The 2003-2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata [1 ed.] 9781575063621, 9781575063478

Citation preview

DAVIES MAGNESS

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata

i

The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata

GWYN DAVIES and JODI MAGNESS

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations in the Late Roman Fort at Yotvata

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

T h e 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 07 E x c avat i o n s i n t h e L at e R o m a n F o rt at Y o t vata

Gwyn Davies and Jodi Magness with contributions by

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Nathan T. Elkins, Rebecca Halbmaier, Jennifer Ramsay, Alexandra Ratzlaff, Carolyn Swan, Walter Cockle, Zlatko Plese, Darden Hood, and Elisabetta Boaretto

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2015

© Copyright 2015 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Davies, Gwyn. The 2003–2007 excavations in the late Roman fort at Yotvata / Gwyn Davies and Jodi Magness, with contributions by Nathan T. Elkins, Rebecca Halbmaier, Jennifer Ramsay, Alexandra Ratzlaff, Carolyn Swan, Walter Cockle, Zlatko Plese, Darden Hood, and Elisabetta Boaretto.    pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57506-347-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Yotvatah (Israel)—Antiquities, Roman.  2.  Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel— Yotvatah.  3. Fortification, Roman—Israel—Yotvatah.  4. Romans—Israel—Yotvatah.  I. Magness, Jodi.  II. Title. DS111.3.D38 2015 933′.49--dc23 2015003393

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾™

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

In Memoriam, Doug Nelson (1943–2006)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix Chapter 1. The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy . . . . . . . .   1 Chapter 2. The Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   74 Chapter 3. The Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Chapter 4. The Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Chapter 5. The Militaria and Small Finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Chapter 6. The Faunal Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Chapter 7. The Archaeobotanical Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Appendix 1.  Complete Locus List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Appendix 2.  Wall List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Appendix 3.  Critical Loci List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

vii

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Preface

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Each June between 2003 and 2007, Gwyn Davies (Florida International University) and Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) co-directed excavations in the Late Roman fort at Yotvata, in Israel’s southern Arava, with Uzi Avner (Arava Institute for Environmental Studies) as co-director in 2003–2004. The excavations were funded by the Elot Regional Council and the Toronto Jewish Community, with special thanks to Dorit Banet; the Foundation for Biblical Archaeology (Sheila Bishop); and the American Schools for Oriental Research (ASOR Heritage Grant). We are grateful for the publication subventions provided by Florida International University’s College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Public and International Affairs, and the Department of History; and by the Carolina Center for Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We also thank Daphna Arbel and the members of Kibbutz Lotan for their warm hospitality. Tali Erickson-Gini provided invaluable assistance throughout the excavations,

Fig. P1.  2003 Yotvata group photo. ix

x

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. P2.  2004 Yotvata group photo.

Fig. P3.  2005 Yotvata group photo.

Preface

Preface

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. P4.  2006 Yotvata group photo.

Fig. P5.  2007 Yotvata group photo.

xi

xii

Preface

including the storage of finds after the excavations ended, for which we are most grateful. As of July 1, 2007, the Eilot Regional Council assumed full responsibility for the conservation of the site. We are grateful for the hard work and dedication of the numerous staff members and volunteers from 2003–2007. The following is a list of staff members by season. June 2–20, 2003 (IAA License No. G-17/03): Neal Bierling (drafting and photography); Tikva Levine (registration and pottery restoration). June 3–29, 2004 (IAA License No. G-15/04): Neal Bierling (photography); James Bucko (surveyor); Tikva Levine (registration and pottery restoration); Byron McCane (area supervisor); Eric Stegmaier (artist). June 1–30, 2005 (IAA License No. G-6/05): James Bucko (surveyor); Robert Darby (area supervisor); Nathan Elkins (numismatics); Jim Haberman (photography); Rebecca Halbmaier (faunal analysis); Byron McCane (area supervisor); Stephanie Pryor (area supervisor); Alexandra Ratzlaff (area supervisor); Eric Stegmaier (artist); Steven Werlin (area supervisor). June 1–30, 2006 (IAA License No. G-2/2006): James Bucko (surveyor); Robert Darby (area supervisor); Carrie Duncan (area supervisor); Nathan Elkins (numismatics); Corisande Fenwick (area supervisor); Jim Haberman (photography); Doug Nelson* (area supervisor); Alexandra Ratzlaff (area supervisor); Mary Robinson-Mohr (registration); Eric Stegmaier (artist); Assaf Zadok (administration). *It is with great regret that we note the untimely passing of Doug Nelson in the course of the 2006 season. We are grateful to the Elot Regional Council, Kibbutz Lotan, and Assaf Zadok for their support and assistance at that difficult time. June 1–30, 2007 (IAA License No. G-45/2007): James Bucko (surveyor); Robert Darby (area supervisor); Carrie Duncan (area supervisor); Nathan Elkins (numismatics); James Haberman (photography); Rebecca Halbmaier (faunal analysis); Byron McCane (area supervisor); Alexandra Ratzlaff (area supervisor); Eric Stegmaier (artist); Carolyn Swan (glass specialist); Steven Werlin (area supervisor).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Other specialist assistance was provided by:

J. Bucko (preparation of site plans); E. Stegmaier (preparation and redrawing of top plans and sections for publication; drawing of pottery and glass; preparation of map); J. Haberman (preparation of photographs for publication); Michal Ben-Gal (pottery restoration); Yeshayahu Ben-Yaacov (site conservation); Mimi Lavie (cleaning and conservation of coins and other artifacts); Jennifer Ramsay (paleobotanical analysis).

Chapter 1

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy Gwyn Davies and Jodi Magness

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction and History of Exploration The Late Roman fort at Yotvata is located in the southern Arava some 40 km north of Eilat/ Aqaba (ancient Aila) (map ref. NIG 2043/4217; OIG 1543/9217) (fig. 1). 1 The Arava Valley extends between the southern tip of the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba). It lies in a larger rift valley formed by the separation of the continental plates of Asia and Africa and is subject to frequent earthquake activity. The valley ranges from five to fifteen km in width and is bounded by Precambrian to Tertiary mountain ranges. The hills along the western side consist mainly of limestone, dolomite, and marl (up to 500 m asl). The base of the Arava Valley is covered by a thick deposit of alluvial sediments. Summer high temperatures typically range from 34 to 40 degrees Celsius, and winter temperatures are usually 14 to 16 degrees Celsius. Annual precipitation averages less than 50 mm, with a high evaporation rate. 2 The source of water in the Yotvata oasis is the Judea Group aquifer, which produced pools of surface water until the 1960s. The fort lies approximately 350 m west of the main spring, just south of the narrowest point in the valley (fig. 2). Saline alluvial marshes extend to the south of the site. The modern Hebrew name of the site is based on its suggested identification with biblical Jotbathah (Deut 10:7), where the Israelites encamped during their desert wanderings. The modern Arabic name of the site, Ein Ghadian, may preserve the ancient Roman name Ad Dianam. The site of Ad Dianam appears on the Tabula Peutingeriana, where it is marked by a monumental temple that was presumably dedicated to Diana. However, whereas the map places Ad Dianam at a distance of XVI M.P. (16 Roman miles) north of Aila, the Late Roman fort at Yotvata lies 26 miles north of Aila. Either there is a scribal error on the map or, less likely, the Late Roman fort at Yotvata is not ancient Ad Dianam. 3 1.  The original benchmark for the site was determined by Avner at 77 m asl. This was the level from which all subsequent elevations were calculated. At the end of the 2005 season, J. Bucko established that the correct base benchmark for the site is 69.43 m. Since three seasons of elevations had already been recorded, we decided to retain the original calculation provided by Avner. Accordingly, all of the reported elevations employ the initial baseline determination of 77 m asl. 2.  Shirav-Schwartz et al. 2006: 7. 3.  See Graf 1995: 262–63. The former possibility is suggested by other scribal errors on the map. A large stone structure inside the oasis might be the temple of Diana; see Meshel 1993: 1517.

1

2

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 1.  Map of the region.

Because the Late Roman fort at Yotvata is visible as a low mound next to the Arava road, it has long been known to scholars. A small police station constructed of stone during the British Mandate still sits atop the mound today (color fig. 5, p. 54). T. E. Lawrence was the first explorer to describe the fort, dating it to the Byzantine period. 4 In the 1930s, the fort was identified by Fritz Frank as a Roman castellum and by Nelson Glueck as a Nabataean khan. 5 The site was badly damaged in 1958, when a large trench for an oil pipeline was dug from northwest to southeast through the middle of it. In 1975–1976, Zeev Meshel of Tel Aviv University conducted trial excavations, 4.  See Woolley and Lawrence 1936: 32. 5.  See Meshel 1993: 1517.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

3

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 2.  Aerial view of the Arava Valley, looking north, with the Yotvata fort in the foreground.

consisting of a number of soundings, at the fort. He identified two main occupation levels, separated by about a half-meter of debris, which he dated to the early fourth century and later fourth century on the basis of coins. 6 The most important discovery was made accidentally in 1985, when a water pipe on the eastern side of the site burst, bringing to light a monumental Latin inscription (fig. 3). 7 This stone block, which presumably had been set above the main gateway, refers to a Tetrarchic fort established by Priscus, a praeses of Palaestina also known from an inscription from Caesarea Maritima. 8 The inscription from Yotvata suggests that the fort was built when Diocletian transferred the Tenth Legion Fretensis from Jerusalem to Aila in the last decade of the third century. 9 A series of 26 Late Roman milestones discovered 16–19 km to the north of the site refers to Osia as the local caput viae, and this corresponds neatly to the distance to Yotvata. 10 Interestingly, line 6 of the monumental inscription refers to a garrison called the alam costia. It remains unclear whether this term stands as a toponymic identifier for the associated military unit (comprised of local “Costians”—a somewhat garbled transmission of the “Osia” mentioned on the milestones) or as a contraction for an ala Constantiana or some other variant. 11 Apart from the fort site itself, several other features of archaeological interest have been located in the immediate vicinity, ranging in date from the Chalcolithic to the British Mandate periods. 12 A persuasive candidate for the temple of Diana was discovered in 1976 just north of the spring. A preliminary excavation at the site revealed that the structure covered an area of ca. 24 × 36 m and that it contained several rooms with rich deposits of both Hellenistic and Naba6.  See Meshel 1993; Meshel 1989; Kindler 1989. 7.  See Meshel 1989: 229, 238; Roll 1989; Eck 1992. 8.  See Lehmann and Holum 2000: 49, 51–52. 9.  See Meshel 1993; Kennedy 2004: 221–22. 10.  See Avner and Roll 1996. 11.  For the most recent discussion of the inscription, see Eck 1992, whose explanation we prefer. For milestones in this area inscribed A Bosia or Ab Osia, see Kennedy 2004: 221. The inscription was originally published in full by Roll 1989. 12.  See Glueck 1957; Meshel 1990; Rothenberg 1967.

4

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 3.  The Latin inscription found in 1985 outside the fort’s east gate.

taean pottery. 13 Another large building at the oasis has been identified as a second fort, although the original attribution to the Roman–Byzantine period has now been amended to Early Islamic as a result of Meshel’s excavations. 14 Perhaps most impressive of all are the remains of the ancient irrigation systems that allowed the full agricultural potential of the oasis to be developed. Two different approaches appear to have been employed. The first, operating in the Nabataean– Roman–Byzantine period, comprised eleven open pools, with conduits and irrigation channels. The second, dated to the Early Islamic period, when cultivation at Yotvata reached its maximum extent of c. 400 ha, utilized a series of qanat tunnels. 15

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Late Roman Fort at Yotvata in Context The fort, with its roughly square plan and four projecting corner towers, reflects a type of installation (often termed a quadriburgium) common to the eastern frontier in the Late Empire (fig. 4). One of the best-preserved examples of this type is Qasr Bshir, where the surviving walls and towers provide a graphic impression of how a Roman installation of this kind would have appeared. 16 However, their general conformity should not disguise the fact that these structures exhibit considerable variation both in details of their construction and in the area enclosed. 17 With external dimensions of 39.7 × 39.4 m, Yotvata can be considered a relatively compact example of its genre, although the evidence of buildings attached to the inner face of the fort’s walls indicates that the site housed a significant permanent garrison. One of the closest parallels in terms of general size and layout is the fort at Mezad Tamar, on the ascent to the Negev plateau 13.  Unpublished excavation by Y. Porat 1985 (personal communication from Avner). 14.  See Aharoni 1954; Meshel 1993: 1520. 15.  See Evenari et al. 1971; Porat 1987; Avner 2002. 16.  Qasr Bshir may also have played a supplementary role in regional administration; see Isaac 1992: 172–74, 202. 17.  See Gregory 1995–97, and the excellent air photographs in Kennedy and Riley 1990. Other, perhaps better, parallels for Yotvata are Qasr eth-Thurayya, Quweira, and Bir Madhkur (for Bir Madhkur, see Smith 2010: 39–42).

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

5

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 4.  Aerial view of the fort, with east at the top.

southwest of the Dead Sea. 18 Another comparably-sized fort of the same date is Gharandal, ca. 30 km northeast of Yotvata, on the Jordanian side of the Arava Valley. 19 Although there is considerable debate about the nature of frontier systems in the East, 20 it is clear that the Romans made systematic attempts to guarantee the security of the communications corridor behind the frontier zone of the Edomite plateau. Yotvata, at an important oasis and road junction, presumably played a critical role in maintaining security in the southern Arava. Although Benjamin Isaac may doubt the degree to which these policing arrangements comprised an integrated “system,” the network of control that was imposed must represent more than an ad hoc response by the imperial power. 21 This debate is unlikely to be resolved fully until excavations at other forts along the Arava Valley clarify issues of chronology. 18.  See Gichon 1993; Gichon 1976. 19.  See Kennedy and Riley 1990: 207–8; Darby and Darby 2010. 20.  Compare the emphasis on “scientific frontiers” and the concept of “defense in depth” in Luttwak 1976 with the “minimalist” approach of Isaac 1992. 21.  Isaac 1992: 191: “This [the fort at Yotvata], in other words, was no more built for defensibility than any fort of the Principate. It was a road station and the base of a mounted police force that guarded the oasis and the road. It may have served as the administrative center of the oasis and its vicinity, but there is no evidence of this. It was not part of any ‘system.’ The nearest site was Aela, and there was no other fort anywhere in the area.”

6

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 5.  Aerial view of the fort and bath house, with east at the top.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations The 2003–2007 excavations focused on the eastern, southern, and western ranges of rooms within the fort, including the southeast and southwest corner towers, and the bath house some 50 m to the north (fig. 5). 22 As already observed, the fort presents a nearly square-shaped plan, with four projecting corner towers. The towers are oriented toward the four cardinal points. However, for the sake of clarity, we refer to the south corner tower as the southeast corner tower, the southeast wall of the fort as the east wall, the southwest wall of the fort as the south wall, and so on. 23 All site plans show true orientation relative to the cardinal points (fig. 6). The main gate is located in the center of the east wall, and a postern gate is located next to the southwest corner tower. The fort’s curtain walls, ca. 2.5 m thick, are constructed of stone to a height of approximately 1.8 m above ground level, with mud brick above. Nearly all of the stones are roughly cut fieldstones, but in some spots, such as the entrance to the southeast corner tower, finely drafted masonry is employed, including reused Nabataean ashlars. The Late Roman interior walls are of mud brick on a stone socle, in contrast to the Early Islamic partitions, which either 22.  U. Avner is responsible for publishing the material he excavated. For preliminary reports on the 2003–2007 excavations, see: Avner et al. 2004a; 2004b; 2005a; 2005b; Davies and Magness 2005; 2006a; 2006b; 2007a; 2007b; 2008a; 2008b. 23.  Following Meshel 1989.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

7

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 6.  Plan of the fort, indicating the excavation areas and room numbers.

have no socle or are founded directly on the Roman walls. The Late Roman mud bricks typically are large and square, measuring ca. 0.36 × 0.36 × 0.10 m and with a pink or orange hue, whereas the Early Islamic mud bricks typically are rectangular, measuring ca. 0.45 × 0.24 × 0.15 m and have a yellow-green hue. In addition, the Late Roman mud bricks are set in a light orange-colored mortar, while the Early Islamic mud bricks are laid without mortar. Ranges of roofed rooms and open courtyards abut the inner faces of the curtain walls and originally surrounded a large central courtyard (largely obliterated by the pipeline cut). Substantial stone staircases by the entrances to the corner towers led to rooms at a second storey level or to flat roofs (roof tiles were found in the bath house but not in the fort). There are three main periods of occupation in the fort at Yotvata: Late Roman (ca. 300– 400  c.e.); Byzantine (probably later fifth century c.e.); and Early Islamic (seventh–early eighth centuries c.e.). 24 Throughout our analysis, we employ the phrase Late Roman or Roman to denote the fourth-century occupation of the site. Within the Late Roman period, several sub-phases are represented by successive floors rather than any change in the material culture recovered. Due 24.  We identified three main occupation phases, whereas Meshel identified only two. Meshel’s earlier phase represents the initial occupation of the fort during the Late Roman period, and his later (second) phase appears to be equivalent to our final Late Roman occupation. In other words, Meshel’s excavations identified two sub-phases of the Late Roman occupation.

8

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

to the ephemeral nature of the Byzantine period settlement, this occupation horizon was distinguished mostly in the baulks. The following description of architecture and stratigraphy follows the numerical order of the excavated areas, beginning with 2000 and ending with 9000. 25 Rooms and courtyards within each area are discussed one-by-one, proceeding in a counter-clockwise order, starting from the latest remains (uppermost level) and working downward. The bath house (Area 1000) is discussed at the end. Within each area, walls are designated by running sequences consisting of three digits; loci by running sequences of four digits; and baskets by running sequences of five digits. All excavated features except walls are designated by locus numbers. Basket numbers are used within loci to record various categories of material culture, such as pottery, coins, and glass. At the end of this report are appendixes with a complete locus list, a list of critical (sealed) loci, and a wall list.

Area 2000 (color fig. 1, p. 53) Area 2000, excavated during the 2003–2007 seasons, is located in the southeast quadrant of the fort and includes the southeast corner tower. In the Late Roman occupation phase, this tower was accessed through an open courtyard, along the west side of which was a staircase that originally led to a second storey level or, less likely, the roof. To the west of the staircase, a range of rooms abutted the inside of the fort’s south curtain.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Room 1 (Meshel’s Section) One of Meshel’s soundings (Meshel’s L1512), which we cleaned in 2003, lay at the western extremity of our Area 2000, bordered on the west by the pipeline cut. The foundations of a north– south wall (W509) can be discerned at the current ground level on the western side of the sounding. This Late Roman internal wall, of which only the stone foundation is preserved (elevation: 76.60), was noted by Meshel and was badly damaged when the pipeline was laid. The wall enclosed the western side of a room (Room 1) that abutted the fort’s curtain and was cleared by Meshel. 26 We began work in Meshel’s section because the stratigraphic sequence was visible on the east side of the baulk, which separated Meshel’s sounding from our L2002. In 2003, we divided the area at the base of the baulk (in Room 1) into two loci: L2013 (south) and L2016 (north). These loci were delineated on the east by the baulk and on the west by W509. Once cleaned, the north and east baulks provided a good picture of the stratigraphic sequence (fig. 7). The Early Islamic white plaster floor that we found in L2002 (Room 2) is visible running through the east baulk at an elevation of ca. 77.3 (about 0.20 m lower than in L2002, probably due to settling). Large fragments of pottery, whole mud bricks, and a scapula of animal bone are still stuck into the baulk, lying on top of the plaster floor. An uneven Byzantine period horizon is visible approximately 0.15 m below the Early Islamic floor. This horizon overlies a thick layer of fill mixed with mud-brick and stone collapse. The collapse descends down to and lies on top of the last (uppermost) Late Roman floor, which is at an approximate elevation of 76.7. Below this was another Late Roman floor with white lime or plaster flecks (76.6), which was laid directly on top of a thick burned layer.

25.  Area 4000 was reserved for casual finds outside the excavated areas. 26.  Meshel 1989: 232–33.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 7.  The north baulk of Room 1.

9

Fig. 8.  Detail of the north baulk of Room 1 showing the evidence of burning.

In 2004, we renewed work in L2013, which was redesignated L2027 (and later L2031). After a few days, it became apparent that this locus was filled with redeposited material, including sheets of plastic from Meshel’s excavations. We therefore abandoned it and focused our attention on L2016, which was redesignated L2032 (opening elevation 76.5). L2032 was covered with a burned layer about 0.15–0.20 m thick. Lenses of white lime or plaster flecks about midway through this burned layer represent the remains of a collapsed second-storey floor. The powdery material on top of the collapsed second storey is gray in color, apparently from the burning of organic materials from which the ceiling and/or floor were constructed. The burned layer under the collapsed second storey is filled with black charcoal, presumably from the timbers of the ceiling. Pieces of burned or fused animal bones and pottery are mixed in with the charcoal. This burned layer covered a white calcined surface, representing the first (earliest) Late Roman floor, at ca. 76.35 m (fig. 8). At this point, we divided L2032 into two: L2037 (the western third of L2032, adjacent to W509) and L2038, which is the rest of L2032. The upper levels in L2037 were disturbed, but work continued to reveal the extent of W509. The lower part of W509 formed a rough plinth that projected slightly into L2037. The base of W509 lay at an elevation of ca. 76.2 m. In L2038, excavation continued through the make-up of the earliest Late Roman plaster floor. The makeup descended for about 0.05 m (76.30 m). A flat stone at the bottom was covered with calcined plaster. L2047, below L2038, consisted of gravel fill about 0.09 m thick overlying the natural hard concretion on which the fort was built (color fig. 14, p. 57). Similar deposits of gravel fill were found in other excavated areas overlying the natural concretion and apparently were used to level the surface prior to the construction of the fort.

Room 2 Room 2 forms part of the Late Roman range abutting the south wall of the fort, bounded by W520 (west), W501 (south curtain wall), W560 (north), and the southeast staircase platform (L2084). The room measures 3.5 × 3.75 m.

10

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 9.  Plan of Area 2000 in the Early Islamic phase.

Early Islamic Phase and Later (fig. 9) Initial excavations in Room 2 revealed a very hard crust (thickness 0.10–0.30 m), which apparently formed due to the disintegration of mud bricks and a crystallization of salt and gypsum. This crust was also found in the other excavated areas inside the fort. In Room 2, immediately below the crust, remains of mud-brick walls came to light. These enclosed one main room (L2001). A row of small rooms or cells (from east to west: L2005, L2006), enclosed by mud-brick partition walls (thickness 0.20–0.35 m), abutted the inner face of the fort’s south curtain (W501) (fig. 10). A third cell, L2003/2007, was located to the east, inside the southeast courtyard (see below). Another thin, free-standing mud-brick partition wall, the nature of which is unclear, was located on the north side of L2001, adjacent to W507 (for W507, see below). Part of another room (L2002) occupied the entire western side of the area and was separated from L2001 by a mud-brick wall (W502; thickness 0.45–0.48 m). After it was realized that a mud-brick wall (W507) of the same thickness as W502 ran along the northern side of the area, the trench was extended northward by 1.5 m. Another mud-brick wall (W504) that was parallel to and east of W502 cut through the center of L2001, abutting the south curtain of the fort but terminating before it reached W507.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

11

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 10.  Area 2000: row of small cells of the Early Islamic period, looking south.

It turned out that this wall (W504) was built on top of the remains of an earlier staircase (the southeast staircase; see below). As we got closer to the Early Islamic floor level in these loci, burned patches and charcoal lenses appeared throughout the area. Because these remains were in the fill above the floor, we associate them with later Bedouin activity at the site. In fact, a large pit (L2009, L2010), about 0.50 m deep and ca. 2.0 m in diameter, that was dug through the upper occupation level in the middle of L2001 and extended into L2005 provided definite evidence for Bedouin presence. Its contents included a large piece of folded wool fabric in fair condition (most probably belonging to a tent), the fragmentary remains of leather sandals (including nails from the soles), palm fronds belonging to woven mats, a metal button, a metal belt buckle, pieces of wood, fragments of ostrich eggshell, and nearly complete glass bottles (including part of a modern beer bottle and a metal bottle top). The north side of the pit was outlined by a very hard, crescent-shaped layer of burned concretion. Other evidence of Bedouin activity included highly friable terracotta tiles, which were discovered in the fills above the Early Islamic floors. Similar tiles were found in association with Bedouin activity in other areas, usually around fire pits or hearths. One of the cells (L2006) on the southwest side of Room 2 contained the remains of a hearth (L2085) that abutted the south curtain. It was defined by two parallel clay piers (color fig. 11, p. 56). The inner faces of the piers were reddened from intense heat, and the area inside them was filled with thick ash layers. A shallow depression immediately in front of the hearth contained blackened soil and a large, discrete chunk of charcoal. There is no evidence that this hearth was used for metallurgical activity.

12

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

The Early Islamic occupation level was discovered at an elevation of ca. 77.5 m. L2002 had a hard white plaster or lime floor, whereas elsewhere the floors of rooms and cells were of packed dirt. Large quantities of restorable ceramic vessels were found on the floors of the rooms and cells, including the complete base (toe) of an Aqaba amphora in L2002 (B20049) (see fig. 2.30:1 and color fig. 18:13, p. 59).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Byzantine Phase Possible evidence of Byzantine activity was discovered in Room 2 at an approximate elevation of 77.05. This consisted of a small patch of cobbles associated with a burned horizon outside of and at a lower level than Early Islamic cell L2006 and pieces of copper ore and slag on the north side of Room 2. The Late Roman Phase A nearly meter-thick layer of debris separated the Early Islamic level from the latest (uppermost) Late Roman occupation level. The main architectural feature in this area was the southeast staircase, which projected from the south curtain (W501). When the fort was reoccupied in the Early Islamic period, the staircase was partially covered by a north–south mud-brick wall (W504). We divided the Late Roman occupation level into two main areas on either side of this later wall: L2019 on the west (Room 2) and L2018 on the east (the southeast courtyard; see below). Under the base of W504, on the east side of Room 2, we found a large platform L2084 (elevation: 76.8), 1.6 m wide and up to 0.58 m high, made of small stones compacted with mud bricks (designated as W508 before we realized that it was not a wall; later canceled). We assume that this was the foundation or support for the staircase after it turned at the landing and continued up toward the south (see below). Along the south side of Room 2 (that is, against the inner face of the south curtain), we discovered the uppermost (latest) Late Roman floor (L2020) at an approximate elevation of 76.7. Large fragments of pottery vessels on this dirt surface and in fills above it suggest that they might have fallen from a collapsed second-storey level (as the burned deposits in Room 1 also indicate). From this point down, the area between W502 and W508 was excavated to bedrock by Avner, who will publish his results separately. His excavations revealed the inner face of W560, which bounds Room 2 on the north and has a doorway in it. In 2005–2006, we removed W502, opening up the area to W520 on the west. The area below the Early Islamic plastered floor (L2002 at 77.5) and W502 was initially designated L2059, a finely compacted soil. Below it was L2060, which consisted of soil containing few finds. This work exposed the eastern (inner) face of W520 up to its junction with the south curtain of the fort. W520 is preserved to a height of four courses of mud bricks on a substantial stone socle. The fill beneath L2060 (L2061) contained a fallen stone, likely from the wall of the fort, and small bits of wall plaster. At an elevation of ca. 76.7, large pieces of pottery, a bead, and animal bones were found, associated with the uppermost (latest) Late Roman floor in Room 2, as in L2020. A concentration of finds, including pieces of plaster and a nail in L2062, suggest that there was another Late Roman surface at ca. 76.6 (which would be the second from the top in Room 2). This surface was missed due to the small size of the exposure, and the rest of the room was excavated by Avner. Under L2062 was L2063, a compacted dirt surface (the third Roman floor from the top in Room 2) at approximately 76.35–76.30. The finds associated with this surface included several

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

13

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 11.  Plan of pit L2069 and bench L2082.

large stones with mortar and plaster still adhering, an iron nail (B20749), and several coins, one of which is Ptolemaic (B20735 [Cat. no. 1]). The latest identifiable coins date to 354–358 (B20716 [Cat. no. 127], B20734 [Cat. no. 108], B20754 [Cat. no. 119], B20755 [Cat. no. 120]). L2065, beneath L2064 (a sterile fill), was another occupation level, at approximately 76.25. This surface (L2065) consisted of a well-made plaster floor, preserved in patches, and was laid directly on top of a burned layer (L2066) (this is the fourth Roman floor from the top in Room 2). The only identifiable coin from L2065 is an issue of Maximian dated to 293 (B20760 [Cat. no. 10]). Below the burned layer, which was uneven in thickness and intensity, lay the first (earliest) Late Roman floor in Room 2 (L2067 + L2068). The floor was plastered and sloped from north to south from an elevation of 76.2 to 76.0. On the western side of the room perpendicular to W520, two cut-stone slabs (ca. 0.72 m long × 0.22 m wide; ca. 0.50 m long × 0.20 m wide; ca. 1.50 m apart) were laid on their long axes (L2082) (fig. 11). These slabs were embedded in the natural concretion below the floor and perhaps supported a bench. Pieces of bone and pottery were scattered throughout the locus, and some of them had been trodden into the surface. The intact upper half of a flask of greenish buff ware was found in a depression between the stone slabs. Joining pieces of this flask (making a nearly complete vessel) were discovered at a slightly lower level, to the northeast (see fig. 2.9:2). L2068 yielded approximately 30 small bronze coins lying next to W520, some of them deposited in clusters, suggesting they might originally have been in a purse. The latest coin dates to 354–358 (B20834 [Cat. no. 105]). The depression between the stone slabs was excavated separately as a pit (L2069). The pit measured 1.09 × 1.07 m and was filled with a deposit of rich, dark soil. Carefully selected fieldstones framed an artificial deepening of the pit on its eastern side, to provide a hole measuring 0.35 × 0.45 m (fig. 12). Six small bronze coins were discovered in the pit, the latest of which dates to 354–358 (B20822 [Cat. no. 99]). Work stopped at a depth of 75.5, after the fill had become entirely sterile. The pit appears to be a natural solution hollow that was deepened during the Roman occupation, perhaps for use as a latrine.

14

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Southeast Courtyard

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The southeast courtyard forms part of the Late Roman range abutting the south wall of the fort and provides access to the southeast corner tower. It is bounded by the southeast staircase platform (L2084; west), W501 (south curtain), W510 (east curtain), and a baulk (north). Early Islamic Phase In the Early Islamic phase, the north side of the area was bounded by W504 (west), a mud-brick wall on the north (W507), W501 (south curtain), and W510 (east curtain). The entrance was through an opening between W504 and W507. A cell (L2003/2007) enclosed by mudbrick partition walls (thickness 0.20– 0.35 m) abutted the inner face of the fort’s south curtain (W501). It had no apparent entrance and belonged to a row of similar cells uncovered immediately to the west (L2005, L2006; see above). The floor, of packed dirt, was at an elevation of ca. 77.5. A large pit filled with sterile silt was dug into the corner of the cell (by W501 and W504), to a depth of 76.5, where it stopped at the top of Fig. 12.  View of pit L2069 and bench L2082, looking south. the second step from the bottom of the southeast staircase (see below). No Byzantine remains or levels were discerned in this area. Late Roman Phase (fig. 13) The southeast courtyard was an open area, as indicated by the features in it (including the southeast staircase) and the absence of second-storey collapse (in contrast to the other rooms along the south side of the fort). In addition, there is no evidence of burning associated with a second storey or roof in most of the area, in contrast to the thick layers of conflagration discovered in Rooms 1 and 2. Signs of burning were found only along the west and northwest sides of the room, apparently where the eaves of a roof or second storey may have projected. The southeast courtyard was separated from Room 2 by the southeast staircase (fig. 14). The lowest steps of the southeast staircase, which consisted of six large, smooth, nicely-cut ashlars, were partially covered and preserved by Early Islamic wall W504. The bottom two steps

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

15

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 13.  Plan of the southeast courtyard.

are oriented east–west (elevation of the base of the lowest step: ca. 76.1). The next four steps are at a 90-degree angle to the lower steps and rise from south to north, although they had subsided and tilted to the north (elevation of the top of the uppermost step: 77.3). The staircase must have turned at a landing under the continuation of later W504, rising from the landing back toward the south wall of the fort, presumably with steps made of wood. The uppermost (latest) Late Roman floor (L2018) and its make-up (L2030) in the southeast courtyard, which consisted of packed dirt with lime flecks, lay at an approximate elevation of 76.5. The features exposed in the courtyard include the southeast staircase, a tiled platform (L2083) built beneath the landing of the staircase, and a rectangular installation (L2015/L2033) enclosed by mud bricks and stones abutting the east curtain (W510), which was used for the disposal of refuse in its last phase. The tiled platform (L2083; top elevation: 76.7) was associated with this uppermost Late Roman floor. The other features in this area (the staircase and the rectangular installation) were originally constructed in association with the lowest (earliest) Late Roman floor but remained in use through the last Late Roman phase. The uppermost Late Roman floor covered the first (bottommost) and second stone steps. The tiled platform was made of dirt, measured ca. 0.76 m long × 0.37 m wide × 0.25 m high, and was covered with terracotta tiles set into mortar. Around its base were burned patches and scattered potsherds. Four coins were discovered on the

16

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 14.  Staircase and tiled platform in the southeast courtyard, looking west.

floor near the steps and around the tiled platform, one of which dates to between 335 and 337 (B20322 [Cat. no. 52]). The next Late Roman floor (second from the top), designated L2035, consisted of plastered patches at ca. 76.36. This floor was below the base of the tiled platform (L2083), which therefore clearly was associated with the latest Late Roman floor (L2018 + L2030). The fill above L2035 contained many small fragments of pottery, glass, and bone. A large piece of a bronze fibula (B20494) was found in L2035, in the fill above the plastered patches. L2039 was below L2035, down to and including the next late Roman floor (third from the top). This floor (ca. 76.3), abutted the side of the second stone step and consisted of compacted brown earth with lime flecks. Large fragments of pottery and the base of a glass vessel were found in the fill above this floor (B20611). L2039 overlay and sealed a thin burned lens on the west and northwest, below which was a layer of cobblestones about 10 cm thick (upper elevation: ca. 76.2) (L2055). The cobblestones were laid along the eastern side of the staircase, petering out about midway under the tiled platform (L2083). The cobblestones also overlay the bottommost (first) step but did not extend through the rest of the courtyard. The top of the cobblestones was sealed by a rough mortar finish. The cobblestones were laid on top of the lowest (earliest) Late Roman floor (L2042 at ca. 76.10), which consisted of a thick layer of hard plaster over soft silt. A sounding under the lowest step revealed that prior to the laying of the first floor a 0.15 m thick bedding of gravel had been spread to level the area. This gravel seems to have covered the natural hard concretion that underlies the fort. A rectangular installation (L2015/L2033) across the courtyard from the tiled platform and abutting the east curtain (W510) was installed in connection with the first floor (L2042). This installation was enclosed by low, thin, mud-brick and stone kerbing (dimensions 1.32 × 0.55 m). It remained in use with modifications through the last Late Roman phase, when it was filled with refuse, including numerous animal bones, potsherds, and large quantities of charcoal. Another installation, defined by a semicircular row of stones and mud bricks (L2043) and measuring about

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

17

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 15.  Section showing southeast staircase and tiled platform, looking west.

1.5 m in diameter, was built up against the south curtain (W501). The base of this installation, which was plastered, was slightly lower than the associated floor level (L2042). Its fill was mostly sterile. A small part of a third installation (L2044), similar and adjacent to L2015/L2033, projected from the north baulk. The stratigraphic sequence in this area indicates that, after the initial construction of the fort and the laying of the earliest Late Roman floor (L2042), the cobblestones were placed alongside the southeast staircase, perhaps to remedy some structural instability (fig. 15). The burned lens on top of the cobblestones is associated with a layer of burning attested in the other rooms along the south side of the fort. Its disappearance to the east of the staircase indicates that this area was an open courtyard, as previously mentioned, in contrast to the other rooms along the south side of the fort, which were roofed and apparently had two storeys. Immediately after the destruction by burning (with no hiatus), a new floor was laid (L2039). There were two later floors above, L2035 and L2018/L2030, which is the last in the series. All of the floors, including the entrance to the southeast corner tower, were made of packed dirt with lime or plaster flecks. Tiny fragments of pottery and animal bone were compacted into the make-up of the floors. Most of the finds, including coins, were found lying on top of the floors. Mixed in with the fill above the last Late Roman floor (L2018 + L2030) were numerous

18

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

fragments of hard, white (unpainted) wall plaster. The plaster fragments were all found lying face-down, just as they had fallen from the walls. The back sides of the plaster fragments are rough, but the outer surfaces are very fine and smooth.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Southeast Corner Tower The southeast corner tower is rectangular (interior dimensions: 3.60  × 5.7  m) and projects from the curtain, like the other three corner towers. The western face of W515 lies under later (probably Bedouin) construction. The east wall of the tower was robbed out, perhaps when the British Mandate police station was constructed. The tower was accessed through a corridor from the southeast courtyard. The tower’s walls are constructed in the same manner as the fort’s curtain but are thinner (W514 [north]: 1.19 m; W515 [west]: 1.42 m; W516 [south]: 1.30 m), consisting of a ca. 1.8-m-high stone base with mud brick above. The stone base is built of rubble faced with fieldstones, with five courses of mud brick preserved in W515. Originally, the walls were covered with a thick coat of plaster, which still adheres to the outer face of W516. The entrance to the corridor was Fig. 16.  Entrance to the southeast corner tower, showing reused Nabataean ashlars. blocked by mud-brick collapse from the curtain. The north corridor wall is longer than the south wall, creating a 90-degree turn into the tower. On the north side, the length of the corridor is 1.76 m; the south side is 1.27 m long; and the width of the corridor is 0.89–0.90 m. The walls of the corridor are constructed of nicely hewn ashlar blocks including a few reused Nabataean stones (fig. 16). Early Islamic and Byzantine Phases The interior of the southeast corner tower was partly excavated by Avner prior to the 2004 season (L2024). This work exposed a slightly sloping semicircular stone pavement (ca. 2.5 × 1.5 m) at an approximate level of 77.4–77.35, which apparently was associated with the Early Islamic occupation phase. The pavement cut into the east curtain (W510; the top of this wall was also exposed by Avner prior to the 2004 season).

