341/4

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with many small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior and burnishing

8

Juglet base

26859/2

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

9

Juglet base

26859/1

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

10

Juglet base

26581/8

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink to reddish yellow 5YR 7/4–7/6 on the exterior

11

Lid

26682/1

Light red to reddish brown 2.5YR 6/8-5/6 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; pinkish white to pinkish gray 7.5YR 8/2–7/2 on the exterior

12

Lantern

27130/9

Light red 10R 6/6 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

13

Lamp

26411

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware

Kogan-Zehavi 2006: Fig. 14:72, 74–80

14

Figurine fragment

27026/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Patrich and Abu Shaneb 2008:315

Mazar 2003a: Pl. I.16:38

Magness 2003: Pl. 18.2:11

108

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Phase VB The assemblage from Phase VB originates in the western room of Building 1821, on Floors 1898 and 1881 (Figs. 3.6–3.8). This rich assemblage includes imported bowls from North Africa (ARS; Fig. 3.6:1–3) dated to the fourth–fifth centuries, and from Asia Minor (LRC; Fig. 3.6:4–6) that were common from the sixth century onward. Sixth-century vessel types are well represented, including the rounded rouletted bowls (Fig. 3.6:7, 8), a bowl lacking rouletting (Fig. 3.6:9), and Jerusalem-made FBW bowls of various types and variants (Fig. 3.6:11–18). Rounded bowls or bowl-lids (Fig. 3.6:19–24) are problematic items in this assemblage, and their identification affects their dating. Bowl-lids are dated to the third– fourth centuries; however, if they are identified as bowls, they could be related to FBW bowls and date to the sixth century. The arched-rim basins (Fig. 3.7:2–9) have a long life span that overlaps the other sixth-century material. Similarly, the storage jars date from the fifth to the seventh centuries (Fig. 3.8:1–6), the holemouth jar (Fig. 3.8:7) from the sixth century onward, the Gaza jars to the fifth–seventh centuries (Fig. 3.8:8–10), and the Late Roman 1 amphora to the fourth–seventh centuries (Fig. 3.8:11). In the sixth century, FBW vessels first started to be produced, and many of the Phase VB bowls are of this ware (Fig. 3.6:11–18), as are jugs and juglets (Fig. 3.8:13, 14) and lidbowls (Fig. 3.8:15, 16). A fragment of a lantern (Fig. 3.8:17) and a decorated lamp handle (Fig. 3.8:18) also date to the sixth century. In conclusion, the ceramics of Phase VB are characterized by pottery types that continue from earlier periods, alongside new types that make their first appearance in Phase VB and are characteristic of the sixth–seventh centuries (see below, Phase VA). Thus, Phase VB falls within the sixth century.

Fig. 3.6 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

1898

25064/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:69–73, Fig.12 (ARS Form 50)

2

ARS bowl

1881

24615/31

Light red 10R 6/8 ware; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:112–116, Fig.19 (ARS Form 67)

3

ARS bowl

1881

24615/8

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:140–144, Fig. 26 (ARS Form 91B)

4

LRC bowl

1881

24581/14

Light red 2.6YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

5

LRC bowl

1881

24354/19

Light red 2.6YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

6

LRC bowl

1898

24775/36

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

109

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.6 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

7

Rouletted bowl

1881

24545/12

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1992:185–188 (Rouletted Bowl)

8

Rouletted bowl

1881

24615/17

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with few small round black and white inclusions; reddish brown 5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1992:187–188 (Rouletted Bowl Form 2A)

9

Rouletted bowl

1881

24615/38

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1992:187–188 (Rouletted Bowl Form 2A)

10

Bowl

1881

25013/6

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few medium-size round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Johnson 2008:44, No. 370

11

FBW bowl

1898

24775/34

Light brown 7.5YR 6/ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 2)

12

FBW bowl

1881

24501/7

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 2)

13

FBW bowl

1898

24775/21

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

14

FBW bowl

1881

24354/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193–195 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

15

FBW bowl

1881

24545/4

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

16

FBW bowl

1881

24501/6

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white and angular black inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

17

FBW bowl

1881

25741/19

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

18

FBW bowl

1881

25013/2

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:193–195 (FBW Bowls Form 1A/B)

19

Bowl or bowl-lid

1881

24391/10

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192 (Rouletted Bowl Form 4 Variant 7–8); 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

20

Bowl or bowl-lid

1898

24775/18

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192 (Rouletted Bowl Form 4 Variant 7–8); 2006: 185–186, Pl. 7.2

21

Bowl or bowl-lid

1881

24615/2

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192 (Rouletted Bowl Form 4 Variant 7–8); 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

110

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.6 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

22

Bowl or bowl-lid

1881

25013/11

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192 (Rouletted Bowl Form 4 Variant 7–8); 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

23

Bowl or bowl-lid

1881

24545/11

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192 (Rouletted Bowl Form 4 Variant 7–8); 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

24

Bowl or Bowl-lid

1881

24545/13

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192 (Rouletted Bowl Form 4 Variant 7–8); 2006:185–186, Pl. 7.2

111

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

2

3

5

4

6

7

8

10

9

13

12

11

14

16

15

17

18

20

19

22

21

24

23 0

10

Fig. 3.6. Phase VB: Building 1821, Floors 1881 and 1898: bowls.

112

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.7 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Basin

1898

25063/9

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Rapuano 1999: Fig. 5:73, 74, 77

2

Arched-rim basin

1881

24545/1/2/15

Gray ware with many small round black and white inclusions; brown 10YR 5/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

3

Arched-rim basin

1881

24615/26

Pale brown 10YR 6/3 ware; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

4

Arched-rim basin

1881

24354/9

Gray ware; brown 7.5YR 5/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

5

Arched-rim basin

1898

24775/37

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 8/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 2A)

6

Arched-rim basin

1898

25063/4

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 2A)

7

Arched-rim basin

1881

24391/9

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with thick gray core and many medium-sized round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

8

Arched-rim basin

1881

24545/7

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware with thick gray core and many small and medium-sized round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 2A)

9

Arched-rim basin

1881

24501/22

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

10

Casserole

1898

24775/17

Yellowish red 5YR 4/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:211–213

11

Casserole

1881

24615/12

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 5YR 5/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:211–213

12

Casserole

1881

24391/4

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small round white and angular black inclusions; reddish brown 5YR 5/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:211–213

13

Knob of casserole lid

1881

24501/43

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:211–215

113

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

2

1

4 3

5

6

7

8

9

11

10

13

12

0

10

Fig. 3.7. Phase VB: Building 1821, Floors 1881 and 1898: basins, casseroles and lid.

114

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.8 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Storage jar

1898

25063/17

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few large round white and gray inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior; neck height 2.4 cm

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4C)

2

Storage jar

1881

24615/10

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white and angular black inclusions; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 on the exterior; neck height 3.6 cm

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

3

Storage jar

1881

24545/20

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior; neck height 3.8 cm

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

4

Storage jar

1881

24354/8

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few large round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior; neck height 4.2 cm

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

5

Storage jar

1881

24354/15

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2 on the exterior; neck height 3.5 cm

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

6

Storage jar

1881

24391/3

Pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 ware with many small round black inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/2 on the exterior; neck height 4.5 cm

Similar to Johnson 2008: Nos. 1201, 1239, 1241

7

Holemouth jar

1881

25013/7

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small and large round white and black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:233–234 (Holemouth Jars Form 2)

8

Gaza jar

1898

25063/1

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small round and large angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 8 (Form 4)

9

Gaza jar

1881

24501/25

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 6 (Form 3)

10

Gaza jar

1881

24615/37

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 8 (Form 4)

11

Amphora

1898

24775/27

Strong brown 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white and gray inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/4 on the exterior; neck height 7.6 cm

Johnson 2008:105 (Nos. 1257–1265)

12

Jug

1881

24501/5

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Seligman and Abu Raya 2000: Fig. 9

13

FBW jug

1881

24545/14

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with many small and large round and angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:236–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C)

14

FBW juglet

1898

25063/7

Light yellowish brown 10YR 6/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:239–240 (FBW Juglets Form 2A)

115

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.8 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

15

Lid-bowl

1881

24501/18

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:247 (Lid and Stoppers Form 1)

16

Lid-bowl

1881

24354/20

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:247 (Lid and Stoppers Form 1)

17

Lantern

1881

24615/40

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions, pink 5YR 7/4 ware on the exterior

Magness 1993: Figs. 3:1–4; 4:9–10; Mazar 2003b: Pl. III.7:5

18

Decorated lamp handle

1881

24420

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware, light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior, round lamp handle with rosette with dots

116

ANNA DE VINCENZ

2

3

1

5

4

7 6

8

10

9

12

11

14

13

15

16 0

10

18 17

0

2

Fig. 3.8. Phase VB: Building 1821, Floors 1881 and 1898: storage jars, amphora, jugs, juglets, lid-bowls, lantern and lamp handle.

117

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Phases VB–VA All the ceramic material from Floor 5006 in Building 1821 (Fig. 3.9) can be dated to the fifth–seventh centuries. The earliest vessel is a small candlestick lamp (Fig. 3.9:20) dated to the fourth–sixth centuries. Fig. 3.9 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

LRC bowl

81718/2

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

2

LRC bowl

81785/5

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with very few small angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

3

LRC bowl

81785/11

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

4

LRC bowl

81785/10

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972: Fig. 79 (LRC Cross 71c)

5

Rouletted bowl

81724/2

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with many small and large round and angular white inclusions; black slip on the interior; yellowish red 5YR 4/6 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:195–186

6

FBW bowl

81785/6/14

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 to reddish yellow 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:193, 195 (FBW Bowls Form 1B)

7

FBW bowllamp

81784/3

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with gray core and with few small angular white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 2)

8

FBW bowl

81785/12

Reddish brown 5YR 5/3 ware with few small round white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 5)

9

Arched-rim basin

81784/4/5

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with many small round white inclusions; very pale brown to light gray 10YR 8/2–7/2 on the exterior

Magness 206–207 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 2A)

10

Cooking pot

81785/1

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with many small angular white inclusions; dark gray 5YR 4/1 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4A)

11

Cooking pot

81784/2

Gray ware with few large round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

12

Cooking pot

81784/1

Yellowish red 5YR 4/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish brown 5YR 4/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

13

Cooking pot

81785/9

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small round white and micaceous inclusions; red 2.5YR 4/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4C)

118

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.9 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

14

Cooking jug

81549/1

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 on the exterior

15

Storage jar

81718/4

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with few small round white inclusions; brown 7.5YR 5/2 on the exterior

Johnson 2008: No. 1094

16

Gaza jar

81724/4

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 6 (Form 3)

17

Gaza jar

81785/8

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995: Pl. 6 (Form 3)

18

Jug

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:236–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C)

19

Lid-bowl

81718/26

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light brownish gray 10YR 6/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:247 (Lids and Stoppers Form 1)

20

Lamp

81783

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Loffreda 1995:11

21

Lamp

81791

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3 on the exterior

Loffreda 1995:11

119

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

3

2

7 4

6

5

8

9

10

12 11

14 13

15

17 16

18

19

0

20

10

21 0

2

Fig. 3.9. Phases VB–VA: Building 1821, Floor 5006.

0

2

120

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Phase VA Phase VA loci were exposed in Building 1821: Floors 1772, 1782, 1821 and Channel 1852 (Figs. 3.10–3.14). This phase can be dated from the sixth century until the final destruction of Building 1821 in 614 CE, as attested by the gold coin hoard recovered in Room 1772 (see Chapters 2, 5). The Phase VA assemblage includes imported bowls from North Africa (ARS; Figs. 3.10:1; 3.12:1, 2; 3.14:1, 2), Asia Minor (LRC; Figs. 3.10:2–6; 3.12:3–5; 3.14:3) and Cyprus (Figs. 3.10:6, 7; 3.12:6, 7). The stamped chevron decoration on an ARS fragment is dated to the fifth century, but was possibly in use after that. ARS Types 104 and 108 date to the sixth–seventh centuries. All the imported LRC bowls from Asia Minor are dated to the sixth–seventh centuries, while the Cypriot imports were first produced in the sixth century, became common in the seventh century, and continued into the Early Islamic period. However, most of the bowls that were in use in this period in Jerusalem are FBW types and variants (Figs. 3.10:9–19; 3.12:8–19; 3.14:5), some of which may have been used as lamps (Figs. 3.10:11; 3.14:6). Another prominent ceramic vessel in this period is the basin, mainly the arched-rim basin, both undecorated (Figs. 3.10:20–24; 3.12:1; 3.14:7) and decorated (Figs. 3.10:25; 3.12:21–24). These basins had a very long life span, beginning with their first appearance at the start of the third century. The undecorated type was in use until the sixth century, while the decorated type was still produced well into the seventh century, and continued, with minor changes, into the Early Islamic period. The decorated type, with characteristic straight and wavy combed lines on the body, is well represented in the Phase VA assemblage. Among the cooking vessels of this period, a closed cooking pot with a hooked rim is very common (Form 4B; Figs. 3.11:5, 6; 3.13:6). The pan with a single wishbone handle (Figs. 3.11:1, 3; 3.1:1) appears only during the sixth century and the cooking jug also appears in this phase (Fig. 3.11:9). Many jug types were found in this phase (Figs. 3.11:15–17; 3.13:14), including a few made of FBW (Fig. 3.13:12, 13). Alongside the FBW bowls, jugs and juglets common in the sixth–seventh centuries, there are also various types of FBW lids (Figs. 3.11:18, 19; 3.13:15–18). Jars with a high, plain neck and a ridge at the bottom appear in this phase (Figs. 3.11:10–12), as does a large candlestick lamp with a Greek inscription (Fig. 3.13:19). A sherd with incised patterns also belongs to this phase (Fig. 3.11:17). In conclusion, vessel types that are typical of the sixth–seventh centuries are well represented in Phase VA. Certain vessels that are earlier in date, such as the mortarium (Fig. 3.12:25), a local lamp fragment (Fig. 3.11:20) and an imported lamp fragment (Fig. 3.13:20), may be explained by prolonged use, or as residual material.

121

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.10 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

1782

23872/2

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:243, Fig. 42 (Chevrons 75q on bowl of Form ARS 67)

2

LRC bowl

1782

23041/1

Light red 10R 6/8 ware; light red 10R 6/8 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

3

LRC bowl

1772

24572/13

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing; rim blackened

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

4

LRC bowl

1782

23085/5

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

5

LRC bowl

1782

24737/4

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

6

LRC bowl

1782

23041/4

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; gray to brown 7.5YR 5/1–5/2 on the exterior

Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71 (LRC Form 10B)

7

CRS bowl

1772

22764/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 4/3 slip on the exterior; rim discolored

Hayes 1972:379, Fig. 81 (CRS Form 9)

8

CRS bowl

1772

23590/9

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Hayes 1972:379, Fig. 81 (CRS Form 9)

9

FBW bowl

1772

23046/5

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few very small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowl Form 1A)

10

FBW bowl

1782

22938/17

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 and burnished bands on the exterior

Magness 1993:194, 196 (FBW Bowl Form 1E)

11

FBW bowl-lamp

1772

24167/22

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with few medium-size round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 2)

12

FBW bowl

1772

23590/5

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware; light gray 10YR 7/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 2)

13

FBW bowl

1772

24167/7

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 2)

14

FBW Bowl

1782

24737/25

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 3)

15

FBW bowl

1782

22929/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 5YR 7/6 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 13)

16

Bowl

1772

24167/12

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Similar to Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowl Form 2B Variant 11)

17

Bowl

1782

23556/22

Yellowish red 5YR 6/5 ware with gray core; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Similar in shape to Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71 (LRC Form 10A)

122

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.10 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

18

Bowl

1772

22764/13

Brown 7.5YR 5/2 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:188

19

Bowl

1782

24082/4

Pink 5YR 7/4 ware with thick gray core and few large angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:188

20

Arched-rim basin

1772

24572/19

Light brown 7.5YR 6/3 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

21

Arched-rim basin

1782

23337/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

22

Arched-rim basin

1772

24167/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with many small angular white and few small angular black inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

23

Arched-rim basin

1782

24737/41

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

24

Arched-rim basin

1782

22929/22

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and many medium-size round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 1)

25

Arched-rim basin

1772

24167/11

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with thick gray core and large angular white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched–Rim Basin Form 2A)

123

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

2

1

3

5

4

6

7

8

11

9

10

14

13

12

15

17

16

19

18

21 20

22

23

25

24

0

10

Fig. 3.10. Phase VA: Building 1821, Floors 1772 and 1782: bowls and basins.

124

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.11 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Frying pan

1772

23085/1

Dark brown 7.5YR 3/4 with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:213–214 (Casseroles Form 2)

2

Casserole lid

1772

24167/4

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; burnt on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

3

Casserole lid

1772

24167/13

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 2.5YR 6/4 and burnt on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

4

Casserole lid

1772

22764/4

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware; weak red 10R 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

5

Cooking pot

1772

24167/15

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

6

Cooking pot

1772

23046/2

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few very small angular white inclusions; reddish gray 2.5YR 5/1 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

7

Cooking pot

1772

24167/25

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few small round black and white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Possibly a variant of Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A)

8

Cooking pot

1782

22929/17

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:218 (Cooking Pots Form 4A, No. 2)

9

Cooking jug

1772

22800/4

Reddish yellow 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 on the exterior

10

Storage jar

1782

24149/3

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior; neck height 3 cm

Magness 1993:227–229 (Storage Jars Form 6A)

11

Storage jar

1772

22679/1

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:227–229 (Storage Jars Form 6A)

12

Storage jar

1782

22929/ 19/21

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small and medium size round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior; neck height 5.5 cm

Magness 1993:230–231 (Storage Jars Form 7)

13

Holemouth jar

1772

22764/11

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware with few large round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:231–232 (Holemouth Jar Form 1A)

14

Holemouth jar

1782

22929/14

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior; neck height 17 cm

15

Jug

1772

22800/2

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

16

Jug

1772

24572/10

Pale yellow 2.5Y 8/3 ware with few small round white inclusions; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 on the exterior

17

Decorated sherd of jug

1782

22938/20

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; light gray10YR 7/2 on the exterior

18

Lid-bowl

1782

24737/35

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with gray core and few large round white inclusions; brown 10YR 5/3 and burnished bands on the exterior

Magness 1993:247 (Lids and Stoppers Form 1)

19

Lid

1772

22800/7

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:247–248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

20

Lamp

1772

24167

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/8 ware with many small micaceous inclusions; brown 10YR 5/3 slip on the exterior

Hadad 2002:26, Type 16

126

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.12 ► No

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

27700/105

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:160–166, Fig. 30 (ARS Form 104C)

2

ARS bowl

27614/27

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few small angular and round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:160–166, Fig. 30 (ARS Form 104C)

3

LRC bowl

25741/14

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

4

LRC bowl

27614/20

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 2.5YR 4/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71 (LRC Form 10B)

5

LRC bowl

23556/15

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71 (LRC Form 10A)

6

CRS bowl

27614/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:379, Fig. 81 (CRS Form 9)

7

CRS bowl

24551/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/3 slip on the exterior; rim discolored

Hayes 1972:379, Fig. 81 (CRS Form 9)

8

FBW bowl

24551/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

9

FBW bowl

27515/12

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware; reddish yellow and burnished 5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

10

FBW bowl

27614/24

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core; pink 2.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

11

FBW bowl

27515/19

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:193, 195 (FBW Bowls Form 1B)

12

FBW bowl

24629/5

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few very small angular and large round white inclusions; ware 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193, 195 (FBW Bowls Form 1B)

13

FBW bowl

27614/20

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink to light brown 7.5YR 7/4-6/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

14

FBW bowl

27614/11

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware; light red 2.5YR 7/6 self slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

15

FBW bowl

27515/25

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 5)

16

FBW bowl

27515/21

Grayish brown 10YR 5/2 ware; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 5)

17

FBW bowl

24551/2

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowls Form 2C)

18

FBW bowl

27614/10

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 and burnished bands on the exterior

Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowls Form 2C)

127

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.12 (cont.) ► No

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

19

FBW bowl

27515/31

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pale brown to gray 10YR 6/3–5/1 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:198, 201 (FBW Bowls Form 2D)

20

Bowl

25741/18

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white and black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

21

Arched-rim basin

27614/22

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with thick gray core and few small round black and white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched-Rim Basin Form 2A)

22

Arched-rim basin

27515/34

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched-Rim Basin Form 2A)

23

Arched-rim basin

25741/8

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched-Rim Basin Form 2A)

24

Arched-rim basin

23556/18

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched-Rim Basin Form 1)

25

Mortarium

23556/14

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware many small round white and large gray inclusions; reddish yellow and burnished 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Vincenz 2011b: Fig. 8.2:11 (although a stamped variant)

128

ANNA DE VINCENZ

2 1

3

4

6

7

9

10

5

8

11

13

12

15

14

16

17

20

19

18

21

22

23

24

25 0

10

Fig. 3.12. Phase VA: Building 1821, Floor 1821: bowls, basins and mortarium.

129

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.13 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Frying pan

24629/10

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; dark gray 5YR 4/1 on the exterior

Magness 1993:213–214 (Casseroles Form 2)

2

Casserole lid

27515/22

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; yellowish red 5YR 4/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

3

Casserole lid

27700/4

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

4

Knob of casserole lid

27614/1

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

5

Cooking-pot base

24551/10

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; burnt on the exterior

6

Cooking pot

24629/4

Brown 7.5YR 4/4 ware; burnt on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

7

Storage jar

24629/12

Pale brown 10YR 6/3 ware with few small round black inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/4 slip on the exterior

Johnson 2008: No. 1256

8

Storage jar

27614/21

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pinkish gray 7.5YR 6/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:222–223 (Storage Jars Form 3)

9

Storage jar

27515/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:222–223 (Storage Jars Form 3)

10

Holemouth jar

25741/3

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with thick grayish core and few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

11

Holemouth jar

24629/2

Light brownish gray 10YR 6/2 ware with few small round white and angular black inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/4 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:231–232 (Holemouth Jars Form 1A)

12

FBW jug

27614/18

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237, 239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C)

13

FBW jug

27700/7/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–238 (FBW Jugs Form 1B)

14

Jug base

27614/4

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

15

Lid

23556/4

Grayish brown 10YR 5/2 ware with very few small round white inclusions; brown 7.5YR 5/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

16

Lid

27614/7

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with gray core and few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

17

Lid

23556/10

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

18

Lid-bowl

25741/2

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white and black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:247 (Lids and Stoppers Form 1)

19

Lamp

27652

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:251–253 (Oil Lamps Form 3C)

20

ARS lamp

27515/15

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware; light red slip 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Hayes 1972:310–314

131

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

2

3

1

4

5

6

8

7

10

9 0

10

Fig. 3.14. Phase VA: Channel 1852. No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

25818/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware; red 10R 5/6 slip on the inside, gray on the exterior

Hayes 1972:171, Fig. 33 (ARS Form 108)

2

ARS bowl

25900/9

Red 10R 5/8 ware; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:171, Fig. 33 (ARS Form 108)

3

LRC bowl

25900/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

4

Bowl

25818/17

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:189 (Rouletted Bowls Form 3A)

5

FBW bowl

25900/13

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

6

FBW bowllamp

25900/5

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4

Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 5)

7

Arched-rim basin

25818/14

Light red: 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small round black and white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

8

Casserole

25818/13

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few large round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 4/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:211–212 (Casseroles Form 1)

9

Casserole lid

25818/1

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

10

Casserole lid

25900/9

Black ware (burnt?); gray on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

132

ANNA DE VINCENZ

The Byzantine Street In the northwestern part of the excavation, remains of a Byzantine Street (1886) were unearthed (see Chapter 2). Floors 1820 and 1823 were sealed below Phase VA surfaces of Street 1886 and therefore attributed to Phase VB. Based on the ceramics, Floor 1820 can be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries as it yielded FBW bowls of Form 1 (Fig. 3.15:1–3) dated to the sixth–seventh centuries, storage jars (Fig. 3.15:4, 5) used from the late sixth– early eighth centuries, Gaza jars (Fig. 3.15:6, 7) dated to the fifth–seventh centuries, and a jug (Fig. 3.15:8) that is dated from the mid-sixth–early eighth centuries. The material from Floor 1823 is also dated to the sixth–seventh centuries and includes an imported LRC bowl (Fig. 3.15:9) of the sixth–early seventh centuries, an FBW bowl of Form 2B (Fig. 3.15:10) of the late sixth–seventh centuries, and an arched-rim basin (Fig. 3.15:11) dated to the sixth century. An additional fragment of a storage jar (Fig. 3.15:12) that dates to the second–fifth century may be residual in this assemblage. The material from Floor 1809 of Phase VA, above Floor 1820 (Fig. 3.16), includes imported bowls (Fig. 3:16:1, 2), local FBW bowls (Fig. 3.16:3–7), a bowl-lid (Fig. 3.16:8), arched-rim basins (Fig. 3.16:9–11), basins with a ledge rim (Fig. 3.16:14, 15), storage jars (Fig. 3.16:19, 20), a jug (Fig. 3.16:22) and lids (Fig. 3.16:24, 25), all types of the sixth– seventh centuries. The cooking pots from Floor 1809 (Fig. 3.16:16–18) are dated to the fifth–seventh centuries, while one type of jar (Fig. 3.16:21) is of late sixth–eighth-century date. Most of the slabs that paved the street had been removed or robbed in later periods, and only in one place were the slabs discovered in situ (L1877). The finds here were not sealed and are attributed to Stratum V in general. The ceramic vessels from above these slabs (Fig. 3.17) include vessel types that were in use from the third–fifth centuries, such as the carinated rouletted bowl (Fig. 3.17:2), the arched-rim basins (Fig. 3.17:6, 7), a holemouth jar (Fig. 3.17:9) and a storage jar (Fig. 3.17:8), together with types that are characteristic of the sixth–seventh centuries, such as an imported bowl from Asia Minor (Fig. 3.17:1), FBW bowls, juglet and lid (Fig. 3.17:3–5, 10, 12), and a lantern fragment (Fig. 3.17:13). The material found here can thus be dated from the fourth to the seventh centuries, throughout the entire period that the street was in use. Drainage Channel 1889, below Street 1886, yielded material that can be dated to the sixth–seventh centuries, such as imported bowls from Asia Minor (Fig. 3.18:1, 2), a FBW bowl and lid (Fig. 3.18:3, 9) and cooking vessels (Fig. 3.18:5–8).

133

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.15 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

FBW bowl

1820

24126/4

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core and many very small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3–7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

2

FBW bowl

1820

23651/15

Light red 10R 6/8 with very few very small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

3

FBW bowl

1820

23651/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small round and angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193, 195 (FBW Bowls Form 1B)

4

Storage jar

1820

23651/8

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core and few very small round and angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:226–227 (Storage Jars Form 5A/B)

5

Storage jar

1820

24365/4

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with very few very small angular white inclusions; pink to reddish yellow 5YR 8/4–7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:226–227 (Storage Jars Form 5A/B)

6

Gaza jar

1820

24126/1/3

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware reddish brown with few large angular white and round gray inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995:168–169 (Type 4)

7

Gaza jar

1820

24365/10

Reddish brown 5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Majcherek 1995:168–169 (Type 4)

8

FBW jug

1820

23651/3

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:236–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C)

9

LRC bowl

1823

23540/7

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with very few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71 (LRC Form 10B)

10

FBW bowl

1823

23540/1

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with gray core and many small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 3)

11

Basin

1823

23540/4

Pink 7.5YR 7/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/3 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:204–205 (Arched– rim basin Form 1)

12

Storage jar

1823

23540/3

Light red 10R 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:222–223 (Storage Jars Form 3)

134

ANNA DE VINCENZ

3

2

1

4

6

5

7 8

10

9

11

12 0

10

Fig. 3.15. Phase VB: Street 1886, Floors 1820 and 1823.

135

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.16 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

23295/2

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 4/4 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:140–144, Fig. 26 (ARS Form 104C)

2

LRC bowl

24457/3/4

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

3

FBW bowl

24095/3

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few very small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 and reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior and burnishing

Magness 1993:193–194 (FBW Bowl Form 1A)

4

FBW bowl

23247/6

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with very few very small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193–194 (FBW Bowl Form 1A)

5

FBW bowllamp

23332/3

Light red 10R 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 4)

6

FBW bowl

23247/1

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 4)

7

FBW bowl

23250/4

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowls Form 2C)

8

Bowl or bowl-lid

23247/3

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3–7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:192, Nos. 7–8; 2003: Pl. 18.2:11

9

Arched-rim basin

23250/2

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with thick gray core and few small round white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

10

Arched-rim basin

24095/6/9

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 lay with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

11

Arched-rim basin

23650/14

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware with thick gray core and many large round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

12

Arched-rim basin

23400/12

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few large angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

13

Arched-rim basin

23400/11

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

14

Basin

23274/4

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small round and angular black and crushed ceramic inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/3 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

15

Basin

23250/12

Pink 7.5YR 7/4 ware with many medium-sized angular white and large round black inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/3 on the exterior

Related to Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

16

Cooking pot

23400/14

Reddish brown 5YR 4/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; weak red 10R 4/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

136

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.16 (cont.) ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

17

Cooking pot

23247/7

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 2.5YR 4/8 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4B)

18

Cooking pot

23400/4

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few small round black inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–221 (Cooking Pots Form 4C)

19

Storage jar

23250/6

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/5 on the exterior; neck height: 4.6 cm

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

20

Storage jar

23650/12

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core and few small round white and black inclusions; pinkish gray to pink 7.5YR 7/2–7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:223–225 (Storage Jars Form 4B)

21

Storage jar

24095/5

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 on the exterior; neck height: 4.6 cm

Magness 1993:227–229 (Storage Jars Form 6A)

22

FBW jug

23274/9

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:236–238 (FBW Jugs Form 1B)

23

Jug

23050/15

Pink to reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/4-7/6 ware with many small angular white and few large round black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 and very pale brown 10YR 8/3–7/3 on the exterior

Vincenz 2005:132–137, Figs. 8, 9

24

Lid

23400/1

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

25

Lid

23400/8

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

137

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

2

1

3

5

4

7

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

18

16

17

20

21

19

22

23

24

25 0

10

Fig. 3.16. Phase VA: Street 1886, Floor 1809.

138

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.17 ► No.

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

LRC bowl

24568/4

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware; light red 2.5YR 6/8 on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Fig. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

2

Rouletted bowl

24568/11

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with thick gray core and many small and large round and angular white inclusions; light brown to brown 7.5YR 6/4–5/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–187 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1)

3

FBW bowllamp

24333/9

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198–199 (FBW Bowls Form 2B Variant 2)

4

FBW bowl

24333/2

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core and few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow to light reddish brown 5YR 7/6–6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193–194 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

5

FBW Bowl

31601/1

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with many small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198, 200 (FBW Bowls Form 2C)

6

Arched-rim basin

24568/10

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and many small and large round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior, rim discolored

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 1)

7

Arched-rim basin

24568/13

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few large angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:209 (Arched–Rim Basins Form 3)

8

Storage jar

31737/4

Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 ware with few very small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior, remains of black slip?

Magness 1993:222–223 (Storage Jars Form 3)

9

Holemouth jar

24602/3

Pink 7.5YR 7/4 ware with few small round white and angular black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:231–232 (Holemouth Jar Form 1A)

10

FBW juglet

24333/15/19

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with thick gray core and few very small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:239–240 (FBW Juglet Form 2A)

11

Juglet with potter’s mark

24333/12

Brown 7.5YR 5/4 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

12

Lid

31737/2

Gray ware with few small round white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/3 on the exterior

13

Lantern

31242/4

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few very small angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

139

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

2

3

5

4

7

6

8

9

10

0

11

10

12

13 0

2

Fig. 3.17. Stratum V: Street 1886, L1877 (above slabs).

140

ANNA DE VINCENZ

1

2

3

5

4

6

8

7

9 0

10

Fig. 3.18. Stratum V: Drainage Channel 1889. No

Vessel

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

LRC bowl

31464/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 10R 6/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3H)

2

LRC bowl

31650/9

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware; light red 10R 6/8 on the exterior and burnishing

Hayes 1972:329–338, Figs. 67–69 (LRC Form 3F)

3

FBW bowl

31464/11

Dark reddish gray 5YR 4/2 ware with few small round white inclusions; gray 7.5YR 6/1 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193–194 (FBW Bowls Form 1A)

4

Arched-rim basin

31559/4

Brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basin Form 1)

5

Cooking pot or casserole

31650/3/4/5

Red 2.5YR 5/6 ware with many small and medium size round white and few mediumsized round black inclusions; weak red 2.5YR 5/2 on the exterior

Vincenz 2007: Pl. 20:7

6

Cooking juglet

31769/7

Reddish brown 5YR 4/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 on the exterior

Magness 2003: Pl. 18.1:25

7

Cooking pot lid

31464/13

Red 2.5YR 5/6 with few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 2.5YR 4/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

8

Knob

31464/7

Red 2.5YR 4/8 ware; red 2.5YR 4/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:215 (Casserole Lids)

9

Lid

31464/15

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; light reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:248 (Lids and Stoppers Form 2)

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

141

The Agricultural Field The area south of Building 1821 has been defined as an agricultural field divided into plots (see Chapter 2). The soil was brought here to cover the ruins of the previous Stratum VI. The Byzantine material retrieved in the soil is a mixture of all three phases of Stratum V, dating from the fourth to the seventh centuries, and therefore it is discussed here typologically (Figs. 3.19–3.28) as a representative assemblage of the Byzantine period. The imported fine-ware bowls comprise an ARS bowl (Fig. 3.19:1), LRC bowls (Fig. 3.19:2–6) and an Egyptian Red Slip bowl (Fig. 3.19:7), and are all dated to the sixth– seventh centuries. All except one of the rouletted bowls are of the carinated type (Fig. 3.20:1–10), which began to appear in the third century and was replaced in the sixth century by the rounded type of rouletted bowls (Fig. 3.20:11). Only a few fragments of FBW bowls characteristic of the later Phase VA were retrieved in the agricultural field (Fig. 3.21), along with other bowl types that fall within this time frame (Fig. 3.22). In the agricultural soil, the undecorated arched-rim basin (Form 1; Fig. 3.23:1–6) was apparently more common than the decorated one (Form 2; Fig. 3.23:7, 8). As mentioned above, undecorated arched-rim basins first appeared in the early third century and had a long life span until the sixth century. The decorated arched-rim basins were common during the sixth–seventh centuries. Other basins found here are the shelf-rim basin (Fig. 3.24:1), dated to the second–third centuries, and the rilled-rim basin (Fig. 3.24:2, 3), which began to appear in the fourth century and continued into the sixth century. Alongside the shelf-rim basin of the second–third centuries, there are also cooking pots of similar date (Fig. 3.25:1–4). All the storage jars from the agricultural field are of later types (Fig. 3.26) dating to the late sixth–seventh centuries. Most of the jugs and a juglet are FBW (Fig. 3.27) and date to the sixth–seventh centuries. The stand fragment (Fig. 3.28:1) should probably also be attributed to the later phase. Finally, there are two fragments of Bet Naṭṭif lamps that are dated to the fourth–fifth centuries (Fig. 3.28:2, 3). In conclusion, the Byzantine material from the agricultural field cannot be differentiated from that retrieved in Building 1821, and spans the entire Byzantine period.

142

ANNA DE VINCENZ

2

1

4

3

6

5

7 0

10

Fig. 3.19. Stratum V: agricultural field: imported fine-ware bowls. No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

ARS bowl

3852

60532/12

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:160–166, Fig. 30:29 (ARS For 104C) Rapuano 1999: Fig. 3:34

2

LRC bowl

3698

57648/4

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Fig. 69 (LRC Form 3F) Vincenz 2005: Figs. 1:6; 3:8

3

LRC bowl

3698

56967/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Fig. 69 (LRC Form 3F) Vincenz 2005: Figs. 1:6; 3:8

4

LRC bowl

3807

58761/14

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; weak red to red 10R 5/4–5/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Fig. 69 (LRC Form 3F) Vincenz 2005: Figs. 1:6; 3:8

5

LRC bowl

3852

61036/15

Light red 10R 6/8 ware with few small round white inclusions; red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:329–338, Fig. 69 (LRC Form 3F) Vincenz 2005: Figs. 1:6; 3:8

6

LRC bowl

3852

60532/11

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 10R 5/6 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:343–347, Fig. 71 (LRC Form 10A) Vincenz 2011a: Fig. 3.8:18, 19, 22

7

Red-slipped bowl

3698

56967/2

Pink 5YR 7/4 ware with many small round and angular white and few small angular black inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/8 slip on the exterior

Hayes 1972:387–389, Fig. 85e (Egyptian ‘A’ Form J)

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

143

Fig. 3.20 ► No.

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

3762

58745/1

Pale brown 10YR 6/3 ware with many large angular white and black inclusions; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/3 to very pale brown 10YR 7/4 ware and light red 10R 6/8 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a: Figs. 3.6:1; 3.10:5,6; 2011b: Fig. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

2

3762

58723/7

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware and red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a: Figs. 3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Fig. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

3

3807

58761/16

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with gray core and many small round and angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/5 ware and red 10R 5/8 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5–6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

4

3762

58745/10

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and many small round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware and weak red 10R 4/3 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

5

3762

58634/4

Red 10R 5/6 ware with gray core and many small round and angular white inclusions; brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware and dark gray 7.5YR 4/1 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

6

3762

58745/11

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round black and white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 ware and dark gray 7.5YR 4/1 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

7

3762

58634/5

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware and reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

8

3807

58649/2

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small round white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware and light reddish brown 2.5YR 6/4 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

9

3762

58691/6

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/3 ware and brown 7.5YR 5/2 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

10

3852

61602/19

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few small round black and white and few angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 and red 2.5YR 5/6 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:185–186 (Rouletted Bowls Form 1) Vincenz 2005: Fig. 5:12–14; 2011a:3.6:1; 3.10:5, 6; 2011b: Figs. 8.2:1–3 Peleg and Adler 2011: Fig. 14.2:1–9

11

3762

58691/5

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 ware with few small round white and few small angular black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 ware and reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:187–188 (Rouletted Bowls Form 2)

144

ANNA DE VINCENZ

1

2

4

3

5

6

8

7

9 10

11 0

10

Fig. 3.20. Stratum V: agricultural field: rouletted bowls.

145

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

3

2

4

5

0

10

Fig. 3.21. Stratum V: agricultural field: FBW bowls. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

3698

56946/2

Brown 7.5YR 5/2 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; reddish yellow to light reddish brown 5YR 7/6–6/3 burnished bands on the exterior

Magness 1993:193 (FBW Bowl Form 1B) Vincenz 2003: Fig. 24:215– 220

2

3852

60532/10

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round black and white inclusions; pink to light brown 7.5YR 7/4–6/4 on the exterior and burnished

Magness 1993:194 (FBW Bowl Form 1F, Variant 3)

3

3852

60532/16

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware with few small round black inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 on the exterior, rim with soot remains

Magness 1993:198 (FBW Bowl Form 2B, Variant 6) Peleg and Adler 2007: Fig. 2.1:4

4

3852

60840/3

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior and burnished

Similar to Magness 1993:198, 248 (FBW Bowl Form 2B, Variant 12 or Lids Form 2) Peleg and Adler 2007: Figs. 8.4:8; 8.5:7

5

3698

57334/3

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware with thick grayish core and few small round white inclusions; reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:198 (FBW Bowl Form 2D)

146

ANNA DE VINCENZ

1

2

4

3

0

10

Fig. 3.22. Stratum V: agricultural field: miscellaneous bowls. No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Bowl

3852

61036/14

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 slip on the exterior

Related to FBW

2

Bowl

3852

60840/7

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:193– 194 (similar to FBW Bowls Form 1B)

3

Bowl or bowl-lid

3807

58879/12

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 to pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:191– 192 (Rouletted Bowls Form 4, Variant 7); 2003: Pl. 18.2:11 Mazar and Gordon 2007: Fig. 15.7:1

4

Bowl

3762

58723/5

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small angular and round white inclusions; pink to reddish yellow 5YR 7/4–6/6 ware and dark reddish gray 5YR 4/2 slip on the exterior

Possibly related to Magness 1993: 189–190 (Rouletted Bowls Form 3B) Mazar and Gordon 2007: Fig. 15.8:1

147

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

Fig. 3.23 ► No.

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

3762

58723/8

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with many small angular white inclusions; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

2

3762

58634/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 and light brown 7.5YR 6/3 ware and few medium-sized round white and angular black and few small round white inclusions; pale yellow 2.5Y 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

3

3762

58634/13

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with thick gray core and few small angular white inclusions; pink to light reddish brown 5YR 7/4–6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

4

3762

58634/7

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 to reddish brown 5YR 5/4 with many small round and angular white inclusions; pink 5YR 8/3–7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

5

3762

58634/2

Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 ware with thick gray core and few small round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 and very pale brown 10YR 8/2 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

6

3807

58879/15

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 and pale brown 10YR 6/3 ware and many small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:204–206 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 1)

7

3762

58723/11

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with few medium-size round white and few small round white inclusions; reddish brown 5YR 6/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 2A)

8

3807

58879/16

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with many small round white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/3 on the exterior, light red 2.5YR 6/6 slip, painted strokes on rim

Magness 1993:206–207 (Arched-Rim Basins Form 2) Weksler–Bdolah 2006: Fig. 6:9

148

ANNA DE VINCENZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

10

Fig. 3.23. Stratum V: agricultural field: arched-rim basins.

149

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

2

3

4

5

0

10

Fig. 3.24. Stratum V: agricultural field: miscellaneous basins. No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

Shelf-rim basin

3762

58723/9

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/6 slip on the exterior

Magness 1993:202 (ShelfRim Basins)

2

Rilled-rim basin

3762

58691/1

Light red 10R 6/8 ware with thick core and brown 7.5YR 5/3 ware with many small round and angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:203–204 (Rilled-Rim Basins) Peleg and Adler 2007: Figs. 8.3:3; 8.4:11 Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.1 5; 15.2:15–19; 15.3:12; 15.6:11; 15.8:6–9; 15.9:5–10; 15.10:9, 10; 15.13:6, 7 Vincenz 2011b: Figs. 8.2:4, 5; 8.3:4, 9

3

Rilled-rim basin

3881

61407/10

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white and black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:203–204 (Rilled-Rim Basins) Peleg and Adler 2007: Figs. 8.3:3; 8.4:11 Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.1 5; 15.2:15–19; 15.3:12; 15.6:11; 15.8:6–9; 15.9:5–10; 15.10:9, 10; 15.13:6, 7 Vincenz 2011b: Figs. 8.2:4, 5; 8.3:4, 9

4

Basin

3762

58214/10

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 7/4 on the exterior

5

Large bowl/ basin

3807

58666/5

Light brown 7.5YR 6/4 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3 on the exterior

150

ANNA DE VINCENZ

2

1

3

4

5

0

10

Fig. 3.25. Stratum V: agricultural field: cooking pots. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

3762

58745/7

Red 2.5YR 4/6 ware with few very small angular white inclusions; black on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A) Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2:31; 15.4:8; 15.6:17; 15.8:11; 15.9:11; 15.13:12

2

3762

58214/2

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/6 and burned on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A) Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2:31; 15.4:8; 15.6:17; 15.8:11; 15.9:11; 15.13:12

3

3762

58743/19

Red 10R 5/8 ware with few small round white and few medium-sized round black inclusions; red 2.5YR 5/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A) Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2:31; 15.4:8; 15.6:17; 15.8:11; 15.9:11; 15.13:12

4

3807

58761/2

Red 2.5YR 5/60 ware with few very small round white inclusions; weak red 2.5YR 4/2 and black on the exterior

Magness 1993:216–217 (Cooking Pots Form 1A) Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.2:31; 15.4:8; 15.6:17; 15.8:11; 15.9:11; 15.13:12

5

3698

56946/11

Red 2.5YR 5/8 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish brown to red 2.5YR 5/4–5/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:219–220 (Cooking Pots Form 4C)

151

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

2

3

5

4

0

10

Fig. 3.26. Stratum V: agricultural field: storage jars. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

3762

57671/6

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:227–229 (Storage Jars Form 6A) Rapuano 1999: Fig. 7:107 Vincenz 2011b: Fig. 8.2:10

2

3807

58889/8

Light brown 7.5YR 6/3 ware with few small angular white and round black inclusions; pale brown 10YR 6/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:227–231 (Storage Jars Form 7); 2012: Pl. 9.4:21

3

3762

58745/2

Light red 2.5YR 7/8 ware with few small round and angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:227–231 (Storage Jars Form 7); 2012: Pl. 9.4:21

4

3807

58666/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/8 ware with lighter core and few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:227–231 (Storage Jars Form 7); 2012: Pl. 9.4:21

5

3852

60532/6

Yellowish red 5YR 5/6 ware with thick gray core and many small round and angular white inclusions; pinkish gray to light reddish brown 5YR 6/2–6/3 on the exterior

Vincenz 2003: Fig. 20:173

152

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Fig. 3.27 ► No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels and Related Types

1

FBW jug

3852

60840/9

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on exterior

Magness 1993:237–238 (FBW Jugs Form 1B) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:1

2

FBW jug

3852

60840/1

Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–238 (FBW Jugs Form 1B) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:1

3

FBW jug

3698

56946/1

Pink 7.5YR 7/4 ware with few large angular white and many small round and angular black inclusions; pink 7.5YR 8/3 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–238 (FBW Jugs Form 1B) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:1

4

FBW jug

3807

58514/1

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with very few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:3–6 Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:28, 29 Weksler-Bdolah 2006: Fig. 7:16–19

5

FBW jug

3807

58514/3

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:3–6 Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:28, 29 Weksler-Bdolah 2006: Fig. 7:16–19

6

FBW jug

3807

58761/15

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:3–6 Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:28, 29 Weksler-Bdolah 2006: Fig. 7:16–19

7

FBW jug

3698

56967/1

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Magness 1993:237–239 (FBW Jugs Form 1C) Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:3–6 Mazar and Peleg 2003: Pl. I.16:28, 29 Weksler-Bdolah 2006: Fig. 7:16–19

8

FBW jug

3698

57334/6

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with dark core and few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 6/6 and burnished bands on the exterior

Magness 1993:236

9

Jug

3762

57671/4

Light red 2.5YR 7/6 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light red 2.5YR 7/6 on the exterior

Mazar 2003c: Pl. III.5:8–11

10

Jug

3807

58694/1

Reddish yellow 5YR 6/6 ware with few small round and few large angular white inclusions; very pale brown 10YR 8/2 on the exterior

Mazar and Gordon 2007: Figs. 15.3:36; 15.9:16

11

FBW juglet

3852

60840/4

Light brown 7.5YR 6/3-6/4 ware with few small round white inclusions; light brown 7.5YR 6/3 on the exterior

153

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

1

3

2

6

5

4

7

9

8

10

11

0

10

Fig. 3.27. Stratum V: agricultural field: jugs and juglets.

154

ANNA DE VINCENZ

1 0

5

2

3

0

4

Fig. 3.28. Stratum V: agricultural field: miscellaneous vessels. No.

Vessel

Locus

Basket

Description

Related Types

1

Base/stand

3852

60840/8

Light red 2.5YR 6/6 ware with many small round white inclusions; pink 5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Mazar 2003a: Pl. I.16:31

2

Lamp

3762

58214/3

Light brownish gray 10YR 6/2 ware with few small angular white inclusions; light gray 10YR 7/2 on the exterior

Peleg and Adler 2007:33

3

Lamp

3807

59275

Pale brown 10YR 6/3 ware with few small round white inclusions; pink 7.5YR 7/4 on the exterior

Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: Nos. 438, 439

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

155

R eferences Adler N. and Peleg O. 2007. The Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Building in Area XIV. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem. Pp. 71–80. Avner R. 2000. Deir Ghazali: A Byzantine Monastery Northeast of Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 40:25*–52* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Balouka M. 2013. The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In Giv‘ati I. Pp. 151–166. Fabian P. and Goren Y. 2001. A Byzantine Warehouse and Anchorage South of Ashqelon. ‘Atiqot 42:211–219. Gichon M. 1974. Fine Byzantine Wares from the South of Israel. PEQ 106:119–139. Hadad S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean (Qedem Reports 4). Jerusalem. Hayes J.W. 1967. North Syrian Mortaria. Hesperia 36:337–347. Hayes J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London. Hayes J.W. 1980. A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. London. Israel Y. 1993. Ashqelon; Survey of Pottery Workshops. Naḥal Lakhish–Naḥal Besor. ESI 13:100– 107. Israel Y. 1995. The Economy of the Gaza–Ashqelon Region in the Byzantine Period in the Light of the Archaeological Survey and Excavations of the ‘3rd Mile Estate’ near Ashqelon. Michmanim 8:119–132 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 16*–17*). Johnson B.L. 2008. The Pottery. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN; Final Reports I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 13–206. Kogan-Zehavi E. 2000. Settlement Remains and Tombs at Khirbet Ṭabaliya (Giv‘at Hamaṭos). ‘Atiqot 40:53*–80* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 162–165). Kogan-Zehavi E. 2006. A Burial Cave of the Byzantine Period in the Naḥalat Aḥim Quarter, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 54:61*–86* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 160–161). Loffreda S. 1995. Luce e vita nelle antiche lucerne cristiane di Terra Santa (SBF Museum 13). Jerusalem. Magness J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: Circa 200–800 CE (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9). Sheffield. Magness J. 2003. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In. H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Area A, W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 423–432. Magness J. 2005. The Roman Legionary Pottery. In B. Arubas and H. Goldfus eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Suppl. S. 60). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 69–191. Magness J. 2006. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. In H. Geva. 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. 184–191.

156

ANNA DE VINCENZ

Magness J. 2012. Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery from the Cardo and the Nea Church. In O. Gutfeld. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T); Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 282–300. Majcherek G. 1995. Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered. In H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk eds. Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Mediterranean—Advances in Scientific Studies (Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop, Nieborów, 18–20 December 1993). Warsaw. Pp. 163–178. Mayerson P. 1994. The Gaza ‘Wine’ Jar (Gazition) and the ‘Lost’ Jar (Askalônion). In P. Mayerson ed. Monks, Martyrs, Soldiers and Saracens: Papers on the Near East in Late Antiquity (1962– 1993). Jerusalem. Pp. 346–351. Mazar E. 2003a. Architecture and Stratigraphy. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 3–85. Mazar E. 2003b. Architecture and Stratigraphy. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 203–245. Mazar E. 2003c. Architecture and Stratigraphy of the “House of the Menorot”. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 163–186. Mazar E. and Gordon, B. 2007. The Pottery from the Peristyle and Southern Houses. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem. Pp. 149–176. Mazar E. and Peleg O. 2003. The Pottery Assemblage from the Large Byzantine Structure in Area XV. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 86–103. Munsell Soil Color Charts 1998 (rev. washable ed.). New Windsor, N.Y. 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. 303–332. Peleg O. and Adler N. 2007. The Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Building in Area XVI. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem. Pp. 23–34. Peleg-Barkat O. and Adler N. 2011. The Pottery Assemblage from the Structure in Area I. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 245–252. Rapuano Y. 1999. The Hellenistic through Early Islamic Pottery from Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Pisgat Ze’ev East A). ‘Atiqot 38:171–203. Rosenthal R. and Sivan R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8). Jerusalem. Seligman J. and Abu Raya R. 2000. Dwelling Caves on the Mount of Olives (Eṭ-Ṭur). ‘Atiqot 40:123–138.

CHAPTER 3: THE BYZANTINE POTTERY

157

Shapira L. and Peleg O. 2003. Pottery Lamps of the Byzantine Period from Area XV. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 104–108. Vincenz A. de. 2003. Ceramics from the 5–8 Seasons (1994–1998). In A. Strus. Khirbet Fattir–Bet Gemal: Two Ancient Jewish and Christian Sites in Israel. Rome. Pp. 249–381. Vincenz A. de. 2005. The Pottery from Khirbet el-Jiljil (First Season). BAIAS 23:111–138. Vincenz A. de. 2007. The Pottery. In Y. Hirschfeld. En-Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996– 2002). Jerusalem. Pp. 234–427. Vincenz A. de. 2011a. The Pottery Assemblage from the Bakery. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 185–194. Vincenz A de. 2011b. The Pottery Assemblage from the Bathhouse. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 85–117. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2006. The Old City Wall of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Corner. ‘Atiqot 54:95*–119* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 163–164).

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 4

The Byzantine Coins Donald T. Ariel

Introduction This chapter presents the non-hoarded coins recovered from the second excavation season onward (2008–2014), issued after the 363 CE earthquake until the Persian invasion in 613/4 CE (the latter according to the results of the gold-hoard analysis; see Chapter 5). The coins issued after 613/4 until the end of the ninth century CE are discussed in Chapter 14 of the present volume. The Byzantine coins from the 2007 season at Givati (Area M1) were published in the first volume of the series (Ariel 2013). All the coins from well-stratified contexts were cleaned, and from the remainder, a selection for further cleaning was made based upon numismatic criteria.1 Of the cleaned coins, 238 were identified as issued in the Byzantine period, and all of them are made of copper. Table 4.1 presents all the Byzantine coins and their dates, according to locus, along with the other coins that originated in the same loci—for a total of 630 coins. Table 4.2 comprises the conspectus of all the Byzantine through Abbasid coins from the excavation. In the present catalogue, 53 coins from the well-stratified loci of Stratum V are included, comprising coins that fall within the time frame of 363–613/4 CE2 (Cat. Nos. 5–53) and earlier coins that were probably still in circulation at that time (Cat. Nos. 1–4). For example, three coins were recovered in L3807, an undisturbed context in the agricultural field in Stratum V, surrounded by three buildings (1821, 6446 and 6592) and a street (1886): a follis of Diocletian struck in Cyzicus (IAA 141993) and Cat. Nos. 4 and 8. As it is unlikely that the Diocletianic follis was circulating after 363 CE, it is considered residual (deposited in the soil prior to the beginning of Stratum V), and therefore not included in the catalogue. However, as it is likely that Cat. No. 4, a Spes Reipvblice type of Constantius II struck before the earthquake of 363 CE, was still in circulation when the Gloria Romanorvm type (Cat. No. 8) was deposited after 363 CE, it is included in the catalogue.

The coins were cleaned in the IAA laboratories by Lena Kupfershmidt, Raisa Vinitzky and Gali Beiner, and were photographed by Clara Amit of the IAA photography studio. 1

An additional coin (IAA 143000) is noted in Chapter 14. It is an Abbasid coin and is apparently intrusive to its Stratum V context (L3808). 2

160

DONALD T. ARIEL

Stratified Coin Finds The stratigraphic division of Stratum V into three phases (see Chapter 2) is generally reflected in the numismatic finds. Seventeen coins, about a third (32%) of the 53 wellstratified coins, derive from contexts of the earliest Phase VC, that did not continue into the later two phases. Coin No. 35, found in the agricultural field (L3847), dates roughly to the fifth century CE, at least a century before the latest coin in the agricultural soil (L2529) in the uppermost Phase VA (No. 53), issued by Phocas in 606/7 CE. The general fifthcentury CE date of No. 35, however, is too uncertain to draw any conclusions regarding the formation of the agricultural field in which it was found. If we disregard it, the latest coin in Phase VC is No. 26 (L1963), which dates to 395–408 CE, two centuries before the Phocas coin. It should be noted that over two thirds of the coins from Phase VC date to the fourth century CE, without any significant gaps, and it is reasonable that all of these coins would have been in circulation at the end of the fourth century or beginning of the fifth century CE. By itself, the profile of these coins argues for a late fourth–early fifth-century CE date for Phase VC. In one case, a late coin necessitated a revision of a context’s stratigraphic designation. A probe below three flagstones of Street 1886, to the west of the agricultural field near the northwestern boundary of the excavation area, yielded a nummus of Justinian I (534–539 CE; No. 47). The context was originally ascribed to Phase VC; however, the date of this stratified coin stands in contrast to the late fourth–early fifth-century coin profile of Phase VC. Although Bijovsky recently claimed that fourth-century coins were still in use in the second half of the sixth and first half of the seventh centuries (Bijovsky 2012:290), the relatively high quantities of fourth-century coins in Phase VC, the essential absence of fifthcentury coins, together with the dating of the ceramic finds (see Chapter 3, this volume), raises serious doubt that the context of the Justinian I nummus––below the flagstones of Street 1886––was undisturbed. From an archaeological-numismatic point of view, the correction of the context of No. 47 from Phase VC to general Stratum V is also supported by the module of the coin in question. It is a small-denomination coin that is relatively rare in this excavation (for an example from Area M1, see Ariel 2013:261, No. 178): a nummus by virtue of the Greek letter  on its reverse, from the period after Anastasia’s reform (498 CE). Its diameter is 8 mm. Most of the post-reform coins are of much larger denomination (K = 20 nummi = 1 half follis; M = 40 nummi = 1 follis). It may be that the flagstone under which No. 47 was found had been lifted for a localized repair, and the small coin fell into the earth below without being noticed. One can also imagine other such scenarios whereby an 8 mm coin such as No. 47 came to be under the flagstone (for a similar argument that suggests that small-module coins were residual in Phase VA contexts, see below). In another location, two coins––a half follis of Justin I (518–522 CE; No. 42) and a follis of Justinian I (527–537 CE; No. 43)––were found on the floor of Room 1821. While this floor was first constructed in Phase VC, it nevertheless continued in use through to Phase VA (see Chapter 2). Therefore, these two coins can certainly be attributed to the latest Byzantine Phase VA.

162

DONALD T. ARIEL

conquest (see below, A Coin of Numismatic Interest). Thus, the heavy stone collapse, or the top of the collapse, was apparently contaminated several generations later, in the second half of the seventh century. In Stratum IV, a large rounded limekiln (L1850) was built atop Byzantine Room 1772, west of Room 1821 where No. 48 was found. In the course of the operation of the limekiln, stones of the Byzantine structures were removed to supply raw material for the kiln, which may also have affected the piles of collapsed stones. Early Islamic pottery intrusions were also noted in Room 5039, in the southeastern corner of the same complex, and in Room 1805 to the west.

A Coin of Numismatic Interest The reverse of a follis of Justin II (Cat. No. 48) bears the circular countermark C . This is the most common countermark in Goodwin’s category of countermarks after the Muslim conquest (Goodwin 2005:43, No. A9), of which 45 specimens were known to him. Goodwin suggested that the countermarking took place in Palestine, as the majority of market sources of these coins are in Israel (2005:46). Six additional provenanced specimens with the C. countermark are identified in the Israel National Collection,3 the only published example from Nabratein (Bijovsky 2009:391, No. 91). The distribution of the countermarked coins: one each from Kabri and Nabratein in northern Israel, three from Jerusalem and one from Qaqun in central Israel, suggests that they were countermarked somewhere in the center of the country, perhaps in Jerusalem itself. This is supported by Goodwin’s identification of countermarks on Arab-Byzantine coins issued in Yubna (Goodwin 2005:46). Goodwin tentatively reconstructed the name of the owner of the monogram on the Yubna coins, and also suggested that the monogram described the owner as a chartoularios (chartulary), a Byzantine administrative official who was also a patrikios (patrician). Further study is needed to determine if any officials in the prosopography of known seventh-century names in central Israel bore these titles. The follis of Justin II from the present excavation, the second archaeologically provenanced coin of this type to be published, is unusual in that the countermark was applied to a coin issued prior to the Muslim conquest. In fact, this follis may date as early as 68 years before the conquest.

Byzantine Coin Currency For the present analysis of the coin currency of this quarter of the City of David, we include the 238 coins from the current excavations (the 2008–2014 seasons) issued between 363 CE and 613/4 CE, as well as the 13 coins of this period from the 2007 season (Ariel 2013) and the 57 from Shukron’s 2003 excavations at the same site,4 for a total of 308 coins. It

3

My thanks to Gabriela Bijovsky who identified the countermarks.

My thanks to Eli Shukron for his permission to include this unpublished material, and to Gabriela Bijovsky for identifying the coins. 4

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

163

should be borne in mind that this dataset includes Byzantine coins that derive from postByzantine strata. The numismatic profile of the City of David and the Tyropoeon Valley has been discussed in the past (Ariel 2013:237), as has the coin currency in Jerusalem in general (e.g., Ariel 1982). The excavations at the site of the Givati Parking Lot have produced a large quantity of Byzantine coins from one part of the city: a total of 308 coins from 250 years of occupation, enabling, for the first time, a robust discussion of the coins from that period in the City of David. Only seven coins from this same period were recovered in the adjacent City of David excavations directed by Shiloh between 1978 and 1985 (Ariel 1990:110, Nos. 212–218). It is interesting that the largest number of Byzantine-period finds was recovered in dumps in Area G of Shiloh’s excavation, just east of the presumed city wall of that period, immediately to the east of the Givati Parking Lot (Shiloh 1990:3), although only two of the seven Byzantine coins derived from those dumps (Ariel 1990:110, Nos. 216, 217). Only Kenyon’s excavations in Jerusalem between 1961 and 1967 produced and published more Byzantine coins (686 in total; 637 in Reece 2008:416–418; 49 in Fagerlie 1985:168–170, Nos. 255–303, the Armenian Garden). However, these were derived from 17 separate excavation areas, and, most unfortunately, their primary publication is poorly documented (Magness 2010:100). Nevertheless, using the table in Reece (2008: Table 10.1), it is possible to identify the number and approximate dates of the Byzantine coins from Kenyon’s excavations in Area M, a site within the confines of the Givati Parking Lot excavations. These include 119 coins dated between 363 CE and 613/4 CE (see Table 4.2). From Kenyon’s Site A, the much larger area encompassing Shiloh’s Area G on its western border, 88 coins from this period were recovered. Kenyon’s other areas close to the Givati Parking Lot, Areas H and R, produced insignificant quantities (12 coins) from this period, and another nearby excavation area, Area P, apparently yielded no coins. Overall, the coin profile of Byzantine coins from all the excavations in the area of the Givati Parking Lot is similar to the numismatic profile in the city of Jerusalem as a whole, with one interesting exception: the particularly low numbers of fifth-century CE coin finds. Much has been written for and against the significance of the low numbers of fifth-century CE coins in the southern Levant (Safrai 1998:35; Bijovsky 2000–2002; 2012:75–156). However, the various excavations in the area of the Givati Parking Lot have yielded extremely low quantities, much lower than even the low numbers for Jerusalem (Ariel 1982:325). The various Givati Parking Lot excavations produced some eight reasonably well-identified, fifth-century CE coins: three from the present excavations (not in catalogue) and five from Shukron’s excavations, and a dozen more coins from the present excavations identified as fifth century on the basis of their small module (Table 4.2). Among the coins from Kenyon’s Area M, no emperors of the fifth century were identified. In the report of the first season of excavation in the Givati Parking Lot (Area M1), I posited a more-or-less continuous occupation at the site from the fourth through seventh centuries CE, despite the apparent absence of fifth-century coins (Ariel 2013:241). However, in light of the additional seasons of excavation, this subject must be reevaluated.