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

19

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The uppermost level of the space inside the corner (inner southwest corner) of W515 and W516, designated L2051, comprised a compacted dirt shelf or surface at 76.95. This feature apparently is Early Islamic. In L2054, which is the area to the north of L2051, an east–west row of five fieldstones (laid at ca. 77.65 m) ran perpendicular to the inner face of W515. They presumably are part of a Bedouin installation. Late Roman Phase No Early Islamic or Byzantine period levels were discerned in the tower’s corridor. The last (uppermost) Late Roman floor level was discovered at ca. 76.46 (initially designated L2008 + L2026, later combined as L2034). Because of the friable nature of the accumulations and the confined space inside the corridor, it was difficult to distinguish floor levels. However, a compacted surface incorporating a single stone tile with pieces of wall plaster lying face-down on it was found at ca. 76.39. In the fill under this surface, in the center of the corridor, several large stones and animal bones were uncovered (ca. 76.25). The large stones Fig. 17.  Animal bone deposit beneath the entrance to the probably belonged to the foundations southeast corner tower. of a step associated with this floor, at the entrance from the corridor into the tower. The animal bones, prominent among them large camel bones, may represent a foundation deposit (fig. 17). A coin dating to 354–358 (B20467 [Cat. no. 116]) was discovered in L2034 but came from the sifter. L2045 is the fill below L2034 and under the stones and animal bones, down to and including the lowest (earliest) Late Roman floor. The base of a glass vessel (B20643) and a coin (B20648 [lost]) were found in the fill about 0.08 m below the animal bones. Other finds in this locus included pottery, animal bones, glass fragments, and animal dung. A plaster floor was reached at about the same level (ca. 76.1) as L2042 in the southeast courtyard. Animal bone fragments were embedded in the plaster. The Early Islamic stone pavement exposed by Avner (L2024) overlay the north wall of the tower (W514), which is badly damaged and mostly robbed out. As a result, only the inner face of the wall is well preserved. On the east, the wall terminated in collapse. The pavement cut into the

20

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

east curtain of the fort (W510; the top of this wall was also exposed by Avner prior to the 2004 season). Work in the southeast tower ceased at the end of the 2004 season, and recommenced in 2007, when two trenches were opened. The first trench (5.50 × 3.50 m) was inside the southeast corner tower of the fort. The second trench (6.0 × 2.5 m) lay outside the fort, at the junction of W510 (the east curtain) and W514 (the north wall of the tower).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Trench Inside the Tower (2007) Previous work in 2004 had stopped just south of the tower’s entrance, leaving an artificial platform. The platform (L2072) was removed, and once level with the tower’s interior to the south, was merged to create L2074 (77.05 m). This locus yielded some pottery, glass, Fig. 18.  East curtain (W510), looking west, showing the and bone as well as a group of large stone socle. iron nails within a substantial burn patch. When L2074 reached the level of L2073, which abutted it to the north and east, the two loci were merged as L2076 (76.82 m). More nails were found, reaching a total of twenty, including one with wood preserved at the tip (B20933 [pub. no. 10]), as well as a coin dated tentatively to 354–358 (B20943 [Cat. no. 122]). Presumably, the nails and wood derive from a wooden structure inside the tower, perhaps a ladder or wooden staircase to the second storey. The matrix of L2076 consisted of disintegrated mud bricks containing fragments of wall plaster, some painted red and black. Anticipating the possibility of a floor, the locus number was changed to L2077 (76.62). Black ash and soot found throughout L2077 presumably represent the remains of timbers fallen from the floor of the upper storey, as indicated by large chunks (ca. 0.05–0.08 m in diameter) of charred wood. Another coin dated to 354–358 was found in L2077 (B20973 [Cat. no. 103]). An installation (L2080; base at 76.4) enclosed by mud bricks in the southwest corner of the tower measured 0.85 × 2.0 m and contained pottery fragments and animal bones. The excavation of L2080 was incomplete when the dig season ended. At 76.5 m, the locus number was changed from L2077 to L2079. This locus consisted of more collapse. In the northwest corner of the room, an oil lamp (B20989) was found sandwiched between two chunks of plaster at 76.46 m (see fig. 2.10:3). By the last day of excavation, we were just above the ground floor of the tower (ca. 76.2 m), which appeared to slope toward the center. A coin dated tentatively to 354–358 was found just above this floor at 76.23 m (B21043 [Cat. no. 123]). Work stopped at this point.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

21

The Trench Outside the Fort (2007) This trench projected six meters out from the curtain, exposing the exterior faces of the east curtain (W510) and the north wall of the southeast corner tower (W514) (fig. 18). Both walls were constructed of courses of irregular fieldstones covered in plaster. The two lowest courses of W510 were constructed of large fieldstones, projecting slightly from the wall above. These comprise the socle that is visible elsewhere on the interior of the fort’s curtain walls. W514, as a tower wall and being thinner than W510, does not have a socle. No trace of an external defensive ditch was discerned.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 3000 (color fig. 2, p. 53) Area 3000, excavated in 2004–2005, was opened as a 7.5 × 7.5 m trench to the north of the southeast courtyard and south of the British Mandate police station. It is bounded on the east by Fig. 19.  Plan of Area 3000. the east curtain (W510) and by a baulk on the west located just in advance of the pipeline cut (fig. 19). As in the other excavated areas, the uppermost levels (under the hard crust that covers the surface) yielded evidence of ephemeral Bedouin occupation. Patches of burning and chunks of charcoal were concentrated in the northeast corner of the area. They were associated (as were the hearths elsewhere) with highly friable terracotta tiles that apparently formed the bases for the Bedouin hearths. British Mandate Phase and Later At an elevation of 77.18 m, a row of three smooth concrete bricks was exposed, running from east to west through the center of the locus. Later, more of these bricks came to light along the same alignment. It turned out that they were associated with a grounding cable laid in conjunction with the oil pipeline. We left the bricks and the cable in place and created a meter-wide baulk

22

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

around them that divided the area into two halves: L3004 (north) and L3005 (south) (opening elevation: ca. 76.9 m). Immediately below this, a large irregular pit came to light in L3004, which turned out to be the latrine of the British Mandate police station (L3028). The latrine contained a crusty greenish fill with softer patches here and there. Four coins were found in the fill, only two of which could be identified (both dated to 354–358; B30033 [Cat. no. 115], B30034 [Cat. no. 121]) and which are clearly in a secondary context. The bottom of the latrine pit was reached at 76.52 m.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Early Islamic and Byzantine Phases The stratigraphy visible in the south baulk of this area reveals the existence of occupation horizons that were not discernible in the excavation (color fig. 6, p. 54). The Early Islamic occupation horizon is clearly visible in the baulk. It slopes down from east to west (ca. 77.41–76.67 m), due to the fact that this occupation was established above the collapse of the east curtain of the fort. Two more occupation horizons are also visible in the baulk and also slope down from east to west (at ca. 77.17–76.83; and ca. 76.97–76.75). However, whereas the Early Islamic horizon stretches across the entire area (including over W513), the two horizons below it terminate at the top of the east side of W513 (although the upper one is slightly higher than the top of W513; the area on the west side of W513 shows no evidence of occupation levels or horizons). In addition, these two occupation horizons only display a significant slope for the first meter to the west of W510, suggesting that they were established above the collapse of the outer wall of the fort. The position of these two horizons relative to the Early Islamic level above and the Late Roman levels below, and the fact that they were established on top of the fort’s collapse, suggest they date to the Byzantine period. Late Roman Phase (fig. 20) In L3005, the stub of a mud-brick wall (W513) was found projecting 0.90 m northward from the middle of the south baulk. The top of the wall stub was at an elevation of 76.75 m. Later, the continuation of this line of wall was found, preserved at a slightly lower level. The wall continued through the baulk dividing L3004 and L3005 and disappeared in the north baulk of L3004 (under the police station). W513 was ca. 0.90 m wide in L3005 and ca. 0.75 m wide in L3004. It was associated with the earliest floor level in this area (see below). The continuation of W513 beyond the projecting stub (in L3005) shows signs of a possible blocked doorway ca. 1.5 m wide. Another mud-brick wall (W512) was discovered running along the north side of L3005, partly covered by the baulk separating L3005 from L3004 (leaving about 0.40 m of the wall visible). The top of W512 lay at an elevation of 76.71 m. W512 terminated at W513. Like W513, W512 was associated with the earliest floor level in this area. A mud-brick stub (0.85 m wide) projected ca. 1.15  m from the middle of W512 southward into the center of L3005. With the discovery of W512, L3005 was closed and three new loci were opened, from west to east: L3006 (from the west baulk to W513); L3007 (from W513 to the stub projecting from W512); L3008 (from the stub projecting from W512 to W510). At the same time, two new loci were opened, replacing L3004: L3009 (west of W513) and L3010 (between W513 and W510). L3007 + L3008 (south of W512) comprised a room (Room 3) abutting the inner face of the east curtain. L3010 (north of the baulk) was an open courtyard abutting the inner face of the east curtain (= eastern courtyard), which gave access to the main gate when the fort was first established. L3006/L3009, to the west of W513, were part of the fort’s inner courtyard.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

23

Fig. 20.  Area 3000, looking south.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Inner Courtyard Several very large roughly worked stones were discovered in the northwest corner of L3005/3006 at an elevation of ca. 76.95 (the top of the stones). The largest measured approximately 1.0 × 0.65 m. Three that were embedded in the baulk on the north side of L3005 were left in place; the others were removed later when it turned out they were unconnected to any other feature. Excavation in L3006 continued down to the natural hard concretion on which the fort was established (76.0 m). No floors or other features or surfaces were found, and the fill in this locus was nearly sterile. Three randomly placed, irregular man-made pits were dug into the natural hard concretion (ranging in depth from 0.24–0.57 m). The largest pit measured 0.45 m on the long axis and 0.24 m on the short axis, with evidence at its base of an ovoid secondary cutting 0.19 m deep. This was the only pit that resembled a posthole. All three pits were filled with soft brown earth that was completely devoid of finds. In L3009, the locus number was changed to L3011 at ca. 76.15 m when a floor was discovered at about that level in L3010/3012 (see below). Shortly afterward, a compacted dirt floor was discovered in L3011 at ca. 76.05 m. This apparently represents the original (earliest) Late Roman occupation level. No other occupation levels or surfaces were discerned above this in L3009 or L3011. What appeared to be a mud-brick platform running along the south side of L3011 (at the foot of the baulk) was removed as L3013 when it became apparent that it was not a built feature.

24

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 21.  Iron nail in L3018.

L3015 is below L3011 and consisted of the make-up of the floor. This floor was laid directly over the natural concretion on which the fort was built, without any sign of the gravel fill that was used to level other areas. As in L3006, a pit had been dug into the natural concretion. This pit had a classic stake-hole profile, narrowing from a width of 0.18 m to 0.06 m at a depth of 0.19 m. It inclined slightly from north to south and was filled with soft brown earth that was devoid of finds. A 1.0 × 1.0 m sounding (L3027) cut to a depth of ca. 0.20 m in the southwest corner of L3015 indicated that the lowest floor was established on top of the natural concretion.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Room 3 The western half of Room 3 yielded the richest evidence of occupation in this area, with numerous coins, potsherds, pieces of wall plaster, and slag. These finds were associated with a compacted Late Roman dirt floor (L3007) (ca. 76.15 m) in which potsherds were embedded. A deposit of large camel bones was discovered on top of the floor, adjacent to W512. The identifiable coins from L3007 range in date from 312 to 340 (B30173 [Cat. no. 12], B30174 [Cat. no. 68], B30205 [Cat. no. 18]). L3017 was below L3007 and under the compacted dirt floor, down to and including the next floor below, which was the first (earliest) Late Roman floor. This floor was plastered and lay at an elevation of ca. 76.0 m. There were occasional patches of ash ca. 0.30 m in diameter on top of the floor. Pottery, bones, glass, and coins were discovered on the floor and in the fill above it. The latest identifiable coin from L3017 dates to 347–348 (B30273 [Cat. no. 83]). Initially, no evidence of floors or surfaces was discerned in L3008, the eastern half of Room 3. The locus was filled with loose soil containing few finds. Small patches of burning and wall plaster lying face-down began to appear at ca. 76.10 m. From this point, the fill was mixed with ash, pottery fragments, bone, and slag. When work resumed in 2005, L3008 and L3017 were designated L3018. This was the continuation of the ashy layer. It yielded a large-headed iron nail (fig. 21), the rim of a cylindrical glass beaker (B30317 [Cat. no. 4]), and three fourth-century coins (B30315 [Cat. no. 179]; B30316 [Cat. no. 180]; B30319 [Cat. no. 181]), all at about 76.0. When fully exposed, the ashy layer turned out to be a series of hearths directly on top of the bedrock (approximately 75.95), which we designated L3021 (color fig. 15, p. 57). The hearths ran in a north–south strip (measuring 1.9 × 1.1 m) from the projecting wall stub L3016 (see below) to the baulk. The hearths comprised discrete black patches, with heavy concentrations of charcoal surrounded by an aureole of gray clay, reddened by the intensity of the heat. We also removed the southern tip of the stub projecting from W512 and excavated it as L3016. This turned out not to be a wall, as we previously thought, but covered the continuation of the hearths to the north.

Eastern Courtyard On the north side of the central baulk with the grounding cable, L3004 was divided by W513, with L3009 on the west (inner courtyard) and L3010 on the east (eastern courtyard). The main feature in L3010 is a circular installation (L3026) about 1.10 m in diameter (the top of the installation is at 76.8 m). It is constructed of fieldstones and incorporated one finely cut, reused block on

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

25

Fig. 22.  Olive press (L3026) in the eastern courtyard.

top (fig. 22). The installation is located in the southeast corner of the locus at a distance of 0.95 m from the inner face of the east curtain. An almost identical installation found at Moa was an olive press. 27 L3010 was redesignated L3012 at ca. 76.2 m when a Late Roman dirt floor was uncovered. Numerous coins and a bronze brooch (B30192) were found on and above this floor. The two identifiable coins are of Diocletian and Probus (B30151 [Cat. no. 8], B30164 [Cat. no. 6]). In addition, the area around the base of circular installation L3026 was covered with layers of ash and animal bones, especially on the east side. L3014 was under L3012, from the dirt floor down through fill to the lowest and earliest floor in this area at ca. 76.1, which directly overlay the natural concretion. The circular installation was associated with the earliest floor (L3014) but remained in use with the next floor (L3012).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 5000 Area 5000 was excavated from 2004 through 2007. Excavations in this area revealed the fort’s main (east) gate and entrance corridor and a room (Room 4) abutting the east curtain (W510). Initially, Area 5000 was a narrow trench (5 × 2 m) in front (to the east) of the British Mandate police station and west of the main gate, and later was expanded to the north (up to Area 6000), east (to the main gate), and south (to W532). The police station prevented the expansion of the excavations to the west. Previous work by Avner in this area had exposed the upper courses of the east curtain (W510) and gate and brought to light fragments of a ceramic vessel inscribed in Greek (see below). 27.  Photographs suggest that the press at Moa, which apparently dates to the second–third centuries, is also placed very close to the corner of the room/courtyard; see Patrich 2012: 13; Cohen 1993: 1138.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

26

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 23.  Plan of the main gate and entrance corridor.

British Mandate Phase Almost immediately after the removal of the upper crust covering the area (77.5), four supports lined up in a row from north to south and constructed of fieldstones set in mortar appeared (L5001). These were the foundations for the wooden posts of the police station’s front porch, as

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

27

indicated by the timbers still embedded in two of the supports. Each support measured roughly 0.50  ×  0.30 m. The timbers measured 0.09 × 0.05 m in section. Once these supports had been defined, L5001 was redesignated L5002. Pieces of an ostracon with an illegible Greek inscription in ink were found on the eastern side of the locus. These apparently are part of the same inscribed vessel discovered by Avner previously in this area. A foundation (W531) for the north end of the porch of the police station was found in Room 4 (see below). No evidence of Early Islamic or Byzantine activity was discerned in this area, except perhaps for the Greek ostracon.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Late Roman Phase The Main Gate and Entrance Corridor (fig. 23) An east–west mud-brick wall (W525) came to light between the two middle supports of the police station’s front porch. The areas on either side of this wall were numbered L5003 (north) and L5004 (south). After we exposed two courses of this wall (W525; top at Fig. 24.  Main gate and entrance corridor, looking east. 77.46), a cavity that ran along its length appeared that we attributed to the burrowing of animals. Since it seemed that we had reached the base of the wall, we removed the two courses of mud bricks and continued lower. It turned out that the wall, consisting of mud bricks on a stone socle, continued farther down. W525 separated the entrance corridor to the south from Room 4 to the north. L5004 consisted of loose earth fill, with a relatively small number of finds including potsherds and animal bones. When L5004 was at the same level as the area to the east (77.19), which previously had been exposed by Avner, we redesignated it as L5005 and expanded it three meters to the east to include the original entrance to the fort. The entrance forms a passage that is 2.25 m wide as it passes through the east curtain. Two walls (W525 to the north and W532 to the south) abut the inner face of the fort wall and extend the passage to the west. The matrix of L5005, like the loci above, was a relatively sterile fill consisting of light brown, loose, finely grained earth mixed with pebbles. However, on the north and south sides of the locus the walls lining the entrance inside the fort’s main gate began to appear. The original ashlars were apparently removed,

28

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 25.  Detail of burning on the walls just inside the main gate.

leaving the rubble core. A few large stones mixed with the fill in L5005 likely came from the walls lining the entrance. The main gate consisted of a passage through the east curtain (W510) (fig. 24). The first meter or so of this passage is constricted by opposing piers that presumably supported an arch above. A semicircular feature (L5011; elevation 77.04) built of small fieldstones (0.50 × 0.90 m) abutted the south wall inside the entrance, above the level of the south pier. It might be a later rebuilding of the support for the springing of the arch. Four (or possibly five) successive Late Roman floors were discovered in the entrance corridor. The uppermost floor was L5020 (76.42). A possible floor consisting of a vestigial compacted strip, not identified as a surface in the field, was located at ca. 76.31 (L5027). The next floor down was at 76.22 (L5029), on which a coin dated tentatively to 354–358 (B50229 [Cat. no. 125]) was discovered. The two lowest floors were given the same locus number in the field (L5034) (76.15; 76.10–76.05). A partition wall (W532) that was erected in association with floor L5029 separated and walled off the entrance corridor from areas to the south (the eastern courtyard). A stone bench (L5028; ca. 3.1 × 0.51 m; elevation 76.38) lined the inside of W532, facing the interior of the entrance corridor. A thickly plastered surface at ca. 76.35 m (L5026) was exposed in the area framed by the projecting piers of the entrance arch. This plastered surface covered the threshold stones of the gate, which means that by this time the threshold was no longer in use. Three earlier Late Roman floors abutted the threshold stones (L5030), which came to light at 76.29. The uppermost of these three floors was found at 76.20 (L5031 inside the threshold and L5032 outside the threshold, which correspond to L5029 in the entrance corridor). A large camel scapula—perhaps a foundation deposit—had been buried under L5032, just outside the threshold. The area beneath L5029, L5031, L5032 was designated L5033 (76.19), and the two Roman floors below this were L5034 (see above). The threshold (L5030) was constructed of thickly mortared cut stones: a rectangular block in the center and two carefully worked stones projecting inward (west) on either side that accom-

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

29

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 26.  Plan of Room 4.

modated the doorposts. These stones had been worked in such a way that the bases for the doorposts, indicated by deeply-cut circular hollows, are several centimeters lower than the elevation of the threshold. This, together with the evidence of semicircular grooves on either stone, indicates that the original fort gate comprised an inward-swinging, double-leafed door. Because the two uppermost Late Roman floors (L5026 and L5031) covered the doorposts, this double-leafed gate presumably had gone out of use by the later phases. Twenty-four iron nails associated with burn patches, presumably from the double-leaf doors, were found lying on the earliest Roman floor inside the gate (L5034; 76.07). An iron object that might belong to the gate’s locking mechanism (B50324 [pub. no. 8]) was also found lying on this floor. In addition, the walls just inside the doorjambs of the gate were reddened as a result of intense heat and burning (fig. 25). This seems to provide additional evidence for the conflagration that marked the end of this phase, as discovered elsewhere in the fort. Beneath the first (earliest) Roman floor in the entrance corridor and extending outside the gate was a drain (L5036 + L5037; base level from 75.98 on the west to 75.91 on the east). The fill of L5036 was a soft, moist, fine-grained soil, while the fill of L5037 was darker, moist, and hardpacked. Irregular stone slabs covered the western half of the drain (in the entrance corridor), but no cover stones were preserved farther east, in the area around the inside of the gate.

Room 4 Room 4 was bounded on the south by W525; on the east by W510; on the north by W523; and on the west by the baulk under the police station (fig. 26). L5003, north of W525, consisted of loose earth fill with a relatively small number of finds, including potsherds, animal bones, and

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

30

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

a coin (B50013 [Cat. no. 113], dated 354–358; elevation 77.21). L5006 was opened to the north of L5003, extending the trench by two meters and connecting Areas 5000 and 6000. After the surface concretion was removed, a stone wall (W531) was revealed, bisecting L5006 from east to west. At this point (ca. 77.5), L5006 was redesignated as L5007 to the north of W531 and L5008 to the south of W531. Both L5007 and L5008 consisted of soft, light brown soil that was almost completely sterile. W531 comprised only two courses of stone and apparently formed the foundation for the north end of the porch of the police station. Once L5008 was at the same level as L5003 to its south (77.22), the two loci were merged and redesignated L5009. After W531 was removed, L5007 was merged with L5009 and redesignated L5010 (beginning level 77.22). In other words, the northern arm of the trench (north of W525), which previously had been divided into three side-by-side loci, was now united into one locus called L5010. L5010 consisted of a fill that contained pottery, pieces of plaster, bone, charcoal, glass, and two fourth-century coins (B50034 [Cat. no. 184]; B50040 [Cat. no. 185]). At 76.86, the locus was redesignated L5012. This locus contained an extensive ash deposit, which was bounded by W510 to the east, W523 to the north, and W525 to the south. A fourth-century coin (B50057 [Cat. no. 186]) was found in L5012 at 76.86. A large semicircular niche (1.4 m across and 0.70 m deep) was cut into the core of the east curtain of the fort (W510) (color fig. 10, p. 55). The niche was excavated as L5015 (beginning elevation is the top of the fort wall, at 77.56; closing elevation, at the base of the niche and the top of the adjacent platform, is 76.81). The niche was filled with collapsed mud bricks, still intact but lying diagonally as they had fallen. The fill was relatively sterile, except for a Greek ostracon discovered at 76.93 (B50131) (color fig. 8, p.  55). The ostracon, which measures 12  ×  7.5  cm, was inscribed in charcoal writing that began to fade upon exposure to the light. It is written on a body sherd of thick pink ware that resembles the fabric typical of our early Islamic vessels. The reading of the inscription is difficult, but it appears to refer to a man named Kasiseos and to a golden finger-ring. 28 It is unclear whether the niche and the built-stone platform in front of it served a cultic or religious purpose. Excavations in front of the niche (L5015) revealed a built-stone platform (L5025) (dimensions 1.61 m wide [N–S] × 1.91 m [E–W]). The platform is constructed of large ashlars, including reused Nabataean stones. A step (0.50 m wide × 0.28 m deep) is inserted into the middle of the front (west) side of the platform. In front of the platform, below L5012 (closing elevation 76.55), was a series of three discrete plastered floors, one above the other. The uppermost (latest) Late Roman floor, on which were scattered hearths, was L5018 (elevation 76.48; make-up of the floor = L5019). The second Late Roman floor comprised L5021 (to the north and south of the platform; make-up of the floor = L5023) and L5022 (the area in front [west] of the platform), which was covered with successive hearths on top of a calcined surface (ca. 76.2). L5022 yielded a coin dated tentatively to ca. 364– 378 (B50356 [Cat. no. 131]). Two benches, the northern of stone (L5044; next to W523) and the southern of mud brick (L5045; next to W525), were associated with the first (earliest) floor and remained in use with the second floor. The tops of both benches are at a level of 76.5, and both project 0.50 m into the room, respecting the corners of the platform (L5025). The first (earliest) Late Roman floor (L5024) was reached at about 76.10. Finds associated with this floor included animal bones, pottery, glass fragments, and a possible large sling-stone 28.  For the reading of the ostracon by Walter Cockle and Zlatko Plese, see Appendix 1 (p.  68) to this chapter.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

31

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 27.  Plan of Room 5 (Area 6000).

(B50353 [pub. no. 25]). This floor was covered with a thick burned layer, apparently associated with the same destruction found elsewhere in the fort. The platform (L5025) appears to be contemporary with the east curtain (W510), whereas the niche (L5015) seems to postdate the wall’s construction, although we cannot determine when the niche was inserted. The niche and platform seem to have remained in use until the end of the Late Roman occupation, because the last Late Roman floor (L5018) abuts the platform. The western baulk of Area 5000 displays evidence of seismic activity after the Late Roman abandonment of the fort. A sequence of mud bricks, 13 courses high and 3 courses wide, appears to have toppled southward from W523 to rest on top of L5018 (the uppermost Roman floor) at its farthest point (color fig. 7, p. 55). Similarly, eight courses of collapsed mud bricks are visible in the south baulk of L3015, having toppled westward from W513. The manner in which these bricks fell en bloc argues strongly in favor of a single catastrophic event rather than an accretional process of collapse over time.

Area 6000 (Room 5) (fig. 27) Area 6000, excavated in 2005–2006, is located along the interior of the east curtain (W510), north of Area 5000. The excavated area consisted of a trench extending 6 m north along the interior of W510 and 5 m west toward the center of the fort. With the discovery of W523 the locus

32

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 28.  Room 5, looking east.

was reduced at the southern end at the line of this wall. The initial ground level of Area 6000 sloped gradually downward from the northeast to southwest. Soon after removing the surface concretion, three walls began to come to light: W523 (south), W524 (north), and W530 (west) (fig. 28). All three walls are built of mud bricks on stone socles. These walls, together with W510, form an almost-square room, measuring internally ca. 4 × 4 m (Room 5). In the middle of W523 and W530 were doorways, ca. 0.90 m wide. W523, the south wall of the room, is almost 1 m thick at its widest, substantially wider than other interior mud-brick walls found in the fort. The bricks, preserved to a height of eight courses, are laid in a distinctive manner, with each course consisting of a central row of large square bricks flanked by half bricks on either side. W524 is preserved to a height of up to six courses. The eastern third of W524 is constructed in the same manner as W523, but is thinner at about 0.90 m thick. The mud bricks in the rest of the wall are laid side-by-side in pairs. W530 is preserved to a height of four courses. The mud bricks of W530 are not as well-preserved nor as neatly laid as in the other two walls. What is clear, however, is that the courses of the walls interlock at the corners, indicating that these three walls were all built at the same time. Early Islamic and Byzantine Phases A possible compacted dirt surface with lime flecks was discovered at ca. 77.45 (L6003), apparently dating to the Early Islamic phase. A packed dirt surface with lime patches (L6008), probably dating to the Byzantine period, was associated with pottery, animal bones, shell, glass, wall plaster, and five coins, two of which date between 335 and 355 (B60047 [Cat. no. 98], B60050 Cat. no. 57]). This surface dipped in the center, ranging in elevation from 76.95–76.87. Late Roman Phase Beneath the Byzantine surface (L6008) there was very little in the way of finds. A burned timber almost 2 m long was discovered lying in situ at 76.80 (L6009 + L6010) (fig. 29). Radiocar-

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

33

Fig. 29.  Burned timber in Room 5.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 30.  Burned patches in Room 5.

bon dating of two samples of the timber yielded calibrated dates of 80–330 c.e. (B60095) and 130–400 c.e. (B60090), reflecting the longevity of wood use in this arid desert environment (see Appendix 2 by Boaretto, p.  69). The discrepancy in dates may be due either to contamination of the samples during collection in the field or to lab error. The timber probably represents the collapse of the roofing system or upper storey after the abandonment of the fort. Between 76.74 and 76.44 (L6010, L6013, L6014) we uncovered numerous burned patches, each only a few centimeters deep and ranging in size from 0.50 m to 3.00 m in diameter (fig. 30). Although very soft, white lime flecks were found throughout the soil matrixes, there were no identifiable floors in these levels. Some of the burned patches had hard, white centers. The largest burned patch stretched across much of the room. Some of the burned patches had what appeared to be remnants of organic material, possibly seeds, coprolites, and burned wood. One of the burned patches (in L6014) contained a deposit of sheep/goat bones (B60148, elevation ca. 76.5). L6010 produced a strap-buckle of military type (B60105 [pub. no. 21]). L6013 yielded three coins dated to the fourth century (B60126 [Cat. no. 199]; B60130 [Cat. no. 200]; B60138 [Cat. no. 201]) and a small jar fragment (B60125), which was found (elevation ca. 76.6) with small, round seeds. Below this level, excavations revealed two successive Late Roman lime-flecked dirt floors: L6015 + L6016, the upper (later) floor (elevation ca. 76.40); and L6031 + L6034, the lower (earlier) floor (elevation ca. 76.30). The floors in this room yielded rich assemblages of finds, including pottery, coins, glass, animal bones, stone objects, and several heavily corroded metal objects, including parts of a “Ridge” helmet (L6034 B60348 + 60349). Altogether, 23 coins were found, distributed as follows: from L6015 + L6016, 9 coins (latest: 354–358, B60198 [Cat. no. 117]); L6031 + L6034: 16 coins (latest: 354–355; B60353 [Cat. no. 97]). The other finds included an intact oil lamp (L6034 B60361) and an intact juglet (L6034 B60350; see figs. 2.12:1 and 2.9:3). 29 Radiocarbon dating of charred seeds from L6016 (B60187) yielded a calibrated range of 250–420 c.e. 29.  An intact pottery flask filled with charred seeds from L6016 (B60182; elevation 76.44) has since been lost. For paleobotanical analysis of the seeds, see the chapter by J. Ramsay.

34

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 31.  Drain in Room 5.

Three installations were found in Room 5: L6012 in the angle of W510 and W524; L6022 in the angle of W510 and W523; L6033 in the angle of W523 and W530. L6012 was a small, curved installation enclosed by mud bricks and stones and was filled with sterile soil. L6022 was a rectangular installation enclosed by small plastered stones, filled with soil that contained a few potsherds. L6033 is another rectangular installation of mud brick and stone that contained mostly sterile loose soil. All three installations were constructed in association with the first (earliest) floor (L6031 + L6034). L6012 and L6022 remained in use until the end of Late Roman occupation (L6016), while L6033 went out of use before the laying of the final Late Roman floor (L6016). L6031 + L6034 was a compacted dirt floor with lime flecks, with an associated built-stone feature (L6035) and adjacent graveled surfaces (L6036 and 6039). Below L6031 + L6034 was a thin layer of silt (L6038). This overlay the natural concretion on which the fort was built. A D-shaped pit (L6042; 0.62 × 0.54 m) was cut into the concretion in the center of the room (closing elevation 75.98), with stone kerbing lining its southeast rim. The pit’s fill comprised loose, finely grained soil with some pebbles. On the east side, the pit was connected to a stone-covered drain (L6040/6043; dimensions 1.67 × 0.20 m; closing elevation 75.84) that was also cut into the concretion (fig. 31). The drain was filled with loose, moist, dark brown organic soil. Perhaps these features were used in association with the stabling of horses, mules, or camels in this room.

Area 7000 (the Southwest Courtyard, the Postern Gate and Corridor, and the Southwest Corner Tower) (color fig. 3, p. 53) This complicated area, excavated over the course of three seasons (2005–2007), initially consisted of a 5 × 5 m square just east of the southwest corner tower of the fort and the adjacent postern gate. The southern boundary was formed by the inner face of the south curtain of the fort (W519). Subsequently, the area was expanded to the north as far as Area 8000 (see below), to the west to include the southwest corner tower, and to the south as far as the postern gate.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

35

Fig. 32.  Plan of the southwest courtyard.

The Southwest Courtyard

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The southwest courtyard was bounded by the south curtain W519 (south), W534 (west), W535 (east), and W533 (north) (fig. 32). Early Islamic Phase The surface levels consisted of mud-brick collapse from the curtain, with traces of ephemeral Bedouin occupation below. Two features associated with this occupation—a mud-brick platform (78.86  m) and a semicircular installation abutting the fort wall—were designated L7004. Locus 7003 was opened after the circular installation was clearly defined and contained additional evidence for ephemeral occupation (closed at 78.45). A large rectangular cut stone removed from the west baulk was probably a step (see below). The removal of the platform (L7004) revealed an Early Islamic partition wall of a single row of small rectangular mud bricks (W529), preserved five courses high, running perpendicular to curtain W519. With the exposure of W529, two new loci were opened on either side of the wall: L7007 to the east and L7006 to the west. Both loci contained small burned lenses as well as a dark brown discoloration in the soil surrounding the burning, mostly likely indicating the remains of organic material. The burning was concentrated in the southern halves of the loci. In the eastern part of L7007, a hearth (L7010) measuring 1.0 × 0.75 m was uncovered at 78.39. L7006 and L7007 contained significant amounts of pottery and bone, most of which showed signs of burning (closing elevations: 78.31 and 78.24, respectively).

36

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Six courses of mud bricks of the south curtain (W519) were preserved in Area 7000, above a substantial stone socle. The bottom two mud-brick courses were laid in a distinct, stepped profile, widening the curtain south of the Postern Corridor by ca. 0.04 m over a distance of ca. 2.5 m. Loci 7006 and 7007 were closed and merged (as L7009) after excavations in both revealed two substantial hearths and small burned lenses over the entire area. In one hearth, clay tiles were found directly underneath the burning. In the northwest corner of L7009, part of a mud-brick wall (W533) was found running perpendicular to W529 and continuing into the west baulk. L7009 contained a rectangular installation (L7008) that abutted W529 but comprised only one course of mud bricks. Along the south outer wall of the installation, a partially intact bowl was found in situ at 78.23. L7009 was closed at 78.20. When the trench was later extended to the east (L7022) due to baulk collapse, a group of mud bricks was discovered. Adhering to the bottom of the bricks (at 78.27) were large slivers of wood (B70141), burned pottery, charcoal (B70142), and dung (B70143), samples of which were taken. Radiocarbon dating of the charcoal yielded a calibrated range of 410 to 650 c.e. (see appendix by Hood, p.  71). The mud bricks sat directly on top of the Early Islamic occupation level, which was visible in the baulk as a burned section above a floor.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Byzantine Phase A compacted dirt surface (L7013) on which lay an iron nail (77.74) probably represents a Byzantine occupation level. Late Roman Phase Excavation brought to light a group of six large, rectangular stones along the west baulk. One stone was lying flat, approximately 1 meter from W519 at 77.81, and the other stones had fallen at various angles into the ground. These stones belong to a staircase that was perpendicular to the south curtain of the fort and originally rose to the north. Early Islamic W529 was built partly on top of W534, the west wall of the southwest courtyard, which partly abutted the mud-brick platform for the staircase (L7017). W534 was made of large, square mud bricks and measured ca. 3.5 m (north–south) × 1.0 m (east–west) (elevation: 77.77). L7017 (top elevation: 77.0) was part of the staircase in this area, analogous to the staircases by the entrances to the other towers (fig. 33). Our excavations revealed that the staircase consisted of seventeen large stone steps, seven of which are still in situ. Five stone steps were found in situ on the south side of the platform; the top two steps were oriented north–south, and the three lowest ones turned 90 degrees (east–west). The elevations of the upper surfaces of these steps were: top (fifth) step: 77.81; bottom (first) step 76.94. The surfaces of these stones were very friable. At the northern end of the mud-brick platform, two stone steps (upper surfaces were at 77.05 [top step] and 76.99 [lower step]) were discovered in situ in an east–west orientation. The other ten stone steps were discovered as they had collapsed, lying parallel to the platform and west of it (color fig. 9, p. 55). At least one of these stones has a round depression by the outer edge, which might have held a railing post. This evidence indicates that there were two sets of steps, one at either end (north and south) of the mud-brick platform, both of which were accessible from the postern corridor and turned 90-degrees as they ascended. L7019 +7021 (closed at 76.94 and 76.89, respectively) comprised accumulations above the upper Late Roman floor, which yielded a large quantity of pottery, glass, bone fragments, and a coin of Constantius II (354–358; B70019 [Cat. no. 101]). A large potsherd found in situ on the east side of the locus contained seeds (B70137; 76.89). In the southeast corner of L7021, a granite grinding

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

37

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 33.  Plan of the southwest staircase.

stone with a spout partially embedded in the east baulk was fully revealed when the trench was extended 1.5 m to the east, after robbing activities in the off-season damaged the east baulk. The extension revealed a mud-brick wall (W535) perpendicular to the south curtain (W519). W535 was built of two distinct types of mud brick representing two construction periods: the upper 5–6 courses (Early Islamic phase) were rectangular in shape, softer, with less lime in their composition; and the four lower courses (Late Roman) were thick, square, and contained more lime. The Late Roman mud-brick courses were interrupted by a doorway that provided access to the southwest courtyard. W535 was founded on two raised stone socles, visible on either side of the doorway. L7026 and L7027 comprised the upper (later) Late Roman floor and its make-up (opened at 76.89; closed at 76.76), which consisted of a concreted mud-brick crust with patches of soft fill and sections of a thin, uneven plastered floor. In the southeast corner of the courtyard, an almost complete (restorable) flask was recovered (B70158; see fig. 2.9:1). Immediately to the west of W535, two hearths were uncovered. Two coins were associated with the surface in L7026 (one found at 76.85), dated ca. 348–354 and 341–348 (B70167 [Cat. no. 96] and B70168 [Cat. no. 76]). Two more coins dating to 354–358 and 330–335 (B70136 [Cat. no. 112] and B70137 [Cat. no. 39]) were found inside installation L7020 (both at 76.89). A number of loose flat stones were found lying on top of the plaster surface, most of which ran in a north–south line parallel to W534. A stone-delineated pit lined with plaster was at the southern end of this line of stones. At first, the structure appeared to be a drain that continued north under W533. The stones composing the “drain” were visible in L7026 and L7027 but were set into an earlier level. A coin dated tentatively to 348–354 (B70127 [Cat. no. 126]) was found on top of a tile in the eastern half of L7027. A semicircular, mud-brick installation (L7020) associated with this floor was found at the junction of W534 and W533. The two hearths in L7026 turned out to be part of a larger hearth in L7027 and the locus below it (L7029). The hearth was designated L7028, and continued east through the doorway in W535 (color fig. 16, p. 57). The matrix was a thick layer of ash that contained large quantities of burned animal bones, pottery, charcoal and a fourth-century coin (B70189 [Cat. no. 217]; at

38

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

76.74). The hearth was rectangular in shape, measuring 1.30 × 0.60–0.70 m. Six small stake holes (2–3 cm in diameter) were aligned 0.10 m west of the hearth’s eastern edge, and several other stake holes were scattered elsewhere inside the hearth. The hearth was removed and L7028 was closed at 76.62. L7029 was opened (76.74) below L7027 and was excavated down to a thin plaster surface associated with the hearth (L7028). This surface was the lower (earlier) Late Roman floor in the southwest courtyard. Two coins—one of the fourth century (B70193 [Cat. no. 218]) and one dated to 354–358 (B70192 [Cat. no. 102])—were found in the northwest corner of L7029 between W534 and the “drain.” After the stones of the “drain” were removed, its matrix was found to be consistent with that of L7029. It therefore appears unlikely that this feature was a drain. L7029 was closed at 76.62. L7030 was opened below L7029. L7030 was rocky and the matrix was completely sterile. A sounding measuring 0.50 m × 0.50 m was opened along W519, revealing the bottom of its stone socle. The matrix of the sounding consisted of the gravel layer, found in other areas, that was used to level the site when the fort was constructed. L7030 was closed at 76.60 (sounding at 76.51), bringing to a close work in the southwest courtyard.

Northern Extension to the Southwest Courtyard In 2007, a new trench measuring 4  ×  2  m was opened north of the southwest courtyard, revealing a narrow Late Roman corridor, bounded by W533 (south) and W540 (north). Later in the Late Roman period, the eastern entrance to the corridor was blocked by a row of three mud bricks that joined with W535 and W540. A gap between W533 and W535 turned out to be an opening with two steps leading up to the narrow corridor, providing access from the southwest courtyard.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Early Islamic or Byzantine Phase The first surface in the corridor was discovered at ca. 77.5. This was a plastered Early Islamic or Byzantine floor (L7047) with a hearth that overlay the opening between W533 and W535 and therefore postdated these walls. L7047 yielded large amounts of plaster (some red painted), pottery, bone, and glass. Late Roman Phase The uppermost Roman floor (L7053) in this area was discovered at ca. 77.0. It was plastered and had small burned lenses but otherwise was sterile. Below this was a series of surfaces, one above the other (L7056, L7058 + 7062, L7067; 76.88–76.68). These loci yielded many fragments of wall plaster (some painted red) and some animal bones but few other finds.

Western Corridor (Northern Extension of Area 7000) The western corridor was uncovered when Area 7000 was extended to the north, up to the south baulk of Area 8000. The extension comprised a 5 × 2 m area along the inside of W518 (the west curtain). Early Islamic Phase Beneath layers of ephemeral Bedouin occupation, the Early Islamic occupation level (L7034) comprised a soil layer with pottery, burned patches, bone fragments, and part of a circular granite grinding stone (closing elevation 78.39).

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

39

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 34.  Section showing W521 cutting W527.

Byzantine Phase L7036 contained a line of mud bricks in an east–west alignment along the south baulk of Area 8000. Large pieces of 1-cm-thick plaster were found lying face-down on the east side of the locus. A stone step that had fallen from the adjacent staircase (W534) was exposed and left in situ. A coin (77.62; B70209 [lost]) was found approximately 0.50 m east of the fallen step. W521, the Early Islamic south wall of Room 8 (see Area 8000), is perpendicular to W518 (the west curtain) and cut through Late Roman W527 (fig. 34). After a section of W521 between W518 and W527 was removed, a thin plaster floor with pottery, glass, bone, and a burned patch was revealed (L7039; ca. 77.6; closing elevation 77.55). These remains might be associated with Byzantine activity. The excavation of L7039 exposed two mud-brick platforms. A new locus (L7046) was opened to include these two platforms. The western (lower) platform was built of two defined rows of vertically aligned mud bricks of differing composition and color. The bricks were stacked vertically and abutted W540 on the north side. W540, a Late Roman mud-brick wall that is perpendicular to W518 and W527, did not appear to extend as far as the east baulk, suggesting that the western corridor was part of the original plan of the fort. No further excavations were conducted in this area.

Postern Gate and Corridor This area comprised a postern gate in the south curtain (W519), a corridor that provided access to the gate from the southwest courtyard, and the staircase in the southwest courtyard. The corridor is bounded on the south by W519, on the west by W550, the entrance to the southwest corner tower, and W518 (the west curtain), and on the east by W534. A sounding by Meshel in this area had exposed the upper part of the postern gate. 30

30.  Meshel 1989: 234.

40

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Early Islamic–Byzantine Phase The corridor was filled with collapse. The discovery of a threshold (L7082) at 77.29 indicates that the gate still functioned in the Early Islamic or possibly Byzantine phase. This threshold was heavily plastered and had a fourth-century coin (B70437 [Cat. no. 222]) embedded in it. The gate and surrounding walls were covered with thick plaster. No surfaces were identified in association with this threshold. Late Roman Phase Removal of the later threshold revealed a Roman threshold composed of one large stone (1.8 × 0.28 m) between the doorjambs (L7090; 76.92). Abutting the threshold block on the inside (north) was another large, roughly-cut stone that fitted between the corridor walls. In a fill (L7079) in the postern corridor, just outside the entrance to the southwest corner tower, a stone (0.38 × 0.35 m) was found with a distinct bow-tie shaped incision (0.14 × 0.05 m) on its upper surface. Presumably, the incision was the anchor point for a metal clamp. At least one surface abutted the Roman threshold on the inside to the north (L7085; ca. 76.80). Finds associated with this surface included pottery, glass, and animal bones. A number of iron fragments (including B70462 [pub. no. 30]) representing at least four nails and other possible door fittings were found lying on top of this floor (L7085), clustered just inside the gate and on its east side. There may have been earlier Roman floors associated with the gate, but the end of the excavation precluded further exploration. The postern gate was filled with collapse and had not been blocked intentionally. It was constructed of three courses of fine ashlar stones, each cut in an L-shape to form the doorjambs (fig. 35). The stones were carefully cut and fitted into place, without any visible mortar. The doorway measures 0.80 m wide and ca. 1.8 m high. Square slots were cut into the east and west walls of the postern corridor just inside the entrance and about a half a meter below the top of the doorway. They presumably held a bar to lock the gate. On the west side, the slot extended through W550 into the southwest corner tower so that the gate could be locked from inside the tower (fig. 36). Two horizontal grooves, each about 0.25 m below the slots, seem to have been formed by the repeated blocking of the gate with a wooden panel, which was slid in place and locked by a bar inserted into the slots. The corridor walls abutting the inside of the gate were W519 (south curtain) on the east and W550 (east wall of the southwest corner tower) on the west. W550 is faced with alternating courses of fine ashlars and rubble fill, which are not bonded to the masonry at the entrance to the corner tower and the postern gate. It therefore is unclear whether this facing is a later addition.

The Southwest Corner Tower The southwest corner tower was investigated in a trench measuring 6 × 3 m, encompassing the entrance and northern portion of the interior. An earlier probe by Meshel was concentrated in the area of the south tower wall, cutting approximately 3 m into the interior. 31 The doorway to the tower lines up directly with the in situ stone steps at the southern end of the mud-brick platform in the southwest courtyard. The entrance to the tower, which was accessed from the postern corridor, was filled with collapse, including whole mud bricks. Excavation in this area was limited to the tower’s entrance (0.94 m wide) and the inner face of its north wall (W551). 31.  Meshel 1989: 233–34.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 35.  Postern gate, looking south.

41

Fig. 36.  Slot for locking mechanism in W550 inside postern gate.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Early Islamic Phase An Early Islamic floor of packed dirt flecked with plaster (L7066) associated with some pottery was discovered at 77.62. No Byzantine remains were identified. Late Roman Phase The uppermost Roman floor (L7071) was found at ca. 76.95. This was an insubstantial dirt floor with few associated finds. Extensive signs of burning overlaid the first of the next two Roman floors (L7081 + L7083; 76.90–76.75), which were thinly plastered and yielded some pottery. The last (lowest) Roman floor exposed was L7084 (76.70–76.68), which was also thinly plastered. At this level, three crudely cut stone blocks appeared, apparently laid as a threshold at the entrance to the tower. Some stone cobbles also began to appear inside the threshold. At this point, the excavations ended.

Area 8000 (Rooms 7–8 and the Western Corridor) Area 8000, excavated in the 2004 season, is located north of Area 7000 and is bordered on the west by the fort’s west curtain (W518). This trench measured 5 × 5 m. and lay on a slope. The

42

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

uppermost levels consisted of the natural surface concretion and layers of earth with sporadic evidence of ephemeral occupation. The top of the west curtain (W518) appeared at an elevation of 79.40–79.31. It preserves seven courses of mud bricks on a stone socle.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Early Islamic Phase Late Roman walls divided the area into three sections: a cell bounded on the south by W521, on the east by W527, and on the north by W522 (western corridor); a room (8) to the north of W521 and east of W527; and a room (7) to the north of W522 (fig. 37). At an elevation of ca. 78.75 the tops of two thin Early Islamic mud-brick walls appeared: W521, with up to 9 courses preserved; and W522 with up to 8 courses preserved. Both abut W518, running roughly east–west. L8004 and L8010 were north of W522 (Room 7), and L8005 and L8007 were south of W522 (western corridor and Room 8). L8004 and L8005 were fills above an Early Islamic surface of packed dirt flecked with plaster (L8010 and L8007; ca. 78.30), associated with some pottery. At an elevation of ca. 78.25, the tops of two well-constructed Late Roman walls (W526 and W527) appeared. W526 (with seven courses of mud bricks in situ) runs parallel to W522, and W527 (with eight courses of mud bricks preserved) abuts W521 and W526. W526 (0.80 m wide) and W527 (0.68 m wide) are thicker than W521 and W522 and have stone socles. Large quantities of wall plaster were recovered in various loci across the area. Below L8007 were fills L8008 and L8011. Below L8010, a large pit (starting locus L8014; ending locus 8023; beginning elevation 77.96; end elevation 77.19) containing burned deposits filled Room 7 and continued into the north and east baulks. The cell (bounded by W526 [north], W518 [west], W527 [east], and W522 [south]), contained a series of fills with no clear occupation horizons (L8018, L8020; closing elevation ca. 77.30). This room had no apparent entrance. A similar sequence was discovered in the room (8) bounded by W526 (north), W527 (west), W521 (south), and the east baulk (L8012, L8016; closing elevation 77.30). Byzantine Phase In the Late Roman and Byzantine phases, this area comprised a section of the western corridor along the inner face of the west curtain (W518), bounded by W526 (north) and W527 (east), continuing into Area 7000 to the south (as far as the postern gate), and two rooms: Room 7, to the north of W526, and Room 8, bounded by W526 (north), W527 (west), and W540 (south). Below L8016, an uneven compacted dirt surface (L8025; ca. 77.25), possibly dating to the Byzantine period, yielded a fourth-century coin (B80015 [Cat. no. 223]), pottery, animal bones, and a copper object (B80125). A stone basin (B80128) was found on the floor. Work in this area ended at this point. In 2007, excavations in the southern part of Area 8000 were resumed and merged with Area 7000 (see above).

Area 9000 (Room 6 + Western Corridor + Northwest Courtyard) (color fig. 4, p. 53) Area 9000 is located along the west curtain (W518), south of the northwest corner tower, and is separated from Area 8000 by an unexcavated strip. When the area was opened in 2006, it measured 4 × 7 m. In 2007, the trench was extended to 4.5 × 7.5 m due to erosion during the off-season. Later that season, additional extensions (5.75 × 8.0 m) up to the north curtain (W558) revealed the staircase at the entrance to the northwest corner tower. The surface at the beginning of the excavation sloped down sharply from west to east, with about a meter difference in elevation between the western and eastern sides of the area.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

43

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 37.  Plan of Area 8000.

Area 9000 was selected for excavation for several reasons. First, it was not damaged by the British Mandate occupation or by the pipeline construction. Second, in the southeast corner of Area 9000 there is a large circular damp patch. Since no water source has been discovered inside the fort, we were interested in investigating whether this damp patch indicated the presence of a spring or well. The excavations were carried out in three discrete sections within the area (fig. 38). The first two sections were small cells inside a corridor on the west side of W536 (see Area 8000), bounded by the west curtain (W518), with one cell on the north side of W537 and the other on its south side. The third section (Room 6), encompassing the entire eastern portion of the area, was bounded by W536 (west), W538 (south), W539 (north) and W547 (east). Late Roman walls W536, W538, W539, and W547 are built of large, square mud bricks (preserved to seven courses in W536) set in thick pink mortar, on stone socles. The entrance to Room 6 was set in the middle of W547. Early Islamic partition wall W537 was made of a single row of rectangular mud bricks without mortar (preserved up to four courses).

Room 6 Early Islamic Phase Ephemeral Bedouin occupation was found immediately below the surface (L9004), including textiles, a large hearth with friable red tiles, and a coin of Probus (B90015 [Cat. no. 7], dated

44

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 38.  Plan of Room 6 and the NW courtyard (Area 9000).

276–282). The tops of walls began to appear throughout Area 9000 at 77.96. The eastern section of the area (east of W536) comprised L9008, 9012, 9013, 9016, 9017, 9019, 9022, 9026, 9027, 9030, 9031, 9033, 9035, 9037, 9038, and 9041. L9012 and L9013 were opened in the southern and northern halves of the area, respectively (beginning elevation 77.69; closing elevation 77.63). Three coins and a long thin bronze object were found in L9012, which seemed to be resting on a surface (77.68–77.62); no surface was discerned in L9013. The latest coin (B90043 [Cat. no. 100]) dates to 354–358. In the next half meter below this, no floor levels or surfaces were identified, and there was no evidence of Byzantine occupation. Late Roman Phase (figs. 39–40) Excavations in this area revealed two successive Late Roman floor levels, at ca. 77.10–00 and 76.90–80. At ca. 77.10, the stone socles of W538, W539, and W547 were exposed. A grinding stone, not in situ, was found next to W538. An uneven compacted dirt floor with plaster flecks (the upper Late Roman floor) was discovered extending across the entire room (L9030; ca. 77.10– 77.00). The material on top of this floor (excavated as L9022 + 9027) included six coins, of which one dates to 337–340 (B90228 [Cat. no. 70]), four to the fourth century (B90168 [Cat. no. 235]: B90170 [Cat. no. 236]; B90216 [Cat. no 237]; B90239 [Cat. no. 238]), and one was unidentifiable (B90247). The other finds included animal bones, pottery, glass, and a spindle whorl (B90278

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

45

[pub. no. 32]). When excavated, the floor and its make-up (L9030) yielded twelve coins, the latest four of which date to 354–358 (B90341 [Cat. no. 110], B90343 [Cat. no. 118], B90359 [Cat. no. 124], B90398 [Cat. no. 106]). The room contained several built features, the most prominent of which was a large plastered hearth abutting W539 (L9026; base at 77.00). The hearth was enclosed by plastered mud bricks on three sides and measured 1.35 × 1.1 m. It was filled with charcoal, ash, burned bones, a date pit, pottery, glass, iron fragments, and three coins (the only identifiable one is an issue of Constantine, 337–340; B90338 [Cat. no. 67]). A thick concentration of ash uncovered on the southeast side of the room was designated L9033 (76.99–76.91). At the base of this deposit there was a heavily calcined surface (L9037; 76.90), presumably representing another floor below. The area to the north Fig. 39.  Room 6, looking east. and west of L9033, designated L9035 (76.92), yielded a large number of iron objects, including an iron spearhead (B90425 [pub. no. 18]), two coins (the later dating to 354–358; B90495 [Cat. no. 104]), and a gaming piece (B90452). The discovery of a painted bowl fragment in L9026 and two pieces of the same bowl in L9035 apparently is due to the disturbance caused when the later hearth was installed. The western side of L9035 had an uneven flagstone pavement that originally was plastered over. L9035 and L9037 (later combined as L9038) represent the earlier Roman floor in this area. A rectangular hearth (L9031; base at 76.89) beneath the later (and larger) hearth L9026 was also associated with this (earlier) Roman floor. This floor sloped significantly in the southeast corner of the room (elevation 76.81), at the junction of W538 and W547. A number of small metal objects were found where the floor sloped, including a copper-alloy ring (B90502 [pub. no. 12]). L9041, the locus under the earlier Roman floor, consisted of the gravel that represents a leveling fill deposited when the fort was originally constructed, as in other areas. A small sounding (L9041: base at 76.65) in the northwest corner of the room confirmed this impression. An isolated iron object (76.77; B90515) in this otherwise sterile matrix presumably represents an item lost at the time that the leveling course was spread over the site.

46

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Western Corridor

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The two cells in this area lay on the north and south sides of an Early Islamic partition wall (W537) in a corridor that ran along the inside of the west curtain (W518) and presumably is the extension of the western corridor discovered in Areas 8000 and 7000. W537 cut through the top two courses of W536 (the Late Roman wall along the east side of the corridor). Early Islamic Phase The north cell was excavated as L9010, 9011, 9015, 9018, 9023, and 9025. Overall, this cell was characterized by a relative paucity of ceramic and coin finds. L9010 and L9011 were the uppermost loci in the area. L9011 was closed at 77.63 when a uniform spread of plaster flecking indicated that a surface had been reached. The make-up of the plaster surface (L9015) was soft and powdery. A large amount of ceramic and bone materials was found, as well as two fourth-century coins (B90077 [Cat. no. 226]; B90078 [Cat. no. 227]; at 77.55). A coin of Constantine or his sons (330–340; B90109 [Cat. Fig. 40.  Room 6, looking west. no. 41]) was found in the locus below (L9018) at 77.49. Under L9018 were fills L9023 and L9025 (closing elevations 77.18–10). The south cell comprised L9009, 9014, 9020, 9021, and 9024. This cell had no evidence of floors or surfaces but instead yielded a rich assemblage of pottery, bones, and coins, which apparently was deposited as a dump in the Early Islamic phase (fig. 41). 32 Under a level of Bedouin occupation, a soft, dusty fill (L9014) yielded many large pieces of pottery and one fourth-century coin (B90085 [Cat. no. 225]; at 77.57). When dark soil along the east side of the area seemed to indicate a pit, L9014 was closed (at 77.48) and the “pit” was excavated separately as L9020 (closing 32. Joining fragments of a cooking pot from L9018 and L9024 suggest the possibility that L9018 might be part of the dump. However, because L9018 was on the north side of W537, we have not included it as part of the dump.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

47

Fig. 41.  Pottery dump in the western corridor (Area 9000).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

elevation 77.37), although it later became apparent that this was part of a dump. L9020 contained large quantities of pottery, animal bones, and coins dating to 337–340 (B90139 [Cat. no. 66]) and to the fourth century (B90142 [Cat. no. 232]). After the excavation of L9020 was complete, the rest of the area was excavated as L9021. L9021 consisted of soft brown soil with large amounts of pottery and bones. Three coins were also found in L9021, including one tentatively identified as a Valentinianic issue (B90159, dated 364–378 [Cat. no. 130]). L9021 was closed when it was at the same elevation as the bottom of L9020 (77.37). L9024 (closing elevation: 77.21) was opened below L9020 and L9021. It yielded large quantities of pottery including an intact flask (B90234) (see color fig. 18:1, p.  59) and some glass. Six coins were found in L9024, including one of Diocletian (B90240 [Cat. no. 9]) and three dating between 329–337 (B90211 [Cat. no. 51], B90235 [Cat. no. 33], B90248 [Cat. no. 38]). L9024 lay beneath the bottom of the Early Islamic partition (W537), indicating that this wall was established on top of some of the dumped material. No evidence of Byzantine activity was discerned in this area. Late Roman Phase After partition wall W537 was removed, the entire area west of W536 was designated L9028 (77.18–77.0). At the northern end of L9028, a built rectangular feature (0.50 × 0.75 m) came to light. A packed dirt surface associated with the rectangular feature was uncovered at 77.15. Two fourth-century coins (B90272 [Cat. no. 243]; B90312 [Cat. no. 244]), a large amount of pottery, some glass, and a bronze needle (B90284 [pub. no. 15]) were found in association with this surface. The material beneath the surface was a sterile gravel fill (L9036; 77.0–76.86). In the area along the northern side of the room and beneath the rectangular feature, a series of irregular but carefully arranged stones was revealed. This line of stones extends from W518 to W536 and constituted the socle of the continuation of W539. The upper part must have been removed after the wall’s initial construction to create a continuous corridor along the inside of

48

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

W518 (the west curtain). In other words, after the first (earliest) Late Roman occupation phase, W539 was removed to create a corridor along the inside of the west curtain.

Northwest Courtyard Area 9000 was extended to the north (4.5 × 4.5 m) to locate the staircase at the entrance to the northwest corner tower. Early Islamic Phase A probable Bedouin occupation level (L9043) was found at 78.40. Beneath it, a thin mudbrick partition wall (W552) was exposed running east from W518, which divided the extended trench into two (L9044 and 9045). The top course of a Late Roman mud-brick wall (W553) was exposed at ca. 78.37, extending south into L9045 from the north baulk. The topmost step of the northwest staircase, which is in situ, was uncovered immediately west of W553. The top of a mudbrick platform (L9049) appeared between W552 and W518, analogous to the platforms associated with the staircases in our other areas. A second step was found immediately to the north of and below the first step (elevation and dimensions of top step: ca. 78.19, 0.64 × 0.39 m; second step: ca. 78.03, 0.64 × 0.29 m). At this point, the trench was extended north to the north curtain (W558) and east to W553, with the extension measuring 1.25 × 3.5 m. The extension was designated L9046 (beginning elevation 78.08), and a tabun (L9047; top elevation 78.05) measuring 1 m in diameter was found abutting W558. Its walls were made of concentric rings of tiles covered with plaster, and the opening faced west. A thick layer of ash (L9048) covered the tabun and the area around it. L9047 and L9048 were not completely excavated and were closed at the end of the 2007 excavation season.

The Bath House (Area 1000) (fig. 42)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

An extramural bath house, located some 50 m to the north of the fort and alongside a wadi served the fort’s garrison (color fig. 13, p.  56). The bath house shows evidence of only one phase of use dating to the Late Roman period, although there is evidence of later Bedouin occupation throughout the complex. Earlier limited excavations by Meshel brought to light parts of the caldarium and tepidarium. 33 The goal of our renewed work was to clarify the plan of the bath house and conserve the site for public display. The walls delineating the rooms of the bath house are as follows: Caldarium and tepidarium: W541 (north); W542 (south); W543 (west); W544 (east). Frigidarium and apodyterium: W545 (north); W546 (south); W544 (west); W554 and W556 (east).

The Caldarium and Praefurnium Initially, a 3.5 × 5.0 m trench was opened to the west of and partially overlapping the area of the caldarium previously excavated by Meshel, including W543, the west wall of the bath house. Inserted through W543 are the badly damaged remains of the praefurnium flue, clearly identifiable by its vaulted tile construction. Its tile vaulting was not fully preserved but its walls survive in situ to 33.  Meshel 1989: 234–36.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

49

Fig. 42.  Plan of the bath house (Area 1000).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

the height of the springers for the vault. Abutting the west side of W543 and north of the praefurnium flue are the remains of a plastered surface, perhaps the base of a hot tub. This consists of a rectangular platform that may have overlaid the praefurnium flue. The rest of the praefurnium flue was exposed in L1003. The praefurnium does not extend beyond the line of the hot tub. In the center of the trench, a large, semicircular plastered pit (L1011; base at 76.14; ca. 2.4 × 1.2 m wide) filled with a large ash deposit (L1001; opening elevation 76.76) was discovered, apparently representing the burned remains cleared from the furnace. The removal of the ash revealed a narrow retaining wall curving to the west from the northwest corner of the caldarium. A matching wall curving west from the southwest corner had suffered extensive damage from flooding from the nearby wadi. Additional remains of the plastered foundation of the possible hot tub were discovered on the south side of the praefurnium flue.

Tepidarium Most of the tepidarium was exposed in Meshel’s excavations. An extension measuring 4.45 × 2.20 m was opened to define the south wall of the tepidarium (W542). L1009 (closing elevation 76.43) exposed the full extent of W542 and yielded a broken but complete ceramic vessel. A large pile of plaster in the middle of L1009 probably represents collapse from W542. The outer face of W542 was thickly plastered. A course of stones covered with a thick layer of plaster was found running south of and perpendicular to W542, disappearing into the south baulk. Perhaps there was another cold-water pool in this area, to the south of the tepidarium. Large piles of rubble north and southwest of the caldarium and tepidarium indicate that these two rooms originally were vaulted.

50

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Fig. 43.  The frigidarium-apodyterium of the bath house with piers, looking southeast.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Frigidarium and Apodyterium A trench (8.5 × 6 m) was opened to the east of and partially overlapping the tepidarium. This trench contained evidence of intensive Bedouin occupation and disturbances down to and in some spots cutting through the original floor level. The inner face of the north wall of the bath house (W545) was covered with a thick layer of white plaster. Six square piers constructed of mortared rubble were found, aligned in two parallel rows running east–west (fig. 43). Two of the three piers in the north row were plastered on their north sides. Three large stones that appear to have collapsed from the northeast pier were left in situ. The three northern piers are ca. 1.65 m apart and ca. 2.6 m from W545. The south piers are ca. 1.9 m from the north piers and are aligned with them. A thickly plastered surface (L1008) coated the inner face of W545 and continued as far as the north row of piers (see above). Three fragmentary coins, two of which could be attributed to the fourth century (B10040 [Cat. no. 135]; B10023 [Cat. no. 134]), were found on top of the plastered surface (76.28–76.23). The presence of thick plaster on the north face of the two north piers may indicate that the cold bath occupied only the area between those piers and W545. On the west side of the area, a plastered step (upper surface elevation: 76.47) led from the tepidarium to the cold bath. Two paving stones (76.68) set above the step presumably represent the threshold leading

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

51

into the tepidarium. The east wall of the tepidarium (W544), south of the step, was constructed of mud brick faced with stone. L1012 represents an extension of L1008 to the south by a trench measuring 8.5 × 3.0 m. The three southern piers discovered previously in L1008 were now fully revealed, as was a line of plastered, cut-stone blocks (W556), apparently a stylobate, running along the eastern edge of L1008 (see below). The removal of L1012 exposed the badly damaged remains of the toppled south-central pier (76.40 m), the collapsed part of which was designated L1018. Several fragments of the toppled pier preserved the original plaster facing, which still bore traces of decorative red paint. Part of the south wall of the frigidarium, designated W546 was also exposed. It also had a coating of white plaster on the inside face, although not as thick as that of W545. W546 was truncated by a modern robbers’ trench (L1014). Another irregularly-shaped robbers’ trench (L1023) was discovered between the south-central pier and W546. The strata below L1012 consisted of deposits of dark organic material associated with later Bedouin occupation. The southwest corner of the trench was covered with a homogenous gravel fill (L1015) representing wadi wash. The removal of L1018, the toppled south-central pier, brought to light the remains of a large hearth (L1020; 76.14) associated with the later Bedouin occupation. Beneath the Bedouin occupation was a layer of loose, wind-blown sand that was deposited after the abandonment of the bath house. The sand covered the original plaster floor (L1033; 75.90) of the bath house. The material lying on top of the floor included nine coins, shell fragments, and pottery. The only legible coin is a possible Valentinianic issue dated 364–378 (B10089 [Cat. no. 129]; elevation 75.92). The corresponding area to the north (L1008), which was covered with a thicker, hydraulic plaster, did not yield such a rich assemblage. L1033 was part of the apodyterium, while the northern area (L1008) presumably functioned as a shallow natatio or pool. A wall of cut-stone blocks (W556) was exposed running north–south along the eastern edge of the trench. The stone blocks were plastered over to the level of the floor and exhibited tooling marks. The blocks extended beneath the large end stone of W546, indicating they were inserted before the construction of the wall and the subsequent plastering of the floor. Once the plaster floor was completely exposed, excavation ceased. An extension measuring 1.5 × 9.0 m was opened to the east of the frigidarium/apodyterium. The removal of the upper layer exposed a level of Bedouin occupation (L1026) with a single coin (fourth century; B10105 [Cat. no. 143]). In the northwest corner of the extension a thick layer of hydraulic plaster still adhered to the east face of W554, a stub perpendicular to W545 and abutting W556 to the south. A solid but crudely constructed semicircular mortar and stone wall (W555) was discovered to the east of W554. Contained within the semicircular feature (L1025; 76.19–75.72) were several large cut-stone blocks. L1025 turned out to be a secondary installation built over a Roman cold-water plunge bath (L1031; see below). A 2.5 × 1.5 m extension (L1027) was added at the northeast corner of L1026, when a line of cut-stone blocks (W559) came to light perpendicular to and east of W556. The removal of a layer of Bedouin occupation under L1027 revealed the thickly plastered east wall (W557) of the Roman plunge bath (L1031) (color fig. 12, p. 56). W557, which is parallel to W554, formed the east and west enclosure walls of the plunge bath. Both faces of W554 were covered with thick plaster due to the fact that the west side of the wall was part of the natatio and the east side was in the plunge bath. Several more cut-stone blocks were found in the fill of the plunge bath, apparently from the collapse of the walls. The northern edge of the plunge bath was not exposed as it lay outside the excavation area.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

52

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

The removal of W555 (the curved secondary wall) brought to light a stone-built staircase descending into the plunge bath on its west edge along the east face of W554. The staircase consisted of four plastered steps, and the walls and floor of the plunge bath were completely coated with fine hydraulic plaster. The top three steps were each about 0.23 m high, and the lowest step was 0.34  m high. The bath is slightly over one meter deep (floor at 75.00). The removal of L1026 (the extension to the east of W556) exposed a carefully laid stone floor (L1032; 75.81–75.69, due to subsidence) extending the entire length of the trench as far as W559 (fig. 44). The top of W556 is about 0.20 m higher than the level of the stone floor. The stone floor was the exterior pavement of an entrance court to the bath house. W556 and W559 turned out to be a row of stones in the floor delineating the east side of the bath house. No impressions of columns for a superstructure were found on the stones themselves or on their plaster facing, though wooden posts Fig. 44.  Pavement (L1032) and stylobate (W556) at the entrance would leave few if any traces. 34 to the bath house, looking north. The massive stone piers inside the bath house presumably supported a roof rather than a concrete vault over the frigidarium/apodyterium. The frigidarium/apodyterium may have had an open-air façade with an overhanging roof supported by the piers, but it seems more likely that W556 was a stylobate for a row of wooden posts. The entrance into the complex may have been through a central passageway between the two rows of piers, which separated the apodyterium on the south from the natatio on the north.

[text of chapter 1 continues on p. 61]

34.  Davies reports seeing a distinct circular impression on one of the stones roughly at the mid-point of W556 in June 2011, suggesting that this was a stylobate.

Color Figures

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color fig. 1.  Plan of the southeast quadrant of the fort (Area 2000).

Color fig. 3.  Plan of the southwest quadrant of the fort (Areas 7000 and 8000).

53

Color fig. 2.  Plan of the east side of the fort (Areas 3000, 5000, and 6000.

Color fig. 4.  Plan of the northwest quadrant of the fort (Area 9000).

54

Color Figures

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color fig. 5.  View of the fort, looking east.

Color fig. 6.  South baulk of Area 3000, showing the occupation horizons.

Color Figures

55

Color fig. 7 (left).  West baulk of Room 4, showing the mud-brick collapse.

Color fig. 8 (above).  The ostracon.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color fig. 9 (left).  Southwest staircase, showing toppled steps, looking east.

Color fig. 10.  Room 4, with the niche and platform, looking east.

56

Color Figures

Color fig. 11 (above).  A hearth (L 2085) of the Early Islamic period, looking south.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color fig. 12 (right).  Plunge bath (L1031), looking west.

Color fig. 13.  Aerial view of the bath house, with north at the top.

Color Figures

57

Color fig. 14 (left).  Concretion of the base of the sounding in Room 1.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color fig. 15 (below).  Hearths on bedrock (L3021), looking north.

Color fig. 16.  Hearth (L7028) in the southwest courtyard, looking east.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

58

Color Figures

Color fig. 17.  1. fig. 2.13:3;  2. fig. 2.14:2;  3. fig. 2.14:3;  4. fig. 2.16:2;  5. fig. 2.15:3;  6. fig. 2.16:1; 7. fig. 2.17:2;  8. fig. 2.9:3;  9. fig. 2.18:1;  10. fig. 2.9:4;  11. fig. 2.20:10;  12. fig. 2.21:1;  13. fig. 2.19:1;  14. fig. 2.17:3.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color Figures

59

Color fig. 18.  1. B90234 (see p. 76);  2. fig. 2.9:1;  3. fig. 2.9:2;  4. ;  5. fig. 2.23:1;  6. fig. 2.12:1; 7. fig. 2.10:1; 8. fig. 2.29:5;  9. fig. 2.26:1;  10. fig. 2.27:3;  11. fig. 2.23:4;  12. fig. 2.25:2;  13. fig. 2.30:1.

60

Color fig. 19.  A fragment of naturally aqua-colored glass in the center, flanked by its weathering products, which have fallen off the surfaces; the layer on the left shows the opaque iridescent white interior and the layer on the right shows the dull black exterior of these weathering layers; L2030, B20457.

Color Figures

Color fig. 20.  A fragment of glass with a crystal adhering to the exterior surface. A close-up of the crystal; without chemical analysis we cannot be sure of its type, but taste suggests a salt; L3018, B30317.

Color fig. 21.  A typical example of a heavily corroded fragment of glass, showing the thinness of remaining glass within the weathering layers; L2028, B20508.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Color fig. 22.  An example of a fragment of glass that has been so thoroughly corroded that none of the original glassy matrix remains; L3033, B20631.

Color fig. 23 (right).  Top view of fragment No. 15, the scalloped-rim bowl edges.

Color fig. 24.  Fragment No. 32; the interior vessel bottom with its pushed-in center is shown in the photo to the left; the applied button and scar of the large pontil rod on the obverse side of the fragment is shown in the central photo.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

61

Discussion of the Bath House Our excavations reveal that this bathing establishment does not parallel the “En-Gedi type” as previously suggested. 35 Although it can still be thought of as conforming to the general reihentyp plan (where bathers progress unidirectionally through a complex of rooms), the combined apodyterium/frigidarium and the location of the cold plunge bath to the east of the frigidarium distinguish the Yotvata bath house from the one at En-Gedi. 36 The large size of the bath house suggests that it not only served the needs of the garrison but the local population as well. Perhaps the bath house was also intended to service travelers on the road, although there are no nearby structures to suggest that it formed part of a mansio, as is likely in the case of Hazeva farther to the north. The provision of a sophisticated bathing facility may also provide evidence of the administrative status implied by the designation of Osia as a caput viae. As a place of some local significance, Osia may have been the operational headquarters of a military official charged with the supervision of the desert tribes. Such an officer in earlier times might have been described as a centurio regionarius. As such, he would have exercised considerable influence on the day-to-day life of the inhabitants of the lower Arava and the eastern highlands of the Negev, and his official status as the local face of the Roman imperium might have been rewarded with enhanced facilities. This argument has been advanced to explain the appearance of unexpectedly elaborate accommodations in a small number of Roman forts located in other zones of direct military administration. 37

Interpretation and Conclusions

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Chronology and Occupation History The monumental Latin inscription discovered outside the east gate suggests that the fort at Yotvata was built when Diocletian transferred the Tenth Legion Fretensis from Jerusalem to Aila in the last decade of the third century. Recent excavations at Gharandal, ca. 30 km north of Yotvata on the Jordanian side of the valley, brought to light an almost identical inscription (with evidence of damnatio memoriae and a reference to the praeses Priscus), similarly fallen just outside that fort’s east gate. 38 Therefore, it appears that the forts at Yotvata and Gharandal are contemporary and were integral parts of the same system. The coins from Yotvata provide several different types of information. Of the 254 coins discovered in our excavations, only 111 were identifiable, and most of the remaining coins could only be attributed generally to the fourth century. The identifiable coins include one Ptolemaic and two Nabataean issues, two or three issues of Probus (276–282), and four Tetrarchic issues (284–305). Of the remaining identifiable coins, the overwhelming majority are from the reigns of Constantine and his sons (312–361). The latest coins (all tentatively identified) are three issues of Valentinian I (364–378 [Cat. nos. 129–131]) and one of Valentinian II (375–392 [Cat. no. 128]).

2015.