164

DONALD T. ARIEL

One would expect that coins of the fifth century CE would appear in reasonable quantities in the southern part of Jerusalem for two reasons: (1) in that century, pilgrims are known to have visited points of interest in the area; and (2) according to the most recent studies, the southern circumvallation of the city was erected at some point during that century, or it was repaired at that time, or both.5 Peter the Iberian (d. 491 CE) visited Siloam as part of a pilgrimage circuit in Jerusalem, probably sometime in the second half of the fifth century (Wilkinson 1977:4). In different versions of the so-called Breviarius, a handbook to Jerusalem for pilgrims dated roughly to the first quarter of the sixth century CE, a ‘pit into which they put St. Jeremiah’ is noted (Breviarius A:6 [Wilkinson 1977:61]) and the ‘two basilicas’ (church) of St. Mary are described in more detail (Breviarius B:7 [Wilkinson 1977:61]). This church, according to Wilkinson (1977:171), may have been in existence in 537 CE and was possibly constructed with the generosity of Empress Eudocia. Alternatively, Reich believed that it was Empress Eudocia who initiated the construction of the church, as well as the southern city wall, in the early fifth century (Reich 2011:336). Interestingly, the presence of activity in the area of the Church of the St. Mary at the Siloam Pool may be reflected in the nearby excavations of Reich and Shukron, in their Area N, where 17 reasonably well-identified fifth-century coins were recovered, as well as 37 additional coins dated to the fifth century on the basis of their small module (pers. obs.). In the vicinity of the Givati Parking Lot, only a few well-identified coins of the fifth century have been published. Four come from the excavations of B. Mazar at the foot of the Temple Mount (Meshorer 2003:112, No. 23; E. Mazar 2007:18 [Hilderic, 523–530 CE]; 53 [Theodosius II, 408–421 CE]; 55 [Marcian, 455–457 CE]), and one fifth-century coin from just south of the Givati Parking Lot was identified in Crowfoot and FitzGerald’s excavations (1929:115, No. 175 [Leo I, 457–474 CE]). Concerning the low numbers of fifth-century CE coin finds from the vicinity of the Givati Parking Lot, we have come to the following conclusion: without voicing an opinion on the question of the dating of the construction/repairs of the fortifications in the southern part of the city, it seems clear that during the fifth century CE, the southern part of the city (including the Byzantine buildings from the excavations of B. Mazar at the foot of the Temple Mount,6 the City of David and the Tyropoeon Valley) was then growing in importance, with some land parcels built up and others not. The low number of fifth-century CE coins from the Givati Parking Lot excavations conforms with the identification there of an agricultural field, rather than a highly developed residential quarter. The slow urban development of this neighborhood also accords with Reich’s view that quarrying activities on the hill of the City of David are to be associated with its development in this century.

For a date near the beginning of the fifth century, see Weksler-Bdolah 2006–2007:102; 2011. In his study of the Byzantine-period streets in Jerusalem, Gutfeld 2007:76 accepted Weksler-Bdolah’s date. For a date toward the mid-fifth century CE, see Zelinger 2010. 5

Gordon (2007:213) rejected the earlier dating by others of these buildings to the Justinianic period, in favor of a fourth–early fifth century date. 6

165

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

The Byzantine occupation in Stratum V came to an end with the catastrophic Persian invasion (613/4 CE). The preparations in advance of the Persian invasion are graphically illustrated by the discovery of a unique gold hoard in the current excavations (see Chapter 5). It should be noted that the Persian invasion seems to have led to the loss of other gold coins in the city: another hoard (Bijovsky 2012:414, n. 70, 467, No. 51) and four isolated gold-coin finds from the excavations of B. Mazar below the Temple Mount (Ariel 1982:297, 316, Nos. 277–280; Meshorer 2003:113, No. 33), one from Mamilla (Reich and Shukron 1995:94; Bijovsky 2012:429) and, of course, the hoard of 36 solidi from the excavations of E. Mazar below the Temple Mount (Sandberg 2013). Only two other isolated gold-coin finds postdating the Persian invasion (and before the monetary reform of ʽAbd al-Malik in 696/7 CE) are known to me from Jerusalem: a solidus of Heraclius I from Kenyon’s Area M in the Givati Parking Lot (629–641 CE according to Reece 2008:418; however, based on the photo published by Kenyon [1974: Pl. 116], the range of this coin type [Class IVa] is 631/2–638/9 CE), and a rare semissis of Constans II from excavations at the Jerusalem Qishle (Ariel and Berman 2018:193, No. 28). The date of the end of Stratum V in 613/4 CE finds a parallel in Gordon’s similar dating of the end of the Byzantine buildings in the excavations of B. Mazar at the foot of the Temple Mount (2007:214). The coins from the remainder of the Byzantine period, the rest of Heraclius I’s rule until the Muslim conquest (640 CE) are reported in Chapter 14. Table 4.1. All Loci Containing Byzantine Coins (363–613/4 CE) from Givati Seasons 2008–2014, including Post-Byzantine Loci (coins appearing in the catalogue are identified by their catalogue numbers; coins bearing an asterisk appear in Fig. 4.1) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

1350

1

351–361 (Antioch)

2

5th c.

1

364–375

2

383–392 (1×Nicomedia)

1

518–527 (Constantinople)

1

Unidentified

5

1366

1

4th c.

1

1370

1

324–330

1

383–395

1351

Cat. No.

Total per Locus 3

1

565–610 (Alexandria)

3

1376

1

592/3 (Antioch)

1

1380

1

337–341

1

351–361

1

355–361

1

5th c.

2

Unidentified

1

402–408

1

582–592 (Antioch)

1

Unidentified

1

393–395

2

Unidentified

1385

1386

6

3 3

166

DONALD T. ARIEL

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

1388

1

6th c. (Alexandria)

1

541–549 (Ticinum)

1

Unidentified

1

313–318

1

335–341

1

395–408 (Alexandria)

1

491–507 (Constantinople)

1

Unidentified

3

4th c.

1

383–395

1

450–457

1

498–512 (Constantinople)

1

364–375

1

383–387

1

Unidentified

1

383–387

1

383–392

1

364–375

3

Unidentified

4

1410

1

6th c.

1

1416

1

383–395

2

Unidentified

1

560–565

2

Unidentified

3

1431

2

383–395 (1×Antioch)

2

1438

1

383–392

1

612/3 (Nicomedia)

1

Unidentified

1

383–395

2

498–538 (1×Constantinople)

1

2nd half 5th c.–1st half 6th c. (Carthage)

1

568/9 (Constantinople)

2

Unidentified

1

498–507 (Constantinople)

1395

1401

1402

1404 1405

1424

1443

1444

Cat. No.

Total per Locus

3

5

6

3 2

3

3

7

2

Unidentified

3

1462

1

581/2 (Antioch)

1

1476

1

7th c.

1

1480

1

578–608

1

Unidentified

1

532–537 (Antioch)

1

Unidentified

1

613/4 (Nicomedia)

1

Unidentified

2

1

507–539 (Constantinople)

1

1481 1483 1517

2 2

167

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

1520

1

383–395

1559

1

364–395

1

568/9 (Thessalonica)

4

Unidentified

1

364–375

1

383–395

1582

Cat. No.

Total per Locus 1

6

1

Unidentified

1593

1

4th c.

1596 (VC)

1

341–346

1

1

383–392

10

2

383–395

21–22

1

4th c.

28

1

5th c.

34

2

313–315 (Siscia)

1

335–341

1

378–383

1

Unidentified

2

335–341

1

395–408

1

4th c.

1

Unidentified

1

538/9 (Constantinople)

8

Unidentified

1

351–361 (Alexandria)

1

364–375

4

Unidentified

1

383–395

1

Unidentified

1

351–361

3

1

383–392

11

2

383–395

23, 25

1

4th c.

29

2

Unidentified

1

364–375

5

1

383–395

15

1

5th c.

37

3

Unidentified

4

1780

1

4th–5th c.

1

1781

1

578–602 (Alexandria)

1

1806 (VA)

1

4th c.

30

1

571/2?

48

1

Unidentified

1

518–522

42

1

527–537

43*

1612

1617 1620 1621 1624

1631 (VC) 1632 (VC)

1647 (VC) 1772 (VA)

1821 (VA)

3 1

6

5 3 2 9

6 13 2

7 2

3

168

DONALD T. ARIEL

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum) 1877 (V)

1881 (VB) 1886 (V) 1887

1895

1898 (VB) 1903

1914

1929

1939 1946

1947 1963 (VC)

1964

N

Date CE (Mint)

9

Unidentified

Cat. No.

2

4th c.

27, 32

1

5th c.

36

38

Unidentified

1

383–395

1

Unidentified

1

534–539

2

Unidentified

1

383

1

4th–5th c.

6

Unidentified

1

4th c.

1

402–408

1

596/7 (Antioch)

3

Unidentified

1

4th c.

2

Unidentified

1

364–375

1

402–408

4

Unidentified

1

367–375

1

4th c.

3

Unidentified

1

351–361

2

383–395

1

4th c.

1

Unidentified

1

591/2–602?

1

Unidentified

1

4th c.

1

507–512

4

Unidentified

1

395–408 (Constantinople)

2

Unidentified

1

395–408

26

1

5th c.

33*

8

Unidentified

1

313–315 (Arles)

1

313–317 (Nicomedia)

3

313–318

1

314 (Ticinum)

1

317–318 (Ticinum)

2

317–320 (Antioch)

1

321–323 (Antioch)

3

324–330 (1×Cyzicus)

Total per Locus 11

41 16 2 47 3

8

6 31 3

6

5

5 2

6 3

10

169

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

4

330–335 (1×Heraclea, 1×Cyzicus, 2×Antioch)

2

337–341 (1×Nicomedia, 1×Heraclea)

1

378–383

10

Unidentified

1

6th c.

1

Unidentified

1

4th c.

1

Unidentified

1

4th c.

1

Unidentified

2

2008

1

383–392

1

2052

1

4th c.

1

2083

1

383–392

1

2175

1

383

1

Unidentified

1

613–618 (Alexandria)

13

Unidentified

2229

1

5th c.

2259

1

4th c.

5

Unidentified

1

4th c.

1

Unidentified

1

6th c.

1974 1982 2002

2210

2304 2348

Cat. No.

Total per Locus

30 2 2

2 14 1 6 2

4

Unidentified

5

2403

1

579–590/1 (Antioch)

1

2410

1

613–618 (Constantinople)

6

Unidentified

1

5th c.

2425

7

1

Unidentified

2

2439

1

4th c.

1

2440

1

4th c.

1

5th c.

5

Unidentified

1

341–346

2

1

583/4

50*

1

600/1

51

8

Unidentified

1

4th c.

2

Unidentified

2501 (VC–VB)

1

565–578

2504

1

5th c.

2516

1

402–408

2524 (VB)

1

383

14

1

527–537

44

2453 (VA)

2494

7

11 3 49

1 1 1 2

170

DONALD T. ARIEL

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

Cat. No.

2525 (VA)

1

5th c.

38

1

507–512

39*

5

Unidentified

1

313 (Rome)

1

383–395 (Alexandria)

1

Unidentified

1

606/7

1

Unidentified

2531 (VA)

1

527–537

2538

1

585/6 (Antioch)

1

606/7 (Antioch)

2

2540

1

4th–5th c.

1

2543

1

522–540 (Ascalon)

1

2547

1

383–395 (Antioch)

1

2554

2

4th c.

115

Unidentified

1

316/7 (Rome)

1

383–395

1

6th–7th c.

1

Unidentified

1

337–341 (Antioch)

1

383

2

2747

1

4th c.

1

3570

1

4th–5th c.

5

Unidentified

1

Last third 4th c.

4

Unidentified

5

3668

1

4th–5th c.

1

3686

1

507–512 (Nicomedia)

1

3702

1

383

1

3716

1

395–408

1

3718

1

574/5 (Constantinople)

1

3724 (V)

2

383–395

20, 24

1

527–537

46

2

Unidentified

1

341–346

1

383–395

1

4th c.

1

364–375

7

1

518–522

41

2528

2529 (VA)

2564

2566

3574

3735

3736 (V)

Total per Locus

7

3 53* 2 45

1

117 1

4

6

5

3

4

Unidentified

6

3738

1

4th c.

1

3741

1

383–392

1

3742

1

4th c.

1

3743

1

351–361 (Constantinople)

171

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

1

Unidentified

1

351–361

1

355–361

1

364–375

1

383–395

2

Unidentified

3760

1

383

3762 (V)

1

364–375

6

2

383–392

9, 12

2

383–395

18–19

3

Unidentified

1

518–522

1

Unidentified

1

313–314 (Ticinum)

3

313–318

1

317–320

1

318–320 (Heraclea)

1

320 (Thessalonica)

4

324–330 (1×Thessalonica, 1×Heraclea, 1×Cyzicus, 1×Antioch)

1

326–330 (Constantinople)

3

330–335 (1× Constantinople, 1×Antioch, 1×Alexandria)

1

335–337 (Antioch)

1

383–395

2

4th c.

1

355–361

4

1

364–375

8

1

383–395

17

1

512–517?

40

1

588/9–590/1

52

1

815

7

Unidentified

3815

1

4th c.

3837

1

305–306 (Alexandria)

1

317–320 (Cyzicus)

1

337–341

1

383–392

5

Unidentified

3847 (VC)

1

5th c.

3852

1

337–341

1

341–346

1

383–395

1

4th c.

3

Unidentified

1

330–335

3756

3783 3802

3807 (V) 3808 (V)

3853

Cat. No.

Total per Locus 2

6 1

8 2

19 2

11 1

9 35

1

7

172

DONALD T. ARIEL

Table 4.1 (cont.) Locus (Stratum)

N

Date CE (Mint)

1

335–341

1

383–395

1

4th c.

8

Unidentified

3873

1

583/4 (Antioch)

W1221

1

383

1

4th c.

1

Unidentified

1

535–565 (Carthage)

1

Unidentified

1

351–361

1

4th c.

1

518–522 (Constantinople)

1

7th c.

1

383

1

383–395

2

4th c.

1

498–518

W1277 Balk

Surface

Total

Cat. No.

Total per Locus

12 1

3 2

4

5 53

630

Alexandria

Constantinople

Cyzicus 1

1

Egypt

Damascus

Carthage

Ascalon 1

14

1 1 3

Leo I (457–474 CE)

Second half fifth c. CE

Mid-4th–mid-5th c. CE

1

1

Marcian (450–457 CE)

11 1

Fourth–fifth c. CE

Anastasius I (491–518 CE)

6

1

425–455 CE

12

1

408–423 CE

1

3

402–408 CE

Fifth c. CE

1

7 75

1

Fourth c. CE

1

1

45

395–423 CE

395–408 CE

1

393–395 CE

1

12

5

1

383–392 CE

383–395 CE

2

383–387 CE

8

Iliya

383 CE 1

Nicomedia

7

Ramla

1

Ravenna

378–383 CE

Ruha, al-

2

Thessalonica

367–399 CE

Ticinum

364–395 CE

1

Antioch 1

Aquileia 1

Unknown

Valens (367–375 CE)

1

8

5

2

1

1

4

Kenyon, Area M

364–375 CE

Description

Mint

Table 4.2. Conspectus of Coins from the Byzantine (363 CE) through Abbasid (Tenth Century) Periods from Various Givati Parking Lot Excavations (Givati All Seasons, Shukron Excavations and Kenyon’s Area M)

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

173

1

2

Phocas (606/7 CE)

Damascus 1

Total

1

2

Ramla

‘Abbasid

2

1

Ruha, al-

Sa`id b. es-Surh al-Kinani (815 CE)

2 1

Egypt

Umayyad (post reform; 697–750 CE)

6

9

1

Iliya

Arab–Byzantine (691–697 CE)

Arab–Byzantine (645–670 CE)

Constans II (641–668 CE)

Heraclius I (610–641 CE)

7

Maurice Tiberius (595/6 CE)

Cyzicus

1

1

2

Aquileia

Tiberius II (578–582 CE)

1

1

Ravenna

2

6

1

1

Thessalonica

Justin II (574/5 CE)

4

1

1

Ticinum

Baduila (541–549 CE)

Antioch 2

4

356

5

15

13

1

1

1

1

4

1

5

1

127

2

4

2

4

1

2

1

3

Kenyon, Area M

Justinian I (527–565 CE)

1

Ascalon

522–540 CE

6

1

Nicomedia

Justin I (518–527 CE)

Alexandria

Sixth c. CE

Carthage 1

Constantinople

First half sixth c. CE

Unknown

498–538 CE

Description

Mint

Table 4.2 (cont.)

174 DONALD T. ARIEL

Locus

1596

2453

1632

3807

1647

3762

3736

3807

3762

Cat. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

57995

58608

57509

58152

19455

58427

19462

40144

19444

Reg. No.

1.27

0.64

1.30

2.04

1.62

2.02

2.10

0.87

1.59

Weight (g)

13

13 × 15

14

13 × 15

13

15

14 × 16

12 × 14

15

Diam. (mm)

↓

0

0

↓

↓

©

©

¾

¾

Axis

[D]N VALE[N- - - PF AVG] Same

DN VALENT[INIANVS PF AVG] Same

[DN V]ALENTI[NIA]NVS PF AVG Same

[- - -] Same

Û

[SPES] REI–[P]VBLIC[E] Virtus stg. l., holding spear and globe

[- - -] Virtus spearing falling horseman

Within wreath: [- - -]; in ex.: SMAN[·]

VICTORIAE DD A[VGG Q NN] Two victories vis-à-vis, each holding wreath; in field: ; in ex.: SMTS[·]

SALVS REI–PVBL[ICAE] Victory advancing l., dragging captive and holding trophy; in l. field: [·]; in ex.: CON[··]

[GLORIA RO–M]AN[ORVM] Emperor advancing r., dragging captive

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Victory advancing l., holding palm branch and wreath

House of Valentinian

[DN CONSTAN]–TIVS [PF AVG] Same

DN C[ONSTAN–TIVS PF AVG] Pearl-diademed, draped bust r.

[- - -] Laureate or pearl-diademed head r.

[- - -] Same

Reverse House of Constantine

[- - -] Laureate, cuirassed bust r., with paludamentum; wreath with one end rosette

Obverse

383–392

Same

Same

Same

364–375

355–361

351–361

Same

341–346

Date (CE)

Const.

Antioch

Mint

141992

141934

Cf. LRBC II:87, No. 2068 LRBC II:89, No. 2183

141940

123157

138789

Valentinian II

Valentinian I

Same

Cf. LRBC II:87, No. 2071

Cf. LRBC II:87, No. 2072

Same

Cf. LRBC II:87, No. 2053

141991

123148

Constantius II

Cf. LRBC II:87, No. 2039

123130

IAA No.

137582

Notes

Cf. LRBC I:31, No. 1398

Reference

All the coins are copper. The coins are arranged chronologically, according to types. Coins bearing an asterisk are illustrated in Fig. 4.1.

Catalogue

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

175

Locus

1596

1632

3762

1631

2524

1647

1881

3808

3762

Cat. No.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

58154

58805

24917

19454

40775

19468

58151

19463

19445

Reg. No.

1.09

1.41

0.92

1.03

1.02

1.12

1.75

1.23

1.05

Weight (g)

13 × 15

14

15

13 × 16

14

13

14

10 × 12

14

Diam. (mm)

↓

↓

0

0

0





0

¾

Axis

Within wreath: [- - -]

[SALVS REIPVBLI]CAE Same; in l. field: [·]

SALVS REI–[PVBLICAE] Same; in l. field: [·]

Reverse

[DN THEODO]–SIVS PF AVG Same

DN THEODO–[SIVS PF AVG] Same

DN THEODO–SIVS [PF AVG] Same

DN THEODO–SIVS PF AVG Same

[D]N TH[EODO–SIVS PF AVG] Same

[SA]LVS REI–[PVBLICAE] Same; blank in l. field

SA[LVS REI–PVBLICAE] Same; in l. field: [·]

[SALVS REI–PV]BLICA[E] Same; in l. field: [·]

[SALVS REI]–PVBLICAE Same; in l. field: [·]

Within wreath: VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX

Theodosius I (379–395 CE)

SALVS REI–PVBLICAE Same; in l. field: ›; in ex.: SMKΓ

Arcadius (383–408 CE) DN ARCADIVS PF AVG Same

[- - -] Same

DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG Same

DN VALENTIN[IANVS PF] AVG Same

Obverse

Catalogue (cont.)

Same

Same

Same

383–395

383

383–395

Same

Same

Same

Date (CE)

Cyzicus

Mint

143008

141939

Same

Cf. LRBC II:102, No. 2779

135515

123156

Cf. LRBC II:89, No. 2184 Same

137648

123147

141938

123149

123131

IAA No.

Cf. LRBC II:89, No. 2159

LRBC II:98, No. 2570, 2578

Same

Same

Cf. LRBC II:89, No. 2183 Same

Notes

Reference

176 DONALD T. ARIEL

Locus

3762

3724

1596

1596

1632

3724

1632

1963

1877

1596

1632

1806

1898

1877

Cat. No.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

30999

25040

23518

19469

19446

25897

26579

19468

58164

19465

19449

19447

57825

57998

Reg. No.

1.22

0.50

0.64

1.69

0.54

0.81

0.41

0.92

0.88

1.32

0.92

0.77

0.95

1.15

Weight (g)

13

10

10 × 12

14 × 17

10 × 14

11

10

12

12

13

13

13

12 × 15

11

Diam. (mm)

↓?

3



↓

↓

↓

0

5

¾

Axis

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -]S PF AVG Same

[- - -] Bust r.

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Illegible

Figure?

[- - -] Cross

[SALVS] REI–[PVBLICAE] Same; in l. field: +

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

SALV[S REIPVBLI]CAE Same; in l. field: [·]; in ex.: ANTΓ

[SALV[S REI–PVBLICAE] Same; in l. field: [·]; in ex.: ANT[·]

4th c. CE

Reverse

Catalogue (cont.)

395–408

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (CE)

Same

Antioch

Mint

123151

136122

Cf. LRBC II:102, No. 2761 Cf. LRBC II:90, No. 2207

136103

135537

135501

123152

123132

135513

138779

123150

123135

Same

Same

Same

123133

Cf. LRBC II:89, No. 2183

141937

IAA No.

138772

Notes

Same

Cf. LRBC II:102, No. 2763

Reference

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

177

Locus

1963

1596

3847

1877

1772

2525

2525

3808

3736

1821

Cat. No.

33*

34

35

36

37

38

39*

40

41

42

27310

57570

58806

39836

39838

22812

25895

59845

19448

26331

Reg. No.

5.95

15.59

6.00

10.63

1.57

0.73

0.49

0.81

0.24

0.62

Weight (g)

25

30×32

28

26

12

10

11

9

10

10

Diam. (mm)

↓

↓

0

3

Axis

Reverse

cross?; to r.: Є

K To l., cross; above,

DN I[VSTI]–NVS PP A[VC] Same

[DN IVSTI–NVS] PP AVC Same

K To l., cross; to r.: B

stars; in ex.: NIKM; beneath: A

M Above, cross; to l. and r.,

Justin I (518–527 CE)

[DN ANAS]TA–[SIVS PP AVC] Same

beneath: Є; in ex.: CON

M Above and to l., star;

Anastasius I (491–518 CE)

Same

Same

Illegible

Same

Within wreath: [- - -]

Cross on exergual line; in ex.: AIIΛ [=ANA?]

5th c. CE

[D]N ANASTA–[SIVS PP AVC] Diademed, cuirassed bust r., with paludamentum

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Same

[- - -] Draped bust r.

[- - -] Same

IΛIIAYS Same

Obverse

Catalogue (cont.)

Same

518–522

512– 517?

507–512

1st half of 5th c.

Date (CE)

Const.

Nicomedia

Same

Const.

Mint

MIBE:97, No. 18

MIBE:99, No. 35a

Cf. MIBE:88, No. 33

MIBE:86, No. 24

Bijovsky 2012:110

Bijovsky 2012:113–117

Reference

Half follis

Follis

Half follis; identification of emperor uncertain

Follis

Cast imitation of Vota type

Imitation of Antioch?

Notes

136099

138788

143009

137651

137652

135641

135512

143032

123134

136120

IAA No.

178 DONALD T. ARIEL

Locus

1821

2524

2531

3724

1886

1806

2501

2453

Cat. No.

43*

44

45

46

47

48

49

50*

39480

39478

23521

29538

57826

40149

40037

28017

Reg. No.

11.81

4.71

4.54

0.31

15.17

16.82

16.00

17.85

Weight (g)

31

19 × 24

20

8

29

30

29 × 32

30

Diam. (mm)

↓

↓

↓

6

6

¿

¿

Axis



beneath: A; in ex.: CON

M Above, cross; to l., star;

star; beneath: A; in ex.: CON

M Above and to r., crosses,

to l., star; beneath: [·]; in ex.: CON

M Above and to r., crosses;

beneath: A; in ex.: CON

M Above and to r., crosses;

K To l.: A/N/[N/O]

circular countermark: C

K Above, cross; to r.: µI:

Cuirassed and helmeted bust facing, with trefoil-topped crown; holding globus cruciger and shield

dnTIATIO∼–UATIPPAV

N/O; to r.: II; in ex.: THEuP'

m Above, cross; to l.: A/N/

Maurice (582–602 CE)

dN IVSTI[NVS PP AVC][ Same

[- - -] Justin and Sophia facing, enthroned

Justin II (565–578 CE)

DN IVSTIN[I–ANVS PP] AVC Same

DN IVSTINI–ANVS PP AVC Same

DN IVSTINI–ANVS PP AVC Same

Illegible

Reverse

Catalogue (cont.)

Justinian I (527–565 CE) D[N IVSTI]NI–ANVS PP AV Same

Obverse

583/4

571/2?

534–539

Same

Same

Same

527–537

Date (CE)

Antioch

Carthage

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

MIBEC:159, No. 95Ab

Same

Cf. MIBEC:94, No. 44a; for countermark: Goodwin 2005:43, No. A9

MIBE:159, No. 192

Same

Same

Same

MIBE:126, No. 84

Reference

Follis

Same

Half follis

Nummus

Same

Same

Same

Follis

Notes

137580

137619

135503

136106

138773

137658

137646

136102

IAA No.

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

179

Locus

2453

3808

2529

Cat. No.

51

52

53*

40478

58419

39811

Reg. No.

4.96

4.52

10.65

Weight (g)

20

20

27

Diam. (mm)

↓

¿

0

Axis

[- - -] Phocas, holding globus cruciger, and Leontia, holding transverse scepter, facing, enthroned; cross between heads A/N/N/[O]; to r.: ³; beneath: ā

X·X Above, cross; to l.:

Phocas (602–610)

Cuirassed and helmeted bust facing, holding globus cruciger and shield 606/7

588/9– 590/1

K To r.: µI[- - -]; beneath: B

dNmAVRITIbER[PPAV]

A/N/N/[O]; to r.: X ³III; Beneath: Γ; in ex.: [T]HEuP'

600/1

M Above, cross; to l.:

dNmAu ΓI[- - -]TANuT Same

Date (CE)

Reverse

Obverse

Catalogue (cont.)

Const.

Same

Mint

MIBEC:196, No. 85

Cf. MIBEC:149, No. 70D

MIBEC:160, No. 96

Reference

Same

Half follis

Same

Notes

137655

143001

137581

IAA No.

180 DONALD T. ARIEL

CHAPTER 4: THE BYZANTINE COINS

181

R eferences Ariel D.T. 1982. A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (until the End of Byzantine Period). Liber Annus 32:273–326. Ariel D.T. 1990. Excavations in 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. Ariel D.T. 2013. The Coins. In Giv‘ati I. Pp. 237–264. Ariel D.T. and Berman A. 2018. Coins. In A. Re’em. The Qishleh Excavation in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Pp. 188–198. Bijovsky G. 2000–2002. The Currency of the Fifth Century C.E. in Palestine—Some Reflections in Light of the Numismatic Evidence. INJ 14:196–210. Bijovsky G. 2009. Numismatic Report. In E.M. Meyers and C.L. Meyers. Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs (Meiron Excavation Project 6). Winona Lake. Pp. 374–395. Bijovsky G. 2012. Gold Coin and Small Change: Monetary Circulation in Fifth–Seventh Century Byzantine Palestine (Polymnia. Numismatica antica e medievale. Studi 2). Trieste. Crowfoot J.W. and FitzGerald G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoean Valley, Jerusalem 1927 (PEFA V). London. Fagerlie J.M. 1985. The Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and Modern Coins: Roman and Byzantine. In A.D. Tushingham. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 I: Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill. Toronto. Pp. 168–171. Goodwin T. 2005. Countermarks from after the Arab Conquest. In W. Schulze and T. Goodwin. Countermarking in Seventh Century Syria (Supplement to Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 183). Croydon. Pp. 23–56. Gordon B. 2007. The Byzantine Quarter South of the Temple Mount Enclosure. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem. Pp. 201–215. Gutfeld O. 2007. The Planning of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem’s Streets. Eretz-Israel 28:66–78 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 11*). Kenyon K.M. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London. 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. Magness J. 2010. Review of K. Prag. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967 V: Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem; Centenary Volume Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906–1978 (Levant Suppl. S. 7). Oxford 2008. BASOR 357:98–101. Mazar E. 2003. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Mazar E. 2007. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem.