35.  See Meshel 1989: 235. 36.  See Hirschfeld 2007: 105–12; Mazar and Dunayevsky 1967: 142–43. 37.  See Casey and Davies 1993: 12–13, 47–50. 38.  We thank R. Darby and E. Darby for this information; see their forthcoming article in the JRA

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

62

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Despite the fact that the site was reoccupied in the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, there are no coins that postdate the fourth century (including from Meshel’s excavations, which are not included in the above count). 39 The majority of coins were discovered on Late Roman surfaces in rooms and courtyards—that is, in occupation areas, as opposed to in and around corridors and passages. In terms of numbers, the coins are evenly distributed throughout the Roman phases. Most important, issues of the sons of Constantine (337–361) were discovered on top of the earliest Late Roman floors. Nearly all of these coins were discovered in situ, not in sifters, and we did not use metal detectors in our excavations. Issues of the sons of Constantine were found in association with the earliest Roman floors in the following areas: Room 2 (L2068), where approximately 30 small bronze coins—the latest dating to 354–358–were found in clusters, suggesting they might originally have been in a purse; Room 3 (L3017), which yielded a coin of 347–348; Room 5 (L6034), where the latest of seven identifiable coins dates to 354–358; Room 6 (L9035 + 9037 + 9038), which yielded a coin of 354–358; and the southwest courtyard (L7029), which produced a coin dating to 354–358. The context of these coins suggested to us that the fort was established no earlier than ca. 355–360. 40 However, the recently-discovered inscription from Gharandal leaves no doubt that both forts are Tetrarchic foundations. We have no explanation for the presence of coins as late as the mid-fourth century in secure contexts on top of the earliest floors and surfaces throughout the fort, including courtyards, nor for the lack of evidence of occupation over the course of half a century, such as the raising of floor levels and the accumulation of debris. The forts at Yotvata and Gharandal must have been established as part of the Diocletianic overhaul of imperial policy that saw the concentration of legionary striking power in forward positions in the frontier zone. The new legionary base at Aila anchored the chain of forts just in advance of the Via Nova Traiana as it ran across the high ground of the Edomite plateau on its way to Bostra. It also encouraged the development of Aila as a crucial port of trade. This commercial pressure no less than the logistical demands of the army made it essential to provide a secure communications corridor between Aila and the Mediterranean ports, an objective partially fulfilled by the construction of a new highway heading north up the Arava Valley. The evidence for this new highway (or at least, the upgrading of an earlier secondary route) is revealed in a series of milestones to the north of Yotvata. One such mile marker, inscribed ab Osia, is followed by the numeral XII, the exact distance in Roman miles to the Yotvata oasis. This suggests both the Latin place-name for the site and its regional significance, in that it is identified as a caput viae or a place with some notable administrative distinction. The security of this new road presumably demanded the expenditure of considerable resources on a chain of fortified strong-points. These would have served as patrolling bases for military units charged with maintaining the flow of supplies and commodities otherwise endangered by the raids of desert tribesmen. On the basis of the inscription, Yotvata has been identified as one such garrison point, its location largely dictated by the ready availability of water and its situation at a natural constriction in the valley just north of extensive salt marshes. The garrison would have been responsible for securing a length of highway both north and south of the oasis. Presumably, a caravan heading north out of Aila would have been escorted as far the territorium of the unit based at Yotvata, before being passed over to the care of the unit based at Gharandal. No 39.  See Kindler 1989. 40.  See Davies and Magness 2011.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

63

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

doubt a further function of this garrison would have been to exercise a loose supervisory regime over the desert tribes to the west. The nature of these responsibilities makes it apparent that the unit based at Yotvata would have required a high degree of mobility. Therefore, it is not surprising to note from the inscription commemorating the foundation of the fort that the garrison is described as an alam costia. The Yotvata oasis would have retained its importance through the fourth century due to the availability of water and its strategic location on the Arava road. The Notitia Dignitatum provides evidence of a military reorganization in this region under Valens, including the creation of several auxiliary units in the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia. 41 The first phase of Roman occupation at our fort, which is associated with coins that go up to ca. 360, ended with a violent destruction evidenced by intense burning throughout. The timing of this destruction suggests a possible connection with the Saracen revolt against Rome led by Queen Mavia, ca. 375–378. Historical sources indicate that towns and cities throughout the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia suffered damage during this large-scale insurrection. According to Sozomen (HE 6.38), the queen also mounted an attack on the eastern approaches to Egypt. 42 Since Yotvata lies within the affected area and on a possible route to Egypt, the destruction level we discovered might be associated with Mavia’s revolt. Mavia’s documented successes against Roman field armies and the inclusion of former foederati among her troops suggest that her forces would have been capable of taking and destroying the fort at Yotvata. In fact, Meshel raised the possibility that our fort was attacked by Mavia, although he associated this event with the fort’s final destruction and abandonment. 43 Whatever the cause of the destruction, the fort was immediately reoccupied, with a series of successive floor levels throughout. The Late Roman occupation ended with an orderly evacuation and abandonment, as indicated by the fact that the rooms were cleared out. The absence of a reference to a fort at Osia in the Notitia Dignitatum, together with a reference to the ala Constantiana being stationed at Toloha (Or. 34.34), ca. 110 km to the north of Yotvata, suggest that our fort was abandoned by the early fifth century. 44 Soon thereafter an earthquake—perhaps the earthquake of 419—toppled the walls of the fort. 45 An ephemeral Byzantine period occupation was established on top of the collapse, without any attempt at leveling. A century or two later, in the early Islamic period, the site was reoccupied, apparently within the context of intensive settlement in Aila and its environs. 46 The reoccupation during the Byzantine and early Islamic periods was limited to only parts of the fort and was not military in nature. After the early Islamic period the site

41.  See Parker 1986: 146; Kennedy 2004: 76, 88–90, 103–4, for a discussion of three forts in the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia that are mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum (Or. 34.35; 37.29, 30): (1) Ala secunda felix Valentiniana, apud Praesidium; (2) Ala prima Valentia, Thainatha; (3) Ala secunda felix Valentiniana, apud Adttitha. The most proximate to Yotvata is the first, garrisoned apud Praesidium, which is conventionally located at Qasr el-Feifah in the northern Arava Valley, ca. 15 km south of the Dead Sea. 42.  For references and discussion, see Parker 2006: 561–62; Bowersock 1994: 127–40; Parker 1986: 145–46; Shahid 1984: 142–52. 43.  Meshel 1989: 238. 44.  In contrast, the reference to the Cohors II Galatarum in the recently-discovered inscription as well as in the Notitia Dignitatum indicates that this unit was still present at Gharandal ca. 400. For Toloha, see Kennedy 2004: 214; Niemi 2007: 415–16. The similarities in the plans and dimensions of the two forts raises the possibility that the garrison was transferred to Toloha after the abandonment of the fort at Yotvata. 45.  See Russell 1985: 42–43. 46.  See Avner and Magness 1998.

64

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

remained unoccupied except for occasional Bedouin encampments, until the construction of the British Mandate police station.

The Nature and Composition of the Roman Garrison at Yotvata

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The monumental inscription above the gate indicates that the Late Roman fort at Yotvata was garrisoned by the ala costia. The term ala denotes a mounted unit, and evidence from our excavations suggests that the unit may have been composed of dromedary troops rather than the more conventional horsemen. This evidence is three-fold. First, our excavations have not recovered substantial evidence for the stabling of significant numbers of horses. Stables would have been essential to keep the animals out of the sun and are likely to have been located on the ground floors of the buildings laid out along the inner face of the fort circuit. Only Room 5 has provided possible traces of such stabling arrangements in the form of a central drain and sump, features that in other Roman military contexts have been adduced as evidence for the accommodation of horses. 47 However, it is difficult to imagine this space being sufficient to hold more than six horses at a time. Although it is possible that the unexcavated north range may conceal similar provision, perhaps the better explanation is that such limited stabling was only intended to accommodate the mounts of the unit commander and his decurions. The rest of the troops would have been provided with riding camels whose robust constitutions allowed for their tethering in the open, central courtyard of the fort. Second, camels are far more common than horses in the faunal assemblage. In this environment, the use of camels would be expected even if the unit comprised horse-borne cavalry, but the preponderance of camel remains may strengthen the dromedary hypothesis. Of course, we are well aware that this conjecture is speculative (for example, differential disposal techniques may have been practiced for the two types of animal). Third, and perhaps more tenuous, are three discrete contexts in which selected camel bones had been carefully deposited. Two of these seem to have ritualized functions as foundation deposits. One collection of long bones was laid underneath the step leading into the southeast corner tower (L2034). In addition, a scapula was laid directly outside the threshold to the main gate (L5032), in connection with the refurbishment of the entrance. Another collection of bones was recovered from the northwest corner of Room 3 (L3007), lying on top of the upper Late Roman floor. The selection of camel bones in these deposits suggests the practical and symbolic importance of camels to the troops posted at Yotvata.

Local Economy Faunal analysis attests to the importance of local resources in the Yotvata economy. Sheep and goats are the best-represented species, and the skeletal material indicates that whole animals were being slaughtered and processed at the site. In other words, instead of choice cuts of meat being brought from a distance, individual animals were being culled from local herds for consumption by the garrison. The fusion data reveal that some sheep and goat were killed before the first year of age. Not only does this imply that herding was carried out in the immediate vicinity of the fort (long-range herding of meat-bearing livestock usually involves older animals), but that meat quality was also apparently a serious issue. Lambs and kids might yield less meat than older 47.  See Hodgson 2002. We were unable to find a lab to perform phosphate analysis on soil samples.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

65

animals, but this butchery results in the production of better quality food. Butchering marks on bones indicate that camels were also consumed at Yotvata. In contrast, the Limes Arabicus Project in Central Jordan found no evidence that Roman soldiers routinely consumed camel meat as part of their diet. 48 The occurrence of fish and turtle bones from several loci within the fort attests to the consumption of marine resources from the Red Sea. Paleobotanical analysis indicates that wheat, barley, olives, dates, and figs were staples of the diet at Yotvata, providing further evidence of a reliance on local resources. Animal dung was used for fuel, which is not surprising in an arid desert environment. The ceramic assemblage from our Late Roman levels suggests that there was little in the way of long-distance trade, at least in terms of the importation of fine wares. A very small number of African Red Slip Ware sherds and amphora fragments was recovered, and the vast majority of the corpus comprises locally made vessels. This pattern is also reflected in our oil lamps, both intact and fragmentary, most of which represent the common local fourth-century type. Nearly all of the parallels for our Late Roman pottery come from Nabataean sites (primarily ez-Zantur at Petra, Mampsis, and Oboda [Avdat]) and from Roman military sites in the region (especially el-Lejjun and Dajaniya). Such dependence on local production is not surprising, given the high cost of transporting bulk goods in this environment, and seems to echo the situation on the Kerak plateau, as S. Thomas Parker’s recent publication of the Limes Arabicus Project makes clear. 49 If there was little high quality tableware at el-Lejjun, then its infrequency at Yotvata is hardly startling. The early Islamic pottery from Yotvata presents a striking contrast with the Late Roman assemblage, with the parallels—and perhaps the vessels themselves—coming from Egypt. Although at least some of these vessels presumably traveled to Yotvata by way of the Red Sea, there are no published parallels from Aqaba. The Late Roman glass assemblage from Yotvata is consistent with the pottery, comprising a relatively small number of fragments compared with other fort sites in the region, and a limited repertoire of types with few luxury pieces. The most unusual type is a bowl with a horizontal, scalloped rim that is represented also at Humayma and el-Lejjun. The beaker with abraded lines and applied blob decoration found in association with the earliest Late Roman floor in Room 6 (L9037) is consistent with the date of the mid-fourth-century coins found elsewhere on the earliest surfaces. Similarly, the absence of stemmed lamps and stemmed-footed goblets supports our suggestion that the Late Roman occupation had ended by the early fifth century. In contrast to the pottery, no clearly early Islamic types could be identified in the Yotvata glass corpus. The excavations at Yotvata have provided valuable information about the Late Roman fort’s occupation history and its role in provincial security, as well as evidence of previously unknown early Islamic settlement at the site. We hope that excavations at other forts in the region will supplement this picture.

48.  Toplyn 2006: 490. 49.  Parker 2006: 363.

66

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References Aharoni, Y. 1954 The Roman Road to Aila (Elath). Israel Exploration Journal 4: 9–16. Avner, U. 2002 Ancient Water Management in the Southern Negev. ARAM 13–14: 389–407. Avner, U. and Magness, J. 1998 Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 39–57. Avner, U., and Roll, I. 1996 Ancient Roads and Roman Milestones in the ʿAraba Valley. American Journal of Archaeology 100: 762–64. Avner, U.; Davies G.; and Magness, J. 2004a The Roman Fort at Yotvata, 2003. Israel Exploration Journal 54: 256–61. 2004b The Roman Fort at Yotvata: Interim Report (2003). Journal of Roman Archaeology 17: 405–12. 2005a The Roman Fort at Yotvata, 2004. Israel Exploration Journal 55: 227–30. 2005b The 2003–2004 Excavations at the Roman Fort at Yotvata. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes 9/10: 198–99. Bowersock, G. W. 1994 Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography. Goldbach: Keip. Casey, P., and Davies, J. 1993 Excavations at Segontium (Caernarfon) Roman Fort, 1975–1979. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 90. London: Council for British Archaeology. Cohen, R. 1993 Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Sites in the Negev Hills. Pp. 1135–45 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 4, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon and Schuster. Darby R., and Darby, E. 2010 ʿAyn Gharandal Survey and Preservation Project. American Journal of Archaeology 114: 534–35. Davies, G. and Magness, J. 2005 Yotvata—2004. Excavations and Surveys in Israel (Hadashot Arkheologiyot) 117. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp 2006a The Roman Fort at Yotvata, 2005. Israel Exploration Journal 56.1: 105–10. 2006b Yotvata—2005. Excavations and Surveys in Israel (Hadashot Arkheologiyot) 118. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp 2007a The Roman Fort at Yotvata, 2006. Israel Exploration Journal 57.1: 106–14. 2007b Yotvata—2006. Excavations and Surveys in Israel (Hadashot Arkheologiyot) 119. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp 2008a The Roman Fort at Yotvata, 2007. Israel Exploration Journal 58.1: 103–12. 2008b Yotvata—2007. Excavations and Surveys in Israel (Hadashot Arkheologiyot) 119. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=807 2011 The Roman fort at Yotvata: A Foundation under Valens?” Journal of Roman Archaeology 24: 469–80. Eck, W. 1992 Alam Costia Constituerunt. Klio 74: 395–400. Evenari, M.; Shanan L.; and Tadmor N. 1971 The Negev: The Challenge of the Desert. Cambridge: Harvard University. Gichon, M. 1976 Excavations at Mezad Tamar—‘Tamara’ 1973–75, Preliminary Report. Saalburg Jahrbuch 33: 80–94. 1993 Tamar, Mezad. Pp. 1437–40 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 4, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon and Schuster. Glueck N. 1957 The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negeb. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145: 11–25.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The 2003–2007 Excavations: Architecture and Stratigraphy

67

Graf, D. F. 1995 The Via Nova Traiana in Arabia Petraea. Pp. 241–67 in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. J. H. Humphrey. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 14. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Gregory, S., ed. 1995–97  Roman Military Architecture on the Eastern Frontier. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Hirschfeld, Y. 2007 En-Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2002). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Hodgson, N. 2002 “Where Did They Put the Horses?” Revisited: The Recent Discovery of Cavalry Barracks in the Roman Forts at Wallsend and South Shields on Hadrian’s Wall. Pp. 887–94 in Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), Volume II, ed. P. Freeman et al. BAR International Series 1084 (II). Oxford: BAR. Isaac, B. 1992 The Limits of Empire. Oxford: Clarendon. Kennedy, D. 2004 The Roman Army in Jordan. Second revised edition. London: Council for British Research in the Levant. Kennedy, D., and Riley, D. 1990 Rome’s Desert Frontier from the Air. London: Batsford. Kindler, A. 1989 The Numismatic Finds from the Roman Fort at Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 261–66. Lehmann C. M., and Holum, K. G. 2000 Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Luttwak, E. 1976 The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mazar, B., and Dunayevsky, I. 1967 En-Gedi, Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavations. Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 17: 133–43. Meshel, Z. 1989 A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 228–38. 1990 Yotvata Oasis: Its History, Landscape and Sites. Eilat: Hevel Eilot Regional Council (Hebrew). 1993 Yotvata. Pp. 1517–20 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Volume 4, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon and Schuster. Niemi, T. M. 2007 Torn Asunder: Earthquakes at Qasr at-Tilah. Pp. 409–16 in Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, ed. T. E. Levy et al. London: Equinox. Parker, S. T. 1986 Romans and Saracens: A History of the Arabian Frontier. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / American Schools of Oriental Research. 2006 The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project 1980–89. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Patrich, Y. 2012 Caravan Trade: The ‘Nabataean’ Fortresses in the ʿAravah Re-examined. Cathedra 146: 7–26 (Hebrew). Porat, Y. 1987 Qanats in the ʿAravah. Qadmoniot 20: 106–14 (Hebrew). Roll, I. 1989 A Latin Imperial Inscription from the Time of Diocletian Found at Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 239–60. Rothenberg, B. 1967 Secrets of the Negev: Archaeology in the Negev and the Araba. Ramat Gan: Massada (Hebrew).

68

Appendix 1: The Ostracon

Russell, K. W. 1980 The Earthquake of May 19, a.d. 363. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 47–64. 1985 The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd through the mid-8th Century a.d. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260: 37–59. Shahid, I. 1984 Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Shirav-Schwartz, M.; Calvo, R., Bein, A.; Burg, A.; Nof (Novitsky), R., and Baer, G. 2006 Red Sea—Dead Sea Conduit, Geo-Environmental Study Along the Arava Valley. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel (http://foeme.org/uploads/GSI_Arava%20_29.06.pdf). Smith II, A. M. 2010 Wadi Araba in Classical and Late Antiquity: An Historical Geography. BAR International Series 2173. Oxford: Archaeopress. Toplyn, M. R. 2006 Livestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological Evidence. Pp. 463–508 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project 1980–89, by S. T. Parker. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Woolley, C. L., and Lawrence, T. E. 1936 The Wilderness of Zin. London: J. Cape.

Appendix 1: The Ostracon

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Walter Cockle and Zlatko Plese The ostracon found in the niche in W510 (B50131) contains seven lines of text, likely dating to the fourth century on paleographical grounds (see color fig. 8, p. 55). It is written in scripta continua without word divisions. We are grateful to Dr. Walter Cockle, FSA, and Dr. Zlatko Plese of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for their assistance in the transcription of this ostracon. The text was originally read and commented on by Cockle and subsequently was revised and corrected by Plese. Line 1 is probably the top line of the ostracon, and lines 1–2 contain personal names, perhaps Semitic, but the division of the words is not apparent. In the left hand margin of line 3 there is either a letter pi (numeral cipher 80) or possibly a cursive form of the sign for 10,000, with a line drawn through it and with a superscript alpha indicating that the amount described is intended only once. Lines 3–6 are fully legible as Greek. A dipthong of earlier Greek shows iotacism as for other vowels: thus in line 4 ‘EXEI becomes ‘EXI; in line 5 DAKTULION becomes DAKTILION; and in line 6 XRUSION becomes XPISION. In line 3: KASISEOS is a Semitic personal name attested three times in the Negev. Lines 3–4: SEBETI- |–NOS appears to be a personal name, probably in the genitive singular (i.e., nominative SEBETIS), although this name, which is possibly also Semitic, does not have clear parallels. Articulates transcription 1 2 3 crossed P with superscr. A 4 5

+AE . . URKASIA NEGOMARIA B̅ KASISEOS SEBETI NOS KAI EXI TO DAKTILION

Appendix 2: Report on Radiocarbon Dating

69

TO XPISION . . O SOSAS

6 7

Translation: 1–2 (unclear) 3–6 ‘. . . . Kasiseos, son of Sebetis, and has received the golden finger-ring . . .’ (unclear) 7

References Negev, A. 1991 Personal-names in the Nabataean Realm. Qedem 32. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Wuthnow, H. 1936 Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des vorderen Orient. Leipzig: Dieterich.

Appendix 2: Report on Radiocarbon Dating

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Elisabetta Boaretto (Weitzman Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel) Two samples of charred wood were measured for radiocarbon dating. The samples were treated according to the Acid Basa Acid procedure as in Yizhaq et al. 2005 and measured by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. Table 1 presents all of the information about the samples: their radiocarbon age and the calibrated ranges according to ±1σ (±1 standard deviation, meaning 68.2% probability that the true age is included in those limits) and ±2σ (±2 standard deviation, meaning 95.4% probability that the true age is included in those limits), pretreatment data, and stable isotopes ratio. In the calibrated age interpretation, it is important to consider the nature of the sample. Since the material is wood charcoal, it is possible that an “old wood effect” is present in the age, because the tree has to grow before it is cut or used. Therefore, the age should be considered a terminus post quem from the moment of burning.

Table 1 14

RTT #

Type

C age ± 1σ year BP

Calibrated age ±1σ

Calibrated age ±2σ

13

Collection Site prep% C%

C‰ PDB

5956

charcoal

1750±45

230AD (65.4%) 130AD (95.4%) Yotvata #2, 350AD 400AD L 6010, B 360AD ( 2.8%) 60090 380AD

∼25

43

–24.1

5957

charcoal

1820±45

130AD (68.2%) 80AD (95.4%) 250AD 330AD

∼25

26

–24.1

Yotvata #3, L 6010, B 60095

70

Appendix 2: Report on Radiocarbon Dating

Fig. 61.  The distribution of the calibrated age of the two samples measured. The limits of the calibration are shown in Table 1.

14

C ages are reported in conventional radiocarbon years (before present = 1950) in accordance with international convention (Stuiver and Polach 1977). Thus, all calculated 14C ages have been corrected for the fractionation so as to refer the results to be equivalent with the standard δ13C value of –25‰ (wood). Calibrated ages in calendar years have been obtained from the calibration tables (in Reimer, Baillie et al. 2004; Reimer, Baillie et al. 2009) by means of OxCal v. 4.1.5 of Bronk Ramsey (2010) (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References Bronk-Ramsey, C. 1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425–30. Bronk-Ramsey, C. 2001 Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 355–63. Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie et al. 2004 IntCal04:Calibration Issue. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029–58. Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie et al. 2009 IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4): 1111–50. Stuiver, M., and H. A. Polach 1977 Discussing reporting 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3): 355–63. Yizhaq, M.; Mintz, G.; Cohen, I.; Khalaily, H.; Weiner, S.; and Boaretto, E. 2005 Quality Controlled Radiocarbon Dating of Bones and Charcoal from the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47: 193–206.

Appendix 2: Report on Radiocarbon Dating

71

Darden Hood (Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Miami, FL)

Report Date: 3/14/2007

Dr. Gwyn Davies Florida International University

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Sample Data

Material Received: 2/7/2007 Measured Radiocarbon Age

13C/12C Ratio

Conventional Radiocarbon Age(*)

Beta - 227239 1630 +/- 40 BP -21.6 o/oo SAMPLE : Yotvata 2 B60187 (2) ANALYSIS : AMS-Standard delivery MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (charred material): acid/alkali/acid 2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal AD 250 to 420 (Cal BP 1700 to 1520) ____________________________________________________________________________________

1690 +/- 40 BP

Beta - 227240 1530 +/- 60 BP -25.6 o/oo SAMPLE : Yotvata 1 B70142 (B) ANALYSIS : Radiometric-Standard delivery MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT : (charred material): acid/alkali/acid 2 SIGMA CALIBRATION : Cal AD 410 to 650 (Cal BP 1540 to 1300) ____________________________________________________________________________________

1520 +/- 60 BP

Hood appendix

72

Appendix 2: Report on Radiocarbon Dating

C ALIB R A T IO N O F R A D IO C AR B O N AG E T O C A L E N D AR Y E A RS (V ariables: C13/C12= -21.6:lab. m ult= 1) Lab oratory n u mber:

Beta-227239

C onven tional radiocarbon age:

1690±40 BP

2 S igma calib rated result: (95% p robab ility)

C al AD 250 to 420 (Cal BP 1700 to 1520) Intercept data

Intercept of radiocarbon age w ith calibration curve: 1 S igm a calibrated res ults: (68% probability)

1820

Cal A D 380 (Cal BP 1570) Cal A D 260 to 280 (Cal BP 1680 to 1670) and Cal A D 330 to 410 (Cal BP 1620 to 1540) Charred m aterial

1690± 40 B P

1800 1780 1760

Radiocarbon age (BP)

1740 1720 1700 1680 1660

1640 1620 1600 1580 1560 1540 220

240

260

280

300

320

340 C al A D

360

380

400

420

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References :

Databa se u se d Intc al04 C alib ra tion Database INTC A L04 R adiocarb on A ge C alib ra tion IntC al04: C alibration I ssue of R adiocarb on ( Volume 46 , nr 3, 2004) . M ath em atics A S im plified A pproac h to C alibratin g C 14 Date s T alma, A. S ., V ogel, J . C ., 19 93, Radioc arbon 35(2 ), p31 7-322

B eta Analytic R adiocarbon D ating Laboratory

49 8 5 S.W . 74 th C o u rt , M ia mi , Fl or id a 3 31 55 • Tel: (3 0 5)6 67 -5 16 7 • F ax: (30 5)6 63 -0 96 4 • E -Ma il : b eta @ r a di oca rb o n. com

440

Appendix 2: Report on Radiocarbon Dating

73

C ALIB RA TIO N O F RAD IO C AR BO N AG E TO CA LE ND AR Y E ARS (V a ri a bl es : C 13 /C 1 2= -25 .6 :l a b. m u lt = 1) L a b or ato r y n u m b e r : C on v en ti on a l ra d io c ar b o n ag e : 2 S ig m a c al ib r a te d r es u lt: (9 5% p r o b ab i li ty)

B e ta-2 27 24 0 1 52 0± 60 B P C al A D 41 0 to 65 0 (C al B P 15 40 to 1 30 0) Int e rce p t da ta

Int e rc e pt of ra d io c a rb on a ge w it h c a l ib rat io n cu rve : 1 S ig m a c a li bra te d re su lt s: (6 8% pro ba bi li ty )

175 0

C a l A D 55 0 (C a l B P 14 00 ) C a l A D 44 0 t o 490 (C a l B P 15 10 to 14 60 ) a nd C a l A D 52 0 t o 610 (C a l B P 14 30 to 13 40 )

152 0±60 BP

Cha rred materi al

170 0 165 0

Ra dio carbon a ge (BP)

160 0 155 0 150 0 145 0 140 0 135 0 130 0 125 0

380

4 00

42 0

440

460

4 80

50 0

520 Ca l AD

5 40

56 0

580

600

6 20

64 0

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

R e fe re nc e s:

D atab as e u s e d INT C A L0 4 Ca lib ra tio n D a ta ba se IN T C AL 0 4 Ra dioc a rb on A ge Ca lib ra tio n IntC al04 : Calibr atio n Iss ue of R ad ioc ar bo n (V olu m e 4 6, n r 3, 200 4). M ath e m atic s A S im plifie d A ppr oa c h to Ca libr ating C14 D a te s Ta lma , A . S. , V o ge l, J . C. , 19 93 , R ad ioc ar bo n 35 (2), p31 7-3 22

B eta Ana ly ti c Ra dioc a rbo n D ati ng La bor a tory

4985 S.W. 74th Cour t, Miam i, F lorida 33155 • T el: (30 5)667-5167 • Fax : (305)663-0964 • E-Mail: be ta@r adioc arbon. c om

660

Chapter 2

The Pottery Jodi Magness The pottery from the 2003–2007 excavations in the Late Roman fort at Yotvata dates to the Late Roman period (fourth century c.e.) and the early Islamic period (seventh to early eighth centuries) (see figs. 2.1–30; pls. 1–7). No pottery was recovered from the Byzantine-period occupation, which is assigned to the later fifth century because these ephemeral remains are sandwiched between the Late Roman and early Islamic levels. Most of the early Islamic pottery, which includes some restorable vessels, comes from the rooms and cells along the south and southwest sides of the fort (Areas 2000, 7000, 8000). In contrast, most of the Late Roman pottery consists of fragments, except for a deposit of restorable vessels from a dump in the Western Corridor (L9009, 9014, 9020, 9021, 9024) (see figs. 2.13–2.21). Because the fragmentary nature of the material makes it impossible to distinguish changes in ceramic types among the different (earliest to latest) Late Roman floors, the Late Roman pottery is presented here as one assemblage. A few whole vessels from U. Avner’s excavations are included in this chapter, although he is responsible for publishing his material. The following discussion focuses only on diagnostic pieces representing characteristic types. For references to parallels, see the catalogue at the end of the discussion.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Late Roman Pottery (Figs. 2.1–21; Color Figs. 17, 18:1–3, 6–7) Most of the parallels for the Late Roman pottery from Yotvata come from Late Roman forts and Nabataean sites in central and southern Jordan, the Arava, and the Negev: Ein Hazeva, Avdat (Oboda), Mampsis, Petra, Dajaniya, Qasr Bshir, and Lejjun. All of the parallels fall within a fourth–fifth century range. The only two datable examples of imported fine wares from our excavations are African Red Slip Ware Form 50B, dated ca. 350–400/420, and African Red Slip Ware Form 61A, dated ca. 325–400/420 (see Hayes 1972:68–73, 100–107). Both rim fragments are too small to be drawn, and both come from later contexts (L7033 [surface concretion] and L7036 [fills below the early Islamic occupation level]). The only other Late Roman Red Ware imports consist of two small base fragments and one small rim fragment (but without the edge of the rim) belonging to African Red Slip Ware bowls (see figs. 2.1:1–2; 2.13:1). Aside from these pieces and a few amphora fragments (see below), the Late Roman assemblage consists entirely of local (southern Palestinian) types. 74

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery

75

The lower (earlier) Roman floor in Room 6 (Area 9000) yielded three non-joining fragments of a painted Nabataean bowl (fig. 2.1:3) of the fourth to early fifth century—the only example of this type from our excavations. Carinated bowls with an everted lip (sometimes marked by a groove) (figs. 2.1:5–6; 2.13:2), made of brown ware with a yellow slip are characteristic of sites in the Negev and southern Jordan. No parallels were found for the heavy bowls or mortaria in figs. 2.1:9 and 2.2:1–2, which are made of yellow ware or covered with a yellow slip and have a simple beveled rim. Beakers are represented at Yotvata by only a few tiny fragments. The first of the two pieces illustrated (see fig. 2.2:3–4) has a parallel from Petra. The large number of cooking pots and casseroles in the Late Roman assemblage contrasts with the scarcity of cups, bowls, and plates, suggesting that food was consumed directly from cooking vessels (unless there were serving and dining dishes made of perishable materials, such as wood). Most of the cooking pots are made of thin, brittle ware, sometimes covered with a gray or brown slip, and are characterized in form by a short, vertical, slightly swollen neck with a sharp transition to the shoulder, an ovoid (top-heavy) body, and two loop handles drawn from the rim to the middle of the upper half of the body. This type has two main rim variants: a plain rim (see figs. 2.3:3–4; 2.13:4; 2.14:1–3; 2.15:1; 2.16:2 [= color fig. 17:4]), and a grooved rim (see figs. 2.4:4–7; 2.15:2–3; 2.16:1 [= color fig. 17:6], 3). Both variants have parallels from Petra, Mampsis, Lejjun, Qasr Bshir, and Avdat. The cooking pots in fig. 2.4:2–3 are made of a gritty, micaceous fabric (the ware is brown or is covered with a brown slip) and have a short, slightly swollen neck with a triangular, beaked rim. The cooking pots in figs. 2.2:7 and 2.3:2, which have a short, everted neck with simple rim and thick loop handles, are made of a gritty, micaceous fabric covered with a yellow slip. Parallels indicate that both types are Nabataean and/or originated in the Petra region. Cooking ware jugs are illustrated in figs. 2.8:3–4 and 2.17:1–3. The cooking ware jug in fig. 2.8:3, which has a trefoil rim and is covered with a gray slip like the cooking pots discussed above, has parallels from Lejjun, Dajaniya, and Mampsis. Casseroles are illustrated in figs. 2.5:1–2 and 2.18:1–3 and color fig. 17:9, and casserole lids are illustrated in figs. 2.5:3–4 and 2.18:4–8. They are made of different fabrics, sometimes micaceous and sometimes covered with the dark gray slip characteristic of the cooking pots discussed above. Parallels suggest that the casserole and lids in figs. 2.5:2 and 2.18:7–8 originated in the Petra region. The casserole in fig. 2.5:1 has a parallel from Lejjun, and the lids in fig. 2.18:4, 6 have parallels from Avdat. A pithos rim made of pink ware with a light yellow slip is illustrated in fig. 2.6:1. The storage jars are characterized by several different profiles (figs. 2.6:2–7; 2.19:2–3). One type, made of yellow ware with a yellow or brown slip, has a vertical rim marked by a groove and a tall, straight neck (figs. 2.6:5–6; 2.19:2). Parallels suggest that this type originated in the Petra region. The other storage jars are made of light-colored (usually yellow) ware. The jars in figs. 2.6:7 and 2.20:5 have two loop handles drawn from the neck (instead of the rim) to the shoulder. The storage jar in fig. 2.19:3 is made of pink-orange ware with a yellow slip and is decorated with incised wavy lines on the neck and shoulder. The assemblage includes Gaza amphoras characteristic of the fourth to mid-fifth century (figs. 2.7:3–4; 2.19:1 [= color fig. 17:13]). A few small fragments of imported amphoras were also found (figs. 2.7:5–6; 2.8:1–2; 2.20:1–3). The rim in fig. 2.7:5 belongs to an amphora of Tunisian origin dated to the fourth and fifth centuries. The base in fig. 2.20:2 belongs to an amphora of North African (Mauretanian) origin and dates from the third century to midfifth century.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

76

The Pottery

Various (non-cooking ware) jugs and juglets are illustrated in figs. 2.8:5–8; 2.9:3–6; 2.20:4, 7–9, and color fig. 17:8, 10. The intact juglet with cup-shaped rim in fig. 2.9:3 (= color fig. 17:8) and the complete lower part of another juglet (fig. 2.9:4 = color fig. 17:10) were discovered on the lower (earliest) Roman floor in Room 5 (L6031 + 6034). Both juglets are made of orange-brown ware with string-cut stump bases, and the first has a drippy, dark red slip over the upper part of the body. The body of another juglet (fig. 2.9:5) came out of the baulk in Area 2000 during the off-season. Parallels suggest that these juglets originated in the Petra region. Flasks made of thick, gritty yellow ware (or light ware covered with a yellow slip) are illustrated in figs. 2.8:9, 2.9:1–2, and 2.20:6 and color fig. 18:1–3. They have a tall neck with a flaring rim, two loop handles drawn from the mid-neck to the shoulder, and a round body flattened on both sides with a symmetrical profile. A complete (restored) flask (fig. 2.9:2 = color fig. 18:3) was found on the lowest (earliest) Roman floor in Room 2 (L2068), together with approximately 30 coins, the latest of which dates to 354–358. Another complete (restored) flask (fig. 2.9:1 = color fig. 18:2) was discovered on the uppermost (latest) Roman floor in the southwest courtyard (L7026 B70158). A third complete (intact) flask (color fig. 18:1) was found in the dump in the western corridor (L9024 B90234; for the intact upper part of another flask from this dump, see fig. 2.20:6). Parallels for these flasks, which appear to be a Nabataean type, come from Petra, Lejjun, Darih, and Ein Hazeva. A distinctive jar with a wide mouth and two small vertical loop handles attached to the sides of a long, cylindrical body is illustrated in fig. 2.21:1 (= color fig. 17:12). It comes from the dump in the Western Corridor. This type is common at Ein Hazeva and Avdat, where it is described as a “ration jar.” The orange-brown, micaceous ware and yellow slip of our jar matches those from contexts dated to 363 at Ein Hazeva, whereas the early fifth-century jars from Avdat are made of a variety of fabrics (Erickson-Gini 2010: 131). Tali Erickson-Gini notes that, “Many examples of complete jars stored together or separately were found in situ in contexts dated to the destruction of the fort in 363 ce. One jar was found with a seal made from a rounded pottery sherd covered with plaster. Pieces of ceramic sherds embedded in plaster, apparently used to seal these jars were commonly found in the fort at ʿEn Hazeva” (2010: 131). Sherd stoppers (fig. 2.21:2–3) were also found in the dump in the Western Corridor. The first stopper comes from the same basket as the “ration jar” and might have been used to seal it, as suggested by its neat fit into the constriction at the base of the jar’s mouth. Oil lamps are illustrated in figs. 2.10–12. Nearly all of the Yotvata lamps (figs. 2.10–11) represent a type common at Petra in the fourth to fifth centuries (the “early Byzantine Petra lamp”), although examples are found at other sites in central and southern Jordan, the Arava, and the Negev. These lamps are characterized by an oval body with a low knob handle and are decorated with thin radiating lines in relief around the filling hole and on the nozzle (or, more rarely, with spiral lines around the filling hole). The hard-fired ware is some shade of brown and often is covered with a lighter brown slip. Other oil lamps of the third to fifth centuries are illustrated in fig. 2.12. The ovoid oil lamps with large filling hole in fig. 2.12:1 (= color fig. 18:6) and fig. 2.12:2—which have a round body with a short nozzle and a knob handle—are made of a soft, light-colored ware covered with a flaky, dark red slip and are decorated with geometric designs in relief. This type is characteristic of southern Judea, which must be the source of our specimens.

The Pottery

77

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Early Islamic Pottery (Figs. 2.22–30; Color Fig. 18:4–5, 8–13) Whereas the Late Roman pottery consists of types paralleled at Late Roman forts and Nabataean sites in regions proximate to Yotvata, the early Islamic corpus is dominated by Egyptian types, with parallels from Elephantine, Kellia, el-Ashmunein, and the southern Sinai. It will be seen that some of the Yotvata pottery is not only Egyptian in type but must have been imported from Egypt. A few pieces in our corpus have parallels from the Negev, southern Jordan (Humeima), and Judea. The small number of parallels from Aqaba is surprising, because this port would have been a logical point of entry and distribution for imports from Egypt, as well as a potential source of locally-manufactured pottery. The pottery suggests a seventh-century to early-eighth-century range for the early Islamic occupation at Yotvata. No coins later than the fourth century were found in our excavations or in Meshel’s excavations. Only one tiny body fragment of glazed pottery was recovered in our excavations, from a surface locus (L9000 B90002; unillustrated). It is made of thick, sandy, light brown ware with a turquoise glaze on the interior and exterior. This piece presumably was left by Bedouin or casual visitors to the site after its abandonment. Only three small fragments of Fine Byzantine Ware were found in our excavations (figs. 2.22:1–3), which presumably originated in Jerusalem or elsewhere in southern Judea. One is a cup dating from the mid-sixth to late seventh centuries (fig. 2.22:2), while the other two are early Islamic variants of Fine Byzantine Ware, which date from the seventh to ninth or tenth centuries. A deep, hemispherical cup or bowl (fig. 2.23:1 = color fig. 18:5) made of gritty orange-brown ware with a yellow slip represents a local type with parallels from the Negev and Eilat-Eilot. The large, shallow bowls in fig. 2.22:4–7 are Egyptian Red Slip Ware, as indicated by their forms (which vaguely imitate late variants of African Red Slip Ware), thick orange-brown fabric, and concentric grooves (fig. 2.22:4 = color fig. 18:4) and pie-crust rim (fig. 2.22:7). However, because no exact parallels were found for these bowls, it is unclear whether they represent ERS A, ERS H (from Hermopolis), or were manufactured at other workshops in Egypt. Thick-walled kraters or mortaria are illustrated in fig. 2.23:2–3. The first, made of dark orange ware, has a possible parallel from Kellia, and the second, made of pink ware with a yellow slip, has a possible parallel from the southern Sinai. The early Islamic assemblage, like that of the Late Roman period, is dominated by cooking pots (figs. 2.23:4; 2.24:1–3; 2.25:1–4; 2.26:1–2, 4–5; 2.29:1; color figs. 18:9, 11–12, p.  59). Presumably, the food was served and shared from the large ERS dishes. However, unlike the Late Roman corpus, the early Islamic cooking wares consist entirely of cooking pots, without any casseroles. Most of the early Islamic cooking pots differ from the Late Roman forms in having large mouths, indicating that they were used to boil chunks of meat as well as prepare meatless soups, stews, and gruels. In contrast, the narrow mouths and necks of the Late Roman cooking pots could not have accommodated chunks of meat and therefore must have been used to boil meatless (but not necessarily fowl-less or fish-less) soups, stews, and gruels. The Late Roman casseroles presumably were used for braising and boiling chunks of meat. Faunal (zoological) analyses indicate that, in addition to more common species such as sheep and goat, camels, horses, and donkeys were consumed at Yotvata in the Late Roman and early Islamic occupation phases. The early Islamic cooking pots can be divided into three main types:

78

The Pottery

1. Cooking pots with a globular body with S-shaped profile, two vertical loop handles attached to the middle of the body, a wide mouth with no neck, and a concave, beaked lip to hold a lid (figs. 2.24:1–3; 2.25:1–4; color fig. 18:12). 2. Cooking pots with a body that is widest in the middle and narrows toward the base, with two horizontal handles attached to the widest point of the body, and a wide mouth with a short, simple, everted rim (figs. 2.23:4 [= color fig. 18:11]; 2.26:1 [= color fig. 18.9]). 3. Cooking pots with a short, vertical neck and slightly everted rim with thickened lip, as well as two loop handles from the rim to the shoulder (fig. 2.26:4–5).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

.

The other cooking wares include a small, wide-mouthed, handleless cooking pot (fig. 2.26:2), a casserole lid (fig. 2.26:3), and a cooking pot of local type (fig. 2.29:1). Except for the last two, all of the cooking vessels are made of thick pink or orange ware, sometimes with a yellow or brown slip. The cooking pots with S-shaped profile and vertical handles attached to the middle of the body (Type 1) are a typical Egyptian type of the fifth to eighth centuries, with parallels from Elephantine, Kellia, and el-Ashmunein. The cooking pots with horizontal handles attached to the middle of the body (Type 2) have parallels from Kellia, el-Ashmunein, and the southern Sinai and are dated to the sixth to eighth centuries. The small, handleless cooking pot (fig. 2.26:2) also has parallels from Egypt. No parallels were found for the cooking pots with short, vertical neck and two loop handles from the rim to the shoulder (Type 3). The cooking pot in fig. 2.29:1 is made of gritty, dark orange-brown ware, with a short, everted neck and thickened, rounded rim. It represents a type characteristic of southern Palestine in the eighth century, including parallels from Eilat-Eilot (see Magness 2004:17 n. 42). Most of the storage jars are made of a pink ware like the cooking pots and have a short, slightly everted neck with thickened, offset rim, two loop handles on the shoulder, and a rounded body that widens toward the base (figs. 2.27:1–3; 2.28:1; the jar in fig. 2.27:3 [= color fig. 18:10] comes from U. Avner’s excavations in a midden outside the fort). The storage jars in fig. 2.28:2–3 differ in being made of coarse, gritty ware that is yellow in color or covered with a yellow slip; they have a body that is widest at the shoulder and narrows toward the base. Vessels made of “Negbite ware” are illustrated in figs. 2.28:4–5 and 2.29:2–3. Negbite ware first appeared in the Negev in the Bronze Age and was especially common during the Iron Age. It has been found at Byzantine through early Islamic nomadic sites in the Negev highlands (Avni 1996: 51). Negbite ware vessels are crude and handmade, friable and poorly-fired, with a thick, dark gray core, brown or dark brown surface, and simple, irregular shape. Our examples include a basin or krater with pie-crust rim (fig. 2.28:4), a cooking pot (fig. 2.28:5), a cooking pot or jar (fig. 2.29:2), and a jar with pie-crust rim (fig. 2.29:3). The three jugs in fig. 2.29:5 (= color fig. 18:8, p.  59), 6, 7 represent the same type. They are made of smooth orange or pink ware with a red slip and have a large, ridged, cup-shaped mouth pierced by a hole at the base, a single handle from the neck to the shoulder, and incised decoration on the shoulder. Parallels from Elephantine leave no doubt that these jugs are Egyptian imports. No parallels were found for the yellow-slipped flask rim in fig. 2.29:8. Finally, the base of an amphora of gritty, micaceous, red-brown ware with a yellow-brown slip is illustrated in fig. 2.30:1 (= color fig. 18:13, p. 59). It represents a seventh-century type that was manufactured at Aqaba (see Whitcomb 1989: 169–70). This amphora was found on an early Islamic plastered floor on the south side of the fort (Room 2; L2002). No oil lamps are represented among the early Islamic pottery.

The Pottery

79

To conclude: the early Islamic corpus is dominated by Egyptian types, at least some of which were imported from Egypt. These include the ERS bowls, most of the cooking pots, possibly some of the storage jars (which are made of the same fabric as the cooking pots), and the red-slipped jugs. The rest of the corpus consists of types characteristic of the Negev and Eilat/Aqaba and a few Fine Byzantine Ware cups or bowls from Jerusalem or Judea.

Catalogue The following information is provided for each illustrated piece: • the figure number; • the excavation year; • the locus number and basket number; • the type of vessel and how much of it is preserved; • the rim diameter or estimated rim diameter (not indicated if the fragment is too small for an estimate); • a description of the ware, surface treatment, and inclusions; • and parallels or references.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The visual descriptions of the color(s) are mine, followed by Munsell color numbers. No distinction is made between grits and inclusions. The grit sizes and quantities are described in relative terms. All vessels are wheel-made, except for the oil lamps, which are mold-made, unless otherwise indicated. Pieces from critical loci are marked with an asterisk (*).

80

The Pottery

Figure 2.1 Fig. 2.1:1 (2003 L2001 B20123) Bowl; base fragment. Thin, hard, smooth, dark orange-red ware (10R5/8); dark orange-red slip and burnish (10R5/8) on interior; no visible grits. African Red Slip Ware, undetermined form (see Hayes 1972).

Fig. 2.1:2 (2004 L2050 B20664) Bowl; small base fragment. Fine, smooth, orange ware (2.5YR5/6); burnished or smoothed on interior and exterior; a few tiny–small white grits. African Red Slip Ware, undetermined form (see Hayes 1972).

*Fig. 1:3 (2007 L9026 B90322 + L9035 B90431 + B90461) Bowl; three non-joining rim fragments; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 28. Thick, pink ware (2.5YR5/4); light yellow slip (10YR7/4) over interior and exterior; red-painted (5YR4/4) wreath of leaves encircling interior and red-painted line on rim; some tiny dark and white grits. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 269, Abb. 844–49, dated 4c–early 5c; Erickson-Gini 2010: 134, fig. 4.1 (from Ein Hazeva), dated 363; Parker 2006: fig. 16.68:340 (from Dajaniya), dated 4c–5c.

*Fig. 1:4 (2003 L2020 B20302) Bowl; upper half (rim + wall); three restored joining fragments; ca. 1/3 dia. preserved. Coarse, gritty, yellow ware (2.5Y8/3); orange core (2.5YR7/78); many tiny white and dark grits and sparkling (quartz?) flecks.

Fig. 1:5 (2004 L2038 B20490) Bowl; rim and wall fragment; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Thin, hard-fired, brown ware (10YR5/3); thin orange core (5YR6/4); light yellow slip (2.5Y7/3); some tiny white and dark grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 135, fig. 4.8–9 (from Ein Hazeva), dated 363; Parker 2006: fig. 16.69:346, dated 4c–5c.

*Fig. 1:6 (2005 L2068 B20815) Bowl; small rim fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 10. Hard-fired, orange-brown ware (5YR5/6); light brown slip (7.5YR7/3) on exterior; many tiny–small white grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 135, fig. 4.8–9 (from Ein Hazeva), dated 363; 168, fig. 6.15 (from Avdat), dated early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.70:347 (from Dajaniya), dated 4c–5c.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

*Fig. 1:7 (2005 + 2006 L7019 B70116 + L7026 B70158) Heavy bowl; two joining rim fragments; ca. 1/4 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 21. Very thick, heavy, light brown ware (7.5YR5/4); light yellow slip (2.5Y7/4); some tiny white and a few small-medium dark grits and a few tiny glistening flecks. Parallels: Brogli 1996:259, Abb. 785 (Type C13d), dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 1:8 (2007 L7074 B70407) Deep bowl or basin; rim fragment; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Dia. 12. Hard-fired, relatively smooth, light pink ware (2.5YR6/4); yellow slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; many tiny dark and a few very large white grits.

Fig. 1:9 (2004 L2034 B20497) Basin; small rim fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Very thick, brown ware (10YR6/3); yellowbrown slip (10YR7/3) on interior and exterior; many tiny dark and some large white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 81

82

The Pottery

Figure 2.2 Fig. 2.2:1 (2004 L2034 B20619) Large bowl/basin; rim and upper wall fragment; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Very thick, coarse, gritty, light brown ware (10YR7/3); yellow-brown slip (2.5Y7/4) on interior and exterior; many tiny dark and some large white grits.

Fig. 2.2:2 (2003 L2015 B20285) Large bowl/mortarium; small rim fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Thick, heavy, yellow ware (10YR8/3 [interior]; 2.5Y8/3 [exterior]); some tiny white grits and glistening flecks.

*Fig. 2.2:3 (2003 L2018 B20268) Beaker; tiny rim fragment. Thin, smooth, orange ware (2.5YR6/8); a few tiny–medium white grits. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 263, Abb. 815–16 (Type 16a), dated 4c–early 5c.

*Fig. 2.2:4 (2007 L9031 B90488) Beaker; two joining rim and wall fragments; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Relatively fine, hard-fired, dark red-brown ware (5YR4/6); light yellow-brown slip (10YR6/3) on exterior; some tiny–small white grits.

*Fig. 2.2:5 (2005 L2068 B20813) (found with lump of bronze) Cooking pot; complete (restored) base. Very thin, brittle, worn, dark red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR4/4); blackened on exterior; some tiny–small white and dark grits.

Fig. 2.2:6 (2005 L7018 B70109) Cooking pot; small rim and neck fragment with part of handle. Est. dia. 8. Thick, dark gray cooking ware (10YR4/1); red core (2.5YR4/8); many tiny dark grits.

*Fig. 2.2:7 (2003 L2018 B20274) Cooking pot; small rim fragment with complete handle and part of neck and shoulder. Hard, gritty, light pink-orange cooking ware (5YR7/4); light yellow slip (2.5YR7/4); burning on exterior; many tiny–small dark and tiny–medium red grits and many glistening mica flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: Brogli 1996: 248, Abb. 749 (Type A43a), dated 4c–early 5c.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 83

84

The Pottery

Figure 2.3 Fig. 2.3:1 (2004 L2030 B20415) Cooking pot; small rim and shoulder fragment. Very thin, brittle, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR4/6); some tiny white grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 172, fig. 6.50 (from Avdat), dated early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.46:234, dated 363–502.

Fig. 2.3:2 (2003 L2017 B20200) Cooking pot; rim and shoulder fragment with one handle; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Hard, dark orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); light yellow-brown slip (2.5YR7/3); many tiny–medium white and red grits and a few gold mica flecks. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 143, fig. 4.53 (from Ein Hazeva), dated 363 (a Nabataean type).

*Fig. 2.3:3 (2003 L2018 B20274) Cooking pot; small rim fragment with complete handle. Thin, hard-fired, gritty, orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); dark gray slip (5YR2.5/1) on interior and exterior; many tiny–small white grits.

Fig. 2.3:4 (2007 L9025 B90213 + L9028 B90292) Cooking pot; 1/2 (restored). Dia. 8. Very thin, brittle, pink-brown ware (2.5YR6/3); gray slip (5YR5/1) on exterior; many tiny–medium white and dark grits; some glistening flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Similar to Parker 2006: fig. 16.42:208, dated 363–502.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 85

86

The Pottery

Figure 2.4 *Fig. 2.4:1 (2003 L2020 B20280) Cooking pot; almost complete (restored) profile; ca. 2/3 preserved. Thin, gritty, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); fired or burned black on exterior and part of interior; many tiny–small white grits.

*Fig. 2.4:2 (2003 L2018 B20304) Cooking pot; small rim fragment. Gritty, brown cooking ware (7.5YR5/4); fired orange-brown (10R6/6) at surfaces; gray-brown slip (7.5YR4/2) on interior and exterior; many tiny dark grits and tiny mica flecks. Parallels: Gerber 2001: 11, fig. 2:K, dated 4c–5c; Brogli 1996: 242, Abb. 728 (Type A2a), dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.4:3 (2005 L7018 B70097) Cooking pot; two joining rim and neck fragments; ca. 1/4 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 11. Thin, gritty, light red cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); burning on exterior; many tiny dark grits and tiny glistening micaceous flecks. Parallels: Gerber 2001: 11, fig. 2:F, dated 4c–5c; Brogli 1996: 242, Abb. 729 (Type A2a), dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.4:4 (2003 L2017 B20200) Cooking pot; small grooved rim fragment with half of handle attached. Thin, hard, gritty, dark orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); dark gray core; dark gray slip (5YR5/1) on interior and exterior; many tiny–small white grits.

Fig. 2.4:5 (2005 L7018 B70109) Cooking pot; rim fragment with complete handle; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Est dia. 9. Gritty, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR4/6); dark gray slip (5YR4/1); some tiny–small white and dark grits.

*Fig. 2.4:6 (2003 L2018 B20304) Cooking pot; tiny grooved rim fragment. Gritty, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); yellow-brown slip (7.5YR6/4) on interior and on exterior of rim; many tiny white grits and tiny–large gold mica flecks. Parallels: Parker 2006: fig. 16.1:3, dated 284–363.

Fig. 2.4:7 (2004 L2030 B20415) Cooking pot; tiny rim fragment. Thin, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); blackened on exterior; many tiny–small white grits and a few glistening micaceous flecks. Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 143, fig. 4.55, dated 363 (from Mampsis).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 87

88

The Pottery

Figure 2.5 Fig. 2.5:1 (2003 L2015 B20301) Casserole; entire profile with less than 1/8 dia. preserved (restored). Gritty, brown cooking ware (5YR4/6); burned on exterior; many tiny–medium white grits. Parallels: Parker 2006: fig. 16.6:18, dated 284–363.

Fig. 2.5:2 (2005 L7018 B70109) Casserole; rim and wall fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 18. Gritty, dark red cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); dark gray slip (5YR5/1); burned on exterior; many tiny white and dark grits and glistening mica flecks. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 257, Abb. 774 (Type C6a), dated 4c–early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.6:17, dated 284–363.

Fig. 2.5:3 (2004 L2033 B20474 [from mud-brick core]) Casserole lid; tiny rim fragment. Thin, dark orange-red cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); horizontal combed band on exterior; some tiny white grits. Similar to Parker 1987: 589, fig. 109:151, dated 363–502.

Fig. 2.5:4 (2005 L5010 B50036) Casserole lid; ca. 1/3 (restored). Dia. 21. Thin, gritty, purple-brown ware (2.5YR3/2); fired red-brown (2.5YR4/4) on exterior; many tiny–small white grits.

*Fig. 2.5:5 (2003 L2020 B20302)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Knob handle of lid or jar base (complete). Thick, gritty, orange-brown ware (2.5YR6/6); yellow slip (2.5Y8/4) on exterior; many tiny–medium white grits and some glistening flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 89

90

The Pottery

Figure 2.6 Fig. 2.6:1 (2007 L5022 B50236) Pithos; rim and wall fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Very thick, hard-fired, pink ware (2.5YR5/6); thick light brown core (7.5YR6/4); light yellow slip (10YR8/4) on exterior and upper part of interior; some tiny white and a few medium dark grits.

Fig. 2.6:2 (2003 L2015 B20285) Jar; small rim and neck fragment. Gritty, yellow ware (2.5Y8/4); many tiny dark grits.

Fig. 2.6:3 (2005 L7018 B70109) Jar; small rim fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 8. Thick, gritty, light brown ware (10YR6/4); dark gray slip (10YR5/1) on exterior; many tiny dark and white grits and some tiny glistening micaceous flecks.

Fig. 2.6:4 (2004 L2030 B20415) Jar; rim and neck fragment; ca. 1/6 dia. preserved. Hard-fired, thick, yellow-brown ware (2.5Y7/4); some tiny–small white and dark grits. Similar in profile to Parker 1987: 589, fig. 109:154–57, dated 363–502 (gray ware).

Fig. 2.6:5 (2004 L2050 B20668) Jar/jug; rim and neck fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Hard-fired, yellow ware (10YR7/4); dark brown slip (10YR3/1) on lower part of exterior (neck); some tiny–large brown grits. Parallels: Gerber 2001: 11, fig. 2: Q (storage jar from Petra), dated 4c–5c; Brogli 1996: 251, Abb. 760 (Type A22a), dated 4c–early 5c (“pot”).

*Fig. 2.6:6 (2003 L2018 B20304) Jar; tiny rim fragment with beginning of handle attachment. Buff (yellow) ware (2.5Y7/3); many tiny dark grits.

Fig. 2.6:7 (2006 L9025 B90213)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Jar; part of neck and body with complete handle (restored). Thick orange-brown ware (5YR5/4); yellow slip (10YR8/4) on exterior; many tiny dark and some small-large white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 91

92

The Pottery

Figure 2.7 Fig. 2.7:1 (2006 L7030 B70199) Jar/jug; lower half with complete base (restored). Very thin, brittle, light brown ware (7.5YR6/3); yellow slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; some tiny–medium white and dark grits.

Fig. 2.7:2 (2004 L2034 B20634) Jar; base fragment; ca. 1/2 dia. preserved. Thin, lightweight, yellow-white-green ware (5YR7/3); a few tiny–small white and some tiny–small dark grits.

*Fig. 2.7:3 (2004 L2039 B20614) Gaza amphora; large wall fragment with small part of rim. Brown ware (5YR5/4); light brown slip (5YR6/4) on exterior; smooth on exterior; many tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: Majcherek 1995: 174, pl. 5; Form 2, dated ca. 300–450.

Fig. 2.7:4 (2007 L7074 B70407) Gaza amphora; rim fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Thick, coarse, brown ware (7.5YR6/4); red-brown slip (2.5YR5/6) on exterior; many tiny–medium white and dark grits and a few very large white grits. Parallels: Majcherek 1995: 174, pl. 5; Form 2, dated ca. 300–450.

Fig. 2.7:5 (2007 L5034 B50300) Amphora; rim fragment; ca. 1/4 dia. preserved. Dia. 10. Thick, coarse, rough, hard-fired, dark orange ware (2.5YR4/8); dark brown slip (5YR4/4) on interior and exterior; many tiny–very large white grits and some medium red grits. Parallels: Keay 1984: 250–52, fig. 108; Type XL no. 1 (from Tunisia), dated probably 4c–5c.

*Fig. 2.7:6 (2005 L2069 B20828)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Amphora; rim and neck and handle fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 9. Light yellow ware (2.5YR7/3); some tiny dark and white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 93

94

The Pottery

Figure 2.8 Fig. 2.8:1 (2003 L2015 B20235) Amphora handle; upper half. Thick, heavy, hard-fired, dark orange-brown ware (5YR5/6); many tiny– large white grits.

Fig. 2.8:2 (2007 L7045 B70234) Amphora; tiny rim fragment with neck and handle and non-joining small body fragment with beginning of handle attachment. Dense, heavy, coarse, greenish-gray ware (5Y5/4); dark gray slip (2.5Y5/2); many tiny–medium dark grits.

Fig. 2.8:3 (2003 L2015 B20285 + L2017 B20220) Cooking ware jug with trefoil rim; most of rim preserved (restored) with part of handle and neck. Hard, gritty, orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); dark gray slip (7.5YR3/1) on exterior and on interior of rim; many tiny and some small-large white grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 140, fig. 4.38, dated 363 (from Mampsis); Parker 2006: fig. 16.10:39– 40, dated ca. 284–363 (from Lejjun; but differs in handle drawn from mid-neck); fig. 16.63:307 (from Dajaniya); Parker 1987: 591, fig. 110:165, dated 363–502 (from Lejjun).

Fig. 2.8:4 (2006 L7024 B70148) Cooking ware jug; almost complete (intact) rim and neck. Dia. 5. Orange cooking ware (2.5YR5/8); orange-brown slip (2.5YR5/6) on exterior; blackened on exterior; some tiny–medium dark grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 139, fig. 4.35, dated 363 (from Mampsis; but differs in having a trefoil rim with a pinched spout).

Fig. 2.8:5 (2007 L9034 B90415) Juglet; rim and handle fragment; ca. 1/3 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 1.5. Thin, smooth, hard-fired, brown ware (7.5YR5/6); many tiny–medium white grits.

*Fig. 2.8:6 (2004 L2039 B20614) Jar or flask; rim and neck fragment; ca. 1/4 dia. preserved. Relatively thin, gritty, orange-brown ware (5YR5/6); yellow slip (10YR7/3) on exterior and upper part of interior; many tiny–large white grits.

Fig. 2.8:7 (2004 L2030 B20447) Jug with trefoil rim; two tiny joining rim fragments. Thick, smooth, orange-brown ware (2/5YR6/6); blackened on exterior (or possibly a dark brown slip); some tiny–medium white grits.

Fig. 2.8:8 (2005 L7018 B70109)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Jug; complete (intact) stump base. Thick, heavy, gritty, light pink-brown ware (5YR6/4); light yellow slip (2.5YR8/4) on exterior; many tiny–large white and dark grits.

Fig. 2.8:9 (2005 L7018 B70109) Flask; complete (intact) rim and neck and parts of two handles. Dia. 5. Thick, gritty, orange-brown ware (2.5YR5/6); light yellow slip (2.5YR8/3) on exterior; many tiny dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.9:2.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 95

96

The Pottery

Figure 2.9 *Fig. 2.9:1 = color fig. 18:2 (2006 L7026 B70158) Flask; almost complete (restored; missing one side). Dia. 5. Gritty, light yellow ware (2.5Y7/3); many tiny–small dark and brown grits and some glistening (white) flecks; possible traces of red-painted design on side. Parallels: see fig. 2.9:2.

*Fig. 2.9:2 = color fig. 18:3 (2005 L2068 B20797 + 20799 + 20805) Flask; complete (restored). Dia. 4. Gritty, light brown ware (5YR7/4); light yellow slip (10YR8/4) on exterior and rim; many tiny dark grits and a few glistening (micaceous) flecks. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 230 Abb. 723 + 267 Abb. 827 (same vessel); Type B18a, dated 363–early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.62:303, dated 4c–5c; Villeneuve 2011: 318 fig. 2 (described as “proto-Abbasid”). Also see Erickson-Gini 2010: 111, fig. 2.39, dated early 3c (from Ein Hazeva) (but differs in having a “football shaped” body); 138, fig. 4.27, dated 363 (from Ein Hazeva) (but differs in having an asymmetrical body).

*Fig. 2.9:3 = color fig. 17:8 (2006 L6034 B60350) Juglet; complete (intact) with restored handle. Dia. 3.5. Hard-fired, light orange-brown ware (7.5YR7/3); drippy dark red slip (10R4/4) on upper half of exterior; string-cut base; many tiny white and dark grits and a few glistening mica flecks. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 230 Abb. 726 + 268 Abb. 833 (same vessel); Type B2g, dated 4c–early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.11:45, dated 284–363 (from Lejjun); fig. 16.40:200, dated 363–502.

*Fig. 2.9:4 = color fig. 17:10 (2006 L6031 B60294 + L6034 B60355) Jug/juglet; complete lower 2/3 (restored) with beginning of handle attachment. Smooth, thin, hardfired, dark orange ware (2.5YR6/8); string-cut base; some small-large white grits.

Fig. 2.9:5 (2003 L2019 B20303) (came out of the baulk during the off-season and was added to this basket) Juglet; almost complete (intact) except for rim and handle (sign of handle attachment visible). Heavy base; yellow ware (2.5YR7/4); many tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 268 Abb. 833 + 230 Abb. 726 (same vessel); Type B2g, dated early 4c–363.

*Fig. 2.9:6 (2003 L2020 B20280)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Juglet; complete (intact) stump base. Thin, hard-fired ware with thick, dark gray core (10Y3/1); fired orange (5YR5/6) at surfaces; light brown slip (10YR6/4) on exterior; string-cut base; many tiny– medium white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 97

98

The Pottery

Figure 2.10 Fig. 2.10:1 = color fig. 18:7 (2004 L2056 B20596) (excavated by U. Avner) Oil lamp; complete (intact). Thin-walled, hard-fired, gray-brown ware; light brown slip on exterior; burning around spout; some tiny–large white grits. Parallels: in general see Zanoni 1996: 331–34, Abb. 910–937, dated 4c–early 5c (“Early Byzantine Petra lamp”); for specific parallels see Zanoni 1996: 334 Abb. 935 no. 26, dated 363–419; Grawehr 2006: 349 no. 527, dated 363–5c/6c; Parker 2006: 345; figs. 16.72–73:358–69; Parker 1987: fig. 123; Erickson-Gini 2010: 156; 146, fig. 4.61–63, dated 363 (from Ein Hazeva and Mampsis).

Fig. 2.10:2 = color fig. 18:7 (2004 L2056 B20592) (excavated by U. Avner) Oil lamp; complete (intact). Thin-walled, hard-fired brown ware (similar to Gaza amphora fabric); light brown slip on exterior; burning around spout; many tiny–small white grits. Parallels: Grawehr 2006: 345 no. 504; 346 no. 509, dated second quarter of 4c to 5c/6c.

*Fig. 2.10:3 (2007 L2079 B20989) Oil lamp; almost 1/2 complete (intact). Thin, hard-fired, dark orange ware (2.5YR5/8); light brown slip (7.5YR7/4) on upper half of exterior; a few tiny–medium white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: Zanoni 1996: 331 Abb. 910 + 333 Abb. 933, no. 14; dated 363–419.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 99

100

The Pottery

Figure 2.11 *Fig. 2.11:1 (2006 L6031 B60294) Oil lamp; two joining fragments of shoulder and nozzle. Thin, hard-fired, dark brown ware (7.5YR5/4); brown slip (10YR6/3) on exterior; a few tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: Grawehr 2006: 344 no. 491, dated 363; similar to Zanoni 1996: 332 Abb. 917 + 334 Abb. 935, dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.11:2 (2006 L9015 B90066) Oil lamp; complete (intact) upper third with shoulder and half of nozzle. Hard-fired, dark orangebrown ware (2.5YR5/6); gray core (5YR5/1); light brown slip (10YR7/3) on exterior; some tiny–small white grits. Parallels: Zanoni 1996: 332 Abb. 913–14, nos. 20–21, dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.11:3 (2006 L9018 B90107) Oil lamp; two non-joining fragments of nozzle (upper and lower halves). Hard-fired, orange-brown ware (5YR6/6); gray core (10YR5/1); brown slip (10YR5/3) on exterior; burning around nozzle; some tiny–small white grits. Parallels: Zanoni 1996: 331 Abb. 910 + 333 Abb. 933, no. 14, dated 363–419; Grawehr 2006: 345 no. 503, dated 363 to 5c/6c.

Fig. 2.11:4 (2004 L2032 B20487) Oil lamp; tiny shoulder fragment. Dark brown ware, blackened on exterior; a few tiny–small white grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.10:1.

Fig. 2.11:5 + 6 (2003 L2017 B20200) Oil lamp; two non-joining shoulder and nozzle fragments. Hard-fired ware with orange core (2.5YR5/6); fired light brown (7.5YR6/4) at surfaces; burning around spout; a few tiny white and dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.10:1.

Fig. 2.11:7 (2003 L2017 B20249) Oil lamp; small shoulder fragment including edge of filling hole. Thin, hard-fired, dark orangebrown ware (2.5YR5/6); thin gray core; a few tiny white and dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.10:1.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

*Fig. 2.11:8 (2007 L9035 B90412) Oil lamp; fragment of upper part of shoulder with knob handle. Thin, hard-fired, dark orange ware (2.5YR5/6); light brown slip (7.5YR7/3) on exterior; a few tiny–large white grits. Parallels: Parker 2006: fig. 16.72:362; Grawehr 2006: 342 no. 481, dated 363; Zanoni 1996: 332 Abb. 920–921, nos. 30–31, dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.11:9 (2004 L2034 B20609) Oil lamp; small shoulder fragment. Thin, hard-fired, orange-brown ware (5YR6/4); thin gray core; a few tiny white grits. Parallels: Parker 2006: fig. 16.72:362; Zanoni 1996: 332 Abb. 920–921, nos. 30–31, dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.11:10 (2006 L7036 B70213) Oil lamp; ca. 1/4 of base. Thin, hard-fired, dark red-brown ware (5YR4/6); brown slip (7.5YR5/4) on exterior; many tiny–medium white grits; burned on inside and around nozzle; sunken base. Parallels: Zanoni 1996: Abb. 921, no. 31, dated early 4c–363.

Fig. 2.11:11 (2007 L7050 B70266) Oil lamp; nozzle and shoulder fragment. Dark brown ware (5YR4/4); some tiny–small white grits; blackened on interior and exterior. Parallels: Zanoni 1996: 334 Abb. 937, no. 29, dated 363–419.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 101

102

The Pottery

Figure 2.12 *Fig. 2.12:1 = color fig. 18:6 (2006 L6034 B60361) Oil lamp; complete (intact). Soft, orange-brown ware (5YR5/6); dark red slip (10R4/4) on exterior; burning around nozzle; some tiny white and dark grits and a few large red grits. Parallels: Magness 2008: 129–30; 137, fig. 5.4:7, dated 3c–5c (ovoid oil lamp with large filling hole); also see Israeli and Avida 1988: 130–31; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 99–103.

Fig. 2.12:2 (2007 L7074 B70407) Oil lamp; intact half of upper and lower half of one side. Soft, pale yellow-brown ware (10YR8/4); patches of flaky dark red slip (10R4/4) on upper half of exterior and on interior; some tiny–small dark grits. Parallels: in general see Magness 2008: 129–30, dated 3c–5c (ovoid oil lamp with large filling hole); Israeli and Avida 1988: 122–25; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 105–9.

Fig. 2.12:3 (2007 L7064 B70308) Oil lamp; fragment of base and lower half. Hard-fired, pink-brown ware (5YR5/4); concentric rings in relief on the base.

*Fig. 2.12:4 (2003 L2039 B20681)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Oil lamp; almost half of the bottom half preserved. Thick orange core (5YR6/4); fired light brown at surfaces (10YR7/3); traces of drippy dark brown slip around the upper edges and on the interior; a few tiny white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 103

104

The Pottery

Figure 2.13 Fig. 2.13:1 (2006 L9024 B90237) Bowl; small rim fragment without edge of lip. Smooth, hard-fired, dark orange-red ware (10R5/6); even, glossy, dark orange-red slip and burnish (10R5/8) on exterior; one visible small white grit; groove on upper and lower side. African Red Slip Ware Form 45 Type B, dated ca. 230/240–320 (Hayes 1972: 62–65).

Fig. 2.13:2 (2006 L9024 B90218) Bowl; rim fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Dia. 28. Coarse, thick, hard-fired, gray-brown ware (7.5YR6/2); fired light red-brown (2.5YR5/6) on interior; yellow slip (10YR7/3) on exterior; some tiny–large white and dark grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 135, fig. 4.9, dated 363 (from Ein Hazeva); Parker 2006: fig. 16.69:45, dated 4c–5c (from Dajaniya).

Fig. 2.13:3 = color fig. 17:1 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90218 + 90237) Cooking pot or jar; ca. 3/4 preserved (restored). Dia. 17. Thick pink ware (5YR5/3); yellow slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; many tiny–small and some medium-large white grits.

Fig. 2.13:4 (2006 L9024 B90237)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cooking pot; large rim and neck fragment with one handle (intact); ca. 1/2 rim dia. preserved. Dia. 11. Thin, hard-fired, light red cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); blackened on exterior; many tiny–small white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 105

106

The Pottery

Figure 2.14 Fig. 2.14:1 (2006 L9024 B90237) Cooking pot; large rim and neck and shoulder fragment with one handle (intact); ca. 1/8 rim dia. preserved. Dia. 11. Thin, hard-fired, pink cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); dark gray slip (7.5YR5/0); many tiny dark grits and some glistening flecks. Parallels: Parker 2006: fig. 16.18:81, dated 284–363 (from Lejjun).

Fig. 2.14:2 = color fig. 17:2 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90218) Cooking pot; complete (restored). Dia. 11. Thin, brittle, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); gray slip (5YR4/1) on exterior; grooved rim; many tiny–large white grits. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 248 Abb. 749 (Type A43a), dated 363–early 5c; Erickson-Gini 2010: 172, fig. 6.49, dated early 5c (from Avdat); Parker 2006: fig. 16.2:5, dated 284–363 (from Lejjun).

Fig. 2.14:3 = color fig. 17:3 (2006 L9024 B90218 + 90237)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cooking pot; complete (restored); irregular (partly folded before firing). Dia. 11. Thin, brittle, gray cooking ware (10YR5/1); many tiny–small white grits; omphalos base.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 107

108

The Pottery

Figure 2.15 Fig. 2.15:1 (2006 L9014 B90082) Cooking pot; rim and handle and large body fragment; ca. 1/2 rim dia. preserved. Dia. 11. Hardfired, pink-brown cooking ware (2.5YR6/3); gray slip (7.5YR4/0); blackened on exterior; many tiny dark grits and a few glistening flakes. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 246 Abb. 744 (Type A5A), dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.15:2 (2006 L9024 B90218 + 90237) Cooking pot; complete (restored). Dia. 11. Thin, brittle, pink cooking ware (2.5YR6/4); blackened on exterior; some tiny–small white and dark grits and some glistening flecks. Parallels: Parker 2006: fig. 16.1:1, dated 284–363 (from Lejjun); Parker 1987: 559 no. 33, dated 284–363 (from Qasr Bshir).

Fig. 2.15:3 = color fig. 17:5 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90237)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cooking pot; one-half (restored). Dia. 11. Thin, brittle, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR6/4); blackened on exterior; lower part of handle attachment preserved; many tiny–medium black and white grits and some glistening flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 109

110

The Pottery

Figure 2.16 Fig. 2.16:1 = color fig. 17:6 (2006 L9018 B90107 + L9024 B90218) Cooking pot; almost complete (restored). Dia. 11. Thin, brittle, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR6/3); gray slip (5YR5/1) on exterior; many tiny–medium dark grits. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 243 Abb. 731–732 (Type A2a), dated 4c–early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.17:79, dated 284–363 (from Lejjun); Parker 1987: 559, fig. 94:35, dated 284–363 (from Qasr Bshir).

Fig. 2.16:2 = color fig. 17:4 (2006 L9021 B90175 + L9024 B90154 + 90197 + 90218 + 90237) Cooking pot; complete (restored). Dia. 9.5. Brittle, relatively thick, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); yellow-brown slip (10YR6/3) on exterior; burning on exterior; many tiny–medium white grits.

Fig. 2.16:3 (2006 L9024 B90197)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cooking pot; large rim and neck and shoulder fragment with one handle; ca. 1/4 rim dia. preserved. Dia. 11. Thin, hard-fired, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); dark gray slip (7.5YR4/0) on exterior; some tiny white grits and glistening flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 111

112

The Pottery

Figure 2.17 Fig. 2.17:1 (2006 L9024 B90218) Cooking ware juglet with trefoil rim; rim and neck fragment with handle; ca. 1/4 rim dia. preserved. Smooth, dark orange cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); dark red slip (10R5/6) on exterior and dripped on interior; some tiny white and dark grits and glistening flecks.

Fig. 2.17:2 = color fig. 17:7 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90237) Cooking ware jug; neck and shoulder and body fragment with beginning of handle attachment (restored). Relatively thick, pink cooking ware (5YR6/4); gray slip (10YR5/1) on exterior; many tiny dark grits and some glistening flecks.

Fig. 2.17:3 = color fig. 17:14 (2006 L9024 B90218 + 90237) Cooking ware jug; almost complete (restored) except for rim and neck. Thin, brittle, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR6/4); gray slip (10YR6/1) on exterior; blackened on exterior; many tiny–medium white and dark grits and some glistening flecks.

Fig. 2.17:4 (L9024 B90237)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cooking pot; small rim fragment with complete handle and part of shoulder. Est. dia. 11. Pinkbrown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); light gray slip (10YR6/1) on exterior and interior; blackened on exterior; some tiny white and dark grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 113

114

The Pottery

Figure 2.18 Fig. 2.18:1 = color fig. 17:9 (2006 L9024 B90218) Casserole; complete (restored). Dia. 22. Thin, brittle, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/4); gray slip (5YR4/1) on exterior; blackened on exterior; many tiny–medium dark grits and some glistening flecks. Similar to Erickson-Gini 2010: 144, fig. 4.57, dated 363 (from Mampsis).

Fig. 2.18:2 (2006 L9024 B90218) Casserole handle; half of handle with rim. Pink-brown cooking ware (10R6/4); gray slip (2.5YR5/0) on exterior; blackened on exterior; many tiny white and dark grits.

Fig. 2.18:3 (2006 L9024 B90237) Casserole rim; tiny fragment. Est. dia. 11. Hard-fired, gray-brown ware (7.5YR5/2); many tiny–small white grits.

Fig. 2.18:4 (2006 L9024 B90237) Casserole lid; rim fragment. Est. dia. 25. Hard-fired, dark red cooking ware (2.5YR4/6); red-brown slip (2.5YR4/3); some tiny dark and tiny–small white grits. Parallel: Erickson-Gini 2010: 173, fig. 6.55, dated early 5c (from Avdat).