182

DONALD T. ARIEL

Meshorer Y. 2003. Coins from Area XV. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 109–114. MIBE I: W. Hahn. Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastasius I–Justinian I, 491–565) (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 6). Vienna 2000. MIBEC: W. Hahn and M. Metlich. Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire Continued (Justin II–Revolt of the Heraclii, 565–610) (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 13). Vienna 2009. Reece R. 2008. Jerusalem: The Coins. In K. Prag. Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 V: Discoveries in Hellenistic to Ottoman Jerusalem; Centenary Volume Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906–1978 (Levant Suppl. S. 7). Oxford. Pp. 411–431. Reich R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem. Reich R. and Shukron E. 1995. Jerusalem, Mamillah. ESI 14:92–96. Safrai Z. 1998. The Missing Century: Palestine in the Fifth Century; Growth and Decline. Leuven. Sandberg L. 2013. The Coins from the 2009–2013 Excavation Seasons. In E. Mazar. The Discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the Foot of the Temple Mount: In Honor of the State of Israel That Chose the Seven-Branched Menorah as Its National Symbol. Jerusalem. Pp. 313–336. Shiloh Y. 1990. Stratigraphical Introduction to Parts I and II. In D.T. Ariel. 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. 1–12. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2006–2007. The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. Aram 18– 19:85–112. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2011. On the Date of Construction of the Southern Wall at Mt. Zion during the Byzantine Period. Qadmoniot 141:57–58 (Hebrew). Wilkinson J. 1977. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Jerusalem. Zelinger Y. 2010. Jerusalem, the Slopes of Mount Zion. HA–ESI 122 (November 3). http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1530&mag_id=117 (accessed August 4, 2014).

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 5

A Hoard of Solidi of Heraclius Gabriela Bijovsky

Introduction A hoard of 264 gold coins was discovered buried below the stone collapse in the westernmost room (L1772) of the southern wing of the large Byzantine Building 1821, which was deliberately destroyed by fire in the seventh century (Fig. 5.1; see Chapter 2).1 The position of the coins on the ground indicates that they were originally arranged in rows, and were most likely wrapped in a cloth or in a purse, which was not preserved (Fig. 5.2: see also Figs. 2.45–2.47). The excavators suggest that the coins were stored on a shelf affixed to the northern wall of the room, which had collapsed at the same time the building was destroyed. The hoard not only provides an absolute date for this event, but

Fig. 5.1. Location of the hoard in Building 1821; looking north.

A coin dated to the fifth century CE was found in the same locus as the hoard (see Chapter 4: Cat. No. 37).

1

184

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Fig. 5.2. Hoard in situ.

due to its particular characteristics, it constitutes a unique numismatic find in the annals of archaeological excavations in Israel.

The Hoard All the 264 gold coins in the hoard are solidi of the emperor Heraclius (610–641 CE). The solidus (Greek νόμισμα, nomisma) was introduced by Constantine I in 312 to replace the Roman aureus, and became the basic unit of coinage of the Byzantine empire.2 The coins in the hoard are in mint condition, they are not clipped, and they bear neither graffiti nor any other sign of prolonged use. It seems likely that they were never distributed or dispersed. These coins resemble the first series of Heraclius issued during the years 610–613 CE (Grierson 1959:145, Class Ib; DOC 2/1:245, No. 3). On the obverse of this series, Heraclius is depicted as a young man with a short beard; the legend reads: dNhERÄCLI³S PP ÄVC. The reverse shows a cross on three steps bearing the inscription: VICTORIÄ ÄV£³Δ. The exergue reads: CONOB, the abbreviation of Con(stantinople) ob(riziacus)— “fine gold from Constantinople”. However, while the coins in the Givati hoard all belong to this first series, they are a variant that differs in several features from the prototype (Fig. 5.3). The last letter C of the obverse legend is inclined and is followed by a small dot to its right. A short, curved stroke of dots is visible on the upper left side of the emperor’s crown. The reverse inscription ends with the officina letter Δ, unknown in the original series (Grierson 1959:145), and a tiny star is attached to the exergue inscription: CONOB∗. The obverse inscription of our solidi shows the name AERACLIVS (with an Ä instead of the common ‘h’), which seems to be a

2

The solidus weighs 24 Greek carats, the equivalent of c. 4.55 g of gold per coin.

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

185

Fig. 5.3. A solidus from the Givati Hoard (right) and its protype (left).

misspelling based on Latin phonetics.3 As far as I know, this variant has not been published elsewhere. All the exceptional features described above appear in the same place on every coin of the hoard. A meticulous examination confirmed that all 264 coins in the hoard are identical, that is, they were produced with the same pair of dies. To the best of my knowledge, this phenomenon has no parallel in hoards from the southern Levant or elsewhere.4 We selected 41 coins from the hoard for X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer surface analysis to determine their metal composition.5 The results show a uniform composition deviation, clearly indicating that all the coins were produced from the same load of gold. The mintmark, fabric and style of these coins seem to suggest that this series was issued by the imperial mint of Constantinople. Indeed, the style of the bust die appears standard to this mint and is even better executed than many other official dies of the same general type. Furthermore, Grierson’s Class Ib—to which our issue is related—presents

According to Leah Di Segni, the forms Aeraclius and Haeraclius are known only from Latin inscriptions. Following the rules of transliteration of Greek names and words into Latin, ΗΡΑΚΛΙΟΣ would have been spelled HRACLIUS (Di Segni, pers. comm., May 9, 2010). 4 The closest comparison I know of is cited by Hendy (1985:342): the hoard from the Casa delle Vestali in Rome, which contained 397 solidi and included 345 of Anthemius, of which 334 were all struck from the same pair of dies. 5 The metallurgic analysis was performed by Sariel Shalev and Sana Shilstein of the Weitzmann Institute, Reḥovot, using XRF instrument NITON XL3TM 900 Series in the precision metals mode with an 8 mm diameter beam. The coins form a homogeneous compositional group. Gold content (Au) is 97.5% with a standard deviation of 0.25% (minimal value 97.1%, maximal value 97.7%). In other words, the gold contents are practically identical for all the samples. Silver contents (Ag) vary from 1.55% up to 1.77% with a standard deviation of 0.05%; the average concentration of silver is 1.641(7). Copper contents (Cu) vary from 0.33% up to 0.68% with a standard deviation of 0.06%; the average concentration of copper is 0.495(9). The coins also contain lead (Pb, 0.09 ÷ 0.12%) without any other metals. These figures are in accordance with the alloy standard for gold coinage of Constantinople during the mid-sixth–seventh centuries, namely 97–99% for gold and c. 1.46% for silver (Morrisson et al. 1985:122–124, 206). For a more detailed description of the analysis, see Bijovsky 2010. 3

186

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

a variety of portrait styles indicating that mints other than Constantinople may have been involved in this issue (Grierson 1959:145). Despite the fact that all the coins are of the same variant, are all die-linked (using the standard 6 o’clock die axis) and do not seem to have been in use, 239 coins are below the standard weight of the solidus (4.55 g), ranging between 4.33 g and 4.50 g (Fig. 5.4). Moreover, the lightest solidus in the hoard, which weighs 3.97 g, shows no signs of mutilation or wear, and is only slightly smaller than the rest. Most intriguing is the presence in the hoard of 22 coins that are above the regular standard, three of them by a significant amount: 4.67 g, 4.68 g and 4.69 g, the others ranging between 4.56 g and 4.63 g. This waste of gold is in complete contradiction to any monetary common sense. Who would be interested in striking gold coins that contain more precious metal than required by the standard?6 There are two possible explanations for the deviations in weight frequency at Givati. While the conventional view is that gold coins were always struck al pezzo (each piece to a particular weight), it may be that in certain circumstances they were struck al marco (Hendy 1985:329). In other words, 72 solidi were struck from a pound of gold, with less relevance 12 11 10 9

No. of coins

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Weights Fig. 5.4. Weight frequency of the coins in the hoard.

Overweight pieces were noticed by Hahn in a group of solidi and fractions of Justin II, Tiberius II and Maurice Tiberius found in Rafah. He attributed them to the mint of Alexandria and explained the deviations as the result of careless control and low circulation of the heavier specimens (Hahn 2003–2006:105). This comparison strengthens the assumption that such deviations could have taken place far from the metropolitan mint. 6

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

187

given to the individual weight of each piece.7 This theory, however, is not in accordance with the strict system of monetary supervision that characterized the Byzantine empire (Hendy 1985:316–368).8 It is hard to believe that the official mint of Constantinople would have tolerated imperial solidi being officially struck without control of an accurate weight standard. A second, more plausible explanation for the deviations in weight is that such an al marco operation took place at a more distant location using an official pair of dies from Constantinople, perhaps an exceptional limited issue, struck under very special and hasty circumstances at a temporary mint. The combination of the unique characteristics mentioned so far: the complete homogeneity due to the fact that all the pieces belong to a single type of solidus of a hitherto unknown variant; the use of the same pair of dies (as evident from the results of the die analysis); the fine mint condition of the coins; the uniform metallurgical composition; and the irregular weight frequency suggesting an al marco minting operation––all indicate that the Givati hoard should be considered a special consignment of gold cash dispatched from its place of production directly to its place of deposition in Jerusalem. According to Hendy, hoards characterized by heavy concentrations of coins struck from the same pair, or from a limited number of dies, or that contain coins from a single officina, “probably tend to have derived at no great distance from bodies of coins dispatched from the mint in purses” (Hendy 1985:342). Consequently, the attribution of the Givati solidus to a temporary mint located in Jerusalem is reasonable.

The Mint of Jerusalem A number of scholars have suggested that an imperial mint functioned temporarily in Jerusalem during c. 608–615 CE, producing gold solidi and bronze folles (Hendy 1985:415; Meshorer 1988; Metlich 1994–1999; Bendall 2003). While the attribution of the bronze coins is quite certain, that of the gold is considered doubtful by some (Foss 2008:8). A follis with the mintmark IEPOCOS or IC NIKA was minted during the Persian siege of Jerusalem, between May and October 614 (Bendall 2003:313, Type 1).9 In addition, Bendall also attributes to the Jerusalem mint the issue of a solidus of Phocas dated to

This possibility was suggested to me by Bruno Callegher, to whom I am indebted.

7

The production and distribution of coinage was in the hands of the sacrae largitiones, or central finance bureau, which was concerned with revenue and expenditure in coin and precious metals (Kent 1956:198–199). Among other tasks, this department controlled the mints, the gold mines, precious metals, and the state factories of arms. It was also responsible for the collection of a number of taxes in gold from senators, merchants and craftsmen (Kent 1956:194–195), and for the distribution of periodical donatives in gold and silver to the troops (Kent 1956:192–193; Hendy 1985:175–176; Jones 1986:427–437). 8

The mint of issue of these bronze coins is widely accepted; there is, however, no full consensus concerning their date. Those who consider that the Persian siege of Jerusalem lasted too short a time for the striking of local coinage, suggest that the date on the coins refers to the fourth indictional year, namely 630/631. If this is the case, then the type probably commemorates the return of the True Cross by Heraclius (for further details, see http://www.acsearch.info/record html?id=8191). 9

188

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

608/609 (Bendall 2003:313, Type 2). He raises the possibility that two additional types of Heraclius solidi with the ending reverse legend IΠ, dated to 610–613 (Bendall 2003: Type 3, Fig. 7) and c. 613–616 respectively (Bendall 2003: Type 4, with Heraclius Constantine), may be connected to Jerusalem or to another temporary eastern mint. During this time (608–615 CE), and especially after the capture of Antioch by the Persians in 611 and until 613, the presence of a Byzantine military garrison in Jerusalem could explain the operation of a temporary mint in order to pay the troops and emphasize Byzantine sovereignty over the city. Some scholars believe it was Bonosus, the new comes Orientis appointed by Phocas in 608 or 609, who established a mint for the use of his army during his visit to Jerusalem (Hendy 1985:415–416; Olster 1993:113; Greatrex and Lieu 2002:187, and n. 49; Bendall 2003:309). Given the fact that Antioch surrendered to the Persians in 610, Emesa and Apamea in 611 and Damascus in 613, Jerusalem remained the only major Byzantine stronghold in the region capable of coin production.10 In 611, Heraclius personally took over command of the eastern front. He combined forces in Syria with his brother Theodore and his nephew Nicetas, but in 613 they were defeated by the Persians. The Byzantine army withdrew from Cappadocia and Cilicia and the emperor returned to Constantinople, while it seems that Nicetas moved toward Palestine. It is likely that Jerusalem served as Nicetas’ headquarters between 611 and 613 (Bendall 2003:311– 312),11 and thus, under these historical circumstances, Jerusalem remains the best candidate for the production of exceptional emergency coinage. In his discussion of the pattern of temporary military mints, Bendall attributes a number of extremely rare solidi showing minor variants from the standard Constantinople type to a few ‘ephemeral’ (military?) mints connected with Heraclius’ campaigns in the East. In his opinion, these coins—usually in excellent condition—resemble official issues in style and their fine epigraphy, but are all of eastern origin, produced by short-lived mints operating in times of instability and warfare. The imperial busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine on the earliest of these issues date to the years 613–616 (Bendall 2003:317– 320, Type 4, Figs. 13–16) and therefore postdate our type. In that case, the solidus from Givati should be considered a predecessor of these rare issues. The gold used to strike the coins in the Givati hoard may have come from the reserves taken by an imperial military expedition, as noted in the treatise of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.12 The single pair of dies was presumably copied from a solidus of the

Alexandria fell to the Persians in 619, but the local style is quite different and no solidus dated to 610–613 has so far been attributed to this mint (DOC 2/1:332:186–187). 10

A number of sources attribute to Nicetas the salvaging of the sacred sponge and the spear that pierced Christ’s side, during the fall of Jerusalem in 614 (Greatrex and Lieu 2002:191–192; Bendall 2003:312). 11

The treatise is comprised of three texts dealing with the details of organization of imperial expeditions. It consists mainly of lists of equipment for the imperial baggage-train by a range of imperial officials, military and civilian, and the equipment for the imperial household. Text C clearly specifies cash for the expenses of the expedition, for largesse to officers and soldiers, and sacks of gold coins for other expenditures. The three texts are actually the preface to the first section of the De Ceremoniis of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, dated to the end of the tenth century (Haldon 1990). 12

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

189

series dated 610–613 from Constantinople, by an engraver who, based on the misspelling of the obverse inscription, must have been familiar with the Latin version of the name Heraclius. Such a prototype solidus could have reached Jerusalem together with the Byzantine garrison between 610 and 613. All the details that differentiate our new variant from the original series (DOC 2/1:245, No. 3) are additions to the dies and could have been easily inserted: the detail on the crown on the obverse, the officina Δ and the star at the end of the exergue CONOB on the reverse. We believe that these details were purposely intended to distinguish between the new variant and the official issue minted at the same time in Constantinople.

The Circumstances of the Deposition of the Hoard As noted above, the coins were not discovered in a container, although the in-situ photographs of the discovery (Fig. 5.2; see also Chapter 2: Figs. 2.45–2.47) clearly show the coins arranged in rows indicating they were originally wrapped in a cloth or purse. It is difficult to determine if the sum of 264 solidi in the hoard was equivalent to any specific amount in pounds of gold or other rate of exchange.13 In total, the hoard weighs 1157.45 g, or 3.57 pounds.14 It could be suggested that the original purse was equal to four pounds (approximately 289 solidi), and that the 25 missing coins were removed before its concealment. Another possibility is that the full amount of coins in the hoard simply represents the total raw material—gold—that was available to strike the coins, and the specific number of solidi (or the total weight of the hoard) is insignificant. The location of the hoard within the large, impressive Building 1821 does not seem to be a random occurrence. Gold coinage, unlike bronze, was not intended for ordinary use, but was designed primarily to fulfill imperial needs such as redistributing revenues by means of ordinary and extraordinary payments of salaries and largesse (for administration and army), and for collecting income through taxation. The presence of such an amount of ‘fresh’ gold coins suggests that this structure fulfilled an administrative function, as such a hoard could not have been the property of a private individual. It was imperial money in the hands of an official authority, intended for public needs. Although it has been said that “…no hoard can ever have within it ideas of why it was buried or why it was never recovered” (Reece 1988:261), the Givati hoard presents several features that tell us quite explicitly the story of its concealment. The uniform date and the character of the hoard reveal that it was an ‘emergency hoard’ concealed at a time of imminent danger, siege or war. Such hoards usually reflect the coinage in circulation at the time of their deposition.

In terms of quantity, the closest parallel is a hoard from Parma containing 265 gold coins, mainly solidi, dated to 395–400 CE (LRC:288). 13

Based on a pound equivalent to 324 g. However, using the value of 326 g as suggested by Suchodolski (1981) following his discussion of the Szikáncs hoard, the Givati hoard equaled 3.55 pounds. 14

190

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

The seventh century in the southern Levant was a period characterized by turbulent events that threatened the stability of the Byzantine empire: the Persian conquest and occupation (c. 610–630) and then the Muslim conquest in c. 640 that definitively changed the course of history of the region. These two events led to a dramatic increase in the number of gold hoards concealed in the region, all of them presenting similar numismatic characteristics in terms of composition, die links and chronology (Noeske 2000:81–83, 89; Bijovsky 2002:180–183, Fig. 11; Foss 2004:13). Specifically, Grierson argues that coins of his Class I of Heraclius, dating from October 610 to January 613, are extremely common due to the high proportion of hoards buried during the Persian and Avar invasions in the early years of Heraclius’ reign (Grierson 1959:142). The homogeneous date of the coins in the Givati hoard establishes a connection between the circumstances of the deposition and the events related to the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614.15 The fact that no later coin type of Heraclius is included in the hoard emphasizes this chronology. Bearing in mind this historical framework, the possibility that the coins were struck for an intention other than paying military salaries—such as part of a tribute to the Persians—should also be taken into consideration.16 Until the discovery of the Givati hoard, gold-coin finds in Jerusalem dating to the time of the Persian conquest were extremely meager. A hoard of five coins: three tremisses of Maurice Tiberius and two solidi of Phocas, dating to 603–607, were found in excavations at the Citadel (Amiran and Eitan 1970:15; Ariel 1982:316, Nos. 279–283), and a solidus of Phocas, dating to 607–610, sealed the context of a mass bone burial (Tomb 10) in a cemetery in Mamilla, which, according to the excavators, may be the remains of Christians massacred by the Persians in the Pool of Mamilla in 614 (Reich 1993:109; Avni 2010). A few years ago, a hoard containing 36 Constantinian,Valentinian and Byzantine solidi and pieces of jewelry was uncovered in the ‘Ofel excavations in Jerusalem and related by the excavators to the Persian invasion (Mazar 2013). As there seems to be an incongruity between the detailed historical sources describing the Persian conquest of Jerusalem, and the meager archaeological finds from the field (Avni 2010), the Givati hoard sheds new light on seventh-century gold hoards in the region, and also contributes crucial new archaeological evidence from that time. The innovations noted in the coins of the Givati hoard, however, are outstanding, with no known parallels in Byzantine numismatics. In addition, the combination of the numismatic features and the historical circumstances of the deposition of the hoard provides solid evidence for the existence of a temporary mint in Jerusalem that functioned during the first years of Heraclius’ reign.

For a concise historical introduction to this period, see Foss 2004.

15

According to a later synaxarion, the hegoumenos of the Saint Sabas Monastery paid 1200 gold pieces (presumably solidi) to ransom twenty men and women (for references, see Greatrex and Lieu 2002:193 and n. 87). 16

191

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

The Catalogue (Table 5.1) The 264 coins are solidi of the same type, variant and date. Thus, the catalogue is ordered according to weight, from the heaviest to the lightest; the description of the obverse and reverse is common for all the coins.

Table 5.1. Catalogue Heraclius, solidus, mint of Jerusalem, c. 611–614 CE Obv.: dNhERÄCLI-³S PP ÄVC• Bust of Heraclius facing, with short beard, wearing cuirass and draped; on head crown with pendilia and central medallion with cross; in right hand cross on globe. Rev.: VICTORIÄ ÄV£³Δ Cross on three steps. In exergue: CONOB* Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

IAA No.

1

4.69

20

↓

2

4.68

20

↓

Misstruck. Rev. l. margin: VICTO

123872

3

4.67

20

↓

Misstruck. Obv. l. margin: ERACLI. Rev. l. margin: CO

123987

4

4.63

22

↓

5

4.61

20

↓

Misstruck. Obv. l. margin: CLI.

123820

6

4.6

22

↓

Rev.: upper step is worn

123780

7

4.6

21

↓

Obv. l. upper margin: LI

123898

8

4.6

21

↓

9

4.6

20

↓

10

4.59

21

↓

123816

11

4.59

20

↓

123837

12

4.59

21

↓

13

4.59

20

↓

14

4.58

22

↓

123990

15

4.57

21

↓

123810

123900

123826

123965 Misstruck. Obv.: on chest, PP

123986

123839 Misstruck

123950

Obv.

Rev.

192

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

IAA No.

16

4.57

21

↓

Misstruck

123817

17

4.57

20

↓

Misstruck

123836

18

4.57

21

↓

19

4.56

21

↓

20

4.56

21

↓

123785

21

4.56

20

↓

123827

22

4.56

20

↓

124014

23

4.55

21

↓

123891

24

4.55

21

↓

123905

25

4.55

21

↓

123945

26

4.54

21

↓

27

4.54

22

↓

123815

28

4.54

21

↓

123842

29

4.53

21

↓

123781

28

4.54

21

↓

123842

29

4.53

21

↓

123781

30

4.53

21

↓

123786

31

4.53

21

↓

123830

32

4.53

21

↓

123840

33

4.53

20

↓

123911

34

4.53

22

↓

123948

35

4.53

22

↓

36

4.53

20

↓

37

4.52

21

↓

38

4.52

22

↓

Large flan

123916

39

4.52

21

↓

Worn margins

123984

40

4.52

20

↓

41

4.51

20

↓

Misstruck. Obv. margin: LI

123808

42

4.51

20

↓

Misstruck

123874

43

4.51

20

↓

44

4.51

21

↓

45

4.51

21

↓

123971

46

4.51

20

↓

123995

47

4.5

20

↓

123782

48

4.5

20

↓

123835

49

4.5

20

↓

50

4.5

21

↓

51

4.5

21

↓

52

4.5

20

↓

Misstruck. Rev. in margin: VICT

123915

53

4.5

20

↓

Misstruck. Worn margins

123955

54

4.49

21

↓

123882 Misstruck

Misstruck. Obv. margin: CLI. Rev. margin: VI

Worn

123783

123799

123998 124030 123791

124007

123949 Worn borders in obv.

Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: ACL

123969

123851 123853 123896

123865

Obv.

Rev.

193

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

IAA No.

55

4.49

21

↓

Large flan

123927

56

4.49

21

↓

57

4.49

20

↓

58

4.49

22

↓

123963

59

4.49

21

↓

123968

60

4.49

20

↓

123973

61

4.49

20

↓

124017

62

4.49

20

↓

124019

63

4.49

20

↓

124031

64

4.48

20×22

↓

123802

65

4.48

21

↓

123804

66

4.48

20

↓

123886

67

4.48

20

↓

123887

68

4.48

21

↓

123895

69

4.48

21

↓

123906

70

4.48

21

↓

71

4.48

20

↓

123942

72

4.48

20

↓

123953

73

4.48

21

↓

74

4.48

20

↓

75

4.47

22

↓

76

4.47

21

↓

77

4.47

21

↓

78

4.47

20

↓

79

4.47

21

↓

123892

80

4.47

20

↓

123934

81

4.47

21

↓

123935

82

4.47

21

↓

123979

83

4.47

20

↓

124023

84

4.46

21

↓

123797

85

4.46

21

↓

86

4.46

22

↓

123800

87

4.46

20

↓

123821

88

4.46

20

↓

123889

123932 Worn margins

Partially worn

Misstruck. Obv.: dN

123960

123939

123966 124027 123806

Misstruck. Obv. margin: CLI

123807 123814

Misstruck

Misstruck. Rev. lower margin: C

123834

123798

Obv.

Rev.

194

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

IAA No.

89

4.46

20

↓

Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: CLI

123899

90

4.46

20

↓

Worn margins

123985

91

4.46

20

↓

92

4.45

21

↓

Misstruck

93

4.45

20

↓

Misstruck

123823

94

4.45

21×23

↓

Misstruck

123885

95

4.45

21

↓

96

4.45

20

↓

98

4.45

20

↓

123982

99

4.45

20

↓

124006

100

4.45

20

↓

124018

97

4.45

20

↓

124035

101

4.44

21

↓

123809

102

4.44

20

↓

103

4.44

20

↓

104

4.44

20

↓

124020 123774

123909 Misstruck

123961

123833 Misstruck. Rev. lower margin: CONO

123847 123879

105

4.44

21

↓

106

4.44

21

↓

123959

107

4.44

20

↓

123983

108

4.44

20

↓

109

4.43

20

↓

110

4.43

21

↓

123812

111

4.43

20

↓

123890

112

4.43

22

↓

113

4.43

22

↓

114

4.43

20

↓

123925

115

4.43

20

↓

124008

116

4.42

21

↓

123789

117

4.42

21

↓

123813

118

4.42

21

↓

123852

119

4.42

20

↓

123861

120

4.42

20

↓

123904

121

4.42

21

↓

123918

122

4.42

20

↓

Worn margins

123943

123

4.42

20

↓

Worn margins

123992

124

4.42

20

↓

125

4.41

20

↓

126

4.41

21

↓

127

4.4

21

↓

123773 123870

128

4.4

20

↓

129

4.4

21

↓

130

4.4

21

↓

Misstruck

123923

124012 Misstruck. Obv. upper l. margin: RACLI

123796

123902 Worn margins

123924

124024 123876 Misstruck. Rev. l. margin: CTO

123958

123933 Misstruck

123937

Obv.

Rev.

195

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

IAA No.

131

4.4

20

↓

132

4.39

21

↓

133

4.39

20

↓

134

4.39

20

↓

135

4.39

21

↓

136

4.39

19

↓

137

4.39

20

↓

124015

138

4.38

22

↓

123778

139

4.38

20

↓

123831

140

4.38

20

↓

Misstruck

123878

141

4.38

21

↓

Misstruck. Lower margin: CONO

123903

142

4.38

20

↓

124000

143

4.37

21

↓

123828

144

4.37

21

↓

123843

145

4.37

21

↓

123846

146

4.37

20

↓

123875

147

4.37

21

↓

123919

148

4.37

20

↓

123931

149

4.37

22

↓

123989

150

4.37

20

↓

124011

151

4.36

21

↓

123793

152

4.36

20

↓

123858

153

4.36

21

↓

123893

154

4.36

20

↓

123920

155

4.36

21

↓

123938

156

4.36

20

↓

123941

157

4.36

20

↓

158

4.35

22

↓

159

4.35

21

↓

123811

160

4.35

21

↓

123819

161

4.35

21

↓

123838

162

4.35

21

↓

163

4.35

21

↓

164

4.35

22

↓

123894

165

4.35

21

↓

123962

166

4.35

20

↓

123975

167

4.34

20

↓

123844

168

4.34

21

↓

123850

124033 123857 Misstruck. Obv. upper r. margin: AVC

123877 123907 123936

Misstruck. Below: CON

123994

124010 Worn borders of dots

123790

123854 Worn borders

123888

Obv.

Rev.

196

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

169 170

Notes

IAA No.

4.34

20

↓

123873

4.34

21

↓

123880

171

4.34

20

↓

123913

172

4.34

20

↓

123930

173

4.34

21

↓

123970

174

4.34

20

↓

123978

175

4.34

20

↓

123997

176

4.34

20

↓

124003

177

4.33

22

↓

123784

178

4.33

21

↓

123803

179

4.33

20

↓

123849

180

4.33

20

↓

123922

181

4.33

20

↓

182

4.33

20

↓

123954

183

4.33

20

↓

124036

184

4.32

21

↓

185

4.32

21

↓

123901

186

4.32

20

↓

123988

187

4.32

20

↓

124029

188

4.31

20

↓

123805

189

4.31

21

↓

123848 123946

Worn margins

Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: PA’

123952

123855

190

4.31

20

↓

191

4.31

20

↓

124022

192

4.3

21

↓

123801

193

4.3

21

↓

194

4.3

20

↓

123825

195

4.3

21

↓

123947

196

4.3

21

↓

123964

197

4.3

20

↓

123993

198

4.3

20

↓

124013

199

4.3

20

↓

124026

200

4.29

20

↓

123908

201

4.29

21

↓

202

4.29

22

↓

Worn margins

123912

123910 Obv. l. margins worn

123940

203

4.29

20

↓

204

4.29

20

↓

124001 124005

205

4.28

20

↓

123795

206

4.28

20

↓

123829

207

4.28

20

↓

123921

208

4.28

21

↓

123929

Obv.

Rev.

197

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

209

4.28

20

↓

123951

210

4.28

20

↓

124034

211

4.27

21

↓

123976

212

4.26

20

↓

213

4.26

20

↓

123866

214

4.26

20

↓

123928

215

4.26

20

↓

123944

216

4.26

21

↓

123956

217

4.26

20

↓

124021

218

4.25

20

↓

123868

219

4.25

21

↓

123967

220

4.25

21

↓

123991

221

4.24

20

↓

123980

222

4.24

20

↓

124004

223

4.23

21

↓

224

4.23

21

↓

123787

225

4.23

21

↓

123788

226

4.23

20

↓

123999

227

4.23

20

↓

124025

228

4.23

20

↓

124032

229

4.22

21

↓

230

4.22

21

↓

231

4.22

20

↓

123860

232

4.21

20

↓

123863

233

4.21

20

↓

123914

234

4.2

20

↓

123818

235

4.2

21

↓

123883

236

4.2

20

↓

124002

237

4.2

20

↓

124016

238

4.19

20

↓

123792

239

4.19

20

↓

123867

240

4.19

22

↓

123957

241

4.19

21

↓

123977

242

4.19

20

↓

243

4.18

20

↓

Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: ACLI

123845

244

4.17

20

↓

Misstruck. Obv. in margin: LI. Rev. in l. margin: VI

123881

245

4.17

20

↓

Misstruck. Rev. lower margin: C

Misstruck. Rev. lower l. margin: VICTO

IAA No.

123856

123776

123794 Misstruck

123841

123996

123926

Obv.

Rev.

198

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No.

Weight (g)

Diam.

Axis

Notes

IAA No.

246

4.17

23

↓

Worn margins

123972

247

4.17

21

↓

123981

248

4.17

20

↓

124009

249

4.16

21

↓

123777

250

4.16

21

↓

123884

251

4.16

20

↓

123974

252

4.15

21

↓

123779

253

4.15

20

↓

123859

254

4.15

20

↓

255

4.14

20

↓

256

4.13

19

↓

123822

257

4.13

20

↓

123864

258

4.13

20

↓

124028

259

4.12

20

↓

260

4.12

20

↓

261

4.1

22

↓

262

4.1

20

↓

263

4.09

22

↓

264

3.97

20

↓

123862 Misstruck. Obv. margin: RACL

Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: CLI. Rev. lower margin: CO

123832

123869

123897 Misstruck. Obv. margin: LI

123824 123871

Worn margins

123917 123775

Obv.

Rev.

CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS

199

R eferences Amiran R. and Eitan A. 1970. Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968–1969 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 20:9–17. Ariel D.T. 1982. A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (until the End of Byzantine Period). LA 32:273–326. Avni G. 2010. The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.): An Archaeological Assessment. BASOR 357:35–48. Bendall S. 2003. The Byzantine Coinage of the Mint of Jerusalem. RN 159:307–322. Bijovsky G. 2002. A Hoard of Byzantine Solidi from Bet She’an in the Umayyad Period. RN 158:161–222. Bijovsky G. 2010. A Single Die Solidi Hoard of Heraclius from Jerusalem. In Mélanges Cécile Morrisson (Travaux et Mémoires 16). Paris. Pp. 55–92. DOC 2: P. Grierson. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 2: Phocas to Theodosius III, 602–717. Washington, D.C. 1968. Foss C. 2004. The Persian Near East (602–630 AD) and Its Coinage. In H. Pottier. Le monnayage de la Syrie sous l’occupation perse (610–630) (Cahiers Ernest-Babelon 9). Paris. Pp. 7–18. Foss C. 2008. Arab-Byzantine Coins: An Introduction, with a Catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications 12). Washington, D.C. Greatrex G. and Lieu S.N.C. 2002. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars II: AD 363– 630. A Narrative Sourcebook. London–New York. Grierson P. 1959. Solidi of Phocas and Heraclius: The Chronological Framework. NC 19 (6th series):131–154. Hahn W. 2003–2006. Byzantine Gold Coins of Tiberius II and Maurice (578–602) of Uncertain Mint Attribution in the Light of Palestinian Hoard Evidence. INJ 15:97–106. Haldon J.F. 1990. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXVIII). Vienna. Hendy M.F. 1985. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450. Cambridge. Jones A.H.M. 1986. The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey. Oxford (First edition 1964). Kent J.P.C. 1956. Gold Coinage in the Later Roman Empire. In R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland eds. Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly. Oxford. Pp. 190–204. LRC: P. Grierson and M. Mays. Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection: From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius. Washington, D.C. 1992. Mazar E. 2013. The Discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the Foot of the Temple Mount: In Honor of the State of Israel, that Chose the Seven-Branched Menorah as its National Symbol. Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 1988. Byzantine Coins from Jerusalem. In D. Jacoby and Y. Tsafrir eds. Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine. Jerusalem. Pp. 24–26 (Hebrew). Metlich M.A. 1994–1999. Another Heraclius Follis from Jerusalem. INJ 13:118.

200

GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Morrisson C., Brenot C., Callu J.-P., Barrandon J.-N., Poirier J. and Halleux R. 1985. L’or monnayé I: Purification et altérations de Rome à Byzance (Cahiers Ernest-Babelon 2). Paris. Noeske H.-C. 2000. Münzfunde aus Ägypten 1: Die Münzfunde des ägyptischen Pilgerzentrums Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfunde aus den Dioecesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.–8. Jh. n. Chr.: Prolegomenza zu einer Geschichte des spätrömischen Münzumlaufs in Ägypten und Syrien (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 12). Berlin. Olster D.M. 1993. The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Amsterdam. Reece R. 1988. Interpreting Roman Hoards. World Archaeology 20/2:261–269. Reich R. 1993. The Cemetery in the Mamilla Area of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 103–104:103–109 (Hebrew). Suchodolski S. 1981. Encore le poids de la livre romaine: Reconstruction du poids de l’unité pondérale d’après les monnaies. In C. Carcassone and T. Hackens eds. Statistique et Numismatique (Table ronde organisée par le Centre de mathématique sociale de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales de Paris et le Séminaire de numismatique Marcel Hoc de l’Université catholique de Louvain, Paris, 17–19 sept. 1979) (Pact 5). Strasbourg. Pp. 122–130.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 6

The Byzantine Glass Dorit Gutreich

Introduction Thousands of glass fragments were unearthed in Byzantine Stratum V from the second season excavation onward (2008–2014). This chapter presents an assemblage comprised of some 415 diagnostic fragments retrieved from the well-stratified loci of this stratum.1 The glass finds from a relatively constricted area excavated during the first excavation season in 2007 (Area M1) were described in Givati I (Gutreich 2013) and are referred to here as part of the overall Byzantine glass assemblage from the Givati site. Byzantine Stratum V (late fourth–early seventh centuries CE) comprises a large administrative structure (Building 1821), a wide stone-paved street (L1886), agricultural land bounded by terrace walls and associated drainage channels (see Chapter 2). Building 1821 yielded a large quantity of diagnostic glass fragments comprising nearly 40% of the entire assemblage and including most of the vessel types. Thus, the glass fragments that originated on the floors of this building (Loci 1772, 1782, 1821, 1881, 1898, 1905, 1908), as well as in L1963, the foundation layer of Channel 1934, were chosen as a representative assemblage and selected fragments are illustrated in Figs. 6.1–6.3. A complementary figure (Fig. 6.4), comprised of sherds originating in other well-stratified loci of Stratum V, presents the few Byzantine vessel types that were not present in Building 1821, along with better-preserved examples of the same types recovered in the building. The discussion is arranged typologically, from open to closed forms, and plain before decorated ware, and incorporates all the c. 415 diagnostic sherds.2 Parallels are brought mainly from contemporary sites in Jerusalem and its vicinity, e.g., Khirbat Ṭabaliya (Giv‘at Ha-Maṭos; Gorin-Rosen 2000), and sites that yielded large assemblages dated within the fourth–seventh centuries, such as the glass factories at Jalame (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988) and Khirbat el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007), and Caesarea (Israeli 2008).

This chapter was completed and submitted in 2016. I would like to express my gratitude to Yael Gorin-Rosen for her help and encouragement. 1

Numbers and percentages are rounded off.

2

202

DORIT GUTREICH

The Assemblage The vast majority of the glass vessels from the Byzantine loci are of various shades of bluish green glass; a few are green or olive-green. Blue, dark blue and turquoise glass was used for decorative threads, mostly on bottles but also on bowls, beakers and wineglasses. Bowls (Figs. 6.1:1–6; 6.4:1–4) Glass bowls, which were very common and varied during the Late Roman period in Israel, decreased in number from the fifth century onward (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:166). Some 110 rim and base fragments in the present assemblage are attributed to bowls of various types. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that due to the fragmentary state of many of these finds, some of them may in fact belong to other vessel types such as bowl-shaped oil lamps, beakers, jugs, etc. Shallow bowls with outfolded tubular rims (Figs. 6.1:1; 6.4:1) were common during the third and fourth centuries (Israeli 2008:376). At Givati, Stratum V loci yielded 68 out-folded tubular rims,3 making it the most common bowl-rim type in the assemblage, comprising 16%. Out-folded rims from Late Roman–early Byzantine contexts in Area M1 were also assigned to bowls (Gutreich 2013:278, Fig. 12.4:58, 59). Shallow bowls with out-folded tubular rims are very common in the fourth-century glass-factory dump at Jalame, with thousands of fragments of this type found (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:41, Fig. 4-3). Several bowls with out-folded tubular rims from the glass workshop at Kh. el-Ni‘ana were dated to the fourth–early fifth centuries (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:76, 79, Figs. 2:1–3; 27:3–8). A similar date was given to the assemblage from Caesarea (Israeli 2008:376, 402, 403, Nos. 78–83). Three fragments in the assemblage represent a type of shallow bowl with a vertical rounded rim (Fig. 6.1:2), sometimes with a horizontal ridge below it on the exterior (Fig. 6.4:2). This bowl type was common at sites in Israel during the fourth–fifth centuries, for example at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:376, Nos. 67–72) and Kh. el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007: Figs. 1:1–5; 27:1, 2), and continued throughout the Byzantine period and into the Early Islamic period; for example, a bowl from Kh. Ṭabaliya is dated to the late Byzantine period (Gorin-Rosen 2000:84*, Fig. 2:8). The above-mentioned bowl types all had pushed-in tubular ring bases––the most common base type on bowls during the Late Roman–early Byzantine period (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:86–88). Fifteen high tubular ring bases in the present assemblage (Fig. 6.4:3) were attributed to bowls, as were the examples from Late Roman–early Byzantine contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:278, Fig. 12.4:60–63). At Kh. el-Ni‘ana, many of the pushed-in tubular ring bases were attributed to bowls (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson

While outfolded rims also characterize bowl-shaped oil lamps with three handles, a choice was made here to attribute all fragments of outfolded rims that show no trace of a handle to this bowl type. 3

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

203

2007:86–88, 132–134, Figs. 6, 30), while at Jalame, similar pushed-in ring bases were assigned to bowls and jugs (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:41, 65, Figs. 4-4, 4-29). The outcurving rims in Fig. 6.1:3, 4 may belong to small globular bowls. Seven rims of this type were found in Byzantine loci at Givati, most of them too small to determine for certain the original shape (and sometimes even the diameter) of the complete vessel. For example, such rims could also belong to bowl-shaped oil lamps with three handles (see Fig. 6.1:15). Many outcurving (or ‘flaring’) rims of bowls of various shapes were found at Jalame, mostly in the fourth-century factory dump, some of which appear to be similar to those in Fig. 6.1:3, 4 (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:40, Fig. 4-1:2–4). Another possible parallel comes from a context of the late fifth–early seventh centuries at Jerash and is identified as a ‘small cup or bowl, or even a hollow-stemmed lamp’ (Meyer 1988:198, Fig. 8:J; see also Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007: Fig. 22:6, 7). The type of base in Figs. 6.1:5 and 6.4:4 was very common on bowls, as well as jugs and flasks, during the Late Roman and early Byzantine periods (fourth–fifth centuries; Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:75). It was made of a thick trail wound several times and attached to the bottom of the vessel to create a high base. Thirteen fragments of trail-wound bases were identified in the present assemblage, ranging in height from one coil (Fig. 6.4:4) to four coils (Fig. 6.1:5). The original vessel types are impossible to reconstruct. While the wide base in Fig. 6.1:5 probably belonged to a bowl, the diameter of Fig. 6.4:4 is relatively small, and it could have been a bowl, beaker or jug. Vessels with trail-wound bases were manufactured at Kh. el-Ni‘ana, where dozens of complete examples where found. Most of them were identified as belonging to bowls rather than jugs or flasks, based on their wide diameter and the angle of the preserved wall fragments; one base, similar to that in Fig. 6.4:4, was identified as a jug (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:88–90, 134–135, Figs. 7, 31). Bases of similar diameter to that in Fig. 6.4:4 were also found in a tomb at Ashqelon and attributed to beakers, jugs or flasks (Katsnelson 1999:69*, Fig. 2:3–7). The few trailwound bases found at Jalame were all attributed to bowls based on one nearly complete example, yet the authors state that this identification is not certain (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:58, 59, Figs. 4-21; 4-22:160). Two fragments of outcurving rims from Building 1821 are identified as parts of bowls with threads wound around the rim (Fig. 6.1:6) or immediately below it, a type dated to the fourth–fifth centuries (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:55–56). The example in Fig. 6.1:6 is decorated with threads darker than the body, fused into the shelf-like rim; the other (not illustrated) has blue threads on the body just below the rim. Fragments of some 20 bowls of this type, some with the characteristic flat base, were discovered at Kh. el-Ni‘ana, where they were probably manufactured (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:84–85, Fig. 5:1–5; with further references). One similar bowl was found at Jalame (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988: Fig. 4-17:129). Beakers (Fig. 6.1:7–10) The most common beaker type of the fourth–early fifth centuries in Israel has an outcurving rim with a thread below it on the exterior, a cylindrical body and a thick, solid disk base

204

DORIT GUTREICH

Fig. 6.1 ► No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Color

1

Plain bowl

1963

26652/3

Bluish-green

2

Plain bowl

1963

26856/1

Bluish-green

3

Plain bowl

1963

27090/2

Olive-green

4

Plain bowl

1963

26542/2

Bluish-green

5

Plain bowl

1963

27090/3

Bluish-green

6

Decorated bowl

1821

25742/1

Bluish-green; turquoise threads

7

Plain beaker

1963

26342/3

Bluish-green

8

Plain beaker

1963

26342/1

Bluish-green

9

Plain beaker

1963

27090/1

Bluish-green

10

Decorated beaker

1963

26407/3

Olive-green; dark blue thread

11

Wineglass

1821

23558

Bluish-green

12

Oil lamp

1772

22763/1

Bluish-green

13

Oil lamp

1963

26542/3

Bluish-green

14

Oil lamp

1821

23451/1

Bluish-green

15

Oil lamp

1963

26407/5

Light olive-green

16

Oil lamp

1963

27132/3

Light olive-green

(Israeli 2008:377). Twenty-five solid disk bases were found in Byzantine loci in the present excavation (6% of the assemblage), some with the beginning of the cylindrical body (e.g., Fig. 6.1:7), and additional examples appeared in various contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:278, Fig. 12.4:67–70); however, no characteristic outcurving rims with threads were identified. Beakers of this type were manufactured in quantity in the fourth-century glass factory at Jalame (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:60, Fig. 4-23:162–179), and the glass workshop at Kh. el-Ni‘ana also produced such beakers (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:93, Figs. 8:3–9; 32:1). The vessel in Fig. 6.1:8, with a slightly flaring rim, a cylindrical body and a relatively small diameter, may also be a beaker. An additional 30 similar flaring rims were found in Byzantine loci at Givati, although most are small fragments, thus the shape and diameter of the vessels cannot be determined with certainty; for example, some of these rims may belong to bowls or oil lamps with three handles (see Figs. 6.1:3, 4, 15). Beakers with a flaring rim were found in fourth–fifth-century contexts at Jerash (Meyer 1988:189, Fig. 5:S–U, W–X). Five low tubular ring bases in the present assemblage (Fig. 6.1:9) were attributed to beakers, as were the examples from Byzantine–Umayyad contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:281, Fig. 12.6:89). The above-mentioned beakers with a flaring rim from Jerash are assumed to have had such a low tubular ring base, based on a rim and base fragments found close together (Meyer 1988:189, Fig. 5:V, Y, Z). During the fourth century, high and low tubular ring bases appeared on beakers and jugs of different types, for example a few at Kh. el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:76, 93, Fig. 8:11–15; vessel type not determined), and at Jalame (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:62–63, 67–69, Figs. 4-24, identified as ‘cups’; 4-29, ‘jugs’).

205

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

1

2

3

5

4

6 7

8

11

10

9

12

13

16 14 15 0

4

Fig. 6.1. Byzantine glass from Stratum V, Building 1821.

A body fragment of a cylindrical or slightly conical, olive-green vessel decorated with a wavy dark blue thread (Fig. 6.1:10) probably belonged to a beaker. A similar beaker from a fourth–fifth-century context at Jerash was made of yellow-green glass, with dark blue threads forming a pattern of ‘open diamonds’ (Meyer 1988:189, Fig. 6:C).

206

DORIT GUTREICH

Wineglasses (Figs. 6.1:11; 6.4:5, 6) Footed wineglasses appeared in Israel during the fifth century as one of the new types characterizing Byzantine glass, and increased in popularity into the Umayyad period (GorinRosen and Winter 2010:165). Thirty-five fragments of footed wineglasses were identified in the present assemblage, comprising 8% of the assemblage. Byzantine wineglasses have a rounded rim, a round, conical or ovoid bowl, a hollow or solid stem that can be cylindrical (three of which were recovered; Fig. 6.4:5) or globular (beaded; Fig. 6.1:11), and usually a tubular ring base (Figs. 6.1:11; 6.4:5). During the sixth–seventh centuries, the tubular bases were gradually replaced by solid bases, and frequently both types appear in the same assemblage (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:167). At Givati, of the 20 wineglass bases found in Byzantine loci in the present assemblage, 19 are tubular ring bases and one is solid (not illustrated); bases of both types appeared in Byzantine–Umayyad contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:281, Fig. 12.6:95–97). Wineglasses with tubular and solid bases from the church at Shave Ẓiyyon were all dated to the fifth–sixth centuries (Barag 1967:68, Fig. 16:15–17). The fragment in Fig. 6.4:6, with a decoration of dark threads below the slightly incurving rim, probably represents a local type of wineglass (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:167). Another six similar thread-decorated rims were found in Byzantine loci. While they are identified here as wineglasses, they may in fact be rims of bottles (see GorinRosen 2005: Fig. 2:29) or bowls. Wineglasses of this type were encountered in contexts of the sixth–seventh centuries, mostly in and around Jerusalem (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:167). For example, several complete wineglasses were recovered from the crypt of the Armenian monastery in the Morasha neighborhood (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:168, Fig. 3), and fragments from the site of Binyene Ha-Umma (Gorin-Rosen 2005:203, Fig. 2:20–21). These thread-decorated wineglasses had beaded stems (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:169). Fragments of eight such stems were found in the present assemblage, in addition to two tubular bases with beaded stems, as in Fig. 6.1:11. A few were found in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:281, Fig. 12.6:96–98). Other contemporary examples of wineglasses with beaded stems from sites in the Jerusalem area include specimens from the City of David (Ariel 1990:161, Fig. 32:G72, G73), Kh. Ṭabaliya (Gorin-Rosen 2000:86*, Fig. 2:15) and Binyene Ha-Umma (Gorin-Rosen 2005:203–204, Fig. 2:25, 26). Oil Lamps (Figs. 6.1:12–16; 6.2:1–4; 6.4:7, 8) Oil lamps of various types constitute the most common glass vessels during the Byzantine period and are found in large quantities at most Byzantine sites throughout Israel. The most common types during the Byzantine and Umayyad periods are the bowl-shaped lamp with an out-folded rim and three handles, usually with a concave base and sometimes with a tube attached to the center of the floor; and the stemmed, bowl-shaped lamp with either a hollow cylindrical stem or a solid beaded one. A variation of the three-handled lamp, with a flaring rim, also occurs (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:172).

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

207

The present assemblage yielded 11 fragments of lamps with an out-folded rim and three handles––five diagnostic rims (Fig. 6.1:12) and six lamp tubes, four attached to concave bases (Fig. 6.1:13) and two without the base; and eight characteristic base fragments of hollow-stemmed lamps (Figs. 6.1:14; 6.4:7). Two flaring rims with attached handles that can be positively identified as lamps (Fig. 6.1:15) were also retrieved. Fragments of these lamp types were also found in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:278, 281, Figs. 12.4:74; 12.6:90–94). Oil lamps with an out-folded rim and three handles as well as stemmed oil lamps are represented, for example, in the Byzantine–Early Islamic assemblage of Kh. Ṭabaliya (Gorin-Rosen 2000:89*–92*, Fig. 3:29–37, with further references). Lamps with a flaring rim and three handles were found in Byzantine contexts (fifth–sixth centuries CE) at other sites in Jerusalem and its vicinity (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:172), for example, a complete lamp from a tomb at Dominus Flevit (Mount of Olives; Bagatti and Milik 1958: Fig. 35:11). Another, less-common type of Byzantine lamp in the Givati assemblage, represented by three fragments, has a globular body, a cut-off rim (Fig. 6.1:16) and three handles attached to the wall (Fig. 6.4:8). Usually, the only remains of these delicate vessels are the characteristic handles, which can be short, crude loop handles, crude loop handles with a thick trail extending along the vessel wall, or short delicate handles (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:173). The only handle in the present assemblage identified as belonging to this type of lamp (Fig. 6.4:8) is either a short crude loop handle or a crude loop handle with a thick trail. More complete examples of these lamps from other sites include an almostcomplete lamp from a tomb at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem that should probably be dated to the fifth–seventh centuries (Bagatti and Milik 1958: Fig. 35:12; see Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:174 for the dating) and a few specimens from Caesarea (Israeli 2008:381–382, Nos. 135–139). Examples of short crude loop handles from fifth–seventh-century contexts in the Jerusalem area include specimens from Binyene Ha-Umma (Gorin-Rosen 2005:205, Fig. 2:33) and Kh. Ṭabaliya (Gorin-Rosen 2000:89*, Fig. 3:27, 28). Loop handles with a thick trail were found, for example, at Jalame and dated to a period later than the fourthcentury glass factory (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:82, 85, Fig. 4-43:374–377, identified as parts of jars); this handle type continued in use into the Islamic period (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:174). Eleven rim fragments in the present assemblage (Fig. 6.2:1–4) represent three additional types of vessels with cut-off rims, which may also have served as oil lamps, as noted by Israeli (2008:381–382). Eight of these fragments originated in L1963, the foundation layer of Channel 1934. The first type, represented by four examples, is a deep hemispherical bowl with an upright rim, made of thick glass; the second, of which one fragment was found, is a shallow hemispherical bowl made of thick glass; and the third, represented by six examples, is a conical beaker made of thin glass. All three types have bands of horizontal incisions around the body. Deep hemispherical bowls with cut-off rims (Fig. 6.2:1, 2) are usually identified as ‘bowls/oil lamps’ and dated to the Late Roman period (fourth century CE), as at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:381, Nos. 140, 141) and Kh. el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:83–84, Figs. 4:1; 22); similar bowls were also found in the contemporary factory dump at Jalame, but not identified as oil lamps (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:94, Figs. 4-48:463;

208

DORIT GUTREICH

4-49:477–480). At Jerash, deep hemispherical bowls with cut-off rims, made of thick glass, appeared in contexts of both the fourth–fifth and the late fifth–early seventh centuries (Meyer 1988:189, 197, Figs. 6:E; 7:gg–ii). The example of a shallow hemispherical bowl from Givati (Fig. 6.2:3), like those from Kh. Ṭabaliya that were identified as oil lamps and dated to the fifth–eighth centuries (Gorin-Rosen 2000:88*–89*, Fig. 3:25), lacks the characteristic three holes usually pierced in the lamp’s wall (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:174, Fig. 5:8). This type has so far been associated with church-related contexts, mostly in the Negev and Sinai but also in Jerusalem (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:174–175, with references). Conical beakers with a cut-off rim (Fig. 6.2:4) were common during the fourth century throughout the Roman Empire, especially in Syria-Palestine and Egypt, and were used as both oil lamps and drinking vessels. Fragments of a few beakers of this type were found at Kh. el-Ni‘ana, including one similar in shape to that in Fig. 6.2:4 (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:90–93, Fig. 8:2; with discussion and references). Plain Bottles (Figs. 6.2:5–12; 6.4:9) Bottles are among the most common glass vessels in the Byzantine period in Israel (Israeli 2008:387). The common bottles of the fifth–seventh centuries have a relatively wide, long, cylindrical (Fig. 6.2:5) or tapering (Fig. 6.2:6, 7) neck, sometimes constricted in the lower part, and usually a globular body; some of these (Figs. 6.2:8; 6.4:9) have an infolded rim (Katsnelson 1999:73*–74*; Israeli 2008:386). Decorated variations with threads wound around the neck also occur (see below, Fig. 6.2:13). Eighty rim-fragments with wide, cylindrical or tapering necks of these common plain bottles were retrieved from Byzantine loci in the present excavations, comprising 19% of the assemblage; another was found in a Late Roman–early Byzantine context in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:279, Fig. 12.5:77). Bottles of this common type were manufactured in the Byzantine workshop at Bet She’an (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:178, Pl. 11) and perhaps also at Kh. el-Ni‘ana (GorinRosen and Katsnelson 2007:106, 140, Fig. 14:1–8, 35). Complete examples were retrieved from several tombs dated to the fifth–sixth centuries in the Jerusalem area, as at Dominus Flevit (Bagatti and Milik 1958: Fig. 34:1–5). Fragments dated to the fifth–seventh centuries were also found, for example, at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:386–387, Nos. 215, 221–228, 231, 232) and in a tomb at Ashqelon (Katsnelson 1999:73*–74*, Fig. 3:10–15, with further references). The example in Fig. 6.2:7 represents a subtype with a relatively short, tapering neck and probably a piriform or globular body. Similar bottles are dated to the sixth century, but may have appeared somewhat earlier, in the fifth century. They were found, for example, at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:387, Nos. 210–214) and in a tomb at Ashqelon (Katsnelson 1999:73*–74*, Fig. 3:9). Twelve of the examples represent the subtype with a wide cylindrical neck and an infolded rim (Fig. 6.2:8), two of which are flattened (Fig. 6.4:9). Infolded bottle rims were also recovered from Byzantine–Umayyad contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:283, Fig. 12.6:100). A fragment similar to that in Fig. 6.2:8 was found in a tomb at Ashqelon and dated to the Byzantine period (Katsnelson 1999:73*–74*, Fig. 3:8).

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

209

Another type of plain bottle––with a cylindrical neck, a funnel-shaped mouth and sometimes an infolded rim (Fig. 6.2:9, 10)––is represented by six examples. Decorated variations with a thread wound around the funnel-shaped mouth also occur (see below, Fig. 6.2:14). Plain and decorated bottles with a funnel-shaped mouth, a cylindrical neck and a globular body are characteristic of the Syro-Palestinian region during the Late Roman–early Byzantine period, for example at Ḥammat Gader (Cohen 1997:419, Pl. VI) and Caesarea. The two bottles from Caesarea, like that in Fig. 6.2:9, are delicate and made of thin glass, and Israeli notes that this delicacy is characteristic of fourth-century bottles, in contrast to the later Byzantine bottles (Israeli 2008:379, Nos. 112, 113). A single fragment in the assemblage (not illustrated) represents a subtype with a funnel-shaped mouth, upright at the end, with a pinched ridge below it; a similar fragment was found on a Late Roman–early Byzantine floor in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013: Fig. 12.5:76). An almost-complete bottle with such a rim was found at Kh. el-Ni‘ana (GorinRosen and Katsnelson 2007: Fig. 10:3). At Caesarea, this type was dated to the fourth century (Israeli 2008:379, No. 111). The typical base of all the above-mentioned bottle types and their decorated variations (see below) is wide and concave (Fig. 6.2:11, 12). Four examples were found in the present assemblage. Bases similar to that in Fig. 6.2:11 and attributed to such bottles were recovered from Byzantine contexts at many sites in Israel, such as Caesarea (Israeli 2008:379, 380, 386, Nos. 117–119, 236–241) and Ḥammat Gader (Cohen 1997: Pls. VI– IX). A complete bottle from Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem has a base similar to that in Fig. 6.2:12 (Bagatti and Milik 1958: Fig. 34:3). Decorated Bottles (Figs. 6.2:13–18; 6.4:10) The most common technique for decorating bottles and wineglasses during the Byzantine period was the application of thin or thick threads on the vessel’s rim, neck or body (GorinRosen and Winter 2010:177). Thirteen rim and neck fragments (Fig. 6.2:13) represent the decorated variations of the common Byzantine bottles with a wide cylindrical or tapering neck (see Figs. 6.2:5– 8; 6.4:9), with threads wound several times around the neck (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:176). The bottles are bluish green and the threads are either of the same color (five examples), or darker (dark bluish green, dark blue as in Fig. 6.2:13, or turquoise). One example shows a combination of bluish green and dark blue threads. A thin spiral thread between two thicker threads, as in Fig. 6.2:13, is a very common decorative pattern on bottles during the Byzantine period, as at Shave Ẓiyyon in the western Galilee (Barag 1967:66, Fig. 16:4, 5) and Binyene Ha-Umma in Jerusalem (late Byzantine; Gorin-Rosen 2005:204, Fig. 2:31). Eleven rim fragments of bottles with a funnel-shaped mouth decorated with a single thread were found in Byzantine loci in the present excavation (Fig. 6.2:14), and one on a Late Roman–early Byzantine floor in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:279, Fig. 12.5:75). One of these fragments (not illustrated) represents a subtype of a funnel-shaped mouth with an upright rim, a pinched ridge below it, and a thread added below the ridge. Almost all the

210

DORIT GUTREICH

decorated bottles with a funnel-shaped mouth in the assemblage are made of bluish green glass (one is olive-green), and the thread is usually the same color. In some cases (as with the olive-green example), the thread is of a darker shade than the vessel, and sometimes it is of dark turquoise glass. Parallels for both subtypes of decorated bottles with a funnelshaped mouth––with and without a pinched ridge––were found in the fourth-century glass factory at Jalame (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:69–70, Fig. 4-31:262–271). Bottles and jugs with a funnel-shaped mouth decorated with a single thread were also found at Kh. elNi‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:98–100, 135, Figs. 11:3, 5–8; 13:1; 26:9; 33:7– 12). A complete example of a bottle of this type can be seen in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988: Pl. 4-12). A fragment of a wide cylindrical neck decorated with a thin thread of the same color (Fig. 6.2:15) is broken just below the thread, therefore it is unknown if there were additional threads. It does not seem to belong to the above-mentioned type with multiple threads (Fig. 6.2:13), which is usually characterized by a narrower neck. Three additional fragments from Byzantine loci (not illustrated) are decorated with a single, relatively thick thread on the cylindrical neck below the rim, one of which has a wavy thread. A small body fragment (Fig. 6.2:16) is decorated with horizontal threads pinched to create a ‘bifurcated pattern’, a decoration very common on bottles from the late Byzantine period on both sides of the Jordan River (Gorin-Rosen 2000:88*). A globular body fragment from a Byzantine–Umayyad context in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:283, Fig. 12.6:101) probably also belongs to a bottle with the same decoration. Other parallels include a fragment from Kh. Ṭabaliya (Gorin-Rosen 2000:88*, Fig. 2:22, with further references). Fig. 6.2 ► No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Color

1

Oil lamp

1963

26407/4

Bluish green

2

Oil lamp

1963

26652/1

Bluish green

3

Oil lamp

1963

26652/2

Bluish green

4

Oil lamp

1963

26542/1

Bluish green

5

Plain bottle

1772

22943

Bluish green

6

Plain bottle

1963

26407/2

Bluish green

7

Plain bottle

1772

22953/1

Bluish green

8

Plain bottle

1881

24546/1

Bluish green

9

Plain bottle

1963

27132/2

Bluish green

10

Plain bottle

1772

22763/2

Bluish green

11

Plain bottle

1963

26342/2

Bluish green

12

Plain bottle

1821

27517/3

Bluish green

13

Decorated bottle

1821

27517/1

Bluish green; dark blue threads

14

Decorated bottle

1821

25745/1

Bluish green

15

Decorated bottle

1963

26407/1

Bluish green

16

Decorated bottle

1772

22763/3

Bluish green; dark blue threads

17

Decorated bottle

1821

27517/2

Bluish green

18

Decorated bottle

1772

22946

Bluish green

211

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

1

2

3

4

5

8

7

6

9

10

11

12

13

16

15

14

17

18 0

4

Fig. 6.2. Byzantine glass from Stratum V, Building 1821.