Fig. 2.18:5 (2006 L9024 B90218) Casserole lid; ca. 1/3 preserved. Dia. 22. Hard-fired, pink-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/3); gray slip (5YR4/1) on exterior; blackened on exterior; many tiny dark grits and some glistening flecks.

Fig. 2.18:6 (2006 L9024 B90197) Casserole lid; ca. 1/4–1/8 preserved (restored). Est. dia. 22. Dark red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR4/4); blackened on interior; many tiny–small white grits. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 173, fig. 6.56, dated early 5c (from Avdat).

Fig. 2.18:7 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90218 + 90237) Casserole lid; slightly more than 1/2 preserved (restored). Dia. 20. Relatively thick, pink-brown cooking ware (2.5YR6/4); gray slip (5YR5/1) on exterior; some tiny–very large white white grits and some glistening flecks. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 269 Abb. 841–842 (Type D1a), dated 363–early 5c; Parker 2006: fig. 16.6:20; 16.7:21, dated 284–363 (from Lejjun).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 2.18:8 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90188 + 90237) Casserole lid; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved (restored). Dia. 22. Relatively thick, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/3); yellow slip (10YR7/3) on exterior; blackened on interior and exterior; many tiny–small white and dark grits and glistening flecks. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 269 Abb. 841–842 (Type D1a), dated 363–early 5c.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 115

116

The Pottery

Figure 2.19 Fig. 2.19:1 = color fig. 17:13 (2006 L9024 B90237) Gaza amphora; ca. 1/4 of body preserved (restored). Very thick, coarse, dark brown ware (5YR4/3); yellow slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; some tiny–large white grits. Parallels: Majcherek 1995: 174, pl. 5; Form 2, dated ca. 300–450.

Fig. 2.19:2 (2006 L9024 B90218) Jar; small rim fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 11. Coarse yellow ware (10YR7/3); yellow slip (2.5YR7/3) on exterior; many tiny–large dark grits. Parallels: Gerber 2001: 11 fig. 2: O (storage jar), dated 4c–5c (from Petra); Brogli 1996: 252 Abb. 761 (“pot”) (Type A22a), dated 4c–early 5c.

Fig. 2.19:3 (2006 L9024 B90197 + 90218 + 90237)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Storage jar; almost complete (restored) rim and neck and shoulder with one handle. Thick pinkorange ware (5YR6/4); yellow slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; many tiny–small white and dark grits; incised wavy lines on neck and shoulder.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 117

118

The Pottery

Figure 2.20 Fig. 2.20:1 (2006 L9024 B90237) Amphora; handle fragment. Very thick, heavy, coarse, brick-red ware (10R5/6); dark gray slip (5YR5/1) on exterior; many tiny–very large white grits.

Fig. 2.20:2 (2006 L9024 B90237) Amphora/jar; almost complete (intact) base. Hard-fired, coarse, light pink-brown ware (2.5YR6/4); fired yellow (10YR7/4) on interior and exterior; some tiny–large white grits. Parallels: Peacock and Williams 1986: 171–72, Class 38, dated 3c–4c (from Algeria); Keay 1984: 95–99; fig. 36 nos. 6–11, Keay Type I/Mauretanian Dressel 30/Ostia Form V, dated 3c–mid-5c.

Fig. 2.20:3 (2006 L9020 B90137) Amphora; half of base. Thick, heavy, dark orange ware (2.5YR5/8); thin gray core (2.5YR4/0); dark orange-purple slip (2.5YR4/4) on exterior; blackened on interior (from pitch?); some tiny white and dark grits and a few glistening flecks. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 171, fig. 6.43, dated early 5c (from Avdat).

Fig. 2.20:4 (2006 L9024 B90237 + L9028 B90268) Jar/jug; ca. 1/2 of bottom half preserved (restored). Thin, hard-fired, dark orange ware (2.5YR6/8); a few tiny–small dark grits.

Fig. 2.20:5 (2006 L9024 B90237) Jar; small rim and neck fragment with complete handle. Est. dia. 10. Yellow ware (2.5YR7/3); some tiny–large white grits.

Fig. 2.20:6 (2006 L9020 B90137) Flask; complete (intact) upper part with rim and neck and one handle. Dia. 4.5. Hard-fired, yellow ware (2.5Y8/3); many tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.9:2.

Fig. 2.20:7 (2006 L9024 B90237) Jar; body fragment with complete spout. Very thick, hard-fired, pink-brown ware (2.5YR5/4); yellow slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; many tiny–very large white and dark grits. Parallels: Brogli 1996: 268 Abb. 830 (Type B10a), dated 363–early 5c.

Fig. 2.20:8 (2006 L9020 B90137) Jug; body fragment with spout. Gritty, yellow ware (2.5Y7/3); many tiny white and dark grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 2.20:9 (2006 L9024 B90237) Jug; complete (intact) base. Hard-fired, coarse, orange-brown ware (5YR5/6); yellow-brown slip (10YR7/3) on exterior; some tiny–large white grits.

Fig. 2.20:10 = color fig. 17:11 (2006 L9021 B90154 L9024 B90197 + 90237) Jar; complete (restored) base. Thick, heavy, yellow ware (2.5Y6/3); many tiny–large white and dark grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 119

120

The Pottery

Figure 2.21 Fig. 2.21:1 = color fig. 17:12 (2006 L9024 B90218 + 90237) Jar; complete (restored) upper 3/4. Dia. 8. Thick, hard-fired, dark orange ware (2.5YR5/4); yellow slip (10YR7/3); many tiny–small dark grits and some glistening flecks. Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 140, fig. 4.39, dated 363 (from Ein Hazeva); 170, fig. 6.33–34, dated early 5c (from Avdat) (“ration jars”).

Fig. 2.21:2 (2006 L9024 L90237) Sherd stopper (made from a jar base). Coarse, pink-brown ware (2.5YR6/4); yellow slip (10YR7/3) on interior and exterior; many tiny dark and a few large dark and white grits.

Fig. 2.21:3 (2006 L9024 B90218) Sherd stopper (made from the body of a jar). Very neatly cut and trimmed, hard-fired, gray-brown ware (7.5YR5/2); fired red-brown (2.5YR5/4) on exterior; yellow-brown slip (10YR7/3) on exterior; some tiny–small white and dark grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: Erickson-Gini 2010: 158, fig. 5.3, dated 363 (from Ein Hazeva).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 121

122

The Pottery

Figure 2.22 Fig. 2.22:1 (2003 L2013 B20230) Bowl/cup; tiny body fragment. Gray-brown ware (7.5YR4/2); pare-burnished in strips on exterior; a few tiny white grits. Parallels: Magness 1993: 193–96, FBW Bowls Forms 1D–1E, dated late 7c–9c/10c.

Fig. 2.22:2 (2005 L7009 B70044) Bowl/cup. Base and lower wall fragment with ca. 1/2 dia. preserved. Smooth, hard-fired, orangebrown ware (2.5YR5/8); light brown core (7.5YR5/3); light pink-brown slip (5YR7/4) on exterior; pare-burnished in continuous strips on exterior; a few tiny–medium white grits. Parallels: Magness 1993: 193–95, FBW Bowls Forms 1A–1B, dated mid-6c to late 7c/early 8c.

Fig. 2.22:3 (2007 L7060 B70289) Bowl/cup; tiny base fragment. Smooth, hard-fired, gray ware (10YR5/2); pare-burnished on exterior; no visible grits. Parallels: Magness 1993: 193–97, FBW Bowls Forms 1C–1F, dated 7c–9c/10c.

Fig. 2.22:4 = color fig. 18:4 (2003 L2001 B20042 + 20099 + L2000b B5014 [excavated by U. Avner]) Shallow bowl/plate; four joining rim and wall fragments; ca. 1/3 dia. preserved. Orange-brown ware (2.5YR5/4); thick light brown core (7.5YR7/4); some tiny–small white grits; two concentric grooves along inside of rim. Similar to Bailey 1998: 51; D448–91 and pls. 27–29, dated mostly 7c–8c (ERS H).

Fig. 2.22:5 (2005 L7009 B70044) Bowl (or frying pan/casserole lid?); rim fragment; less than 1/6 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 20. Dark orange-brown ware (2.5YR5/6); thin dark gray core (2.5YR3/0); dark orange-brown slip (2.5YR4/6); some tiny–medium white and dark grits. Similar to Bailey 1998: 51; D448–91 and pls. 27–29, dated mostly 7c–8c (ERS H); or 38–39, D5–9 and pl. 20 (ERS H frying pans, which differ in having a thick, glossy red slip).

Fig. 2.22:6 (2003 L2006 B20137) Bowl; four joining rim and wall fragments; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Thick, heavy, soft, orange-brown ware (2.5YR5/6); smoothed on surfaces; possible traces of dark orange-brown slip (2.5YR4/4) on rim (or discolored due to stacking while firing?); many tiny–small and some medium white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Similar to Bailey 1998: 14, C204–240, C251–256bis and pls. 8–9, dated 5c–8c (ERS A and H).

Fig. 2.22:7 (2003 L2012 B20160) Bowl; wall and rim fragment with ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Thick, dark orange-pink ware (2.5YR5/6); some tiny–small white and dark grits; incised way line on top of rim and pie-crust treatment along inside of rim; salt encrusted. Similar to Bailey 1998: 439, D439 and pl. 27, dated 4c–5c (ERS H; but theirs is deeper).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 123

124

The Pottery

Figure 2.23 Fig. 2.23:1 = color fig. 18:5 (2003 L2002 B20027-1) Bowl; almost complete (restored) profile; ca. 1/3 dia. preserved. Coarse, gritty, orange-brown ware (2.5YR5/6); yellow slip (2.5Y7/3) on exterior and interior; many tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: Nevo 1991: PPL. 3:13–19; similar to Avner 1998: 30*, fig. 12:4, dated 8c–9c.

Fig. 2.23:2 (2003 L2001 B20042–9) Krater/mortarium; rim and wall fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Thick, heavy, dark orange ware (2.5YR4/8); many tiny white grits; lightly incised horizontal line on exterior. Possible parallels: Egloff 1977: 153, pl. 82:1 (Type 293), dated 650–730.

Fig. 2.23:3 (2007 L7060 B70289) Krater/mortarium; rim and wall fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Very thick, heavy, hardfired, pink ware (5YR6/4); thick light brown core (10YR6/4); light yellow slip (10YR7/4); many tiny dark and a few medium-large white grits. Similar to: Calderon 2000: 195–96, figs. 7:103; 8:105.

Fig. 2.23:4 = color fig. 18:11 (2003 L2001 B20042) Cooking pot with horizontal handles; almost complete (restored) with complete rim dia. preserved. Soft pink cooking ware (2.5YR6/6); yellow slip (10YR8/3) on upper half of exterior; signs of burning on lower half of exterior; some small-medium white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: Calderon 2000: 189, fig. 3:47, dated 7c (from Wadi Jibal); Bailey 1998: 60, pls. 33: E144– 145; 34: E150, dated 6c–8c (but made of Nile silt); Egloff 1977: 101, pl. 48:1 (Type 117), dated 630–700 (but theirs has a shorter neck).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 125

126

The Pottery

Figure 2.24 Fig. 2.24:1 (2003 L2005 B20178) Cooking pot; almost complete (restored) profile; ca. 1/2 dia. and one handle preserved. Soft, pinkred cooking ware (2.5YR7/6); signs of burning on exterior; a few tiny white grits. Parallels: Bailey 1998: pls. 36: E212–226; 37: E228–233 (but made of micaceous Nile silt), dated 6c–8c; Egloff 1977: 102, pl. 50:6 (Type 131), dated 5c–7c; Gempeler 1992: 175, Abb. 108:3 (Form K446) (but theirs has horizontal handles), dated 5c–7c. Also see ºAmr and Schick 2001: 123, fig. 8:19 (from Humeima) (but with a tall, vertical neck and different fabric).

Fig. 2.24:2 (2003 L2005 B20178) Cooking pot; partially restored with less than 1/4 dia. and one handle preserved. Soft, pink-red cooking ware (2.5YR6/6); signs of burning on exterior; a few tiny–small white grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.24:1.

*Fig. 2.24:3 (2005 L8007 B80018) Cooking pot; restored rim and upper wall; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 12. Thick, soft, smooth, dark orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); light brown core (5YR5/4); dark orange-brown slip (2.5YR4/6) on exterior; many tiny–very large white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: see fig. 2.24:1.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 127

128

The Pottery

Figure 2.25 Fig. 2.25:1 (2003 L2001 B20035–2) Cooking pot; ca. 1/3 dia. preserved (restored) with wall and handle attachment. Soft, smooth, light pink-orange cooking ware (2.5YR6/6); thin light brown core (7.5YR7/4); burning on exterior; some tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.24:1.

Fig. 2.25:2 = color fig. 18:12 (2003 L2001 B20035–1) Cooking pot; ca. 1/3 dia. and wall and one handle preserved (restored). Relatively smooth, thick, cooking ware; thick light brown core (7.5YR6/4); fired pink (2.5YR6/6) at surfaces; light pink-brown (2.5YR7/4) to yellow (10YR7/3) slip on exterior; many tiny–small white and dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.24:1.

Fig. 2.25:3 (2003 L2001 B20042–11) Cooking pot; two joining rim and neck and wall fragments; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Soft, smooth, pink cooking ware (2.5YR6/4); patches of burning on exterior; many tiny white grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.24:1.

Fig. 2.25:4 (2003 L2002 L20072–1) Cooking pot; two joining rim and neck and wall fragments; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Thick, relatively smooth, hard-fired, orange-pink cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); yellow slip (2.5Y7/3); many tiny white grits and a few glistening flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: see fig. 2.24:1.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 129

130

The Pottery

Figure 2.26 Fig. 2.26:1 = color fig. 18:9 (2006 L7038 B70228) Cooking pot; ca.1/2 preserved (restored) without neck and rim. Thick, light orange cooking ware (7.5YR7/4); many small-large dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.23:4.

Fig. 2.26:2 (2003 L2013 B20190 + 5015-2 [from U. Avner’s excavations]) Small handleless cooking pot; almost complete (restored); ca. 3/4 dia. preserved. Orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); signs of burning on exterior; a few tiny dark grits and many tiny mica flecks. Similar to: Bailey 1998: 68, pl. 41: E395–406 (miniature cooking pots), dated late 5c–late 9c; Egloff 1977: 98, pl. 46:7 (Type 105) (small cooking pot), dated 5c–6c.

Fig. 2.26:3 (2005 L7009 B70044) Casserole lid; almost 1/2 preserved (restored) but without rim. Gritty, red-brown cooking ware (2.5YR4/8); dark gray-brown slip (2.5YR3/3) on exterior and interior; many tiny–medium white grits.

Fig. 2.26:4 (2005 L7004 B70021 + 70024) Cooking pot; rim and handle fragment; ca. 1/4 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 11. Thick, soft, smooth, dark pink-orange cooking ware (10R5/6); light pink slip (10R6/6) on exterior; some tiny–very large white grits.

Fig. 2.26:5 (2005 L7009 B70044)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cooking pot/jar; small rim fragment; less than 1/16 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 11. Thick, soft, smooth, dark orange-brown ware (2.5YR4/6); light brown slip (10YR6/3) on exterior; blackened on exterior; many tiny–medium white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 131

132

The Pottery

Figure 2.27 *Fig. 2.27:1 (2005 L8007 B80018) Storage jar; restored rim and neck and shoulder with ca. 1/2 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 9. Thick, soft, smooth, pink-orange cooking ware (2.5YR5/6); light brown core (2.5YR6/3); many tiny–very large white grits.

Fig. 2.27:2 (2005 L7009 B70044) Storage jar; rim fragment; less than 1/8 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 8. Thick, soft, salt-encrusted, pinkbrown ware (2.5YR5/6); many tiny–large dark grits.

Fig. 2.27:3 = color fig. 18:10 (2003 L200b B5008 [from U. Avner’s excavations in the midden outside the fort])

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Storage jar; over 1/2 complete (restored) profile and complete rim dia. Pink-red ware (2.5YR6/4); many tiny–large white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 133

134

The Pottery

Figure 2.28 Fig. 2.28:1 (2003 L2013 B20204 + 20190) Storage jar; ca. 3/4 dia. preserved (restored) with 3/4 shoulder and one handle. Pink ware (2.5YR6/4); light pink slip (2.5YR7/4) on exterior; many tiny dark and a few small white grits.

Fig. 2.28:2 (2003 L2001 B20035–8) Storage jar; ca. 1/3 dia. of rim and neck with small part of shoulder. Gritty, coarse, dark orangebrown ware (2.5YR5/6); yellow slip (2.5Y8/3) on exterior and interior of rim; many small-medium quartz grits and many tiny mica flecks.

Fig. 2.28:3 (2003 L2003 B20029) Storage jar; complete (restored) diameter of shoulder and upper body. Gritty, yellow ware (10YR7/4); many tiny–small dark grits.

Fig. 2.28:4 (2003 L2001 B20042–4) Handmade Negbite ware basin/krater; pie-crust rim fragment. Coarse, thick, poorly-fired; thick gray core, fired light brown (10YR7/4) at surfaces; many tiny–large white grits. For Negbite ware see Avni 1996: 51.

Fig. 2.28:5 (2005 L7009 B70030 + 70044) Handmade Negbite ware cooking pot; restored rim and upper wall. Est. dia. 13. Thick, coarse, brown ware (7.5YR6/3); thick dark gray core (5YR4/1); many tiny–very large white grits.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

For Negbite ware see Avni 1996: 51.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 135

136

The Pottery

Figure 2.29 Fig. 2.29:1 (2003 L2002 B20309) Cooking pot; small rim fragment. Gritty, dark orange-brown cooking ware (2.5YR4/6); signs of burning; many tiny white and dark grits and glistening flecks. Parallels: Avner 1998: 32*, fig. 13:8, dated 8c–9c; also see Magness 2004:17 n. 42; 18 fig. 1.3:4.

Fig. 2.29:2 (2006 L7037 B70210) Handmade Negbite ware cooking pot/jar; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 11. Very thick, coarse, friable, brown ware (10YR6/3); very thick, dark gray core (10YR3/1); blackened on exterior; many tiny–very large white and dark grits. For Negbite ware see Avni 1996: 51.

Fig. 2.29:3 (2003 L2001 B20042–3 + L2000b B5015 [from U. Avner’s excavations]) Handmade Negbite ware jar with pie-crust rim; ca. 1/3 rim and wall dia. preserved (restored). Coarse, friable, poorly fired; thick gray core; fired light brown (10YR5/3) at surfaces; blackened on exterior; many tiny–large white grits. For Negbite ware see Avni 1996: 51.

Fig. 2.29:4 (2005 L7009 B70044) Jug; small rim fragment; ca. 1/8 dia. preserved. Est. dia. 5. Thin, hard-fired, yellow ware (2.5YR7/3); many tiny–small dark grits.

Fig. 2.29:5 = color fig. 18:8 (2005 L7007 B70030) Jug; complete (restored) rim and neck and handle and part of shoulder. Dia. 4. Smooth, dark orange-red ware (2.5YR5/6); darker orange-red slip (2.5YR5/8) on exterior; some tiny–small white grits; small hole inside base of neck; incised lines on shoulder. Parallels: Gempeler 1992: 142–43, Abb. 79:18–24 (Forms T832 + 833), dated second half of 5c to 7c.

Fig. 2.29:6 (2006 L7037 B70210) Jug; rim fragment; ca. 1/2 dia. preserved. Dia. 3.5. Smooth, hard-fired, orange-brown ware (2.5YR5/6); dark red slip (10R4/8) on exterior; a few tiny white and dark grits. Parallels: see fig. 2.29:5.

Fig. 2.29:7 (2003 L2001 B20035 + L2006b B5015 + L2000a B5000 [from U. Avner’s excavations]) Jug; most of shoulder preserved (restored). Soft, smooth, pink ware (2.5YR6/4); orange-red slip (10R5/6) on exterior; some tiny dark grits and glistening flecks; incised lines on top of shoulder.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: Gempeler 1992: 142, Abb. 79:20 (Type T832), dated second half of 5c to 7c.

Fig. 2.29:8 (2003 L2014 B20219) Flask; rim and neck fragment; less than 1/4 dia. preserved. Orange ware (5YR5/6); yellow slip (2.5YR7/3) on exterior and interior; many tiny–small dark grits and some glistening flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 137

138

The Pottery

Figure 2.30 Fig. 2.30:1 = color fig. 18:13 (2003 L2002 B20049) Amphora; complete (restored) toe, and small (worn) neck and rim fragment (not illustrated). Thick, coarse, gritty, red-brown ware (2.5YR6/6); yellow-brown slip (10YR7/4) on exterior; many tiny–very large white and dark grits and mica flecks.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parallels: ʿAmr and Schick 2001: 118, fig. 3:1 (from a 7c church at Humeima); Whitcomb 1989: 183, fig. 5a; Whitcomb 2001: 297; 303 fig. 2:b (Aqaba amphoras, dated 7c).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Pottery 139

140

The Pottery

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Bibliography ʿAmr, K., A. al-Momani, N. al-Nawafleh, and S. al-Nawafleh 2000 Summary Results of the Archaeological Project at Khirbat an-Nawafla/Wadi Musa. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44: 231–55. ʿAmr. K., and R. Schick 2001 The Pottery from Humeima: The Closed Corpus from the Lower Church. Pp.  107–27 in La Céramique Byzantine et Proto-Islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IV e–VIII e siècles apr. J.-C.), ed. E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson. Beirut: Institut Française d’archéologie du Proche-Orient. Avner, R. 1998 Elat-Elot: An Early Islamic Village. ʿAtiqot 36:21*–39* (Hebrew). Avni, G. 1996 Nomads, Farmers, and Town-Dwellers: Pastoralist-Sedentist Interaction in the Negev Highlands, Sixth–Eighth Centuries ce. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Bailey, D. M. 1998 Excavations at el-Ashmunein V: Pottery, Lamps and Glass of the Late Roman and Early Arab Periods. London: British Museum. Brogli, R. F. 1996 Die Keramik aus den spätrömischen Bauten. Pp. 210–310 in Petra ez Zantur I, Ergebnisse der Schwei­ zerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992, ed. A. Bignasca et al. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Calderon, R. 2000 Byzantine Pottery from South Sinai. Pp. 183–31 in Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period, The Archaeological Remains, ed. U. Dahari. IAA Reports 9. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Egloff, M. 1977 Kellia, La Poterie Copte, Tome 1. Geneva: Georg Librairie de l’université. Erickson-Gini, T. 2010 Nabataean Settlement and Self-Organized Economy in the Central Negev, Crisis and Renewal. BAR International Series 2054. Oxford: BAR. Gempeler, R. D. 1992 Elephantine X: Die Keramik römischer bis früharabischer Zeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Gerber, Y. 2001 A Glimpse of the Recent Excavations on ez-Zantur/Petra: The Late Roman Pottery and its Prototypes in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries ad. Pp. 8–22 in La Céramique Byzantine et Proto-Islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.), ed. E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson. Beirut: Institut Française d’archéologie du Proche-Orient. Grawehr, M. 2006 Die Lampen der Grabungen auf ez Zantur in Petra. Pp. 259–398 in Petra ez Zantur III: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen, Teil 2. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hayes, J. W. 1972 Late Roman Pottery. London: British School at Rome. Israeli, Y., and U. Avida 1988 Oil-Lamps from Eretz Israel, The Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Keay, S. J. 1984 Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean, A Typology and Economic Study: the Catalan Evidence, Part (i). BAR International Series 196(i). Oxford: BAR. Kolb, B., L. Gorgerat, and M. Grawehr 1999 Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations on az-Zantur in Petra, 1998. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43: 261–77. Magness, J. 1993 Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology circa 200–800 c.e. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

The Pottery

141

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2004 Khirbet Abu Suwanna and Ein ʿAneva: Two Early Islamic Settlements on Palestine’s Desert Periphery. Pp. 11–23 in Changing Social Identity with the Spread of Islam, Archaeological Perspectives, ed. D. Whitcomb. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2008 The Oil Lamps from the South Cemetery. Pp. 121–78 in The Necropolis of Bet Guvrin-Eleutheropolis, ed. G. Avni, U. Dahari, and A. Kloner. IAA Reports 36. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Majcherek, G. 1995 Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered. Pp. 163–78 in Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies. Acts of the II Nieborów Workshop, ed. H. Meyza and J. Młynarezyk. Warsaw: URGA. Nevo, Y. D. 1991 Pagans and Herders: A Re-examination of the Negev Runoff Cultivation Systems in the Byzantine and Early Arab Periods. Jerusalem: IPS. Parker, S. T., ed. 1987 The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan. Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, Part i. BAR International Series 340(i). Oxford: BAR. 2006 The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Peacock, D. P. S., and Williams, D. F. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide. New York: Longman. Rosenthal, R., and Sivan, R. 1978 Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. Qedem 8. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Villeneuve, F. 2011 Darih ( Jordanie méridionale): village chrétien puis musulman (VIe–IXe siècles) dans les ruines d’un sanctuaire nabatéen. Pp.  315–30 in Le Proche-Orient de Justinien au Abbassides, peuplement et dynamiques spatiales: Actes du colloque «Continuités de l’occupation entre les periods byzantine et abbasside au Proche-Orient, VII e–IX e siècles», Paris, 18–20 octobre 2007, ed. Antoine Borrut et al. Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive 19. Turnhout, Belgium, Brepols. Whitcomb, D. 1989 Evidence of the Umayyad Period from the Aqaba Excavations. Pp. 164–84 in The IVth International Conference on Bilad al-Sham. Amman: University of Jordan. 2001 Ceramic Production at Aqaba in the Early Islamic Period. Pp. 297–303 in La Céramique Byzantine et Proto-Islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IV e–VIII e siècles apr. J.-C.), ed. E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson. Beirut: Institut Française d’archéologie du Proche-Orient. Zanoni, I. 1996 Tonlampen. Pp. 311–34 in Petra ez Zantur I: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992. ed. A. Bignasca et al. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Chapter 3

The Glass Carolyn Swan

Introduction This chapter presents the glass vessels recovered from Yotvata. A total of 564 glass fragments was collected in the excavations, 65 of which were either sloughed-off weathering products or glass fragments that were too tiny or badly preserved to warrant further description or interpretation. Of the remaining 499 fragments, 324 are non-diagnostic fragments from vessel walls and 175 are diagnostic parts such as vessel bases, rims, wall shards with characteristic finishing or decoration, and handles. Of the most diagnostic glass fragments, 37 examples are included in the catalog below and are illustrated in figs. 3.1–3.2.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Condition Assessment It is essential to begin with observations about the condition of the glass assemblage, as this relates directly to the analysis and conclusions that follow. Glass preservation at the site was very poor, even more so than is typical for glass of this period and region. Most of the pieces are small, highly corroded fragments, and no complete vessels were recovered except for a few glass bottles from modern Bedouin contexts (e.g., L2004 and L9009). All of the fragments are coated by weathering products (color fig. 19, p.  60) in a variety of hues (iridescent, white, yellow, tan, brown, and black) and consistencies (filmy layers that are brittle and flakey to the touch, hard enamel-like incrustations, frost-like splotches, or a combination of these). Beneath these weathering layers, cracking and pitting are common, which demonstrates that both the surface and the matrix interior were simultaneously subject to attack and deterioration. In several instances, salt crystals have formed (color fig. 20, p. 60), which adhere to the surface of the glass (e.g., L3018, B30317). Glass corrosion and weathering are the result of complex chemical processes activated by extreme burial conditions (fluctuations in temperature, pH, and ground water), the chemistry of the soil (high in salt content), and also possibly by the chemistry of the glass objects themselves (low-quality glass corrodes more quickly). These factors act as catalysts for the leaching of important components of the glass matrix—specifically the alkali (Na2O and K2O) and lime (CaO)—and 142

The Glass

143

their replacement by hydrates in a process that is similar to iron corrosion. Hydrated silica layers take the place of the original glassy matrix, a process that begins at the outer surface of the object and progresses inward, leaving a glass core of reduced thickness (color fig. 21, p. 60); in some cases, this process is so advanced that the object is no longer truly glass (color fig. 22, p. 60), the matrix having been completely replaced by corrosion products. During the documentation and study of the assemblage, the corrosion layers of the glass fragments were maintained as much as possible to preserve the original size and shape of the vessel walls. The thickness of vessel walls (which often gives an indication of the original size and type of object) and the weight of the fragments (which can give an indication of the overall quantity of glass present at the site) are not included in this discussion, as these figures would be misleading due to the greatly reduced density and dimensions of the weathered glass. A significant problem with studying such poorly preserved glass is that the corrosion layers often obscure the original glass so that it is nearly impossible to identify details such as the color, clarity, and quality of the fabric or the manufacturing technique—key elements for determining the date, type, or possible provenance of glass artifacts. Even when weathering layers were mechanically removed to reveal the underlying glass, the fragment often was too corroded to determine its color or clarity. The weathered surfaces are also deceptive: the iridescent turquoise, green, and yellow hues are due to the refraction of light off of the pitted and layered surfaces rather than the original coloration of the glass. It is also difficult to comment about the quality of the fabric by noting the presence or absence of air bubbles within the matrix, because the weathering process and corrosion and layers have obscured these details. Finally, it is nearly impossible to determine the manufacturing or finishing method of the vessels (e.g., blown vessels vs. cast vessels) through a consideration of the texture of the inner and outer surfaces.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Description and Discussion of Diagnostic Fragments Despite the poor condition and fragmentary nature of the Yotvata assemblage, some partial vessel profiles can be identified when compared with glass finds from several third- to seventhcentury c.e. sites in the Near East, including Samaria (Crowfoot 1957), Jalame (Weinberg 1988; Slane and Magness 2005), Jerash (Meyer 1987 and Dussart 1998), Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997), Beirut ( Jennings 2006), and Aila ( Jones, in preparation). Perhaps the most important comparative assemblages are from other Late Roman–Early Byzantine fortified sites in the East, including Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977), ʿEn Boqeq (Gichon 1993; Magness 1999), Upper Zohar (Harper 1995; Magness 1999), Humayma ( Jones, personal communication), and the study area of the Limes Arabicus Project ( Jones 2006), which focuses on the Roman fortress of el-Lejjun and includes the glass from el-Lejjun’s vicus and the fort of Daʿjaniya (75 km to the south). Roman glass assemblages from slightly farther afield or from other periods have also been consulted for comparative purposes—for example, second- through fourth-century Karanis (Harden 1936), first- through third-century Dura-Europos (Clairmont 1963), late fourth- through seventh-century Sardis (von Saldern 1980), the fourth- through seventh-century Petra church (O’Hea 2001), fifth- through eighth-century remains at Tel Tanninim (Pollak 2006), and the thirdthrough eighth-century levels in the Athenian Agora (Weinberg and Stern 2009). Because a bathhouse is associated with the Yotvata fort, the glass finds from the first- through fourth-century legionary fortress baths at Caerleon in Wales (Allen 1986) have also been considered. In addition

144

The Glass

to case studies from individual sites, Isings’s (1957) typology of Roman glass vessels is frequently cited; although her typology is most readily applied to the West, it remains an invaluable resource for determining functional groups and vessel categories in all parts of the Roman world.

Shallow Bowl with a Plain, Rounded Rim Large bowls are rare at Yotvata, as most of the open shapes are smaller vessels with an average rim diameter of 8–12 cm. The exception to this is No. 1, a rim shard from a large shallow bowl. Roman and Byzantine bowls commonly have rims that are rolled, folded, or are enhanced by grooves or thickened, everted lips. This fragment is interesting not only because of its presence at the site but also for its simple rim treatment. Plain vessel forms are often the hardest to date; such a simple and functional shape could have been produced in almost any period, and this piece comes from a fill context. Many first-century Roman bowls have an interior groove just below the rim, but No. 1 has a “single very shallow step, rather than a true groove” making it similar in profile as well as in color and stance to bowls from Early Imperial contexts at Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 46–49 and fig. 2.19, nos. 1–10). Large bowls with rounded sides of similar size and appearance also dating to the Early Imperial period were found at Dura-Europos (Clairmont 1963: 27–29 and pl. IV, nos. 113–16) and the south Syrian site of Siʿ (Dussart 1998: 51 and pl. 1 AI.2, nos. 3–4). Another similar example from Jerash may be Roman or Early Byzantine in date (Meyer 1987: 189–91 and fig. 6, no. K). Plain, shallow bowls continued to be made in the fourth and early fifth centuries (Isings 1957: Form 116). Late Roman examples include large, undecorated bluish-green bowls from fourthcentury contexts at Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 40 and fig. 4–1, no. 1); a shallow bowl of the same color and size from Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997: 400 and pl. I, no. 14); and a vessel with a similar internal swelling from Upper Zohar (Harper 1995: 137 and fig. 22, no. 18).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Hemispherical Bowl/Cup with a Cracked-Off Rim Several examples of this type were identified at Yotvata (see no. 2). Probably originating in the first century c.e., this was one of the longest-lived shapes of the Roman glass corpus and was prevalent from the second century onward (Harden 1936: 101). It was still in use during the Late Roman period, especially in the fourth century, for which it is typical (Isings 1957: 113, Form 96). Although early Imperial vessels of this type were commonly made of strongly-colored or millefiore glass, later examples are usually of plain, unintentionally-colored glass. Vessels with unworked rims became quite common in the fourth century, even among tablewares (Isings 1957: 126). This type was used as tableware during the late third and fourth centuries in Europe and also served as a storage vessel in the East (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 92) and likely as a lamp as well (Pollak 2006: 170). Middle Imperial examples described as having a “bulge-cum-constriction” below the rim and a lightly ground or unfinished lip come from Athens (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 92 and fig. 12, nos. 175–83). Late Roman examples of curved-rim hemispherical vessels from Beirut are termed “S-shaped cups” and are characterized by fairly thin walls, a rounded or sometimes concave base with no base ring, and an outsplayed and often unworked rim ( Jennings 2006: 87–88 and fig. 5.4, nos. 1–5). Other examples come from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 127–28 and taf. 5, nos. 431– 33 and 437), Jerash (Meyer 1987: 189 and fig. 6, nos. D–E; 197 and fig. 7, nos. gg–ii), Tel Tanninim

The Glass

145

(Pollak 2006: 170 and fig. 133, No. 77), Karanis (Harden 1936: pl. X, nos. 330–31), Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Area J), Carthage (Tatton-Brown 1984: 197 and fig. 65, no. 16), and Siʿ (Dussart 1998: 80 and pl. 13 BVI.1112a1, nos. 7–9).

Cylindrical Beakers (Plain or Decorated) with a Straight Rim Beakers were very popular in the fourth century, so it is not surprising that this is one of the most common rim forms present at Yotvata. These vessels have nearly vertical walls with an unworked or rounded rim and can be plain or decorated with linear abrasion lines or cut horizontal grooves, corresponding to Isings’s Forms 106a–b (1957: 127). No. 3 has a flattened rim with a slightly rounded lip and one abraded horizontal band on its exterior. Conical vessels with abraded lines were found at Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 93 and fig. 4-47, nos. 440–44), and examples from Beirut include fourth–early fifth-century conical and cylindrical beakers ( Jennings 2006: 90–91 and fig. 5.6, no. 7; 91–92 and fig. 5.7, no. 9) and hemispherical bowls ( Jennings 2006: 97–99 and fig. 5.11, no. 6). At Beirut, conical beakers with straight rims form a small but distinct group made from colorless or nearly colorless glass, sometimes with a green or brown tinge. The rims are well finished and the walls are “virtually always decorated with either abrasion bands or cut grooves” ( Jennings 2006: 90). Nos. 4 and 5 are thicker than no. 3 because grooves are cut into the vessel walls; both have a rim that is either cracked-off or ground flat. No. 4 has two wheel-cut grooved bands on the exterior surface. Parallels include late fourth–fifth century conical beakers with a straight rim and two horizontal grooved bands from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 90–91 and fig. 5.6, no. 4), an example in pale green glass dated to 330/340–360 c.e. from Athens (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 135–36 and fig. 18, no. 306), a Byzantine fragment from the vicus of el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 409 and fig. 18.8, no. 131), and a variety of beakers/bowls/cups from Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 94–96 and figs. 4-48 and 4-49, nos. 468 and 474–76). No. 5 has a diameter and grooved decoration similar to no. 4, although its rim appears more pronounced due to the V-shaped rather than semicircular section of the grooves. Several vessels with cracked-off rims from fourth-century contexts at Aila are similar in profile and decoration ( Jones, in preparation: Area K).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Beakers with Abraded Lines and Applied Blob Decorations No. 6 is one of five wall fragments with an applied blob decoration recovered from the site. Two of the four uncatalogued fragments come from fill (L9018) and dump (L9021) contexts, while the other two come from Roman floor contexts in Room 6 (L9030 and L9037). The color of these fragments ranges from nearly colorless to yellow-green; three have blobs of deep blue or blue-green glass and one has a blob of lighter turquoise glass. The catalogued example is of yellowish glass and has abraded lines with one dark blue blob on its exterior. Glass blobs were applied on both beakers and bowls, but the relatively flat profile of these fragments suggests they all come from conical or cylindrical vessels. Colored blobs do not appear to antedate the second half of the fourth century (Stern 2001: 261), but they became a very popular form of decoration in both the East and West during the fourth and fifth centuries and even into the early Islamic period (Isings 1957: 131). Dark blue is by far the most common color for blobs, although purple, yellow, turquoise, and green glass were also used. Scientific analysis of conical vessels from Jalame has shown that the glass of the dark blue blobs was colored with cobalt (Weinberg 1988: 87 and 277).

146

The Glass

Examples of conical and cylindrical vessels with glass blob appliqués in museum collections include a fifth-century conical lamp in the Ernesto Wolf Collection (Stern 2001: 267–68 and 296, Cat. no. 159) and various fourth-century vessels in the Israel Museum (Israeli 2003: 193–97, nos. 229–35). Excavated examples include fourth–fifth century cracked-off cups/bowls and conical beakers/lamps from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 102–4 and fig. 5.17, nos. 1–11; 135–37 and fig. 6.10, nos. 5–6), yellowish-green conical lamps from Karanis (Harden 1936: 160–64 and pl. XVI, nos. 440–41 and 457–63), and colorless and pale green conical vessels from Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 91, fig. 4-46, and pls. 4-17 and 4-18, nos. 404–38). Small fragments of yellowish vessel glass with green blobs were recovered from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 142 and Taf. 8, nos. 887–93), and light blue-green to pale green or almost colorless fragments with cobalt blue blobs dating to the early Byzantine period were found at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 404–5 and fig. 18.6, nos. 84–91). Pale yellow-green fragments with blue blobs and abraded lines or wheel-cut grooves were also found in Early Byzantine contexts at Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Area J).