212

DORIT GUTREICH

Another technique used to decorate bottles during the Byzantine period was moldblowing, mostly creating a ribbed pattern (Fig. 6.2:17, 18; see Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:177). A few of the mold-blown ribbed bottles found at Caesarea and dated to the Byzantine period (sixth–seventh centuries), exhibit ribs on the shoulders as in Fig. 6.2:17 (Israeli 2008:386–387, Nos. 217, 218). The fragment in Fig. 6.2:18 may belong to a diagonally ribbed cylindrical neck of a bottle. Fragments of bottles with such a neck were found, for example, at Kh. el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:106, Fig. 14:6, with further references) and in a tomb at Ashqelon (Katsnelson 1999: Fig. 4:9, with a thread around the rim). Two diagnostic fragments of globular or cylindrical bottles with internal threads (‘thorns’) were identified among the finds from the present excavation, one from a wellstratified Stratum V locus (Fig. 6.4:10), the other from a mixed fill of Strata V–III (L3754). The ‘thorns’ were created by piercing the bottle’s wall with a sharp tool during the blowing process. Bottles of this type have been encountered at Byzantine sites from northern Israel to Sinai (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:175), for example in a burial cave at Kh. el-Shubeika in the western Galilee (Gorin-Rosen 2002: Fig. 7:65), and are dated to the late sixth–seventh centuries. The function of these peculiar bottles is unclear (Gorin-Rosen and Winter 2010:176). Jugs and Juglets (Figs. 6.3:1, 2; 6.4:11) Nine fragments were identified as parts of jugs or juglets. Two of them were found in the same locus (Fig. 6.3:1, 2), but do not seem to belong to the same vessel. That in Fig. 6.3:1, a rim with a ribbed strap handle, is the only rim fragment positively identified as a jug and not a bottle. Two fragments of broad, ribbed jug handles were also found. Jugs with a funnel-shaped mouth decorated with one thread, and a broad ribbed strap handle stretching from the shoulder to the rim, as in Fig. 6.3:1, are known at sites of the Late Roman–early Byzantine period (fourth–fifth centuries), for example at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:378, Nos. 95, 96), Kh. el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:98, Fig. 11:7) and Jalame (fourth century; Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:65–66, Figs. 4-28; 4-30:250, Pls. 4-10:217–228; 4-11:250–256). The necks of these jugs were sometimes decorated with a thick thread wound once around the lower part (Fig. 6.3:2), as at Kh. el-Ni‘ana (GorinRosen and Katsnelson 2007:98–99, Fig. 11:8, may be a bottle) and Jalame (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:65, Fig. 4-28:224, 225). A complete example of the type can be seen in the Corning Museum of Glass (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988: Pl. 4-10). A fragment of a rounded handle pinched at the lower end where it was attached to the body (Fig. 6.4:11), is attributed to a jug or juglet. It is the only pinched example in the assemblage. Four similar, unpinched handles in this assemblage were also assigned to jugs/juglets, as were the examples from Late Roman–early Byzantine contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:279, Fig. 12.5:79).

213

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

2

3

1

4

0

4

Fig. 6.3. Byzantine glass from Stratum V, L1963 the foundation layer of Channel 1934. No.

Type

Basket

Color

1

Jug

26470/2

Bluish-green

2

Jug

26470/3

Bluish-green

3

Kohl bottle

27132/1

Olive-green

4

Windowpane

26470/1

Bluish-green

Kohl Bottles (Figs. 6.3:3; 6.4:12) These tube-shaped vessels were used to hold kohl and are often found in burial contexts of the Late Roman and early Byzantine periods. They can be shaped as a single tube, of which one example appears in the assemblage (Fig. 6.3:3), or as two adjoining tubes, of which two were found (Fig. 6.4:12). Single-tube kohl bottles were very common during the mid-third–fourth centuries, while double tubes appeared in the mid-fourth century and continued in use into the late Byzantine period. Both types usually bear applied threads; single tubes were sometimes decorated with mold-blown ribbing instead. Plain examples, as Fig. 6.4:12 probably is, were less common. The bottles usually have small handles on either side, on top of which one or a few basket handles were sometimes added. Numerous kohl bottles, mostly double tubes, were found at Kh. el-Ni‘ana, where they were manufactured. The double tubes from that site are all plain like that in Fig. 6.4:12 (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:108–114, 143, Figs. 17–21, 36), while the single tubes are characterized by a trail-wound base, like that in Fig. 6.3:3. This base was made by winding a massive glass trail once or twice, applying it to the bottom of the tube and flattening it. Kohl bottles with this type of base are quite rare (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:109–110, Fig. 16); an almost-complete example comes from Caesarea (Israeli 2008:380, No. 125).

214

DORIT GUTREICH

Fig. 6.4 ► No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Color

1

Plain bowl

2555

40738/1

Bluish green

2

Plain bowl

1631

19500/1

Bluish green

3

Plain bowl

2461

39081

Bluish green

4

Plain bowl/jug

1631

19480/1

Bluish green

5

Wineglass

1934

26056/1

Bluish green

6

Wineglass

1564

17829/1

Bluish green; dark (brown?) threads

7

Oil lamp

1960

26111

Bluish green

8

Oil lamp

2500

39278/1

Green

9

Plain bottle

1595

19662/1

Bluish green

10

Decorated bottle

3818

58974

Bluish green

11

Jug

2516

40036/1

Olive-green

12

Kohl bottle

2009

27708

Bluish green

13

Windowpane

3818

58719/1

Green

14

Bracelet

1564

17934/1

Blue

15

Bracelet

2461

39080/1

Dark green, opaque

16

Bracelet

1645

19599/1

Dark, opaque

17

Bracelet

2461

39080/2

Dark, opaque

Windowpanes (Figs. 6.3:4; 6.4:13) Eleven fragments of out-folded rims of blown rounded windowpanes, also known as the ‘bull’s-eye’ type, were retrieved, eight in the same locus (L1963; Fig. 6.3:4). Windowpanes of this type were found in other Byzantine contexts in Jerusalem, for example at Binyene Ha-Umma (Gorin-Rosen 2005:207, Fig. 3:43) and Kh. Ṭabaliya (Gorin-Rosen 2000:92*– 93*, Fig. 3:40). In addition, one rim fragment identified as a square/rectangular windowpane was found (Fig. 6.4:13). Two techniques were employed over the years to manufacture square/ rectangular windowpanes––casting glass into a mold, applied since the first century, and cutting and flattening a blown glass cylinder, known since the fourth century. Panes made in the second technique are characterized by one straight, fire-rounded edge, one chipped edge on the opposite end, and two cut edges (Meyer 1988:195; Gorin-Rosen 2005:208). This type of windowpane became very common during the Byzantine period. Examples from the Jerusalem area date mostly to the late Byzantine period, as at Binyene Ha-Umma (Gorin-Rosen 2005:208, Fig. 3:44, an almost complete example) and Kh. Ṭabaliya (GorinRosen 2000:92*, Fig. 3:38, 39). Over 20 flat body fragments from the present assemblage (not illustrated) should also be attributed to windowpanes, as were the examples from Late Roman–early Byzantine contexts in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:279, Fig. 12.5:81).

215

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

1

2

4

3

6 8

5

7

10

9

11

12

14

13

16

15 0

17 4

Fig. 6.4. Byzantine glass from Stratum V.

216

DORIT GUTREICH

Bracelets (Fig. 6.4:14–17) Glass bracelets were a common jewelry item throughout the Syro-Palestinian region from the Late Roman period onward (Spaer 2001:193). The early types are monochrome and usually of dark glass appearing opaque (Spaer 1988:60). The eight fragments of bracelets in the present assemblage are all monochrome and can be assigned to several types. Five bracelets are plain and narrow with a D-shaped section, mostly of dark glass that appears opaque (Spaer 1988:54, Type A2). The fragment in Fig. 6.4:14 is an unusual example of this type, as it is made of a transparent blue glass and has a rather irregular section and a small ‘drop’ attached. A more typical specimen was recovered from a Byzantine context in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:283–284, Fig. 12.6:102). This widespread type is found in contexts from the third century onward; for example, several originated in tombs at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem, dated to the third–fourth centuries (Bagatti and Milik 1958: Photographs 122:12, left; 124:1–6; Spaer 1988:54–55). Monochrome bracelets with tooled decoration (Fig. 6.4:15–17), known mainly from the third–seventh centuries, are predominant in the pre-Islamic periods (Spaer 1988:55; 2001:194). The vertically ribbed examples in Fig. 6.4:15, 16 represent the most commonly employed tooled decoration (Spaer 1988:55–56, Types B2a, B2c). Ribbed bracelets of Spaer’s Type B2a, usually with dense ribbing but also with spaced ribs as in Fig. 6.4:15, date mainly to the third–fourth centuries (Spaer 1988:56). Another bracelet with spaced ribs was retrieved from a Byzantine context in Area M1 (Gutreich 2013:279, Fig. 12.5:82). A complete bracelet of this type was found in a tomb at Gezer (Macalister 1912: Pl. CIX:20), and an example from Jalame was dated to the fourth–fifth centuries (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:229, Fig. 8-2:11). Bracelets of Spaer’s Type B2c, as in Fig. 6.4:16, are characterized by ribbing set within narrow borders (Spaer 1988:55–56). A possible parallel was found on the surface at Jalame and dated to the fourth–fifth centuries (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:229, Fig. 8-2:12). A complete example can be seen in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem (Spaer 1988:56, Fig. 4). The bracelet in Fig. 6.4:17, found on a floor together with that in Fig. 6.4:15, has a tooled decoration of round depressions. To the best of my knowledge, no parallel to this bracelet has yet been published.

Summary and Discussion Based on the finds retrieved from the well-stratified loci of Stratum V, the Byzantine glass assemblage from the Givati Parking Lot site is comprised mainly of common types of bowls, bowl-shaped oil lamps, beakers, wineglasses and bottles. Some of the types are characteristic of the Late Roman–early Byzantine period (fourth–fifth centuries); these include, for example, vessels with trail-wound bases (Figs. 6.1:5; 6.4:4), beakers with a solid disk base (Fig. 6.1:7) and plain and decorated bottles with a funnel-shaped mouth (Fig. 6.2:9, 10, 14). Other types in the assemblage are characteristic of the Byzantine period (fifth–seventh centuries) and often continued in use into the Early Islamic period; these include, for example, the footed wineglasses (Figs. 6.1:11; 6.4:5, 6) and the most common types of bowl-shaped oil lamps (Figs. 6.1:12–15; 6.4:7).

217

CHAPTER 6: THE BYZANTINE GLASS

The Byzantine Stratum V was further divided into three stratigraphic phases (VA– VC; see Chapter 2). The distribution of the above-mentioned types within these phases corresponds well with their accepted dating (Fig. 6.5). While most of the fragments representing the earlier vessel types originated in the early Phase VC (fourth–fifth centuries), the later Byzantine types are more common in Phase VA (sixth–seventh centuries), and some of these are also represented in the Umayyad assemblage of Stratum IV (e.g., footed wineglasses and bowl-shaped oil lamps; see Chapter 15: Fig. 15.1:7–14; Table 15.1).

100% 90%

2

3

3

80% 70%

1 5

16

60% 10

50%

Phase VB

40% 30% 20%

Phase VA

Phase VB–C Phase VC

6

10%

6

4

Solid disk bases

Bottles with funnel-shaped mouth

0% Trail-wound bases

Early Types

Phase V

100% 90% 80%

15

8

70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

1 3 4

7

8

20% 10% 0%

5 5 Footed wineglasses

Bowl-shaped oil lamps

Late Types Fig. 6.5. Distribution of early and late Byzantine types in Phases VC–VA (Number of items marked in columns).

218

DORIT GUTREICH

R eferences 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. Bagatti B. and Milik J.T. 1958. Gli scavi del “Dominus Flevit” (Monte Oliveto—Gerusalemme) I: La necropoli del periodo romano (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 13). Jerusalem. Barag D. 1967. The Glass. In M.W. Prausnitz ed. Excavations at Shavei-Zion: The Early Christian Church (Monografie di archeologia e d’arte II). Rome. Pp. 65–70. Cohen E. 1997. Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad Glass. In Y. Hirschfeld. The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader: Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 396–431. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2000. The Glass Vessels from Khirbet Ṭabaliya (Giv‘at Hamaṭos). ‘Atiqot 40:81*– 95* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 165–166). Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002. Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika, 1991, 1993: The Glass Vessels. In Z. Gal ed. Eretz Zafon, Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 288–321 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 186*–187*). Gorin-Rosen Y. 2005. The Glass. In B. Arubas and H. Goldfus eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’Uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Suppl. S. 60). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 195–210. Gorin-Rosen Y. and Katsnelson N. 2007. Local Glass Production in the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Periods in Light of the Glass Finds From Khirbat el-Ni‘ana, ‘Atiqot 57:73–154. Gorin-Rosen Y. and Winter T. 2010. Selected Insights into Byzantine Glass in the Holy Land. In J. Drauschke and D. Keller eds. Glass in Byzantium: Production, Usage, Analyses (International Workshop Organised by the Byzantine Archaeology Mainz, 17th–18th of January 2008) (Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Tagungen 8). Mainz. Pp. 165–181. Gutreich D. 2013. The Glass Finds. In Giv‘ati I. Pp. 265–289. 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. 367–418. Katsnelson N. 1999. Glass Vessels from the Painted Tomb at Migdal Ashqelon. ‘Atiqot 37:67*–82*. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909 III. London. Meyer C. 1988. Glass from the North Theater Byzantine Church, and Soundings at Jerash, Jordan, 1982–1983. In W.E. Rast ed. Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1982–85 (BASOR Suppl. 25). Baltimore. Pp. 175–222. Spaer M. 1988. The Pre-Islamic Glass Bracelets of Palestine. JGS 30:51–61. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects (Israel Museum Catalogue 447). Jerusalem. Weinberg G.D. and Goldstein S.M. 1988. The Glass Vessels. In G.D. Weinberg ed. Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine. Columbia, Mo. Pp. 38–102.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 7

Liturgical Furniture David Tanami and Yana Tchekhanovets

Introduction Over 2000 fragments of marble architectural décor were discovered at the site, most of them simple slabs of different colors, types and sizes (see Chapter 24). In this large marble assemblage, 38 fragments can be attributed to the category of liturgical furniture dated to the Byzantine period. As with other marble finds, these elements of marble church décor were prefabricated and imported into Palestine from known quarrying sites located mainly in Asia Minor and Greece (Castagnino Berlinghieri and Paribeni 2011). The marble fragments of liturgical furniture are presented here in catalogue form, divided into groups according to their original purpose, and numbered consecutively in Figs. 7.1–7.7. Most of the finds belong to various types of chancel-screen panels (Nos. 1–28) decorated in high relief or openwork; a fragment of a chancel-screen post (No. 29) and colonnettes (Nos. 30–34) were also found. The catalogue also includes parts of decorated wall revetments (Nos. 35, 36), and fragments of thin marble slabs, most probably reliquary lids (Nos. 37, 38). All the fragments, except one, were produced of white and various shades of pale gray Proconnesian marble; one panel was made of local limestone (Arabic: mizzi aḥmar; No. 31). The catalogue entries provide the provenance: stratum, locus no., basket no., archaeological context; state of preservation; description, including height (H), width (W), thickness (Th) and diameter (D), when relevant; and parallels. Most of the finds are fragmentary, but can still be easily reconstructed based on the numerous parallels discovered in situ, in their ecclesiastic architectural contexts, at Byzantine sites in the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia. As the decorative repertoire of Byzantine liturgical furniture is well known, only a few parallels are cited here. We also present possible reconstructions of the various decorative patterns of the chancel-screen panels based on the known finds (Figs. 7.8–7.13).

Catalogue Chancel Screens (Figs. 7.1–7.5:29) No. 1. Corner Fragment of a Panel Stratum III, L1554, B17678, Abbasid pit. H 26 cm, W 18 cm, Th 7.5 cm; on the side is a narrow ledge (Th 3 cm) used to stabilize the slab in the chancel-post recess; bifacial carving: quadruple surrounding molding on the front, double on the back; well-polished; remains of plaster in the grooves. Parallels: Caesarea Maritima (Talgam, Shadmi and Patrich 2012: Fig. 18).

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

221

upon ivy tendrils (Habas 1994:60–71, 90–93); smooth on the front, chisel marks on the back; burnt (for proposed reconstruction, see Figs. 7.8, 7.9). Parallels: Temple Mount (Peleg 2003: Pl. I:7); Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: No. 131); Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XIX:5); Petra (Kannellopoulos and Schick 2001: Fig. 5). No. 4. Fragment of a Panel Decorated with a Cross in a Wreath Strata IIB–I, W1103, B15361, incorporated into Abbasid wall. Two joining fragments, combined H 30 cm, W 21.5 cm, Th 5 cm; high relief; part of the central element of the composition; preserved are three arms of a cross with a stylized floral element between them, surrounded by a laurel wreath comprised of three groups of pointed leaves, four leaves in each; only the beginning of the third group can be seen; an ovolo above connects the ends; chisel marks on the back, remains of plaster in the grooves (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.8). Parallels: Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XIX:5); Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Fig. 11). No. 5. Fragment Decorated with a Wreath Stratum III, L3833, Abbasid pit. H 25.5 cm, W 14 cm, Th 7 cm; similar to No. 4, but smaller; high relief; wreath comprises of groups of three leaves arranged according to the more common pattern (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.8). Parallels: St. Peter in Gallicantu (Germer-Durand 1914: Pl. VI:5); Tyropoeon Valley (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: Pl. XVIII:13); Temple Mount (Peleg 2003: Pl. I.21); Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 125–127, 129). No. 6. Fragment Decorated with a Tendril Stratum III, L1763, B22660, Abbasid pit. H 15 cm, W 24 cm, Th 5 cm; high relief; can be reconstructed as part of a central composition with a cross in a laurel wreath and hanging ribbons and ivy tendrils (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.9). Parallels: Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: No. 125); Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: Pl. X:46). No. 7. Fragment Decorated with a Shell Strata V–III, L2414, B37167, Byzantine–Early Islamic fill. H 19.8 cm, W 6 cm, Th 5 cm; high relief; part of a composition including a shell in a radial arrangement as a central element, of which two lobes are visible; well polished on both sides (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.9). Parallels: Temple Mount (Peleg 2003: Pl. I.25:6); Mount Berenice (Habas and Amir 2004: Fig. 12.1:4, 6, 8); Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 132–134); Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Figs. 53, 54). No. 8. Fragment Decorated with Calvary Hill Strata V–III, L1903, B25327, Byzantine–Early Islamic fill.

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

223

No. 9. Lower Part of a Panel with Openwork Decoration Stratum I, L1724, B22438, late Abbasid fill above floor. H 17.5 cm, W 13.5, max. Th 6 cm; the wide, lower margin is broken; molding on both sides; the slab narrows upward; beginning of a lattice work is visible in the upper part; well polished; remains of plaster in the grooves. Parallels: Pella (Smith and Day 1989: Fig. 34); Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Fig. 31, ambo decoration panel). No. 10. Fragment of an Openwork Decoration with a Large Cross Stratum II, L2253, B33533, Abbasid fill. H 9 cm, W 7.5 cm, Th 2.5 cm; one arm of the cross preserved, with a thin grooved line in the middle and a drilled hole at the connection of the upper cross arm and the surrounding relief decoration; chisel marks on the back; probably part of an openwork lattice screen with large crosses within interlacing circles (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.11). Parallels: Beit Ras–Capitolias (Piccirillo 1981: Photo 29); Nessana (Colt 1962: Pl. XVIII:2). No. 11. Fragment of an Openwork Decoration with a Small Cross B15171, balk. H 6 cm, W 3.5 cm, Th 2 cm; similar to No. 10, but the cross is smaller; one arm and the center of the cross are preserved; thin grooved lines in the middle of the arms on both front and back; burnt; probably part of an openwork screen with small crosses within interlacing circles (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.12). Parallels: Tyropoeon Valley (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: Pl. XVIII:29, almost identical cross fragment described as made of limestone); Beit Ras–Capitolias (Piccirillo 1981: Photo 29); Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Figs. 15, 17; Lehtinen 2008: Fig. 5:1). The following nine fragments (Nos. 12–20) are parts of lattice-screen panels with geometric decoration of interlacing circles of fine texture. Each element bears carved central grooves and drilled holes. Based on the type of marble, the thickness of the fragments and the depth of the grooves, these can be identified as belonging to six different panels. Parallels: St. Peter in Gallicantu (Germer-Durand 1914: Pl. VI:2); Ḥorbat Karkur ‘Illit (Monelli 2004: Fig.13:2); Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Figs. 15, 17). No. 12. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum II, L3648, B56458, Abbasid fill; Strata VII–VI, L2579, B42450, disturbed fill. Two joining fragments, combined H 8 cm, combined W 13.5 cm, Th 2 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back; traces of red paint are visible. The phenomenon of painted marble decoration is reported from the church at Ḥorbat Ḥesheq (Aviam 1993:59–60). No. 13. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum III, L2375, B35747, Abbasid fill. H 7.5 cm, W 5.5 cm, Th 3 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back.

224

DAVID TANAMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

No. 14. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum V, L2299, B37465, Byzantine fill. H 7 cm, W 3 cm, Th 2.5 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back; belongs to the same screen as No. 15. No. 15. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Strata V–III, L2348, B38180, Byzantine–Early Islamic fill. H 9 cm, W 3 cm, Th 2.5 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back; belongs to the same screen as No. 14.

14 13

12

17 16 15

18

20

19 0

4

Fig. 7.3. Fragments of chancel-screen panels with geometric openwork decoration.

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

225

No. 16. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration B46337, surface. H 9 cm, W 6.8 cm, Th 3 cm; shallow grooves on the front, roughly worked on the back; burnt. No. 17. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum IIB, L2259, B34843, Abbasid fill above floor. H 6.5 cm, W 3.8 cm, Th 2.5 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back; belongs to the same screen as No. 18. No. 18. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Strata V–III, L2420, B38017, Byzantine–Early Islamic fill. H 5 cm, W 4.5 cm, Th 2.2 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back; belongs to the same screen as No. 17. No. 19. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum III, L2379, B38893, Abbasid pit. H 6.5 cm, W 5 cm, Th 2.2 cm; grooves on the front, chisel marks on the back; belongs to the same screen as No. 20. No. 20. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration B38540, balk. H 5 cm, W 6 cm, Th 2 cm; grooves on the front side, chisel marks on the back; belongs to the same screen as No. 19. The following seven fragments (Nos. 21–27) belong to screen panels decorated with plain geometric openwork with no grooves, in a repetitive, imbricated pattern. Based on the type of marble and the thickness of the fragments, these can be identified as belonging to five different panels (for a proposed reconstruction, see Fig. 7.13). Parallels: Caesarea Maritima (Peleg and Reich 1992: Fig. 23:9); Pella (Smith and Day 1989: Fig. 35). No. 21. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum II, W3007, B103206, Abbasid wall. H 16 cm, W 36 cm, Th 7 cm in the lower part, 3.4 cm in the relief; large fragment of lower part of a chancel screen; molding; beginning of the open relief imbrication pattern can be seen at the top; well polished on both faces; numerous scratches, signs of red paint; burnt. No. 22. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum IIB, L2306, B37528; L2284, B34196, Abbasid fills. Two joining fragments, combined H 12 cm, combined W 14 cm, Th 3.8 cm; well polished on both sides.

226

DAVID TANAMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

No. 23. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum II, W1402, B36005, incorporated into Abbasid wall. H 10.5 cm, W 7 cm, Th 3.5 cm; both sides are well polished.

21 0

4

24

22

25

23

26

27

28 0

4

Fig. 7.4. Fragments of chancel-screen panels with plain, geometric, openwork decoration.

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

227

No. 24. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum III, L2349, B36347, Abbasid fill. H 8.5 cm, W 6.5 cm, Th 4.5 cm; well polished on both sides; belongs to the same screen as No. 25. No. 25. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Strata III–II, L2312, B36074, Abbasid fill. H 8 cm, W 4 cm, Th 4.5 cm; well polished on both sides; belongs to the same screen as No. 24. No. 26. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum II, W1409, B37537, incorporated into Abbasid wall. H 6.3 cm, W 2.8 cm, Th 3 cm; well polished on both sides; belongs to the same screen as No. 27. No. 27. Fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum V, L3756, B58089, Byzantine fill. H 8.2 cm, W 8 cm, Th 3 cm; well polished on both sides; belongs to the same screen as No. 26. No. 28. Limestone fragment with Geometric Openwork Decoration Stratum III, L3703, B57644, Abbasid fill. H 7 cm, W 11 cm, Th 3 cm; the only locally produced artifact in the assemblage; belongs to a lattice-screen panel, similar to Nos. 12–20, copying imported marble work but made of hard, brownish-violet mizzi aḥmar limestone; deep chiseled grooves on both front and back. Limestone liturgical furniture as a local replacement for expensive imported marble is well known in Byzantine Palestine (see Patrich 1988:97; Habas 2009). No. 29. Chancel-Screen Post Fragment Strata V–III, L2326, B34941, Byzantine–Early Islamic fill. Max. H 11 cm, W 17 cm, Th 10.2 cm; central part of a post, roughly broken; rectangular in section; well polished on all sides; front side (Fig. 7.5:29a) is decorated with molded rectangular field, very common in the Byzantine period (Habas 2009:101); right side is plain, left side (Fig. 7.5.29b) is grooved to hold the screen panel, 3 cm wide and 3 cm deep. Parallels: Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 97, 98); Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: Pl. X:48, 49). Colonnettes (Fig. 7.5:30–34) Five fragments belong to small colonnettes, probably used in the upper section of chancel screens or as altar-slab supports. No. 30. Fragment of a Colonnette Shaft Stratum IIB, L1636, B18896, Abbasid floor; Stratum II, L1825, B23690, Abbasid fill.

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

229

Two joining fragments, combined H 32 cm, max. D 13 cm; surface scratches; burned. Parallels: St. Peter in Gallicantu (Germer-Durand 1914: Pl. VI:1); Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 16–19). No. 31. Fragment of a Colonnette Shaft Strata V–III, L1903, B25152, Byzantine–Early Islamic fill. H 23 cm, max. D 11 cm; burnt. Parallels: St. Peter in Gallicantu (Germer-Durand 1914: Pl. VI:1); Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 16–19). No. 32. Fragment of a Colonnette Shaft Stratum IV, L1838, B23876, fill inside Umayyad limekiln. H 19 cm, max. D 12.5 cm; shaft fragment; burnt; possibly a tapered colonnette or baluster. Parallels: Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 32, 33, 37, 39, 50, 51). No. 33. Fragment of a Colonnette Capital. Modern, L6054, B101195, Kenyon fill. H 11 cm, D c. 8 cm; capital fragment of an altar table leg decorated with schematic lotusleaf pattern, preserved on two sides; on the bottom is a hole for connection to the shaft, D 1.1 cm, inner D 0.5 cm; burnt. Parallels: Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: Nos. 26, 27); Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: Fig. 23; Lehtinen 2008: Fig. 8:10). No. 34. Fragment of a Colonnette Capital Modern, L6011, B100195, primary fill. H 10.3, D c. 10 cm; similar to No. 33, but shape and size of leaves are slightly different; plastered. Parallels: Mount Nebo (Acconci 1998: No. 28). Varia (Figs. 7.6, 7.7) No. 35. Slab with Relief Decoration Stratum II, W1126, B16047, balk under Abbasid wall. H 8.5 cm, W 7.5 cm, Th 1.8 cm; thin slab, broken on all sides; carved decoration of a hand–– of which four fingers are preserved––holding an elongated object, possibly a scroll. In early Christian iconography, a scroll is often depicted in the hands of the evangelists or of Christ himself, who holds a closed scroll in his left hand and blesses with his right (Weitzmann 1979: Nos. 372, 373, 399, 405–407, 474–476). Depictions of private people holding scrolls are known in the Roman tradition and continued in Byzantine art (Weitzmann 1979: Nos. 371, 393). The slab is too thin to have been used as a gravestone or a sarcophagus, therefore it was probably part of a wall revetment.

230

DAVID TANAMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

No. 36. Fragment with Relief Decoration Stratum II, L2257, B38218, Abbasid fill above floor. H 7 cm, W 6.6 cm, Th 2.3 cm; shallow carving of a flower; well polished on both sides; based on close parallels, this fragment can be reconstructed as part of a composition with medallions of vine scrolls, each containing stylized flowers, leaves and grapes. Parallels: Reḥovot-in-the-Negev (Patrich 1988: Pl. VIII:31, limestone); Ḥorbat Karkur ‘Illit (Monelli 2004: Fig. 12:13–15).

36

35 0

4

Fig. 7.6. Slabs with relief decoration.

No. 37. Fragment of a Reliquary Lid with a Cross Stratum V, L2418, B37202, Byzantine fill between Byzantine floor and Abbasid floor. H 12 cm, W 12.5 cm, Th 2 cm; reliquary lid decorated with a cross on the top (see Compte 2012: Type II); broken on three sides, original form can be reconstructed as rectangular; well polished on front, roughly chiseled on back; the center and two arms of the cross are preserved, carved in shallow relief; the inner surface of the arms is finely chiseled; the cross was probably originally inlaid with metal, bone or precious wood (see Piccirillo 1993: Figs. 18, 19, a complete reliquary with a preserved metal cross from Umm al-Rasas); a shallow drilled hole beside the upper cross arm, and a similar hole can be reconstructed on the other side of the arm, probably to facilitate the opening of the reliquary; graffiti of eight small crosses incised on the corner of the artifact between the arms of the cross were most likely made by worshipers. Parallels: St. Peter in Gallicantu (Germer-Durand 1914: Pl. VII:1, an almost-identical object made of colored marble). No. 38. Fragment of a Lid Stratum II, W1402, B48683, Abbasid wall. H 9.8 cm, W 6 cm, Th 2 cm; probably of a reliquary; broken on three sides, original form can be reconstructed as rectangular; both sides flat and well polished; remains of an intentionally made perforation, D 0.6 cm, on one side, probably located in the center of the marble lid; the opposite edge is delicately worked, rectangular in section.

232

DAVID TANAMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

Fig. 7.9. Shell in a wreath: reconstruction of a decorated chancel-screen panel.

Fig. 7.10. Calvary Hill: reconstruction of a decorated chancel-screen panel.

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

Fig. 7.11. Open relief decoration with large crosses: reconstruction of a chancel-screen panel.

Fig. 7.12. Open relief decoration with small crosses: reconstruction of a chancel-screen panel.

233

234

DAVID TANAMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

Fig. 7.13. Plain, geometric, open relief decoration: reconstruction of chancel-screen panel.

Summary While the marble fragments described here were found in secondary contexts, there is no doubt that they were originally used in churches (Habas 2013). A number of churches are known from the historical sources to have been located in the immediate proximity of the Givati site: a church by the Siloam Pool, churches located on Mount Zion (Holy Zion, Penitence of St. Peter and the Nea Chruch), and Pretoria church near the Temple Mount. In addition, numerous ecclesiastic complexes were erected on the slopes of the Mount of Olives (for discussion, see Tsafrir 1999a, 1999b; Voltaggio 2011), some of which have been discovered in archaeological excavations (Bliss and Dickie 1898: Pl. XVIII; Germer-Durand 1914; Mazar 2003:3–67; Gutfeld 2012). It should be stressed that most of the excavated churches were discovered lacking their architectural décor, which had most probably been stripped and reused in later periods. The typological variety of the fragments of marble liturgical furniture described above indicates that they originated in several different structures, and were later deposited in totally haphazard contexts; thus, their original location cannot be established (Raptis and Vassiliadou 2012–2013). The majority of these elements were retrieved in strata of the Abbasid period (Strata III–I), some were used as raw material in a limekiln dated to the Umayyad period, incorporated in later walls, or simply discarded; only two fragments were discovered in Byzantine fills of Stratum V. In some cases, joining fragments were found far from each other, and at different elevations (for discussion of marble spolia, see Chapter 24).

CHAPTER 7: LITURGICAL FURNITURE

235

R eferences Acconci A. 1998. Elements of the Liturgical Furniture. In M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata. Mount Nebo: New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (SBF Collectio Maior 27). Jerusalem. Pp. 468– 542. Aviam M. 1993. Ḥorvat Ḥesheq: A Church in Upper Galilee. In Y. Tsafrir ed. Ancient Churches Revealed. Jerusalem. Pp. 54–65. Bliss F.J. and Dickie A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Castagnino Berlinghieri E.F. and Paribeni A. 2011. Byzantine Merchant Ships and Marble Trade: New Data from the Central Mediterranean. Skyllis 11/1:64–75. Colt H.D. ed. 1962. Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) I. London. Compte M.-C. 2012. Les reliquaires du Proche-Orient et de Chypre à la période protobyzantine (IVe–VIIIe siècles): Formes, emplacements, fonctions et cultes (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive 20). Turnhout. Crowfoot J.W. and Fitzgerald G.M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (PEFA V). London. Germer-Durand J. 1914. La maison de Caïphe et l’église Saint-Pierre à Jérusalem. RB 23:71–94, 226–246. Gutfeld O. 2012. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T); Final Report. Jerusalem. Habas L. 1994. The Relief Art of Chancel Screens in Churches and Synagogues in Palestine in the Byzantine Period: A Stylistic and Iconographic Study. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Habas L. 1999. The Marble Furniture. In Y. Hirschfeld. The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987 (Qedem 38). Jerusalem. Pp. 119– 132. Habas L. 2009. The Art of Imported Marble Chancel Screens and Its Influence on Local Production in the Churches of the Provinces of Palaestina and Arabia: A Case Study. In H. Oniz ed. SOMA 2008 (Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5–8 March 2008) (BAR Int. S. 1909). Oxford. Pp. 100–108. Habas L. 2013. Contribution of Archaeological Finds from Jerusalem to the Dating of the Destruction of Christian Symbols during the Islamic Period. In G.D. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami, S. Weksler-Bdolah and Y. Gadot eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region. Collected Papers 7. Jerusalem. Pp. 61–81 (Hebrew). Habas L. and Amir R. 2004. Marble Finds from the Church. In Y. Hirschfeld. Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994 (IAA Reports 22). Jerusalem. Pp. 191–208. Kanellopoulos C. and Schick R. 2001. Marble Furnishings of the Apses and the Bema, Phase V. In Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski and R. Schick. The Petra Church (ACOR Publications 3). Amman. Pp. 193–213. Lehtinen A. 2008. Marble Furnishings and Decoration. In Z.T. Fiema and J. Frösén. Petra—The Mountain of Aaron I: The Church and the Chapel. Helsinki. Pp. 187–233.

236

DAVID TANAMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

Mazar E. 2003. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Monelli A. 2004. Marble Fragments and Chancel Screens. In P. Figueras ed. Ḥorvat Karkur ‘Illit: A Byzantine Cemetery Church in the Northern Negev (Final Report of the Excavations 1989– 1995) (Beer-Sheva XVI). Beʼer Sheva‘. Pp. 88–108. Patrich J. 1988. Architectural Sculpture and Stone Objects. In Y. Tsafrir ed. Excavations at Rehovotin-the-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25). Jerusalem. Pp. 97–133. Peleg O. 2003. Decorated Chancel Screen Panels and Posts from the Temple Mount Excavations. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 135–152. Peleg M. and Reich R. 1992. Excavations of a Segment of the Byzantine City Wall of Caesarea Maritima. ‘Atiqot 21:137–170. Piccirillo M. 1981. Chiese e mosaici della Giordania Settentrionale. Jerusalem. Piccirillo M. 1993. La chiesa del pretre Wa’il a Umm al-Rasas-Kastron Mefaa in Giordania. In F. Manns and E. Alliata eds. Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents (SBF Collectio Maior 38). Jerusalem. Pp. 313–334. Raptis K.T. and Vassiliadou S.T. 2012–2013. Remarks and Thoughts about the Provenance of the Spolia Used in Hamza Bey Mosque in Thessaloniki, and Their Arrangement in the Ottoman Peristyle. Byzantiaka 30:267–278. Smith R.H and Day L.P. 1989. Pella of the Decapolis 2: Final Report on The College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, The Civic Complex, 1979–1985. Wooster. Talgam R., Shadmi T. and Patrich J. 2012. The Vine-Trees Mosaic from Caesarea Maritima and Its Architectural and Archaeological Context. In L.D. Chrupcała ed. Christ is Here! Studies in Biblical and Christian Archaeology in Memory of Michele Piccirillo, OFM (SBF Collectio Maior 52). Milan. Pp. 77–104. Tsafrir Y. 1999a. The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map. In M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata eds. The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997: Travelling through the Byzantine Umayyad Period (Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Amman, 7–9 April 1997) (SBF Collectio Maior 40). Jerusalem. Pp. 155–163. Tsafrir Y. 1999b. The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. In Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai eds. The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 CE). Jerusalem. Pp. 281–351 (Hebrew). Voltaggio M. 2011. Lo sviluppo urbanistico di Gerusalemme tra IV e VII secolo. LA 61:413–451. Weitzmann K. 1979. Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. (Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, November 19, 1977, through February 12, 1978). New York.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 8

A Miniature Icon Diptych Yana Tchekhanovets

A miniature box carved of bone and decorated with an icon diptych was discovered on the sidewalk of Byzantine Street 1886, in a well-stratified context of Stratum V, Phase VA (sixth–seventh centuries), upon the latest of a series of white-plaster floors (L1809, B24010; see Chapter 2). The ceramic finds associated with Floor 1809 are characteristic of the Late Byzantine period, including fragments of Fine Byzantine Ware bowls and archedrim basins (see Chapter 3: Fig. 3.16). The box is complete, made of two thin, flat, rectangular parts comprising the lid and body, carved from a metapodial bone of a large herbivore––a calf, camel or horse (Fig. 8.1).1 The sliding lid is decorated on its upper surface with an engraved cross, each arm with a trifold ending, delineated by a simple double frame (Fig. 8.2). Except for this engraving, there are no other decorations on the outer surface of the box. The underside of the lid is equipped with a protruding frame that fits into recessions in the upper surface of the body. When closed, the box is 2.2 cm long, 1.6 cm wide and only 0.2 cm thick. The inner panels of both the lid and the body are decorated with miniature paintings on a gold background. The painting on the inside of the lid is badly damaged, but the general contour of a figure, probably female, is discernible wearing a blue garment (Fig. 8.3). While the face of the figure has not survived, the dark hair (or shawl), chin, neck and part of the left shoulder are preserved. The painting on the inner panel of the box body is in a better state of preservation, and clearly depicts a male with dark hair and a beard, wearing a white tunica with a purple stripe––a clavus––extending down from his right shoulder (Fig. 8.4).

0

1

Fig. 8.1. Miniature bone box with an icon diptych.

Thanks are due to Ariel Shatil of the IAA for identification of the bone type.

1

238

YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

1

2

0

1

Fig. 8.2. Miniature bone box: lid and bottom.

0

1

Fig. 8.3. Female figure painted on the inner side of the box lid.

0

1

Fig. 8.4. Male figure painted on the inner side of the box body.

CHAPTER 8: A MINIATURE ICON DIPTYCH

239

To date, two similar icon boxes are known. A bone lid decorated with a carved cross, identical to the object here, was discovered in Gerasa, Jordan, although the inner side of the lid bears no traces of painting (Ball et al. 1986: Fig. 6:11; Reg. No. J 481, interpreted as a simple bone find). The Gerasa lid was discovered in a similar archaeological context, in a public structure located on the corner of the Cardo and the Decumanus, within a construction fill dated to the end of the sixth–beginning of the seventh centuries, when civil activities were in decline at Gerasa (Pamela Watson, University of New England, Australia, pers. comm. 2010). Another box with an icon diptych is located in the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF) Collection in Jerusalem.2 This item is complete and almost identical to the object under discussion. It measures 1.9 cm long, 1.5 cm wide and 0.2 cm thick, the lid is adorned with an engraved cross in a double frame, and its inner panels preserve the remains of two badly damaged images on a gold background.3 Examples of early Byzantine painting from the Holy Land are extremely rare, and include the few earliest encaustic icons from the collection of St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai, probably originating in Jerusalem (Weitzmann 1976: Cat. Nos. B 10, B 11); a reliquary from Sancta Sanctorum in the Vatican (Lauer 1906:97–99; Weitzmann 1974; O’Connor 2013); and the altar cross icons from the northern church in Reḥovot-in-the Negev, painted on glass (Tsafrir 1988). The climatic conditions in the Jerusalem region are not favorable for the preservation of ancient paintings; therefore, the significance of the rare find discussed here cannot be overestimated. The analysis of the paintings on the miniature box, conducted by Inna Popova and Vitaly Gudkin (Appendix 8.1), testifies that most of the pigments used by the ancient artist were based on lead acetate, the white cerussa well known in the ancient world (Vitruvius, De architectura VII, 12.1; Pliny, NH XXXIV, 54. 175–177; XXXV, 19.37). This lead component was used to paint the face and the white tunica of the male figure, with the addition of an iron-containing mineral to achieve the blue color of the female figure’s dress. The red pigment used for the clavus stripe was probably sandaraca, produced from red lead oxide (Vitruvius, De architectura VII, 7.5; Pliny, NH XXXIV, 55.177; XXXV, 12.30, 22.39). The utilization of stable lead components probably ensured the preservation of the painted layer (Fedoseeva 1999:47). The brown pigment used for the hair was probably made from ocherous earth containing iron oxide. The non-destructive analysis did not allow the tracing of organic components in the pigments and binding materials, which in ancient painting could have been either beeswax or eggs. The laboratory analysis also provided

Thanks are due to Fr. Eugenio Alliata of SBF for his kind permission to study the box and the relevant documentation, and to Galit Noga-Banai of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who directed our attention to this item. 2

It was part of a private endowment collected by Fr. Godfrey Kloetzle, OFM (Kloetzle Catalogue, Vol. 3B:419, No. 4228). The provenance of the object is unknown; however, it was published twice, with different notes: by Piccirillo 1993:285, Ill. 529, as ‘found at Gerasa’, and by D’Onofrio 1999: Cat. No. 96, as ‘property of SBF, Jerusalem’. 3

240

YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

important data regarding the gilding technique used by the box artist: when the painting was complete, the empty background behind the figures was gilded with extremely thin gold leaf. While any attempt to identify the poorly preserved images depicted inside the box is mere speculation, some suggestions may be raised. As the diptych depicts male and female figures, it is tempting to suggest they represent Christ and Virgin Mary. A close iconographic parallel for the male image appears on an encaustic icon in the collection of St. Catherine’s Monastery, dated to the sixth century (Weitzmann 1976: Cat. No. B 6), commonly identified as Christ Pantocrator, despite the absence of a nimbus behind his head (for discussion, see Dalton 1921:82–83; Collinet-Guerin 1961). In this regard, it is important to note that a gold background was often used in Byzantine art as a substitute for the nimbus, as a reflection of the ‘celestial light’ (Averincev 1979; Janes 1998). Other identifications of the couple are possible, as during the sixth–seventh centuries the number of saints worshiped in the Christian world reached many hundreds, and each one of them could receive his own artistic representation. Thus, for example, an Oxyrynchus papyrus dated to the seventh–eighth centuries mentions “two small icons of St. Colluthus and the Theotokos, partly and wholly gilded” (P. Oxy. XVI 1925:6–8). A Christian cultic designation of the object is indubitable, although due to its size and physical characteristics, it is clearly not a reliquary. The two parts of the box, when closed hermetically, leave no space for the tiniest relic. It is more conceivable that this object be identified as a variation of a private ‘phylakterion icon’, worn as an amulet (Vikan 1995:574–576). The closed box would have been carried by its owner and, when necessary, opened and converted into a private tabernacle. As early as the fourth century, historical sources testify to the use of icons in nonecclesiastic contexts (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., c. 26, PG 82, col. 1473 A). In the time of Justinian, evidence for the cult of images dramatically increased (Kitzinger 1954:95–98, and references therein; Grabar 1957:77–91; Cameron 1979; Marsengill 2012:65), and among the variations are also portable icons. Thus, some of the icons from St. Catherine’s Monastery were equipped with lids to protect the pictures during travel (Weitzmann 1974:45). The use of miniature, portable folded icon diptychs and triptychs, especially on voyages, remains a popular devotional practice among modern Christians, especially in the East. As the box from Givati shows no evidence of hanging, it was probably carried in a textile bag or pouch worn by the owner. Such bags intended to protect holy relics are preserved in some European church treasuries, all dated by their textile to no earlier than the Crusader period (Chartraire 1911: Nos. 29, 30, 53–59; Grönwoldt 1964: Nos 25, 28, 29, 32, 34, 37, 42). Earlier textile bags containing relics were unearthed in the excavations of a burial-cave complex at Moshchevaya Balka in the North Caucasus, dated to the eighth– ninth centuries (Ierusalimskaya 1982). The bags were discovered in situ, attached to the bodies: women wore them on the chest, men in their belts. The miniature diptych discovered in Jerusalem should be regarded as one of the earliest known examples of Christian art, as it definitely predates the Church Councils of Trullo (692 CE) and Nicaea (787 CE), with their first iconographic legalizations (Brubacker

CHAPTER 8: A MINIATURE ICON DIPTYCH

241

2006). Thus, the importance of its discovery in a well-stratified, archaeologically dated context cannot be overestimated. This small object of private devotion offers a glimpse into the Byzantine sacral world of the sixth–seventh centuries CE, not the one of official and pompous Christian church art, but rather that of the intimate religious practices of the individual walking the streets of Jerusalem.

R eferences Averincev S. 1979. L’or dans le système des symboles de la culture protobyzantine. Studi medievali 20:47–67. Ball W., Bowsher J., Kehrberg I., Walmsley A. and Watson P. 1986. The North Decumanus and North Tetrapylon at Jerash: An Archaeological and Architectural Report. In F. Zayadine ed. Jerash Archaeological Project 1981–1983 I. Amman. Pp. 351–409. Brubacker L. 2006. In the Beginning Was the Word: Art and Orthodoxy at the Councils of Trullo (692) and Nicaea II (787). In A. Louth and A. Casiday eds. Byzantine Orthodoxies (Papers from the Thirty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23–25 March 2002) (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 12). Aldershot. Pp. 95–101. Cameron A. 1979. Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium. Past and Present 84:3–35. Chartraire E. 1911. Les tissus anciens du trésor de la cathédrale de Sens. Paris. Collinet-Guérin M. 1961. Histoire du nimbe des origines aux temps modernes. Paris. Dalton O.M. 1921. A Guide to the Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities in the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities (2nd ed.). London. D’Onofrio M. ed. 1999. Romei e Giubilei: Il pellegrinaggio medievale a San Pietro (350–1350) (Catalogo della mostra, Roma, Palazzo Venezia, 29 ottobre 1999–26 febbraio 2000). Milan. Fedoseeva T.S. 1999. Materialy dlia restavratsii jivopisi i predmetov prikladnogo iskusstva (Materials for the Restoration of Paintings and Objects of Applied Art). Moscow (Russian). Grabar A. 1957. L’iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archéologique. Paris. Grönwoldt R. 1964. Textilien I: Weberein und Stickereien des Mittelalters (Bildkataloge des KestnerMuseums, Hannover VII). Hannover. Ierusalimskaya A. 1982. Meshochki dlia amuletov iz mogil’nika Moshchevaya Balka i khristianskie ‘ladanki’ (Amulet-Bags from the Moschchevaya Balka Cemetery and Christian Sachets). Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaja 47:52–53. Janes D. 1998. God and Gold in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. Kitzinger E. 1954. The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm. Dumbarton Oak Papers 8:83– 150. Lauer P. 1906. Le trésor du Sancta Sanctorum. Paris. Marsengill K. 2012. Portraits and Icons in Late Antiquity. In A. Lazaridou ed. Transition to Christianity: Art of Late Antiquity, 3rd–7th Century AD. New York. Pp. 61–66.

242

YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

O’Connor L. 2013. The Late Antique Wooden Reliquaries from the Chapel of the Sancta Sanctorum. Bollettino dei monumenti musei e gallerie pontificie 31:201–230. Piccirillo M.1993. The Mosaics of Jordan (ACOR Publications 1). Amman. Pliny the Elder. Natural History, Books XXVII–XXXII. W.H.S. Jones ed. and transl. (Loeb Classical Library 8). Cambridge 1963. P. Oxy: Oxyrhynchos Papyri XVI, 1925:http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00—0POxy— 00-0-0—0prompt-10—4—ded—0-1l—1-en-50—20-about-1708—00031-001-1-0utfZz-800&a=d&c=POxy&cl=CL5.1.2&d=HASHe1d56a58feba1a40b2cb83 (accessed 21.2.2018) Theodoret. Historia Ecclesiastica. L. Parmentier ed. (Die griechischen christlichen Schrifsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 19). Leipzig 1911. Tsafrir Y. 1988. Painted Glass Vessels. In Y. Tsafrir. Excavations at Rehovot-in-the Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25). Jerusalem. Pp. 142–149. Vikan G. 1995. Icons and Icon Piety in Early Byzantium. In C. Moss and K. Kiefer eds. Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann. Princeton, N.J. Pp. 569– 578. Vitruvius. De architectura, Books VI–X. F. Granger ed. and transl. (Loeb Classical Library 2). Cambridge 1962. Weitzmann K. 1974. ‘Loca Sancta’ and the Representational Arts of Palestine. DOP 28:31–55. Weitzmann K. 1976. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai; The Icons I: From the Sixth to the Tenth Centuries. Princeton, N.J.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Appendix 8.1: SEM-EDS Analysis of the Miniature Icon Diptych I nna Popov1 and Vitaly Gutkin1

The paintings on both parts of the box were analyzed non-destructively in an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) Quanta 200 (FEI Company) equipped with a detector for energy dispersive X-Ray spectroscopy (EDS), operated by EDAX Genesis Spectrum (EDAX Ametech). The microscope was operated in low vacuum mode at 0.38 Torr and at accelerating voltage 15–25 kV (Fig. 8.5). Imaging in secondary (SE) and back scattered electrons (BSE) was applied at the widest possible scanning area of the paintings to characterize morphology and distribution of chemical elements in the paintings. EDS analysis was used primarily for identification of elemental composition at different locations within the paintings. Standardless quantification procedure was conducted with EDAX Genesis Spectrum 3.51 to define the ratios between the major detected elements (Fig. 8.7). As a major part of the lid painting has been lost, most of the analyses were carried out on the male bust painted on the body. The SEM imaging data is discussed on the basis

Fig. 8.5. The box body mounted on the sample holder in the chamber of SEM Quanta 200.

The Unit for Nanocharacterization, the Harvey M. Krueger Family Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1

244

INNA POPOV AND VITALY GUTKIN

of signal strength: from the weakest (dark regions) to the strongest (brightest regions). As evident in Fig. 8.6:a and b, the regions of the male’s nose and chin appear dark in both SE and BSE images, indicating that they lie at a lower level and contain lighter-weight

a

b

c

Fig. 8.6. SEM images of the box paintings: (a) SE and (b)BSE images of a male face painted on the box body; (c) BSE image of a female face of the lid. Roman numbers indicate local positions analyzed with EDS (the EDS spectra are shown on Fig. 8.7). Black arrows pointed toward bright gold decoration.

APPENDIX 8.1: SEM-EDS ANALYSIS OF THE MINIATURE ICON DIPTYCH

245

elements than others within the field of view. The EDS spectrum acquired at a dark spot in the area of the nose (Fig. 8.7:I) contains strong characteristic X-Ray peaks of Ca, P and O. Such a peak set is typical of the mineral constituent of the bone mineral hydroxylapatite (Ca5(PO4)3(OH); http://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/ASBMRed/structure.html). The same EDS data was obtained for the dark central part of the lid painting. Thus, we can conclude that dark regions in the SEM images represent the mineral of the bone itself, i.e., the regions of complete exfoliation of the paint. Nevertheless, a few relatively wellpreserved paint remnants could be clearly recognized in the SEM images, and we focused our local analysis on the less-damaged area of the male face. As paint remnants appear brighter than bone mineral in both SE and BSE images, this confirms that topographically they are positioned on top of the bone, while chemically they are composed of heavier elements than those in the bone. EDS spectra acquired at the paint remnants labeled Regions II–VI (Fig. 8.7:II–VI) showed that the presence of lead was common to all the spectra. Quantitatively, lead reaches 40 wt% of the total elemental composition in Regions II, III and V. Lead was also detected in Regions IV (hair) and VI (clavus), although at a level of only a few percentages. Therefore, we conclude that the major mineral pigment used in the box paintings is a natural, lead-based compound, most probably cerussa (white lead ore), consisting of lead carbonate (PbCO3; http://www.mindat.org/min-934.html), which was widely used in the ancient world for white pigment (Vitruvius, De architectura VII, 12.1; Pliny, NH XXXIV, 54.175–177; XXXV, 19.37). In addition, iron was found in Regions IV, V and VI (Fig. 8.7:IV–VI). Iron is a ‘fingerprint component’ of ocher, one of the earliest pigments used by mankind, a natural mixture of iron oxides and hydroxides with clay mineral particles (http://www.mindat. org/min-2048.html) that can produce colors from yellowish-brown to strong red (http:// mindraw.web.ru/bibl15.htm). As Region IV is located in the area of the male’s brown hair, and Region VI is within the red clavus, we suggest that in both cases the ancient painter used an ocher pigment, although the pigments in Regions IV and VI were treated differently or procured from different sources. This proposition is based on the fact that the ratios between iron, aluminum, silicon and oxygen differ in these two regions (Fig. 8.7:IV, VI). On the other hand, the observed lead/iron ratio is much higher in Region VI (red clavus) than in Region IV (hair), which may indicate use of another lead-rich red pigment for the clavus, such as red lead or minium, a natural lead oxide (Pb3O4; http://www.mindat.org/ min-2721.html) favored by Byzantine artists. The origin of the bluish color observed around the male face (Fig. 8.6:a:V) could not be explained by the application of ochre, in spite of the presence of iron. A bluish color would probably be achieved with another iron-containing clay mineral, for example glauconite (http://www.mindat.org/min-1710.html), as the clay-forming elements aluminum, silicon and oxygen are all present in Region V in a sufficient amount. In the BSE images of both paintings, the regions of highest brightness are located mainly around the human faces (see arrows in Fig. 8.6:b, c). According to the EDS data, the brightest regions are composed of gold and silver with an approximate Au/Ag ratio of 9/1 (see inset to Fig. 8.8:c). As seen in Fig. 8.8, the bright gold decoration is not smooth, but is folded at a submillimeter scale (arrow in Fig. 8.8:b) and has a very specific, foam-

246

INNA POPOV AND VITALY GUTKIN

I

II

III

Fig. 8.7. EDS spectra at regions I–VI labeled on Fig. 8.6:a.

APPENDIX 8.1: SEM-EDS ANALYSIS OF THE MINIATURE ICON DIPTYCH

IV

V

VI

Fig. 8.7 (cont.).

247

APPENDIX 8.1: SEM-EDS ANALYSIS OF THE MINIATURE ICON DIPTYCH

249

R eference Forty A.J. 1979. Corrosion Micromorphology of Noble Metal Alloys and Depletion Gilding. Nature 282:597–598. Pliny the Elder. Natural History, Books XXVII–XXXII. W.H.S. Jones ed. and transl. (Loeb Classical Library 8). Cambridge 1963. Vitruvius. De architectura, Books VI–X. F. Granger ed. and transl. (Loeb Classical Library 2). Cambridge 1962.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 9

Pictorial Graffito on a Stone Plaque Ayala Zilberstein

Introduction A fragment of a chalk ossuary bearing a number of incised scenes was discovered in a fill in Room 1805 (B25068) of Byzantine Building 1821 (Stratum V; Figs. 9.1, 9.2). The maximum measurements of the irregularly shaped object are 29.0 × 22.5 cm. The etchings cover the entire surface of the plaque, and are almost completely preserved. One of the motifs, the lower snake, was incised on an area where the stone’s cortex had been chipped off. These features lead to the conclusion that the incisions were carried out after the ossuary was broken, and that this fragment served, at a later time, as a ‘drawing board’. Furthermore, all the etchings were made in one episode, as there is no evidence for superimposition. The fact that no plaster remnants or evidence of abrasion are discernible on the stone fragment indicates that it was not inlaid in a wall or pavement, but was a mobile object. The graffito was incised with a sharp, pointed tool (a nail?), and in some places drillings are visible. The sloppy style of the incisions attests to the work of an amateur rather than a professional artist. The scenes express one or more narratives. In the center of the composition (Fig. 9.2:1–4), a large vessel––a jar or amphora––is depicted (1) flanked by a pair of antithetical birds (2, 3). The vessel consists of a decorated, circular body and triangular-shaped base and neck. Two short lines represent the handles of the vessel. The flanking birds are drawn with an oblong body and a neck, and their beaks are adjoined to the vessel’s rim. While the birds’ legs are elaborately depicted, their feathers, wings and tails are schematic. A small bird or nestling (4) carried on the back of the bird on the right, is also included in this central scene. Two other scenes depict snakes threatening their prey. In the upper right corner of the plaque, a snake (5) is crawling toward three pairs of antithetical fish within a rectangular frame that seems to represent a fish pool (6). Another snake (7), on the right edge of the plaque, threatens a shallowly incised small bird or nestling (8). Finally, in the upper left corner, an octagram is incised (9). The production of chalk ossuaries began in the Early Roman period (Rahmani 1994:21–22), thus providing a terminus post quem for the plaque. As the fragment was recovered in a Byzantine fill, the dating and interpretation of the graffito is based on the motifs themselves.

252

AYALA ZILBERSTEIN

0

2

Fig. 9.1. Pictorial graffiti on a stone plaque.

The Motifs Vessel Flanked by a Pair of Antithetical Birds The motif of antithetical creatures originates in ancient Near Eastern art (GroenewegenFrankfort 1978:144–145), and the motif of a pair of antithetical birds flanking an object was common in Roman art, alongside common naturalistic depictions of birds in scenes of daily life. The bird repertoire in Roman art is varied and includes many species, one of which is the peacock. When birds, particularly peacocks, were presented in a symmetrical, antithetical composition, the flanked objects were usually open vessels, such as kraters or baskets (Cumont 1926:226–229; Levi 1947:370, Pl. CLXXXI:d; Ling 1991:181, Fig. 196; Chera 1997:337–341; Langner 2001: Taf. 108:1693–1695). During the Byzantine period, the motif of an open vessel flanked by a pair of antithetical birds continued to appear, but at the same time a new composition became more popular––a closed vessel flanked by a pair of symmetrical, antithetical peacocks. Thus, the central motif in the graffito from Givati corresponds with the characteristics of the Byzantine model. Accordingly, the flanked vessel in our plaque represents an amphora, and the birds are peacocks.

CHAPTER 9: PICTORIAL GRAFFITO ON A STONE PLAQUE

0

253

2

Fig. 9.2. Pictorial graffiti on a stone plaque.