Cylindrical Beakers with a Slightly Everted and Ground Rim Fragment no. 7 is similar in profile to the beaker fragments nos. 3–5, although this vessel has a greater rim diameter and wall thickness as well as a slightly everted mouth, making it closer to Isings’s Form 106c conical beakers with the rim bent outward (1957: 129) and to conical beakers described as having “a very slight angle change [in the vessel walls] about 8–10  mm below the slightly curved everted rim edge” from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 88). The color of the Yotvata vessel cannot be determined, but fifth-century examples of similar size from Beirut are green, bluegreen, or nearly colorless in hue ( Jennings 2006: 88–90 and fig. 5.5, nos. 8–9). Other examples with the same profile and thickness come from el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 404 and fig. 18.5, no. 81) and Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 92–94 and fig. 4-47, nos. 439, 441, and 451–53).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Conical Beakers or Bowls with a Rounded Lip Although cracked-off rims are common in the Yotvata assemblage, open vessels with a rounded rim are even more numerous. Many of these have the vertical walls of nos. 10–13 (see below), but the bodies of nos. 8–9 appear to taper near the top of the vessel, and both have more of a flaring rim rather than an everted one. No. 8 has a faint outward flare, while no. 9 has a more strongly flaring rim and thicker walls. Both vessels have a slight outward swelling below the rim, more pronounced for no. 9, which creates a faint horizontal rib on the exterior of the vessel. Like nos. 3 and 6, as well as many uncatalogued fragments, both of these vessels have abraded horizontal lines that create a decorative band on the exterior. This band is on the swelling of no. 8 and just above the swelling of no. 9. It is difficult to find precise parallels for these rim forms. No. 8 is similar to slightly thickened fire-rounded rims with abraded lines from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 130 and Taf. 5, no. 520) and Jerash (Dussart 1998: 67 and pl. 7 BI.4221, no. 1). The swelling of no. 9 is similar to a vessel at Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 105 and fig. 5.19, no. 1), although the latter does not have a turned-out rim. The rim profile might also be compared to a fragment from Mezad Tamar with a thickened, turned-out rim and a swelling with abrasion lines (Erdmann 1977: 141 and Taf. 7, no. 854).

The Glass

147

Beakers or Bowls with Vertical Walls, an Everted Rim, and Rounded Lip

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

This may be the most common rim type at Yotvata, similar to Isings’s Form 109 for beakers with everted rims and a pushed-in foot (1957: 136–38). Many rim fragments were too small to determine the diameter or stance of the vessel, but the larger fragments suggest that many are a variety of cylindrical beaker or a small, deep bowl. Nos. 10–12 have rim diameters of 8–9 cm and everted, fire-rounded lips with nearly vertical vessel walls. No. 10 is undecorated, while nos. 11–12 have applied glass threads on the exterior surfaces. No. 13 is slightly larger in diameter than the other vessels, but it too has a short, everted rim with a thickened, fire-rounded lip. The general shape appears to be common in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, with many examples at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 396–97 and fig. 18.1, nos. 13–14, 16; fig. 18.2, nos. 18–21; 405–6 and fig. 18.6, nos. 92–94) and Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Area J). The rim profile and vertical walls of these fragments are also similar to vessels from Beirut, including second- through fourth-century cups and beakers ( Jennings 2006: 71–72 and fig. 4.1, no. 4) and late fourth–early fifth-century small bowls ( Jennings 2006: 107–9 and fig. 5.22, nos. 2 and 6). They are also similar to Late Roman–Byzantine cylindrical beakers with flaring rims from Jerash (Meyer 1987: 196–97 and fig. 8, nos. A–C), Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 132 and Taf. 6, no. 555, 575–76; 137–38 and Taf. 7, nos. 739, 757) and Upper Zohar (Harper 1995: 137 and fig. 21, no. 10). Similar rim forms in yellow-green glass from fourth-century contexts are attested even farther afield, at the legionary fortress baths at Caerleon in Britain (Allen 1986: 114–15 and fig. 44, nos. 85–87). A fragment of similar size and profile to no. 12 comes from a context at ʿEn Boqeq that has been redated to the mid sixth–seventh centuries (Gichon 1993: 434–37 and Taf. 60, no. 20b; Magness 1999: 193). No. 11 has a single dark blue trail below the lip, and two parallel glass trails decorate the exterior walls of no. 12, but the color of these two trails and the rest of the vessel are obscured by heavy weathering. Trailed decoration was especially characteristic of the fifth through seventh centuries. Parallels to no. 10 include late second–early third-century bowls from Dura-Europos (Clairmont 1963: 54–55 and pl. VI, no. 227), and cups with a concave bottom from Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 63–64 and fig. 4-25, nos. 195–99), although their glass trails are the same color as the vessel fabric rather than of a contrasting color. The latter is a well-documented type in Palestine during the fourth century. Beakers of similar size, profile, and decoration to no. 12 come from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 157–58 and fig. 7.2, no. 22), Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 132 and Taf. 6, nos. 555 and 578), el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 396–97 and fig. 18.1, no. 14), and Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Area K).

Bowls with an Everted Rim and a Wall Fold No. 14 also has an everted rim and rounded lip but is distinct because of a tooled, double wall-fold that forms a horizontal rib on the exterior of the vessel. This is the most complete of five fragments recovered with this type of decoration. One fragment with a double fold comes from a possible Byzantine floor (L7039), and another is from a fill (L2079). Two examples with single folds were also found, one from a dump (L9024) and another from a fill (L7079); the latter is a large, sagging roll that is very similar to a bowl from Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 52–53 and fig. 4–14, no. 105). Bowls with both a single and a double wall-fold were found at Jalame, and the latter appears to be a local Syro-Palestinian type (Weinberg 1988: 52–53). Single-folded profiles generally are

148

The Glass

associated with fairly deep, small bowls of greenish-blue or green glass and flaring rims (Weinberg 1988: 52–54 and fig. 4-14, nos. 105–6), while vessels with double folds typically have a more vertical rim profile (Weinberg 1988: 53–54 and fig. 4-15, nos. 108–17). Examples from Beirut include bowls with a double fold near the rim, from the Middle Roman period ( Jennings 2006: 77 and fig. 7.8, nos. 1–2), as well as a single-folded bowl of blue-green glass and double-folded bowl in yellow-green glass from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine periods ( Jennings 2006: 174 and fig. 7.22, no. 2; 105–6 and fig. 5.19, no. 4). Other possible parallels come from Jerash (Meyer 1987: 191 and fig. 6, no. Q) and Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Areas M, B, and O). Examples with single and double folds were also found at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 398 and fig. 18.2, no. 28a; fig. 18.3, nos. 29–30; 407 and fig. 18.7, nos. 108–9), although vessels with a single fold were a rare find for the Limes Arabicus Project ( Jones 2006: 407). Double folds were also common at Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 141–42 and Taf. 7, nos. 872–73 and 875). There has been some debate over how common vessels with wall-folds were in the Near East. According to Weinberg, vessels with single, tooled-out folds “do not appear often on SyroPalestinian sites and seem more common in Cyprus,” although she concluded that “the tooled-out fold alone is not adequate for determining either date or origin of these vessels,” as examples may be found in both the East and West during the first–fourth centuries (1988: 52). Vessels with a double fold, on the other hand, appear to be quite common in the Levant, with examples dating from the Early Roman period to the fifth century and peaking in the fourth century ( Jones, personal communication). Evidence for the production of this type of vessel in the fourth century comes from Khirbat el-Niana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Bowl with a Horizontal, Scalloped Rim No. 15 is one of three fragments from a bowl of a unique form. This type is not commonly seen in excavation reports, and the few parallels that can be cited are spread through all parts of the Empire and range in date from the first to fifth centuries. The horizontal or overhanging rim of this type of vessel has a scalloped edge, an effect created by pulling the edges of the rim with a tool while the glass was still hot “to create thin, horizontal, decorative protrusions” ( Jones 2006: 407). The Yotvata rim fragment is horizontal and is decorated with two thin blue trails, one running along the scalloped edge and the other a circular trail closer to the vessel’s mouth (color fig. 23, p. 60); none of the parallels appears to have this same detailing. Harden reports on two complete bowls of this type in the Toledo Museum: no. 354.9871 is a green glass vessel with 13 pulled points around the circumference of the rim and no. 354.987 is a similar green bowl with 15 points (Harden 1936: 111 n. 2; fig. 2, no. g). Although both vessels are said to have been found in Syria–Palestine (one from Mount Carmel), Harden suggests an Egyptian origin based on the general shape of the vessels and their base techniques, which he describes as “a true base ring with slanting impressions” (Harden 1936: 111 n. 2). Harden cites one additional complete example of a yellow-brown glass bowl in the Louvre from Kerch in Ukraine, MND 1123, for which he also suggests an Egyptian origin. He concludes his discussion with the suggestion that glassblowers may have copied this form from metal bowls (Harden 1936: 97). A complete bowl with ten scalloped points and dating to the fourth or fifth century is in the Corning Museum of Glass (Whitehouse 2001: 141, no. 650). A fifth complete example is on display in the in the Muzej Mimara in Zagreb, Croatia (Inv. br. 1008 ATM 1369); this example is attributed to secondcentury Syria and is of blue-green glass with 11 pulled protrusions around its circumference.

The Glass

149

The scalloped-edge bowl coincides with Isings’s Form 42d (1957: 58–59), and she gives three datable examples, one from Karanis and two from Europe (second–third-century contexts at the sites of Champion in Belgium and Esch in the Netherlands). A fragment of yellowish glass from Karanis dating to the fourth–fifth centuries has a rounded rim with horizontally scalloped edge that is very similar to the Yotvata fragment (Harden 1936: 97 111–12 and pl. XIV, nos. 257); another fragment in deep brown glass (no. 259) also has pinched scalloping, but the pinches are on the underside of the rim. Fragments from late fourth–fifth-century contexts at Rome (Sternini 2001: 42–43 and fig. 8, nos. 51–52) and Carthage (Tatton-Brown 1984: 195 and fig. 65, no. 10) indicate that this type is found in both the West and in North Africa/Egypt. Several fourth–fifth century fragments from Beirut have pinched-out projections, including one green specimen that is very similar to the Yotvata fragment ( Jennings 2006: 77 and fig. 4.9, no. 3). Jennings notes that these fragments are rare at Beirut “and are so different from the rest of the assemblage that they are likely to be imports” (2006: 77). In addition to the Yotvata fragments, evidence for the presence of this vessel type on the eastern Roman frontier comes from the forts of el-Lejjun and Humayma. The el-Lejjun fragments are of light green, blue-green, and olive-green glass and were recovered from early sixth-century contexts in the barracks, church, and principia. These fragments are described as coming from a distinctive type of bowl with a horizontal rim that appears “starlike” when viewed from above ( Jones 2006: 407 and fig. 18.7, nos. 110–12). Illustrated examples nos. 111–12 have a thickened lip and a rim that remains horizontal for approximately 2 cm before sloping downward to form the vessel walls, similar to the Yotvata fragments. An additional parallel comes from the barracks area at Humayma: a small fragment of a light green glass bowl with a scalloped edge and an estimated rim diameter of 10 cm ( Jones, personal communication).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Closed Vessel with a Funnel-Shaped Mouth No. 16 has a funnel mouth with a small rim diameter, suggesting a closed shape like a flask, bottle, or jug; an irregular but thick glass trail is wrapped just below the rim. Because only the rim survives, the vessel could correspond with several bottle and jug shapes with similar funnel mouths, including Isings’s Forms 120–123 (1957: 149–53). Vessels from fourth–fifth century contexts at Beirut also have an applied trail wound once just below the rim and are thought to have had cylindrical, ovoid, or pear-shaped bodies and possibly a single handle ( Jennings 2006: 113, fig. 5.27, no. 1–10). This rim type is also common for jugs and bottles found at Jalame in the late fourth century (Weinberg 1988: 67 and fig. 4–28 and pl. 4-10, nos. 217, 220, and 222; 69–70 and fig. 4-31 and pl. 4-12, nos. 262–70). Other examples come from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 130 and Taf. 5, no. 516) and Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997: 414–16 and pl. V, nos. 3–4). Cohen suggests that the distribution of funnel-rimmed jugs is primarily Syria–Palestine but notes that “they also occur in 3rd and mainly 4th century assemblages in the West” (1997: 416). Jugs with similar rims come from fourth-century contexts in the Athenian Agora (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 142, 145–46 and fig. 19, nos. 329–31).

Vessels with a High, Pushed-in Tubular Ring Base No. 17 is the only example of a hollow, slightly outsplayed, tubular ring base. It was formed by creating a constriction at the base of a glass bubble, then flattening and pushing the bottom

150

The Glass

upward and inward; this same technique could have be done with or without a second glass bubble (Weinberg 1988: 36 and fig. 3–11). Such base rings may come from deep bowls like fifth–seventh century examples at Tel Tanninim (Pollak 2006: 166 and fig. 132, nos. 57, 61, and 63) and Jerash (Meyer 1987: 198 and fig. 8, no. R; 206 and fig. 11, nos. aa–bb), although some of these are slightly larger in size than the Yotvata fragment and one of the Jerash bases turns slightly inward rather than outward. Vessels with folded-foot bases and small diameters (4–5 cm) were recovered from third–sixth-century contexts at Beirut, but are most common in the fourth–fifth centuries and likely come from bowls or beakers ( Jennings 2006: 189 and fig. 8.3, nos. 1–3). Jugs with similar tall, thick folded bases are found at Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 68 and fig. 4-29, nos. 236–38 and 245). Small bowls with this sort of foot were common at Samaria, most of a pale blue glass but some of greenish or bluish-green colors. A good example was found outside a third-century tomb (Crowfoot 1957: 409–10 and fig. 94, no. 15), and others come from a fourth-century house, a Byzantine house, and a fourth–fifth-century “glass factory.” Similar base folds come from Sardis (von Saldern 1980: 66–67 and pl. 25, no. 461). Other parallels include bowls from el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 399– 400 and fig. 18.3, no. 43) and Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 116 and Taf. 2, nos. 65–69).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Vessels with Low, Pushed-in or Folded (Nearly Tubular) Ring Base This is one of the two most common base forms in the Yotvata assemblage. The ring bases of nos. 18–22 were most likely formed by pushing in the bottom of the vessel and then tooling it out to form a foot. Bases like this were common throughout the Roman Empire from the second half of the first century to the fourth century, perhaps because the technique was faster or easier than adding a second glass bubble to form the ring base (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 107). The Yotvata ring bases are often so narrow as to appear solid, but some of the broken base fragments reveal a tiny hollow lined with iridescent weathering layers, showing they were folded. The broken wall fragments are closer to the edge of the foot than to the center of the base and appear to rise vertically, which indicates the vessels were unlikely to have had a stem. The small base diameter (4–5.5 cm) also suggests that they belong to open vessels such as beakers or small, deep bowls. All bases of this type have a visible scar on the bottom, so the final phase of production involved transferring the vessel to a pontil rod to finish the rim of the vessel. Nos. 18–21 are very similar in size, color, and production technique and were all recovered from Areas 2000 and 9000. At least six other (uncatalogued) fragments of the same type were found in L2029, L2039, L2056, L2068, L6039, and L9035. All of these bases are approximately 4–4.5 cm in diameter with a 0.5 cm thick ring and are the same natural aqua color; most of the weathering layers are of the same variety as well. These remarkable similarities might suggest that the vessels are part of a set of tableware or were perhaps purchased together from the same vendor or produced in the same workshop. No. 22 is slightly larger than the others and has concave rather than vertical walls, which suggest it may be a globular closed vessel such as a bottle or jug or an open vessel such as a bowl. Its coloring and base technique are so similar to the others that it might be considered part of the set if there was indeed such a thing present. The closest parallels in terms of technique, profile shape, color, and size come from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 114 and Taf. 1, nos. 26–31) and el-Lejjun and its vicus ( Jones 2006: 399 and fig. 18.3, nos. 32–34). Jones comments that pushed-in rings were by far the most common form of bases found by the Limes Arabicus Project and suggests that the low, small-diameter examples derive from beakers whereas higher and thicker versions come from jugs or bowls (2006: 399). This

The Glass

151

type is also very similar to the conical beaker bases associated with fire-rounded rims from Jerash (Meyer 1987: 189 and fig. 5, nos. V, Y, Z, and aa; fig. 6, no. A–B) and to Early Byzantine bases from Sardis (von Saldern 1980: 66–67 and pl. 24, no. 447; pl. 25, no. 451). Folded-foot ring bases from Beirut almost always have a closed foot ( Jennings 2006: 189), but there are both solid and tubular “indented” ring bases at Hammat Gader that come from tall cups of greenish-blue glass with a 4–5 cm base diameter and are characterized by a thickened, rounded, everted rim and a conical body (Cohen 1997: 405, 409–10 and pl. III, nos. 12–13). These appear to be similar to Yotvata rim fragments nos. 10–13. Other folded-base rings from beakers or small cups were found in Middle Imperial contexts in the Athenian Agora (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 106 and pl. 23, nos. 253–54) and fourth–fifth-century contexts at Samaria (Crowfoot 1957: 416 and fig. 96, no. 10). Greenish and greenish-blue glass bases with clear pontil scars were also found at Jalame in dumps and fills dating to the fourth–fifth centuries (Weinberg 1988: 62–63 and fig. 4–24, nos. 188–90). Beakers with this type of base were most common in the fourth–fifth centuries ( Jennings 2006: 189) and “may have been a prototype of wine goblets that replaced it in the East and West in the 5th century” (Cohen 1997: 409). Weinberg appears to agree with these conclusions, as she noted that the type gave way to the stemmed goblet that was becoming popular in the late fourth century (1988: 62).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Vessel with a Solid, Pad Base In addition to the bases shown in the catalogue, there is one uncatalogued example of an important type that should be discussed: a pad base that was recovered from the Roman floor of L3012. This base has a diameter of 4.0 cm and is made from aqua glass, which looks quite dark in color because of the thickness of the pad. Although little remains of the vessel walls, this type of base likely belongs to tall beakers with slightly concave sides, typically in the blue-green color spectrum and sometimes decorated with a trail of glass. The slightly flaring rims with a rounded lip that are most often associated with such bases are remarkably similar in description to Yotvata rim fragments nos. 10–12. Cohen estimates that beakers with a base diameter of 4–5 cm and rim diameter of 7–8 cm would have stood approximately 11–13 cm tall (1997: 410). Evidence of pad bases associated with such rims comes from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 187–89 and fig. 8.2, nos. 1–4) and Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997: 405, 410, and pl. III, nos. 14–17). Other examples come from Late Roman and Byzantine contexts at Jerash (Meyer 1987: 193 and fig. 6, no. Z and aa–dd; Dussart 1998: 96–98 and pl. 21, BVIII.121 nos. 18–24, 31, 35, 38, and 41), late fourth-century contexts at Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Area J), fourth- to sixth-century contexts at Ain ez-Zara (Dussart 1998: 97 and pl. 21, BVIII.121 nos. 26–27 and 34), possible fifth-century contexts at Petra (O’Hea 2001: 375 and fig. 6, no. 31), Byzantine contexts at el-Lejjun and Daʿjaniya ( Jones 2006: 400 and fig. 18.3, nos. 45–48), fourth-century contexts at Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 114 and Taf. 1, nos. 13–16), third- to mid-fourth-century tombs at Samaria (Crowfoot 1957: 408–10 and fig. 94, no. 14; 410–13 and fig. 95, no. 20), third- to fourth-century tombs at Nahariya (Barag 1965: 29 and pl. 3), and fourth-century tombs at Tyre (Harden 1949: 153, nos. G26–28). One complete fourth-century example is on display in the Israel Museum (Israeli 2003: 162, no. 16) and two others are in the Ernesto Wolf Collection (Stern 2001: 219, no. 108; 220, no. 109). Solid foot beakers appear to be an exclusively Eastern vessel type, common in Syria–Palestine during the fourth and early fifth centuries (Weinberg 1988: 60; Cohen 1997: 410; Jones 2006: 400). This type was “produced in quantity” at Jalame during the second half of the fourth century,

152

The Glass

as demonstrated by over 350 fragments that were found in factory dumps (Weinberg 1988: 60–62 and fig. 4-23, nos. 169–86 bases and associated rims nos. 162–68; pl. 4-9). There are no parallels from Egypt (Cohen 1997: 410), and one fragment from the island of Ibiza is the only example of this type in the West (Weinberg 1988: 61 n. 87; Dussart 1998: 98).

Vessels with a Coiled Ring Base

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Another very common type of vessel base in the Yotvata assemblage is a ring base formed by a trail of wound or coiled glass. There is some variety in the thickness of the glass trail and how it was applied: some trails are wound only once while others are wound multiple times, and some are wound neatly, while others are more careless. These bases could be from small bowls, beakers, and jugs, although publications generally assign them simply to jugs (Weinberg 1988: 58). Nos. 23 and 24 are simple ring bases with a single-wrapped trail of glass. No. 23 is similar to the small jugs or beakers with 2–4 cm diameter bases from Late Roman and Byzantine contexts at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 395 and fig. 18.1, nos. 5–7) and Jerash (Meyer 1987: 192–94 and fig. 7, no. K). The larger no. 24 is similar in size and profile to examples from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 115 and Taf. 1, no. 53) and Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 190 and fig. 8.4, no. 2) Nos. 25 and 26 are more strikingly aqua in their coloring and have higher bases due to the glass trail being coiled several times. Bases dating to the early fourth century to the beginning of the sixth century at el-Lejjun are higher and made from a thicker coil than those of the Roman period ( Jones 2006: 400). The trailed foot of no. 25 is wound some five times, thickest (∼1.0 cm) at the upper portion and thinning with each revolution down and away from the bottom of the vessel. Examples in blue-green glass and strikingly similar in profile and size come from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 115 and Taf. 1, no. 51) and el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 400 and fig. 18.4, nos. 49–50). Other examples come from Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 58–59, nos. 152–56), Late Roman or Byzantine Sardis (von Saldern 1980: 30–31 and pl. 22, no. 196), and third-century Samaria (Crowfoot 1957: 408–10 and fig. 94, no. 13). Bases with a high-coiled ring base were found in fourth- to fifth-century contexts at Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 190–91 and fig. 8.4, nos. 8–10), although these are much larger and slightly more outsplayed. High, wound bases from Karanis are attributed to flasks (Harden 1936: 217–18 and pl. XIX, nos. 647–71). Many of the Karanis trailed bases are a different color from the rest of the vessel, a characteristic that is also observed at Yotvata for the single trailed bases. No. 26 is a multiple-wrapped trailed base but with a slightly shorter stature, which also has parallels from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 190 and fig. 8.4, nos. 3 and 7).

Large Closed Vessel with a Concave Base Although not much of this vessel survives, no. 27 is important because it indicates the presence of large jugs or bottles at Yotvata. Despite the fragment’s substantial size, only the pushed-in center portion remains. The size of the bottom and the overall thickness of the glass indicate that this was a large vessel with a base diameter of perhaps 10–12 cm. There is no pontil mark on the bottom, suggesting the rim of the vessel was cracked off. Parallels are difficult to find, but the fragment is similar to the base of some large sixth-century flasks or carboys from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 182–84 and fig. 7.33, nos. 4 and 7).

The Glass

153

Small Closed Containers with Plain, Rounded Bases There are many fragments of closed vessels with plain, flat, or slightly pushed-in bases with no added foot ring and a 3–4 cm base diameter. The vessel walls are typically straight or slightly curving, which suggests a closed container such as bottles, flasks, or juglets. In some cases, the scar from a pontil rod is clearly visible, and in others it is clearly absent, but the bases are sometimes too fragmentary to be certain. Small vessels easily could have been made without a pontil rod by cracking them off the blowpipe, and there was a considerable increase in the number of vessels made in this manner from the late fourth to the seventh century ( Jennings 2006: 194), particularly small flasks and bottles. Nos. 28–30 are cylindrical bottles that have a slightly pushed-in, circular base with rounded edges. This form is quite simple and was used widely for long periods, so finding exact parallels is a relatively meaningless exercise. However, comparisons may still be made to fourth- to seventhcentury examples from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 187–88 and fig. 8.1, nos. 2–3 and 6–7), Byzantine bottles from Aila ( Jones, in preparation: Area K), third- to seventh-century vessels from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 117 and Taf. 2, nos. 98, 100, and 101), Jerash (Meyer 1987: 206 and fig. 11, nos. X–Z), Upper Zohar (Harper 1995: 137 and fig. 22, no. 19), Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 76–77 and fig. 4-36, nos. 309–11 and 316), and late fourth- to mid-fifth-century cylindrical vessels from the Athenian Agora (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 159 and fig. 21, no. 389).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Squared Vessel with Indented Walls One fragment, no. 31, has slightly square shape that may have been produced by moldblowing or was pressed into that shape using a marver. Shallow, somewhat oblong indents are present on each of the four faces. Decoration with indents on cups and beakers began to be popular in the second half of the first century and in the Middle and Late Imperial periods became common features for many vessel types including closed shapes such as jugs, flasks, jars, and bottles (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 47 and 93). Square bottles are not particularly common in Syria–Palestine in the Roman or any other period, although a few examples in green glass with higher pushed-in bases were found at Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 116 and fig. 5.30, nos. 2–4). A similar base from an unidentified closed vessel comes from el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 400 and fig. 18.4, no. 51). Dussart cites a slightly larger base of a jar from the museum at Bosra and notes that this type was very fashionable in Syria in the late third–early fourth century (1998: pl. 18, BVII.2425, no. 15). A third- to fourth-century square jar and a second- to fourth-century rectangular bottle in the Israel Museum are both of similar size and shape (Israeli 2003: 240, no. 311; 244, no. 319). Juglets from Karanis have a similar base profile and indented walls (Harden 1936: 249 and pl. XX, nos. 757–60).

Bottle or Flask with Pinched Toes No. 32 is the only fragment from Yotvata of a vessel with a piriform body shape that balances on a number of pinched toes. “Vessels standing on projections pinched directly out of the body were never common” (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 107), and indeed, none of the few parallels found has a piriform body or a small number of toes. The earliest known examples of pinched toes are from first-century bottles in Italy (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 107). Slightly larger vessels with a ring of toes seem to be much more common, especially in the eastern Mediterranean region.

154

The Glass

Bases with 5 to 10 pinched toes, probably from flasks but some perhaps from deep bowls or beakers, were found at Dura-Europos and date to the second century through early third century (Clairmont 1963: 50–52 and pls. V–VI, nos. 202–11). Vessels of green glass with up to 17 toes and a 5 cm base diameter come from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 193 and fig. 8.8, nos. 1–3). At the Athenian Agora there are bowls or bulbous flasks of colorless glass with a greenish-yellow tinge or light bluish-green glass with 11–21 pinched toes forming the base ring, dating to the mid-third to sixth centuries (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 107–8, 130, fig. 16, and pl. 23, nos. 264–68). Only one example of this type was found at Jalame, a greenish-blue base with a ring of 12 toes (Weinberg 1988: 59–60 and fig. 4-22, no. 161). At Karanis, Late Roman bases with 3 to 5 pinched toes or a ring of 20 small toes are thought to be from bulbous flasks (Harden 1936: 219–20 and pl. XIX, nos. 678–85), although a base with three long pinched toes may be from a bulbous jar (Harden 1936: 182 and pl. XVII, no. 507). Harden also lists several examples of “inverted-piriform” flasks with toes found in the East (Harden 1936: 219–20 n. 3). Deeply-colored “pomegranate” shaped sprinkler jars with a small ring of 6 to 8 pinched toes, dating to the fourth century or possibly earlier, have been attributed to Syrian workshops (Stern 2001: 153 and 249–51, Cat. nos. 135–37).

Tubular Unguentarium or Hollow-Stemmed Lamp The small size and poor condition of fragment no. 33 makes identification very difficult. Its dimensions and tubular shape suggest that it may be the base of a very small tubular bottle or unguentarium, perhaps similar to Isings’s Form 8 (1957: 24) but representing a flattened variant similar to those in the West dating from the first to third centuries (Price and Cottam 1998: 169 and fig. 75). It is also similar in size, color, and shape to fragments from the East dating to later periods, such as a small bottle from Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: 117 and Taf. 2, no. 96) and early Islamic phials from Beirut ( Jennings 2006: 214 and fig. 9.17, nos. 5 and 11–12). No. 33 may instead be the tip of a hollow-stemmed lamp. Examples from Beirut include Late Roman and Early Byzantine lamp stems with flattened bottoms and similar dimensions ( Jennings 2006: 141–43 and fig. 6.16, nos. 1–2, 4, and 9). Other stemmed lamps with flat, almost squared bases included examples from Hammat Gader (Cohen 1997: 402–4 and pl. II, no. 16), fourth- to early seventh-century Sardis (von Saldern 1980: 49–51 and pl. 23, no. 274), and Jerash (Meyer 1987: 203–5 and fig. 11, nos. H and J).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fragment of a Pushed-up Second Parison Fragment no. 34 (color fig. 24, p.  60) is unique and difficult to identify because of its odd break pattern, which is probably at the point where the body of a vessel meets a pushed-in ring base that was formed by the addition of a second glass bubble (Yael Gorin-Rosen, personal communication), while the upper portion of the body and the lower portion of the foot do not survive. The rounded protuberance on the interior of the vessel is likely the result of the second bubble being pushed up against the first. The bottom of the base has an applied “button,” an additional disc of glass that was applied to the center of the base to reduce the risk of vessel breakage when the pontil rod was finally removed; a large punty scar is also clearly visible. Although the confusing breakage of this fragment makes it challenging to cite close parallels, possible examples include jugs with pushed-in bases made from a parison at Jalame (Weinberg 1988: 67–68 and fig. 4-29, nos. 230–36, especially 235), and vessels from Beirut of indeterminate

The Glass

155

shape also made from two parts ( Jennings 2006: 130–31 and fig. 6.6, no. 1). There is also some similarity to the thick “waists” from squat vessels found at Jerash (Meyer 1987: 201 and fig. 9, no. M) and possibly those found in the Athenian Agora (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 101–201 and fig. 15, nos. 217–20; 149–50 and fig. 20, nos. 338–45).

Handles Surprisingly, very few fragments of handles were recovered at Yotvata. Only two small “pulled” handle fragments were found (uncatalogued, L6010 and L6013), both of naturally aqua glass and probably from small juglets. These were so weathered that they are not illustrated, but parallels include examples from el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: fig. 18.5, no. 75) and Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: Taf. 3, nos. 184–84). An interesting element associated with a handle is included in the catalogue as no. 35. This fragment does not include the handle itself but was likely the decorated anchor point for an applied handle; the break edge indicates the point where the glass was pulled upward while hot to form the handle. Two parallel 1.2-cm-long horizontal ridges are tooled into the surface of the glass just beneath this break edge. Handles with a singular tooled ridge at their bases were found at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 403 and fig. 18.5, no. 76) and Jerash (Meyer 1987: 194 and fig. 7, nos. Q–R).

Knobs or Finials Nos. 36 and 37 are very small fragments, perhaps belonging to knobs or finials. The rounded knob no. 36 is simple in shape and would be easy to produce, and it probably comes from the lid of a small vessel similar to Isings’s Form 66a (1957: 85). No. 37 is more intricate and likely came from a different object altogether, perhaps part of a piece of jewelry. No parallels were found for these objects.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Window Glass Several flattened fragments of glass were observed (mostly from Areas 7000 and 9000, including Roman floors L9030 and L9037), which may be from windowpanes. Tiny, heavily weathered fragments of curved aqua glass with a folded and flattened edge were also found; one relatively complete edge fragment (uncatalogued) of this type comes from the fill contexts of L7014 and is approximately 12 cm in diameter; this is the best evidence for the presence of circular windowpanes at Yotvata. Also called crown or bulls-eye glass, such circular windowpanes have a flattened, folded rim and an average diameter of 16–20 cm and were typically made from the ordinary bluish-green or green glass of the time (Harden 1939: 91). Circular windowpanes have been noted to be “not as easily identifiable as the thicker, rectangular panes unless a rim was present,” which is probably why this type accounted for only 1% of all the windowpane fragments that were identified in the Petra Church (O’Hea 2001: 371). Beginning perhaps in the fourth century, windows in the eastern Roman world were often glazed with circular panes of blown glass resembling very shallow dishes without a ring base (Harden 1939: 91). This style spread from the East to Western Europe, “largely if not entirely replacing the older style of flat planes” (Meyer 1989: 214). There is some question as to whether crown glass was a Constantinian or Justinianic development, and there is disagreement about the fourth-century dating of the earliest known examples from Jerash and Samaria (Meyer 1989).

156

The Glass

However, it is difficult to believe that the ephemeral Byzantine phase at Yotvata included glazed windows, which were typically reserved for important buildings or baths, and it is more likely that Yotvata provides evidence of circular glazed windows in a fourth-century context. An almost complete example of a circular windowpane with its original plaster mounting for the window frame was recovered from Jerash (Harden 1939: 91), and fragments of circular folded rims were found still stuck into their plaster frames in the Petra Church (O’Hea 2001: 371–72 and fig. 2). Loose fragments of folded, circular panes were also found at Jerash (Meyer 1987: 194–95 and fig. 7, nos. bb–cc; 207–11 and fig. 10, nos. N–S) and the Petra Church (O’Hea 2001: 372–73 and fig. 6, no. 3), and at least 11 fragments of folded-rim windowpanes at el-Lejjun came from Byzantine strata (ca. 502–551 c.e.) in the church and bath ( Jones 2006: 410 and fig. 18.9, nos. 135–36). Fragments of circular panes also appear to have been found at ʿEn Boqeq (Gichon 1993: 434–37 and Taf. 60, no. 24) and Upper Zohar (Harper 1995: 138 and fig. 23, no. 31 “bowl”) although in the latter case these have been classified as bowls or dishes.

Assemblage Summary

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fabric and Manufacture The highly weathered condition of the fragments makes it challenging to comment about the quality of the glass or to give details about the manufacturing process. According to Isings, the majority of glass in the fourth century was “badly made,” with many air bubbles or streaks in the glass fabric (1957: 126). Isings’s early observation is appropriate for glass in the West, as many scholars have commented on the declining quality of glass in that region (Allen 1986: 115; Price and Cottam 1998: 16) and discussed the possibility that glassmakers in the West were increasingly having problems obtaining high-quality raw glass (Stern 2001: 333). However, the situation in the Near East during the same period was quite different, as glassmakers were close to the primary raw material sources and major production centers. The glass of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods in the Near East is generally clear and bright, being “of good quality, clean and with remarkably few bubbles. . . . This is particularly true of the bright blue/green shades” ( Jennings 2006: 84). The quality of the fabric may be one explanation for the poor state of preservation of glass at Yotvata, but other factors such as burial environment probably have more to do with it. Most vessels made after the first century c.e. were free-blown, so it may be assumed that the majority of vessels at Yotvata are free-blown as well. Most of the identifiable forms are indeed blown shapes, and many of the base fragments display the scar of a pontil rod—a tool that is characteristic of the blowing process. The absence of a pontil scar may indicate that a vessel was cracked off of the blowpipe (a process illustrated in Weinberg 1988: 88). A significant proportion of blown vessels was made using this method during the Late Roman period, especially in the fourth–fifth centuries ( Jennings 2006: 84). There is evidence of a small number of mold-blown vessels at Yotvata as well; in addition to no. 31, there is one small and highly weathered (uncatalogued) fragment from L9045, with a faintly ribbed profile, that may have been blown into a mold.

Color and Decoration The majority of the Yotvata vessels appear to be made from translucent glass (depending, of course, upon the thickness of the vessel walls) in the blue-green spectrum. Natural aqua is by far the dominant hue, with a few examples of light green, yellow-green, and nearly colorless glass

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Glass

157

present as well. Only one example of a deeply colored glass was recovered, a small piece of “shatter” in cobalt blue from L2041 (excavated by Avner in 2004). The overall lack of intentionally colored glass at Yotvata is not surprising, as unintentionally colored glass became the norm in this region after the fourth century (Meyer 1987: 188). Light green, yellow-green, light blue, blue-green, green-blue, and aqua are the typical palette. It is possible to produce all these colors without the addition of a coloring agent; the natural iron impurities in the glass raw materials can create these hues via the manipulation of the atmosphere and temperature of the glass furnace. Yellow, brown, and deep blue glass were also made during this period, but only the last would have required a special additive to the glass batch (Harden 1971: 80). In terms of decoration, the Yotvata glass is relatively simple. There are few pieces decorated with anything more elaborate than wheel-cut grooves, abrasion lines, or the occasional applied trail or blob. There is no evidence of ribbing, intricate mold-blowing, scratch decorations, or facetcut designs. Wheel-cut grooves and abraded lines are by far the most common form of decoration among the Yotvata vessels. Abrasion bands and shallow grooves are cold-working techniques that were done using a wheel and an abrasive after the vessel had annealed. Abrasion lines are quite common for various forms of tableware, perhaps more so than is normally recognized. These lines can be overlooked easily, as they are often “mere marks on the surface of the glass and can be seen rather than felt,” and can thus be obscured by weathering or destroyed by any amount of flaking ( Jennings 2006: 85). Despite being a very simple and subtle form of decoration, abrasions are meant to be eye-catching, relying “on the color contrast between the vessel’s smooth wall and the darker surface of the abrasions” for their effect (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 140). Deep grooves are found occasionally on cups and bowls, but they appear to be a standard feature for conical beakers or lamps made from colorless glass ( Jennings 2006: 85). Drinking vessels with horizontal wheel-cut grooves were very fashionable in the eastern part of the Roman Empire during the fourth century (Weinberg and Stern 2009: 135). Although colored glass was not typically used to make a complete glass vessel at this time, it was still used for decorative elements, which demonstrates that colored glass was indeed available to craftsmen ( Jennings 2006: 83). Trails of glass often decorate the rim, neck, or body of bowls, beakers, and flasks during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. These trails are either of a contrasting color—typically deep blue but sometimes turquoise-green—or of the same color that was used to make the rest of the vessel. Yotvata fragment no. 11 has a deep blue trail, and uncatalogued fragments from L9028 and L9035 have turquoise trails. The trails of nos. 12 and 16 are too weathered to determine whether they are of a contrasting color. Several uncatalogued fragments of small bottles have single trail base rings of a contrasting glass, typically a dark aqua or green trail on a yellow-green or green-tinged vessel. Deep blue and turquoise-green glass was also used to make blobs on conical vessels and less frequently on hemispherical bowls. Yotvata fragment no. 6 and uncatalogued fragments from floor contexts in L9030 and L9037 have cobalt-blue blobs, while two uncatalogued fragments from L9018 and L9021 have turquoise-green blobs.