The antithetical-peacocks motif appears in two variations in Byzantine art: as an independent composition or as the central motif in an inhabited-scroll design. The independent composition is known in various contexts and media: it decorates walls and mosaic floors, usually in funerary contexts or churches (Habas 2005:364–366, 446; Hachlili 2009:202–203), as well as small objects such as oil lamps (Adler 2004:146, Table 6.1:913); such an oil lamp was found in a Byzantine context in the present excavations (see Chapter 3: Fig. 3.28:3). The composition of inhabited scrolls that issue from a flanked object became widespread during the Byzantine period (Dauphin 1978a:400; Hachlili 2009:145, Table VI.2a–b). This design is comprised of a central amphora flanked by a pair of symmetrical, antithetical animals, with vine scrolls issuing from the amphora that are inhabited by animals, birds, scenes of daily life or symbols. While a variety of animals inhabit the scrolls, only a select group appear in the main antithetical motif––including peacocks. Even among these select animals, the predominance of the peacock is notable (Habas 2005:366). This inhabited-scroll design appears mainly in church contexts, but also in funerary and secular contexts, and interestingly, in some synagogues (Dauphin 1978b:12). Antithetical peacocks as the main motif in inhabited-scroll designs are seen in nave pavements in the Armenian Church in Musrara, Jerusalem, and the churches in Bet

254

AYALA ZILBERSTEIN

Loya and Shellal, in an aisle in the Petra Church, and in a Jewish context in the Ma‘on– Nirim synagogue (Hachlili 2009:111–157). An interesting detail in the Shellal nave pavement is the small partridges depicted on the peacocks’ tails (Trendall 1957:18, Pl. III.2), somewhat reminiscent of the small bird on the back of the right bird in our graffito. The popularity of the peacock motif, and the various media and contexts in which it is displayed, raises the question of its significance. Although it is possible that this bird served only a decorative purpose due to its beautiful appearance, there are some intimations that the peacock motif had a symbolic meaning and conveyed designated theological messages. The peacock originated in India, where it is ascribed with immortality attributes, and as such it entered the Greco-Roman culture. The peacock’s ability to shed its tail feathers and fledge them every spring is mentioned in Roman sources, and seems to be a symbol of immortality and resurrection (Cumont 1926:229; Charbonneau-Lassay 1974:617–618; Jensen 2000:158). Peacocks drinking from a krater may be interpreted in some cases as symbolizing those who attended the Bacchanalian ceremonies, and the eternal life they were promised (Cumont 1926:228–229). In accordance with this symbolism, the peacock motif became popular in funerary iconography (Toynbee 1973:252). Moreover, the peacock, which was also one of the attributes of Hera/Juno, was related to the apotheosis ritual, and similar to the eagle in the apotheosis of emperors, the peacock became the psychopomp of empresses (Charbonneau-Lassay 1974:623). The Roman symbolism of the peacock motif was readily adopted into Christian iconography, as it suited the idea of regeneration, a central theme in the Christian faith. In this regard, the peacock sometimes symbolized Jesus himself, or alternatively, the worshippers and the promise of salvation and eternal life (Goodenough 1953:56; Charbonneau-Lassay 1974:624; Habas 2005:446). As a result, the peacock motif became more popular in early Christianity than it had ever been in the past. As noted above, although varied animals and birds are represented in the vine-scroll medallions, only a few animals are depicted in the central motif, and these are emphasized by their large proportions relative to the medallions, and by their central location in the composition. The location of this motif in the liturgical areas of the church may indicate its symbolic importance (Habas 2005:453–454).1

Accompanying inscriptions provide further evidence of the significance of the peacock and other motifs. The pavement in the bema of the church of St. Lot at Deir ‘Ain-‘Abata, Jordan, depicts an inhabited vinescroll design with antithetical peacocks at the bottom of the design beside some additional emphasized motifs. At the top of the composition is a medallion that is located at the foot of the altar, inhabited by a Greek cross and a Greek inscription: ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΛΟΝ (good end). This inscription is interpreted by the excavator as an expression of the worshipers’ hopes for salvation and eternity in the End of Days (Politis 1992:283). The inscription and its location in the mosaic pavement of the bema, where the Eucharist ritual was performed, illuminate the meaning of the motifs depicted there, and may shed light on the significance of other inhabited scrolls in churches (Habas 2005:368). 1

CHAPTER 9: PICTORIAL GRAFFITO ON A STONE PLAQUE

255

In light of the above discussion, it is possible to interpret the depiction of peacocks as a symbolic motif.2 The Fish Motif The fish is an important symbol in Christian iconography and literature. It is, first and foremost, a symbol of Jesus himself. The acrostic of the Greek word ΙΧΘΥΣ (fish) is interpreted as: Ίησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior). Actually, it is doubtful that the fish symbol was accepted based on the Greek word, or that the acrostic matched the fish symbol (Cross 1957:695–696). The appearance of this motif in early Christian sources favors the interpretation that the significance of the Christian fish symbol, like the peacock symbol, derived from ancient cultures (Gough 1973:24). Tertullian, in the second century CE, was the first to compare neophytes to little fish swimming after the large fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ, the Savior). Fish, which cannot exist outside water, are compared to worshippers who cannot exist without their faith (Tertullian, De baptismo I; ed. Evans 1964:5). This allegory is mentioned in other Christian homilies as well (Jensen 2000:48–51). The fish is considered to be an Eucharist lineament, and is depicted in Byzantine iconography together with the bread and the wine (Goodenough 1953:32–61; Cross 1957:506; Charbonneau-Lassay 1974:692–696). While the fish symbol appears in some variations in Byzantine formal art (Talgam 2014:203–204), the specific composition of fish in a frame or a pool, as depicted in the Givati graffito, has no parallels in the formal art of the period. The Snake Motif Similar to the significance of the snake symbol in earlier cultures, Christianity also attributes a dual meaning to the snake, conveying positive messages of health and fertility, due to its ability to shed its skin, as well as negative messages, as the snake also embodies evil, sin and the devil himself. The biblical narrative of the ‘serpent of brass’ depicts the dualistic nature of this reptile, which is both deadly but can also cure (Num. 21:4–9). In a positive light, Christian iconography usually depicts the snake wrapped around the tree of life. Furthermore, the snake is integrated in Christograms, and sometimes symbolizes Jesus Christ himself (Charbonneau-Lassay 1974:772–774; Jensen 2000:140). The Physiologus presents the snake as a symbol of the rightful way of the believers (Physiologus, XIII). The negative aspects of the snake in Christian iconography are based on the biblical mythology in the Book of Genesis, where it symbolizes temptation. Due to God’s curse that hostility will exist between the snake and the woman and her children, the Christian narrative considers the snake to be the enemy of Mary, Mother of the Redeemer (Ladner

For an extensive review of the varied interpretations of the significance of inhabited scrolls, see Dauphin 1978b; Talgam 2000:95–101; 2014:86–95; Hachlili 2009:286–288. 2

256

AYALA ZILBERSTEIN

1995:73–77) and in some cases, the devil himself (Charbonneau-Lassay 1974:777; Werness 2004:382). The scene of confrontation between a snake and a mongoose depicted in some Byzantine mosaics (Hachlili 2009:157, Fig. VII.6) may also express the negative role of the snake in the struggle between good and evil. The snakes in the Givati graffito are depicted in a threatening manner, corresponding to the negative connotations of the snake symbol in formal Byzantine art. Nevertheless, no direct parallel to the specific depiction seen here was found. The Octagram Motif The octagram, comprised of two interlacing squares, is a common geometric design in Byzantine art and often appears in mosaic pavements (Piccirillo 1993: Figs. 23, 539, 560, 643, 663). Sometimes it is depicted with a cross in the center (Adler 2007:81–83). It is noteworthy that the octagram in the Givati graffito, which was drawn with one continuous line, is more complex than the common octagram. An interesting example is a graffito of an octagram on a wall of a Byzantine house revealed in the ‘Ofel excavations, located very close to the Givati excavations. That graffito depicts motifs similar to those seen in the Givati graffito, such as a pair of antithetical birds, and an octagram composed of a pair of interlacing squares (Adler 2007:81, Fig. 9.1). Despite the differences between these two works of local folk art, it is possible to notice a common symbolism that influenced both artists. The Graffito Motifs in the Context of Early Christian Literature Another source for understanding motifs in art is the relevant literature of the period. Some Christian theological writings reflect, to a certain extent, the homilies that were preached in the churches and the thought processes common during the Byzantine period (Maguire 1987:1–2). However, as graffiti reflect folk art, it is difficult to know to what extent, if at all, the homilies and literature were available or understood by the person who drew the Givati graffito. The animals depicted in the graffito resemble the creatures mentioned in the creation narrative in Genesis, and in the church fathers’ writings that interpret the narrative: the peacocks are the fowl, the fish represent the sea creatures and the snakes represent those that creep on the ground. According to the biblical narrative, the creatures created on the fifth day––the fish and the birds––received God’s blessing: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:22), while the land animals and the reptiles created on the sixth day were not blessed. The early church fathers explained the absence of blessing of the sixth day’s creations as an indication of the negative nature of these animals. Theophilus of Antioch, a Christian apologist of the second century CE, dealt with the difference between those created on the fifth and sixth days, stating that water symbolizes a bath of regeneration, and those who are created from water serve as the model for the person who immerses himself in water and repents his sins, thus achieving God’s blessing.

CHAPTER 9: PICTORIAL GRAFFITO ON A STONE PLAQUE

257

The fowl represent the person who lives righteously and his soul takes flight like a bird. In contrast, those who sin and are ignorant of God are compared with wild animals (Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, XVI–XVII). Tertullian dealt with the different levels of human beings, presenting a hierarchy of creatures: cattle represent heathens, birds represent martyrs, and fish are compared to those who are baptized (De resurrectione carnis LII). Later preachers supported similar interpretations. Severian of Gabala (fourth century CE) compared the catechumens to reptiles and snakes who come to the water full of sins, and fly like birds when they leave (In mundi creationem IV, 2; PG LVI: cols. 458–459). Anastasius of Sinai (seventh century CE) argued that the ignorant Israelites are to be compared to the land animals, while the water creatures represent the gentiles and the birds represent the saints (Hexaemeron VI; PG 89: cols. 925–927). Other noteworthy theologists criticized the phenomenon of excessive allegorizing in nature depictions; for example, Basil the Great of the fourth century CE criticized this allegorical interpretation of nature, and the presentation of nature, particularly animals, within the sacred spaces (Basil, Exegetic Homilies, IX:1). As the faunal assemblage represented in the graffito includes birds, fish and reptiles, closely resembling the types and levels of creatures mentioned in Byzantine homilies, the graffito may indicate a school of thought regarding the animal kingdom that was common in this period.

Conclusions The motifs incised on the plaque from the Givati excavations were common in the formal art and literature of the Byzantine world. The main motif of an antithetical pair of birds flanking an amphora was very popular in formal art, and was prominent in inhabited-scroll designs in church mosaics, as well as in some synagogues and secular contexts, implying that this motif expressed symbolic and spiritual ideas. Based on the earlier significance of the peacock symbol, as well as in the Byzantine ‘zeitgeist’, the peacock motif in ecclesiastical contexts expressed the Christian idea of resurrection and salvation that were promised to believers who attended the Eucharist sermon. If the Givati graffito is indeed an expression of folk art, then it provides first-hand evidence for the reception, assimilation and adoption of formal religious art into the individual world. While the graffito’s assemblage of faunal motifs is unknown as a whole in the formal visual arts, it is present in the Byzantine Christian literature and its concepts of the allegorical significance of animals. The possibility that this plaque functioned as a preliminary sketch for a larger work of art can be ruled out due to the absence of an organized composition and the fact that no parallels of the entire animal assemblage are known. Moreover, the unskilled style suggests that it was not an expert work. In summary, it is reasonable to assume that the plaque was used as a surface for personal drawings, and as such, provides a glimpse of the common figurative motifs in use during Late Antiquity. Considering the symbolism of the motifs represented in the graffito,

258

AYALA ZILBERSTEIN

one cannot dismiss the possibility that it was drawn for magical or apotropaic purposes, or as a funerary or memorial object. At any rate, its creator was probably trying to relate his own personal yearnings to the world of formal religion and the concepts he was taught and witnessed in the church, whether he understood them or not.

R eferences Adler N. 2004. A Comprehensive Catalog of Oil Lamps of the Holy Land from the Adler Collection. Jerusalem. Adler N. 2007. A Graffito on a Wall of the Byzantine Building in Area XIV. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Report III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem. Pp. 81–84. Anastasius of Sinai. Hexaemeron. J.-P. Migne ed. (PG 89) Paris 1865. Basil. Exegetic Homilies. A.C. Way transl. (The Fathers of the Church 46). Washington, D.C. 1963. Charbonneau-Lassay L. 1974. Le bestiaire du Christ: La mystérieuse emblématique de Jésus-Christ. Milan. Chera C. 1997. Stratigraphische und chemische Analyse der Muster von Wandmalereien aus der Scythia Minor. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier eds. Roman Wall Painting: Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation (Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996). Fribourg. Pp. 337–345. Cross F.L. ed. 1957. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. London. Cumont F.V. 1926. Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922–1923)‎ (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique IX). Paris. Dauphin C.M. 1978a. Byzantine Pattern Books: A Re-Examination of the Problem in the Light of the “Inhabited Scroll”. Art History 1:400–423. Dauphin C.M. 1978b. Symbolic or Decorative? The Inhabited Scroll as a Means of Studying Some Early Byzantine Mentalities. Byzantion 48:10–34. Goodenough E.R. 1953. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period II: The Archaeological Evidence from the Diaspora (Bollingen Series XXXVII). New York. Gough M. 1973. The Origins of Christian Art. London. Groenewegen-Frankfort H.A. 1978. Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East (2nd ed.). New York. Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structure and Their Relationship with the Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Pavements. Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–30*). Hachlili R. 2009. Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, and Trends. Selected Studies. Leiden– Boston. Jensen R.M. 2000. Understanding Early Christian Art. London. Ladner G.B. 1995. God, Cosmos and Humankind: The World of Early Christian Symbolism (T. Dunlap transl.). Berkeley–London.

CHAPTER 9: PICTORIAL GRAFFITO ON A STONE PLAQUE

259

Langner M. 2001. Antike Graffitizeichnungen:‎ Motive, Gestaltung und Bedeutung (Palilia 11). Wiesbaden. Levi D. 1947. Antioch Mosaic Pavements (2 vols.). Princeton–London–The Hague. Ling R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge. Maguire H. 1987. Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art (Monographs of the Fine Arts 43). University Park, Pa–London. Piccirillo M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan (ACOR Publications 1). Amman. Politis K.D. 1992. Excavations at Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata 1991. ADAJ 36:281–290. Physiologus. M.J. Curley ed. and transl. Austin–London 1979. Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. Severian of Gabala. In mundi creationem. J.-P. Migne ed. (PG 56) Paris 1862. Talgam R. 2000. Similarities and Differences between Synagogue and Church Mosaics in Palestine during the Byzantine and Umayyad Periods. In L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss eds. From Dura to Sepphoris:‎Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity (JRA Suppl. S. 40). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 93–110. Talgam R. 2014. Mosaics of Faith: Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims in the Holy Land. Jerusalem–University Park, Pa. Tertullian. De baptismo liber. E. Evans ed. and transl. London 1964. http://www.tertullian.org/ articles/evans_bapt/evans_bapt_text_trans htm (accessed May 17, 2016). Tertullian. De resurrectione carnis liber. E. Evans transl. London 1960. http://www.tertullian.org/ articles/evans_res/evans_res_04english.htm (accessed May 18, 2016). Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. R.M. Grant ed. and transl. Oxford 1970. Toynbee J.M. 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art. London. Trendall A.D. 1957. The Shellal Mosaic and Other Classical Antiquities in the Australian War Memorial, Canberra. Canberra. Werness H.B. 2004. The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art. New York.

262

MICHAEL E. STONE

graffito is problematic, and the suggestion below is made with great diffidence. However, it is clear that the script is round, upright erkat‘agir (uncial script), which is impossible, even in the case of clear letters, to date more precisely. The first two signs appear to be ՅԱ. The third sign is likely a Կ with a short descender, as we would expect in the seventh century or earlier. The next sign is unclear, but what remains is compatible with a Ո, and the last sign is probably a Բ. Thus, with some circumspection, we read the name ՅԱԿՈԲ, ‘Yakob’, the usual Armenian form of Jacob. The name Yakob does not appear in other early Armenian inscriptions from Jerusalem, but occurs in Sinai, in L Arm 2, in an abbreviated form in L Arm 4, and in the spelling Yakovb in H Arm 33 and 36 (Stone 1982: index, s.v.). In his onomastic dictionary of Armenian names, Ačaṙyan lists the name ‘Yakob’ as occurring from the fifth century on (Ačaṙyan 1972:481–484). While the name itself is of little significance, its occurrence at the Givati Parking Lot site in the City of David adds to the evidence for an early Armenian presence in, or pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Stone 1986; Stone, Ervine and Stone 2002).

R eferences Ačaṙyan H. 1972. Hayots’ andznanunneri bararan (Dictionary of Armenian Proper Names) 3. Beirut (Armenian). Smith R.H and Day L.P. 1989. Pella of the Decapolis 2: Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, The Civic Complex, 1979–1985. Wooster. Stone M.E. ed. 1982. The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai, with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel van Esbroeck and William Adler (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 6). Cambridge, Mass. Stone M.E. 1986. Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians before the Arab Conquest. RB 93:93–110. Stone M.E., Ervine R.R. and Stone N. eds. 2002. The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land (Hebrew University Armenian Studies 4). Leuven.

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66)

Chapter 11

The Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem During the Byzantine Period —Concluding R emarks Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets The Byzantine remains exposed over the entire area of the Givati Parking Lot site comprise a significant contribution to the study of this period in Jerusalem. The Madaba map, which is the most important source in any attempt at reconstructing the topography of Jerusalem in the Roman–Byzantine period, reveals scant information regarding this part of the city;1 thus, the detailed archaeological evidence from the site fills a significant gap. The large administrative structure in the north of the excavation, the street in the west, the domestic quarter in the south, and the extensive agricultural field extending between them and reaching the eastern boundary of the excavation, together with the accompanying finds from the three phases (Phases VC, VB, VA), provide firsthand evidence of the urban development, history and absolute chronology of this area of Jerusalem during the period under discussion. Each of the principal elements sheds light on a different aspect of the city’s layout, and taken together, they constitute an important piece in the puzzle of Byzantine Jerusalem. The segment of Street 1886 unearthed on the western side of the excavation area, runs on a south–north axis along the eastern slope of the Tyropoeon Valley. It shares similar characteristics with the street segment exposed some 100 m to the south in the 1920s by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald (1929:41–55), and with an additional segment of the street excavated some 50 m to the north (Hagbi and Uziel 2015). These are clearly segments of the same street, although the street did not maintain a uniform width all along its route (see Tsafrir 1999b:299–300). During the Byzantine period, it was one of the major streets, and probably the principal one in the southern part of the city (Tsafrir 1999b:296; Gutfeld 2011:334). It led down from the city center in the northern part of the city, crowned by many churches, monasteries and other ecclesiastic institutions, along the eastern slope of the Tyropoeon Valley to the southern neighborhoods and the church at the Pool of Siloam (Bliss and Dickie 1898:178–210), one of the major pilgrimage attractions in Jerusalem that is vividly described in the ancient sources of the period (Wilkinson 1977). A similar street, also leading from the city center and its holy sites to the lower, southern districts, was exposed further west, on Mount Zion (Broshi 1975). The new evidence of this street exposed in our excavations, together with that discovered in the 1920s, reveals part of the urban layout of the Byzantine city: clusters of buildings on both sides of the street, interpreted by the excavators as shops (Crowfoot and

Some buildings depicted on the Madaba map south of the Nea church could represent the ecclesiastic structures located around the Siloam Pool (Avi-Yonah 1954:56; Tsafrir 1999a:160–161). 1

264

DORON BEN-AMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

Fitzgerald 1929; Crowfoot 1929; see also Tsafrir 1999b:321–322), and further north, to the east of the street, a large agricultural field bounded on the north by an administrative building. Following the construction of the city wall by the empress Eudocia in the fifth century CE (Tsafrir 1999b:285–295; Weksler-Bdolah 2007:88–101), which now encompassed the Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem within its fortification line, renewed construction in this area applied the urban grid from the previous, Late Roman period. Archaeological evidence of Late Roman occupation on the Southeastern Hill has accumulated in recent years, testifying that the southern part of the city witnessed new building activity as early as the close of the third century CE (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2013; 2017), which was further accelerated in the fifth century BCE. The structures uncovered in the Givati excavations are substantial additions to the general picture of Byzantine architecture that was exposed a short distance to the north, in the excavations south of the Temple Mount (Shiloh 1984:30–31), under the direction of B. Mazar, where large residential quarters were exposed and dated in general to the Byzantine period (Areas III, VI, XII, XIV–XVII; Mazar 2003; 2007b). The structures were aligned with the southern border of the Temple Mount and oriented along north–south and east– west axes, following the Roman city grid. Residential buildings dated to the Byzantine period were also exposed to the east of the Givati site by Macalister and Duncan (1926:89– 133; for reevaluation, see Mazar 2007a:77–81). The large, impressive Building 1821, with the hoard of gold coins found sealed below its debris, offers a glimpse of the historical circumstances behind the end of the Byzantine presence in Jerusalem at the beginning of the seventh century CE. The presence of such a large amount of ‘fresh’ gold coins in this building was apparently not a random occurrence, and demonstrates that the structure fulfilled an administrative function. Such a hoard could not have been the property of a private individual, and must have been imperial money in the hands of an official authority, intended for public expenditure. In addition, the complete homogeneity of the Givati hoard––all the pieces belong to a single type of solidus dated to the early series struck by Heraclius during the years 610–613––suggests that it should be considered a special consignment of gold cash discovered not far from its place of production. Therefore, the attribution of this coin type to a mint in Jerusalem seems plausible (see Chapter 5). The presence of a Byzantine military garrison or headquarters in Jerusalem would explain the establishment of a temporary mint in order to pay the troops and affirm Byzantine sovereignty over the city. Given the fact that Antioch surrendered to the Persians in 610, Emesa and Apamea in 611 and Damascus in 613, Jerusalem remained the only major Byzantine stronghold in the region that could have been responsible for the issue of such a unique solidus. In this respect, the Givati hoard contributes crucial new evidence from the time of the Persian conquest of Jerusalem of the need for an emergency coinage––a new series of Heraclian solidi exceptionally struck in Jerusalem under hasty conditions. The imperial dies could have reached Jerusalem with the Byzantine garrison under the command of Nicetas, Heraclius’ nephew, sometime between 611 and 613, and were probably retouched in Jerusalem (see Chapter 5; Bendall 2003:312).

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUDING REMARKS

265

The first third of the seventh century was a time of great turbulence in Palestine. The Persian conquest of 614 was the first in a series of violent events, which was followed by the Byzantines regaining control in 628; five years later the region was struck by the earthquake of 633 and finally, in 638, the Muslims conquered Palestine. These events caused severe damage to numerous buildings throughout the country, which is often visible in the archaeological record at various sites. Unfortunately, precise dating of the seventhcentury destruction, and attribution to one of the above-mentioned historical events, is extremely difficult. The archaeological remains associated with the Persian conquest are especially problematic in Jerusalem, which, according to the historical sources, suffered the most violent attack, causing great destruction and loss of life (Baras 1982; Schick 1995, and see references therein). The most detailed description of the Persian conquest is The Sack of Jerusalem by the Persians, compiled by Antiochus Strategos, probably himself a witness to the events (Conybeare 1910; Garitte 1960; Baras 1982:302–304). However, the following fourteen years of Sassanid rule in Palestine were too short to leave any significant remains that can be clearly identified in the archaeological record (Russell 2001). The only evidence widely accepted as representative of the Persian devastation of Jerusalem in 614 CE is the mass burials excavated around the city (Milik 1960–1961:133; Reich 1994; for a description of the seven mass burials ascribed to the Persian conquest, see Avni 2010:36–40). The destruction of churches and monasteries in Jerusalem, as reported by some sources (Baras 1982; Schick 1995:20–47), are scarcely evident in the archaeological record. Signs of damage, sometimes followed quickly by restoration, were discovered in the Ascension Church and the Gethsemane Church on the Mount of Olives, in the Church of Holy Zion on Mount Zion, and in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was partly burned though not destroyed (for a complete list of the churches associated with the Persian conquest, see Schick 1995:325–359). As noted above, in most cases it is difficult to assign a precise date to the burnt layers of the seventh century, and conspicuously, some of the churches mentioned by Antiochus Strategos to have suffered severe damage (e.g., Eleona on the Mount of Olives, St. Stephen in the north of the city, and the Nea Church), do not provide any archaeological evidence to support a Persian destruction. Seventh-century destruction layers were also discerned in several Byzantine residential quarters excavated in Jerusalem, sometimes attributed by the excavators to the Persian conquest. However, it should be emphasized that so far these destruction layers have yielded no unequivocal evidence of this association (for discussion, see Magness 1992:71–72; Avni 2010). The gold hoard from Givati provides a rare opportunity to determine the absolute dating of the destruction of a Byzantine building. As the latest date for the hoard is 613/614, this suggests that the destruction took place at that same time, and together with evaluation of the archeological evidence, further indicates that the destruction of Building 1821 should be associated with the Persian invasion of Jerusalem in 614. It should be noted, however, given the historical framework for the deposition of the hoard, that the possibility that the coins were struck as part of a tribute to the Persians, rather than to pay military salaries, should not be dismissed (see Chapter 5).

266

DORON BEN-AMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

Finally, the large area that functioned as an agricultural field south of Building 1821 is noteworthy. This terraced terrain, sloping down westward toward the Tyropoeon Valley, comprised a c. 1 m thick layer of agricultural soil covering over 1600 sq m, divided into plots by terrace walls and equipped with irrigation channels. Unlike gardens in the Greco-Roman world, which were usually integrated in courtyards within buildings, this was a spacious field. Despite the absence of archaeobotanical remains for analysis, it is reasonable to assume that the thick, loose soil excavated here was suitable for any kind of crop, including orchards. It is worth noting that an additional agricultural plot dating to the Byzantine period was recently discovered east of the Givati site (Uziel 2013), and an irrigation system of the same period was uncovered south of the Temple Mount, a short distance north of the site (Mazar 1971:5, Fig. 8). The allocation of such a large agricultural area within the urban layout, a feature completely unknown in the Roman world, became a common phenomenon during the Byzantine period (for detailed discussion, see Saradi 2006:454–461). Certain ‘ruralization’ processes taking place in the large Byzantine urban centers are noted in historical sources. For example, Procopius (De aedificiis V, 4.10–12) notes the example of Caesarea in Cappadocia, where the city walls enclosed large fields, gardens and pasture lands; and Julian of Ascalon, a local architect of the mid-sixth century, mentions the ‘urban agriculture’ permitted inside the city that included trees, vines and vegetables (Geiger 1992; Hoffman 2004). Archaeological evidence of residential areas giving way to agricultural fields is seen at Sagalassos in Asia Minor (Vanhaverbeke et al. 2004:269–270); in Palestine, the most prominent example is Caesarea Maritima, where terraced, irrigated garden plots were founded on top of abandoned buildings at the end of the Byzantine period (Patrich 2008:10). The plots of Caesarea bear similar archeological characteristics to those of Givati: terrace walls, thick, distinctive accumulations of agricultural soil, reservoirs and irrigation channels (Patrich 2011:43–49). It is difficult to determine, on the basis of ceramic and numismatic considerations, if the initial phase of this agricultural terrain predated the city wall built by the empress Eudocia. The pottery assemblages originating in the agricultural soil include, alongside early forms dated to the third century CE, types common in the fourth–fifth centuries CE (see Chapter 3: Figs 3:19–3.28). Based on the numismatic evidence, a fourth-century dating for the foundation of this agricultural field could be argued, as the latest coins from Phase VC are dated to the late fourth century (see Chapter 4). However, due to the low numbers of fifth-century coins found in the southern Levant in general, it is likely that all the fourthcentury coins from Phase VC were circulating at the end of the fourth–beginning of the fifth centuries (see Chapter 4). Thus, it could not be securely determined from the evidence unearthed in the Givati excavations, whether the wall of Eudocia incorporated within the city’s new boundaries an already-functioning agricultural field, or whether the field was only created after the construction of the wall, around the mid-fifth century CE. In either case, the agricultural terrain retained its character and function throughout most of the Byzantine period and was undeniably part of Jerusalem’s urban layout, nesting within its fortified boundaries.

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUDING REMARKS

267

The question arises, what were the reasons behind the establishment and maintenance of this agricultural field inside the city walls throughout the Byzantine period? It is tempting to speculate on a connection between its size and location and the apparently similar dimensions of the destroyed Late Roman mansion buried underneath it (Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2013; Givati III, forthcoming). However, the discovery of an irrigation system a short distance to the north (Mazar 1971:5), clearly connected with the Givati agricultural terrain, reveals that this phenomenon was actually of larger extent. The excavators of Caesarea Maritima associated the allocation of such a large agricultural area inside the boundaries of the Byzantine city with the lengthy Muslim siege of the city in 631–634 (Patrich 2011:49–52). However, this is not applicable in our case from the chronological perspective. Likewise, the general concept of agriculture within the city as a reflection of decline and abandonment of residential quarters (Patrich 2011:49–52), is not the case here, either; the southern part of Jerusalem flourished during the Byzantine period due to intensive pilgrim traffic, and it is only during Phase VA that changes can be discerned in the agricultural field, which was partially covered over with plaster surfaces (see Chapter 2). Thus, the incentive behind the establishment of such a large agricultural area in the southern part of the city remains an open issue.

R eferences Avi-Yonah M. 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem. Avni G. 2010. The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.): An Archaeological Assessment. BASOR 357:35–48. Baras Z. 1982. The Persian Conquest and the End of the Byzantine Rule. In Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern eds. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest 1: Political, Social and Cultural History. Jerusalem. Pp. 300–349 (Hebrew). Ben-Ami D. and Tchekhanovets Y. 2013. A Roman Mansion Found in the City of David. IEJ 63:164–173. Ben-Ami D. and Tchekhanovets Y. 2017. The Southward Expansion of Aelia Capitolina in the Late Roman Period. In G. Avni and G.D. Stiebel eds. Roman Jerusalem: A New Old City (JRA Suppl. S. 105). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 65–72. Ben-Ami D., Tchekhanovets Y. and Bijovsky G. 2010. New Archaeological and Numismatic Evidence for the Persian Destruction of Jerusalem in 614 CE. IEJ 60:204–221. Bendall S. 2003.The Byzantine Coinage of the Mint of Jerusalem. Revue numismatique 159:307– 322. Bliss F.J. and Dickie A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Broshi M. 1975. Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion. In Y. Yadin ed. Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974. Jerusalem. Pp. 57–60. Conybeare F.C. 1910. Antiochus Strategos’ Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 614. English Historical Review 25:502–517. Crowfoot J.W. 1929. Excavations on Ophel, 1928: Preliminary Report to December 8. PEQ 61:9–16.

268

DORON BEN-AMI AND YANA TCHEKHANOVETS

Crowfoot J.W. and Fitzgerald G.M.1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem, 1927 (PEFA V). London. Garitte G. ed. 1960. La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614 (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 202, 203; scriptores iberici 11, 12) (2 vols.). Louvain. Geiger J. 1992. Julian of Ascalon. Journal of Hellenic Studies 112:31–43. Gutfeld O. 2011. The Urban Layout of Byzantine-Period Jerusalem. In K. Galor and G. Avni eds. Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City. Winona Lake. Pp. 327–350. Hagbi M. and Uziel J. 2015. Jerusalem, City of David (B). HA–ESI 127 (October 15). http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=23807&mag_id=122 (accessed January 6, 2018). Hoffman T. 2004. Ascalon on the Levantine Coast. In D. Whitcomb ed. Changing Social Identity with the Spread of Islam: Archaeological Perspectives (The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Seminars 1). Chicago. Pp. 25–49. Macalister R.A.S and Duncan J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923–1925: Being the Joint Expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the “Daily Telegraph” (PEFA IV). London. Magness J. 1992. A Reexamination of the Archaeological Evidence for the Sassanian Persian Destruction of the Tyropoeon Valley. BASOR 287:67–74. Mazar B. 1971. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount: Preliminary Report of the Second and Third Seasons, 1969–1970. Jerusalem. Mazar E. 2003. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Period (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Mazar E. 2007a. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Period. In E. Mazar. Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area. Jerusalem–New York. Pp. 77–83. Mazar E. 2007b. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports III: The Byzantine Period (Qedem 46). Jerusalem. Milik J.T. 1960–1961. La topographie de Jérusalem vers la fin de l’époque byzantine, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 37:125–189. Patrich J. 2008. The Excavations 1993–1998, 2000–2001. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN; Final Reports I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–11. Patrich J. 2011. Caesarea in Transition: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Zone (Areas CC, KK, NN). In K.G. Holum and H. Lapin eds. Shaping the Middle East: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in an Age of Transition 400–800 C.E. (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture XX). Bethesda, Md. Pp. 33–64. Procopius. De aedificiis. H.B. Dewing ed. and transl. (Loeb Classical Library). London 1954. Reich R. 1994. The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem. In H. Geva ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem. Pp. 111–118. Russell J. 2001. The Persian Invasions of Syria/Palestine and Asia Minor in the Reign of Heraclius: Archaeological, Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence. In E. Kontoura-Galake ed. The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7th–9th c.) (International Symposium 9). Athens. Pp. 41–71.

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUDING REMARKS

269

Saradi H. 2006. The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century: Literary Images and Historical Reality. Athens. Schick R. 1995. The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and Archaeological Study (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 2). Princeton. Shiloh Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I: 1978–1982; Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Tsafrir Y. 1999a. The Holy City of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map. In M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata eds. The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897–1997: Travelling through the Byzantine Umayyad Period (Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Amman, 7–9 April 1997) (SBF Collectio Maior 40). Jerusalem. Pp. 155–163. Tsafrir Y. 1999b. The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period. In Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai eds. The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 CE). Jerusalem. Pp. 281–351 (Hebrew). Uziel J. 2013. Jerusalem, City of David (A). HA–ESI 125 (August 18). http://www.hadashot-esi.org. il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2306&mag_id=120 (accessed January 6, 2018). Vanhaverbeke H., Martens F., Waelkens M. and Poblome J. 2004. Late Antiquity in the Territory of Sagalassos. In W. Bowden, L. Lavan and C. Machado eds. Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Late Antique Archaeology 2). Leiden. Pp. 247–279. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2007. Reconsidering the Byzantine Period City Wall of Jerusalem. Eretz-Israel 28:88–101 (Hebrew; English summary p. 12*). Wilkinson J. 1977. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Jerusalem.