Forms and Functions The Yotvata assemblage is dominated by open forms. Most of the rim fragments come from vessels with a relatively deep, vertical profile and a small rim diameter (8–13 cm), a shape that has been variously classified by scholars as beakers, goblets, lamps, or even small, deep

158

The Glass

bowls. Translucent glass vessels are clearly suitable for use as lamps, and residue analysis has shown that some examples of conical beakers and goblets indeed contained oil (Crowfoot and Harden 1931: 26; Israeli 2003: 193). Based on the nature of the site and its assemblage (including many terracotta lamps), the conical vessels at Yotvata likely served as drinking vessels rather than as lamps. It is notoriously difficult to attribute precise vessel types to base fragments. As in the case of the glass from el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 399), it may be reasonable to assume that because the majority of the Yotvata rims are from open vessels, most of the bases also derive from open vessels. The most common type of glass vessel base found at Yotvata, the pushed-in ring bases with a small base diameter (3–4.5 cm), would be appropriate for beakers or small bowls, while the uncatalogued fragment of a pad base almost certainly comes from a cylindrical beaker. No definite rim fragments from vessels with narrow mouths were observed (and only one funnel mouth), but some of the small rounded base fragments likely come from closed vessels like bottles, flasks, and juglets. Two very weathered naturally-aqua handle fragments (uncatalogued, from L6010 and L6013) probably also come from closed vessels used to pour liquids. Glass fragments from objects other than vessels are present at the site as well, windowpanes being the most noteworthy but also the most tenuous. Glass windows appear to have been a relatively common feature of Roman forts. Window glass was abundant at el-Lejjun, with almost half of the fragments found in the principia and barracks; a significant amount was also recovered from the northwest tower, bath, church, and the East Vicus Building ( Jones 2006: 410). Window glass was found in the principia at Humayma, from a room that may have had a bathing function ( Jones, personal communication).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Excavation Contexts and Dating In terms of distribution, the majority of glass fragments (approximately 38% of the total assemblage) was recovered from Area 9000. About half as much glass (17%) was excavated in Area 2000, and slightly less than this in Areas 6000 and 7000 (13.5% each). Areas 3000 and 5000 had only a small amount of glass (7% and 8% respectively). The least amount of glass came from Areas 8000 and 1000 (with barely 1.4% each), although excavation stopped in Area 8000 before Late Roman levels were reached, while the bathhouse floor of Area 1000 was greatly affected by modern disturbance. It is unfortunate that so little glass was recovered from the bath complex (Area 1000), as this is where we would have expected to find window panes, and perfumes and oils were often stored in glass bottles. Only eight heavily weathered fragments were recovered from Area 1000, and most of these were too corroded to identify the type of vessel, much less the color and clarity of the glass. At the legionary fortress baths of Caerleon, many glass vessels associated with bathing activities (bottles and flasks of various sizes and shapes) as well as with dining activities (plates, cups, bottles, and jugs) were recovered, the latter indicating that food and drink consumption was part of the bathing process. Great quantities of window glass were also found in the baths (Allen 1986: 98). Many of the catalogued fragments from Yotvata were recovered from various Late Roman floor contexts. More fragments were found in dump, pit, and fill contexts, but their styles indicate that virtually all date to the Late Roman period (fourth–fifth centuries); no obviously Early Roman or Early Islamic glass was observed, and modern/Bedouin glass was not considered for this report.

The Glass

159

Assemblage Significance The Yotvata glass assemblage is a small and poorly preserved collection, but it is important because of its contribution to the study of Late Roman economics and society, in particular the consumption patterns of a fortified site on the eastern frontier. Glassmaking has a very long history in Levantine region and glass is a common find on Roman sites, but the presence of such a fragile commodity at a military installation in the southern Arava is significant and bears consideration.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Comparison with Other Forts The Yotvata glass assemblage is small in size compared to the glass finds from other Late Roman and Early Byzantine forts in the Near East. This could indicate that glass consumption was more limited at the site or reflect the fact that the fort was cleaned out when it was abandoned. Despite differences in assemblage size, Yotvata’s glass has important similarities and some interesting differences with the objects recovered from Mezad Tamar, el-Lejjun, Humayma, ʿEn Boqeq, and Upper Zohar. The glass vessels from Mezad Tamar (third–seventh centuries) and el-Lejjun (ca. 324–551 c.e.) are strikingly similar to those from Yotvata in terms of vessel form, color, and decoration. Bowls and beakers with rounded rims and coiled base rings, pushed-in base rings, or pad bases provide very close parallels and many fragments have similar decorative features such as wall folds, wheel-cut grooves, trails, and blue blobs. Perhaps most significantly, el-Lejjun also has a rim fragment from a scallop-edged bowl, a type that is not commonly seen in glass reports. It is worth noting that the majority of el-Lejjun’s fragments came from barracks contexts (especially Areas B and K) and the principia. The distribution pattern of the glass finds might help identify the various functional areas of the fort at Yotvata as well. Although unpublished when this report was written, glass from the third–seventh century contexts at Humayma’s fort also appears to be remarkably similar to glass from Yotvata. Much of the glass is naturally aqua in color, and the majority of its vessels are open tablewares. These include hemispherical and conical cups with flaring rims approximately 6–9 cm in diameter, vessels with cracked-off rims, conical vessels with abraded lines and wheel-cut grooves, and—notably—a rim fragment from a scalloped-edge bowl ( Jones, personal communication). As at Yotvata, beakers appear to have been the drinking vessel of choice at Humayma, but they could also have served as lamps, because there are comparatively few of the latter ( Jones, personal communication). However, there are some notable differences as well, the most important being the presence of luxury glassware at Humayma, including some colorless facet-cut vessels found in the principia and praetorium ( Jones, personal communication). Despite the many similarities of the glass assemblages, when Yotvata is compared to these other military sites, there are also some notable differences. The forts at Upper Zohar and ʿEn Boqeq both have a similar range of vessels—bowls and beakers, bottles and flasks—but these are less similar to the Yotvata assemblage in terms of their details. At Upper Zohar, for example, the majority of vessel rims appear to be rolled or straight rather than everted or cracked-off, and there are many bowls with sloping sides rather than conical vessels with vertical walls. Although few glass vessels from ʿEn Boqeq are illustrated, the site also appears to have more bowls with sloping sides, as well as footed beakers. Mezad Tamar, ʿEn Boqeq, and el-Lejjun all have some fragments

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

160

The Glass

of glass jewelry including round mosaic beads (Erdmann 1977: Taf. 8, nos. 927–31; Gichon 1993: 434–37 and Taf. 60, no. 35) and twisted, plain, or tooled semicircular bracelets (Erdman 1977: Taf. 8, nos. 932–34; Gichon 1993: 434–37 and Taf. 60, no. 36; Jones 2006: 410–11 and fig. 18.9, nos. 137–42), but there is no evidence of glass jewelry at Yotvata. Some of these observed differences are a matter of chronology; for example, both Upper Zohar and ʿEn Boqeq were largely occupied after Yotvata was abandoned (mid-6th–7th centuries). Other differences may be linked to the specific facilities or function of the individual fortified sites, while still others probably reflect demographic differences, for example, relating to auxiliary soldiers versus legionaries, or to the presence or absence of a civilian population in or around the fort. Comparing the functional types and internal distribution of the glass at these forts might help to address social and economic questions about life in a fort on the eastern frontier. Was it common to have glass vessels at a fort? Who would have used the glass vessels, and under what circumstances? Were the vessels reserved for commanding officers or did common soldiers own them? Were they brought to the fort by individuals or purchased by the military as a part of the general provisioning of the fort? Was glass used on a daily basis or was it saved for special occasions? Was glass preferred over ceramic or metal vessels for specific consumption activities? Some of these questions may be partially answered on a site-to-site basis, while others are best dealt with by looking for common patterns across a larger number of sites. Around the time the Yotvata fort was established, Diocletian issued his Price Edict of 301 c.e., which lists the maximum prices for six types of glass (Graser 1940). The Price Edict is pertinent to a discussion about the social and economic aspects of glass at a Roman fort for two reasons: first, the edict may have been “originally composed to aid soldiers,” and second, “state purchases for army and imperial court supplies seem to have been made at the listed prices” (Stern 1999: 461). Glass vessels seem to be reasonably common objects at military sites, as each of the forts discussed above has a significant amount of utilitarian glass, suggesting that “glass was part of the instrumentum domesticum” (Stern 1999: 476) no matter where one was in the Roman Empire. These sites also demonstrate that open tableware—specifically drinking vessels such as bowls and beakers —dominates the fort assemblages ( Jones 2006: 393), which could suggest that drinking was an activity specifically linked to the glass vessels because of the nature of the material itself (tasteless, odorless, and transparent). These patterns have been observed for forts in the West, which used the same amount of tableware and storage vessels as major towns, and typically have more bowls/ dishes than flasks/jugs (van Lith and Randsborg 1985: 433–36). At el-Lejjun, the greatest concentration of glass comes from areas in the fortress where soldiers lived, namely the barracks and principia and praetorium ( Jones 2006: 393). This seems to hold true for Humayma as well, although the rare examples of luxury vessels (colorless glass and facet-cut glass) come primarily from the principia ( Jones, personal communication). Although glass vessels were probably used by everyone stationed in the fort, there may have been visible differences associated with individual position or wealth. For example, the scalloped-edge bowl was found at three out of the five eastern frontier forts discussed above (Yotvata, el-Lejjun, and Humayma). This rare type of vessel presumably reflects localized distribution among a small subset of eastern forts.

Comparisons to the Wider Roman East The Late Roman period was the most prolific period of glass production in the eastern Mediterranean, and the variety of vessels in the repertoire of glassmakers increased and peaked

The Glass

161

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

in the fourth–early fifth centuries (Stern 1999: 481–84 and Table 3). In many ways, the glass vessels from Yotvata are an accurate reflection of the types and styles that were in fashion at this time. In the third to early fourth centuries, vessels with unworked or cracked-off rims became much more common and conical vessels serving as beakers, goblets, and lamps began to be very popular, often decorated with wheel-cut lines or colored blob appliqués. These trends are all visible in the Yotvata assemblage. However, some vessel forms are notably absent from the site, including two particularly characteristic shapes of the Late Roman and Byzantine East: stemmed lamps (Crowfoot and Harden 1931; Hadad 1998) and stem-footed goblets (Isings 1957: 139, Form 111), which are often referred to as “wineglasses.” Glass vessels were used as lamps even before specific shapes were developed to serve this function in the fourth century, the production of which “increased progressively and dramatically” in the sixth and seventh centuries ( Jennings 2006: 134). Evidence for stemmed lamps at Yotvata is questionable: although no. 33 may be the tip of a hollow-stemmed lamp, no similar or more distinct fragments were recovered from the excavations, and it is possible that this fragment is from a small bottle or unguentarium. Stem-footed goblets are also characteristic of the Mediterranean region during the fourth–seventh centuries and are found on most sites, often in large numbers and dominating even small glass assemblages; “the solid construction of goblet bases means that this part of the vessel survives well and without too much fragmentation,” which makes it easily identifiable ( Jennings 2006: 123). No such definitive fragments were recovered from Yotvata. The absence of stemmed lamps and goblets from Yotvata may reflect the fact that, although these types begin to appear in the late fourth century, they did not become common until the fifth century, by which time the fort at Yotvata was abandoned. Another possibility is that frontier forts were not always at the forefront of the newest glass styles. The evidence is somewhat mixed for the other forts: both vessel types are present at Upper Zohar (Harper 1995: fig. 22, nos. 24–26 and fig. 23, no. 32 “bottles”) and ʿEn Boqeq (Gichon 1993: 434–37 and Taf. 60, nos. 29–30 and no. 37), although these sites date to the mid-sixth to seventh centuries. These types are also very well represented at Mezad Tamar (Erdmann 1977: pl. 3, nos. 148–51). Stemmed lamps were also recovered from Humayma ( Jones, personal communication) and from a church at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 406–7 and fig. 18.7 nos. 106–7). However, only one fragment from a footed goblet base was found at el-Lejjun ( Jones 2006: 399 and fig. 18.3, no. 42). This vessel type otherwise was not found by the Limes Arabicus Project, and no footed goblets appear to have been found at Humayma ( Jones, personal communication).

Economic and Social Aspects of Late Roman Glass Perhaps the most elusive aspect of Yotvata’s glass is the question of origin. Other artifacts recovered from the site indicate the fort participated in a mostly local economy, which is not surprising, because the transportation of goods would have been both expensive and challenging. This would certainly hold true for the shipping of thin-walled glass vessels over long distances, even if via the port at Aila. There is no evidence of glassmaking or glassworking in the vicinity of the fort at Yotvata—or at any of the other forts discussed above, for that matter—and the nearest known production zones are in northern Israel and perhaps Egypt. Current scholarship suggests that the production of glass vessels “only took place at large, ‘core’ sites such as Sepphoris, Jalame, and Bet Sheʾan” and were then exported to smaller sites (Fischer 2008: 31). It is of course possible that Yotvata imported glass from farther afield, but the possibility of a more local glass source should not be excluded. The Roman/Byzantine settlement at Aila is

162

The Glass

only some 40 km from Yotvata, and excavations at the site have produced a large amount of glass dating to the fourth through seventh centuries. Although no glassworking facilities have yet been discovered in or around Aila, the settlement had a thriving local ceramic industry in the fifth to seventh centuries, and the area would have had ample fuel resources for glass production (Parker 1997: 40; Jones, in preparation). It may be surprising to discover that a fragile material such as glass was commonly used at Roman forts, but a consideration of the place of glass in the Roman economy and its larger socio­cultural significance quickly dispels any such disbelief. In her excellent study of the cultural context of Roman glassblowing, Stern has noted that glassware “played an increasingly important role in the daily life of all levels of society, to such an extent that in the fourth century glass vessels all but ousted pottery for certain functions” (Stern 1999: 481). In particular, the number and variety of glass drinking vessels increased all over the Empire during this period (Stern 2001: 333), a trend that is visible in the glass assemblages of the eastern forts; this pattern might suggest that drinking had become a cultural activity that was more closely associated with glass vessels. Stern has also concluded that “due to their unique association with Roman culture, blown glass tableware played an important part of bringing Roman culture to the new provinces in Europe” (1999: 484), and it seems equally true that glass tableware could have played an important role in promoting and maintaining Roman cultural norms in a fort on the eastern frontier.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Jodi Magness and Gwyn Davies for inviting me to study the glass finds excavated at Yotvata, and to Eric Stegmaier for drawing the glass fragments. My very special thanks goes to Hilary Cool, Margaret O’Hea, Yael Gorin-Rosen, and Janet Jones for their invaluable advice and support.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Catalogue The fragments are grouped below by diagnostic type and each has been assigned a sequential object number for easy reference. After the catalogue number, the site registration information is given, including the locus and basket numbers as well as a brief locus description in parentheses. In the second line, the form/function of the vessel is suggested, followed by the rim or base diameter and present height measurements, as well as the preservation condition of the fragment. The third line describes the color of the glass, and the remainder of the entry gives a brief description of the characteristics that pertain to manufacture and decoration. The following abbreviations are used: RD = rim diameter, BD = base diameter, PH = preserved height; L = locus, B = finds basket.

Rim and Decorated Wall Fragments No. 1

L9008 (fill east of W536), B90030

Large shallow bowl; RD ∼20–30.0 cm; PH 1.8 cm; pitting and white iridescence. Naturally aqua glass, translucent (nearly opaque because of the wall thickness). 4.4-cm-thick walls taper to 3.2 cm at the rim. The lip is fire-rounded and slightly pointed; there is a slight swelling of walls just below the rim on the inner surface, which creates a faint internal horizontal ridge.

The Glass

No. 2

163

L2067 (plastered floor; the earliest Roman floor in Room 2), B20779

Hemispherical bowl; RD ∼8.0 cm; PH 3.0 cm; heavy weathering: pitting, yellow Iridescence, and flakey dull black weathering layers. Possibly light green glass, but exact color is obscured. Slightly globular or convex body with a constriction below the rim and an everted, cracked-off lip.

No. 3

L3007 (fill in Room 3, including the upper/later Roman floor), B30190

Cylindrical beaker; RD 9.0 cm; PH 2.6 cm; white iridescence beneath dull black weathering layers. Exact color is obscured. Almost vertical walls; flattened rim with a slightly rounded and inwardturning lip. Faint abrasion lines form a horizontal decorative band on the exterior about 1 cm below the lip.

No. 4

L3018 (ashy layer below earlier/lower Roman floor in Room 3), B30317

Cylindrical beaker; RD 11.0 cm; PH 4.4 cm; heavily weathered: aqua, white, and silver Iridescence layers beneath dull a brown layer with several large, irregularly shaped voids may on the surface of the various corrosion layers. Color is obscured, but possibly in the light blue-green spectrum. Cracked off or ground rim creates a flat lip. The vessel walls are thick, with wheel-cut grooves creating two 0.5-cm-wide horizontal bands on exterior: the first is 0.3 cm below the lip and the second is 2.0 cm below the first.

No. 5

L6003 (possible early Islamic floor), B60018

Cylindrical beaker; RD 10.0 cm; PH 2.8 cm; white iridescent weathering layer with black Splotches. Color is obscured. Cracked off or ground rim creates a flat lip. Thick, almost vertical walls with two horizontal wheel-cut grooves on the exterior surface: the first is just below the lip and the second is 1.1 cm below the first; both are 0.5 cm wide, but these grooves are slightly more V-shaped rather than semicircular in profile.

No. 6

L3006 (fill), B30104

Beaker/goblet/lamp (wall fragment); yellow flakey layers and some patches of iridescent weathering layers. Translucent light yellowish-green glass with a dark blue blob. Part of the wall from a vessel with nearly vertical sides; on the exterior surface is an abraded horizontal band with an overlying irregular, almost triangular-shaped, dark blue blob of glass.

No. 7

L9030 (uppermost Roman floor in Room 6 and its make-up), B90336

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cylindrical beaker; RD 13.0 cm; PH 4.5 cm; hard, black iridescent weathering layers. Color is obscured. Thick, almost vertical, vessel walls are slightly everted beginning at a point 1.5 cm below the rim; the lip appears to be ground flat at an out and downward angle that creates a faintly beveled exterior lip.

No. 8

L9017 (fill with ashy deposit), B90103

Beaker or bowl; RD 11.0 cm; PH 2.0 cm; almost completely weathered: yellow and silver Iridescence and flakey black layers. Color is obscured. Slightly thickened, fire-rounded lip is faintly everted; the vessel wall swells slightly approximately 1 cm below the lip, and is decorated with abraded horizontal band on the exterior surface.

No. 9

L9017 (fill with ashy deposit), B90089

Beaker or bowl; RD 11.0 cm; PH 2.1 cm; pitting, white iridescence and black splotches. Color is obscured. Thick vessel walls with a turned out, fire-rounded lip. Abraded lines form a horizontal band on the exterior just above a significant swelling that is slightly pointed, which forms another external horizontal band.

164

The Glass

No. 10

L7024 (locus canceled due to baulk collapse), B70151

Beaker or bowl; RD 8.0 cm; PH 2.2 cm; heavily weathered: hard, metallic black layers. Color is obscured. Simple fire-rounded lip and short, everted rim; vertical vessel walls.

No. 11

L7028 (hearth in the southwest courtyard, associated with both the lower and upper Roman floors), B70188

Beaker or bowl; RD 8.0 cm; PH 2.2 cm; iridescence and glossy black from burning Translucent, possibly yellow- or blue-green glass; dark blue glass trail. Two fragments join. The short, everted rim has a thickened, fire-rounded rim. A thin trail of blue glass is wound around the exterior surface of the vessel 0.6 cm below the rim but can be felt on the inner surface as well; a slight thickening in the trail indicates where the two ends were joined.

No. 12

L5027 (fill with possible floor, below the uppermost Roman floor in the entrance corridor), B50216

Beaker or bowl; RD 9.0 cm; PH 2.0 cm; almost completely weathered: flakey white and silver iridescence with patches of dull tan and black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Short, everted rim with a slightly thickened fire-rounded lip; vertical walls with two parallel horizontal glass trails on the exterior, 0.8 cm below the rim and 0.2 cm apart.

No. 13 W518 (baulk), B70211 Bowl; RD 12.0 cm; PH 2.7 cm; pitting and milky iridescent weathering layers. Translucent, almost colorless glass with a light greenish tint. Two fragments join. Short, everted rim with a thickened, fire-rounded lip; a slight horizontal bulge around the circumference of the vessel just below the lip.

No. 14

L9028 (uppermost Roman floor in the western corridor), B90305

Bowl; RD 11.0 cm; PH 2.2 cm; thin, flakey white iridescent layers. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. An everted rim with a slightly thickened, fire-rounded lip; there is a double fold in the wall just below the rim that forms a horizontal rib on the exterior, and this below the fold vessel walls begin to gently taper inward.

No. 15

L9017 (fill with ashy deposit), B90103

Bowl; pitting and dull tan weathering layers. Light yellowish glass with dark aqua trails. Four fragments (three joining) of a horizontal rim with a scalloped edge, bordered with a contrasting trail of aqua glass; another trail of aqua glass is parallel to and approximately 1 cm away from the edge.

No. 16

Baulk, B90232

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Flask or jug; RD 6.5 cm; PH 1.0 cm; heavily weathered: crusty, dark black weathering layers. Color is obscure. Fragment from the mouth of a closed vessel, with little of the neck remaining. Relatively flat rim, perhaps cracked-off; a thin trail of glass is wound irregularly once below the rim.

Base Fragments No. 17

L7052 (fill in the southwest corner tower), B70273

High-footed bowl; BD 5.25 cm; PH 1.5 cm; heavily weathered: white iridescence and flakey black weathering layers. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. Pushed-in, tubular ring base forms a high and slightly outsplayed foot with thick walls.

No. 18

L2030 (makeup of the uppermost Roman floor in the southeast courtyard), B20416

Beaker or bowl; BD 4.4 cm; PH 0.3 cm; heavily weathered: pitting, iridescence, opaque white and brown weathering layers. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. Approximately half of the vessel base,

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Glass 165

Fig. 3.1.

166

The Glass

preserving the solid ring and a very small hint of the vessel walls (too short to determine the rise of the walls). Pushed-up, concave bottom shows a faint scar from the pontil rod.

No. 19

L9035 (earliest Roman floor in Room 6), B90464

Beaker or bowl; BD 4.0 cm; PH 0.8 cm; pitting and opaque yellow, white, and brown weathering layers. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. Complete ring base with a hint of the vessel walls (too short to determine the rise of the walls). Pushed-up, faintly concave bottom shows a scar from the pontil rod.

No. 20

L2074 (fill inside southeast corner tower), B20892

Beaker or bowl; BD 4.0 cm; PH 1.5 cm; very heavy weathering: pitting and flakey white iridescence and opaque brown weathering layers. Color is obscured. Complete ring base with a hint of the vessel walls (too short to determine the rise of the walls). Pushed-up, concave bottom shows a scar from the pontil rod.

No. 21

L9030 (uppermost Roman floor in Room 6 and its make-up), B90352

Beaker or bowl; BD 3.5 cm; PH 0.8 cm; heavily weathered: flakey iridescence and dull black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Approximately half of a vessel base with a hollow ring and the remains of some vessel walls (too short to determine the rise of the walls). Pushed-up, concave bottom shows a scar from the pontil rod.

No. 22

L6031 (lower Roman floor in Room 5 and its make-up), B60281

Jug or bowl; BD 5.75 cm; PH 2.6 cm; PH of the ring 0.6 cm; completely weathered: metallic white iridescence and brittle, opaque black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Complete ring base with the remains of concave vessel walls. Slightly pushed-up, concave bottom shows a scar from the pontil rod; cannot determine if the ring is solid or hollow.

No. 23

L7019 (fill below Byzantine surface in southwest courtyard), B70120

Juglet/bottle/flask; BD 3.5 cm; PH 1.3 cm; almost completely weathered: heavy pitting, metallic black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Complete base with a rounded, slightly flattened bottom and no pontil scar. A trail of glass is wound once around the bottom with the thin tail tucked along the exterior of the coil; the trail is not of uniform thickness and is slightly flattened to stabilize the vessel.

No. 24

L9021 (dump in the south cell), B90180

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Bowl or jug; BD 5.5 cm; PH 1.5 cm; pitting, yellow and tan weathering layers. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. Complete base, slightly pushed-in and showing the scar from a pontil rod. A large glass trail of the same color is wound once around the bottom; the thickness of the cane is maintained and the tail is visible just to the inside of the coil. The vessel walls flare outward, suggesting the vessel is a type of bowl or globular closed vessel.

No. 25

L9028 (uppermost Roman floor in the western corridor), B90271

Vessel with high wound base; BD 4.0 cm; PH 1.6 cm; heavy pitting, iridescence, and milky white weathering layers. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. An approximately one-quarter section of a base with a slightly pushed-in center, a scar from the pontil rod, and no remaining vessel walls. A thick glass trail the same color as the vessel glass is wound around the base approximately five times to form a solid and slightly out-splayed foot, raising the vessel 1 cm.

No. 26

L9021 (dump in the south cell), B90180

Vessel with wound base; BD 4.0 cm; PH 1.1 cm; heavy pitting and iridescence. Translucent, naturally aqua glass. Complete base with a large pontil scar and no remaining vessel walls. A thick glass trail of the same color is wound in an overlapping spiraled fashion, starting near the center of the vessel and moving outward to finish with a thin tail.

The Glass

167

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 3.2.

No. 27

L2063 (dirt floor; the third Roman floor from the top in Room 2), B20739

Large bottle or jug; PH 1.9 cm; thickest point 1.1 cm; heavily weathered: thick, crusty black and white weathering layers. Translucent (almost opaque because of thickness), naturally aqua glass. Fragment from near the center of a rounded, pushed-up base. The large size and thick kick suggests this was a storage vessel.

No. 28

L8022 (large pit with burned deposits in Room 7), B80071

Bottle or juglet; BD 4.0 cm; PH 2.0 cm; heavily weathered: yellow iridescence and dull black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Complete circular base with rounded edges and a relatively thick, pushed-up center; a scar from the pontil rod is visible. The cylindrical walls widen slightly to a diameter of 5.0 cm at the PH point.

168

The Glass

No. 29

L7026 (upper Roman floor and its make-up in the southwest courtyard), B70166

Bottle or juglet; BD ∼4.0 cm; PH 0.7 cm; almost completely weathered: white iridescence and flakey black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Three thin fragments (two joining) form part of a circular base with rounded edges and a sharply pushed-up center; little remains of the vessel walls.

No. 30

L6014 (fill with burned patches below Byzantine surface in Room 5), B60102

Bottle or juglet; BD 2.8 cm; PH 2.9 cm; almost completely weathered: white iridescence and flakey tan and black weathering layers. Color is obscured. Complete circular base with a slightly pushed-in center and rounded edges; no visible scar from a pontil rod. The conical walls widen slightly to a diameter of 4.0 cm at the PH point.

No. 31

L9038 (earliest Roman floor in Room 6), B90496

Squared bottle or juglet; BD 3.5 cm; PH 3.5 cm; heavily weathered: silver and black iridescent weathering layers. Color is obscured. Fragment of a faintly square-shaped bottle with rounded edges. The four walls have slight elliptical indents in the faces; the pushed-in base has no visible scar from a pontil rod.

No. 32

L6031 (lower Roman floor and its make-up in Room 5), B60287

Bottle; widest point 3.5 cm; PH 6.0 cm; almost completely weathered: crusty black weathering layers with salty encrustations adhering to the surface. Color is obscured. Vertical half of a small vessel with a piriform body that narrows at the neck; the upper portion of the neck and the rim are missing. At least two feet are indicated by their break edges; it may be assumed that the other half of the vessel had two or more feet to balance the vessel.

No. 33

L2054 (collapse in the southeast corner tower, including apparent Bedouin installation), B20693

Unguentarium or hollow lamp stem; BD 1.8 cm; PH 1.0 cm; very heavily weathered: pitting and dull black weathering layers. Possibly colorless glass with a greenish-yellow tint. Two joining fragments; possibly either a very small vessel with a flat bottom and vertical sides, or the hollow stem of a lamp.

No. 34

L2040 (southeast corner tower, excavated by U. Avner in 2004), B20643

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Joined parisons ( jug or goblet?); pitting, iridescence, and opaque white weathering layers. Translucent, natural aqua glass. This oddly shaped fragment mostly likely comes from a ring base at the point where two glass bubbles were joined together. The upper part of the vessel body and the hollow foot ring do not survive; only the joint remains: the rounded protuberance on one face of the fragment reveals the interior of the vessel with its pushed-in bottom, while the obverse side has an applied button and scar from the use of a large pontil rod.

Other Fragments No. 35

L9024 (dump in south cell), B90199

Tooled handle attachment; D 1.7 cm; PH 1.0 cm; white iridescence. Naturally aqua glass. A small rounded fragment surrounded by broken edges, most likely the anchor point for an applied trail handle; the vessel walls and handle itself are missing. Two parallel, horizontal pinched fins.

The Glass

No. 36

169

L9030 (uppermost Roman floor in Room 6 and its make-up), B90354

Knob or finial; PH 1.0 cm; dull black weathering layers, pitting, some iridescence. Color is obscured. A small, rounded object with one irregular break edge; possibly a knob attachment of a lid.

No. 37

L9024 (dump in south cell), B90203

Knob or finial; PH 1.5 cm; iridescence and yellow weathering layers. Opaque turquoise. A small, hollow cylinder with two bulbous protrusions, wrapped with a thread.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References Allen, D. 1986 The Glass Vessels. Pp. 98–116 in The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon, II: The Finds, by J. D. Zienkiewicz. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. Barag, D. 1965 A Tomb Cave at Givath Katznelson-Nahariya. Bulletin Museum Haaretz 7: 29. Cohen, E. 1997 Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad Glass. Pp.  396–431 in The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader, by Y. Hirschfeld. Israel: The Israel Exploration Society. Clairmont, C. W. 1963 The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report IV, Part V: The Glass Vessels. New Haven: Yale University Press. Crowfoot, G. M. 1957 Glass. Pp. 403–22 in The Objects from Samaria, ed. J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Crowfoot, G. M., and D. B. Harden 1931 Early Byzantine and Later Glass Lamps. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 17(3/4): 196–208. Dussart, O. 1998 Le Verre en Jordanie et en Syrie du Sud. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. Erdmann, E. 1977 Die Glasfunde von Mezad Tamar (Kasr Gehainije) in Israel. Saalburg-Jahrbuch 34: 98–146. Fischer, A. 2008 Hot Pursuit: Integrating Anthropology in Search of Ancient Glass-Blowers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Gichon, M. 1993 En Boqeq: Geographie und Geschichte des Oase des spätrömisch-byzantinische Kastell, Vol. I: Ausgrabungen in einer Oase am Toten Meer. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Gorin-Rosen, Y., and N. Katsnelson 2007 Local Glass Production in the Late Roman-Early Byzantine Periods in Light of the Finds from Khirbat el-Niʾana. ʿAtiqot 57: 73–154. Graser, E. R. 1940 A Text and Translation of the Edict of Diocletian. Pp. 307–421 in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Volume V: Rome and Italy of the Empire, ed. T. Frank. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hadad, S. 1998 Glass Lamps from the Byzantine through Mamluk Periods at Bet Shean, Israel. Journal of Glass Studies 40: 63–76.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

170

The Glass

Harden, D. B. 1936 Roman Glass from Karanis Found by the University of Michigan Archaeological Expedition in Egypt, 1924– 29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1939 Roman Window-panes from Jerash, and Later Parallels. Iraq 6: 91. 1949 Tomb-groups of Glass of Roman Date from Syria and Palestine. Iraq 11: 151–59. 1971 Ancient Glass III: Post-Roman. Archaeological Journal 128: 78–117. Harper, R. P. 1995 Upper Zohar: an Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia: Final Report of Excavations in 1985–1986. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Isings, C. 1957 Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Groningen: J. B. Wolters. Israeli, Y. 2003 Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Jennings, S. 2006 Vessel Glass from Beirut, BEY 006, 007, and 045. Berytus Archaeological Studies 48–49 (2004–2005). Jones, J. D. 2006 The Glass. Pp. 393–412 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, by S. T. Parker. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. (In preparation)  Glass. In The Roman Aqaba Project: Final Report, vol. 2, ed. S. T. Parker. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lith, S. M. E. van, and K. Randsborg 1985 Roman Glass in the West: a Social Study. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bode­ mond­erzoek 35: 413–532. Magness, J. 1999 Redating the Forts at Ein Boqeq, Upper Zohar, and Other Sites in SE Judaea, and the Implications for the Nature of the Limes Palastinae. Pp. 189–206 in The Roman Near East, Vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. J. H. Humphrey. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 31. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Meyer, C. 1987 Glass from the North Theatre Byzantine Church, and Soundings at Jerash, Jordan, 1982–1983. Pp. 175–219 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1982–1985, ed. W. E. Rast. BASOR Supplement 25. Baltimore, MD: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1989 Crown Window Panes: Constantinian or Justinian? Pp. 213–19 in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. A. Leonard Jr. and B. B. Williams. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. O’Hea, M. 2001 Glass from the 1992–93 Excavations. Pp.  370–76 in The Petra Church, ed. P. M. Bikai. Amman: American Center for Oriental Research. Parker, S. T. 1997 Preliminary Report on the 1994 Season of the Roman Aqaba Project. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 305: 19–44. Pollak, R. 2006 The Small Finds. Pp. 155–93 in Tel Tanninim: Excavations at Krokodeilon Polis 1996–1999, by R. R. Stieglitz. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Price, J., and S. Cottam 1998 Romano-British Glass Vessels: a Handbook. York: The Council for British Archaeology. von Saldern, A. 1980 Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Slane, K. W., and J. Magness 2005 Jalame Restudied and Reinterpreted. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 39: 257–61.

The Glass

171

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Stern, E. M. 1999 Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context. American Journal of Archaeology 103(3): 441–84. 2001 Roman, Byzantine, and Early Medieval Glass: 10 b.c.e.–700 c.e. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz. Sternini, M. 2001 Reperti in Vetro da un Deposito Tardoantico sul Colle Palatino. Journal of Glass Studies 43: 21–75. Tatton-Brown, V. A. 1984 The Glass. Pp. 194–212 in Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission vol.1, pt.1, by H. R. Hurst and S. P. Roskams. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Weinberg, G. D. 1988 Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Weinberg, G. D., and E. M. Stern 2009 The Athenian Agora, Vol. XXXIV: Vessel Glass. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Whitehouse, D. 2001 Roman Glass in The Corning Museum of Glass, vol. 2. Corning, NY: The Corning Museum of Glass.

Chapter 4

The Coins Nathan T. Elkins During the course of the two seasons of small-scale excavations by Z. Meshel between 1975 and 1976, 39 coins were recovered and published (Meshel 1989; Kindler 1989). The new excavations in the Late Roman fort at Yotvata from 2003–2007 yielded 262 additional coins (see the catalogue at the end of this chapter). 1 The coin finds from the new excavations span a period of seven centuries from Ptolemy IV to Constantius II and, perhaps, into the Valentinianic dynasty, although there were no definitive coin identifications beyond Constantius II. The soil at Yotvata is rather corrosive to coins and, as a consequence, only 111 coins (43.7%) from the 2003–2007 seasons were fully or partially identifiable. The rest of the coins could only be dated tentatively— indicated by a question mark after the date in the catalogue—or generally (e.g., fourth century, mid-fourth century, etc.).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Coins and Coin Circulation at Yotvata For the archaeologist and archaeological numismatist, the coin finds provide an essential tool for establishing the chronology of an archaeological site and provide a window into some of the historical circumstances that governed the types of coins found at the site. This is true at Yotvata. Since 1985, when a water pipe burst and unearthed a Tetrarchic dedicatory inscription (Roll 1989; Eck 1992), the fort has been understood as a late-third/fourth-century foundation, built in the context of Diocletian’s strengthening of the defenses in the region. Late third-century and fourth-century coins comprise the majority of the numismatic finds recorded from both Meshel’s and Davies’s and Magness’s excavations. Three coins from earlier periods demand explanation. A bronze coin of Ptolemy IV (ca. 221–205 b.c.e.) (fig. 4.7:1, Cat. no. 1) was in circulation for 400+ years until it was lost at Yotvata. Presumably, such a large module coin would have circulated as a large Tetrarchic nummus. 2 Coins of Ptolemy II minted at Tyre were found in the burial caves at Hanita and Iqrit, both of which date to the third or early fourth century (Barag 1978: 48, Cat. no. 1.  I would like to thank Gwyn Davies and Jodi Magness for inviting me to participate in excavations at Yotvata and to process and publish the coin finds. Donald Ariel provided readings for coins from the 2003 season before I joined the excavations in 2005. Alexandra Phillips, undergraduate research assistant, kindly entered the data for figs. 4.2 and 4.4–6.Catalogue nos. 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 132, and 133 were excavated by U. Avner. 2.  I am grateful to Hans-Christoph Noeske for his assistance in attributing this coin to Ptolemy IV.

172

The Coins

173

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

138; Bijovsky 2010: 102, Cat. no. 1). It has been suggested that these coins were used in the third century, as they resemble the Tyrian coins of Trajan Decius (249–251 c.e.) in size and reverse iconography (Vitto 2010: 89). Two Nabataean bronzes of Aretas IV and Shaqilath I (ca. 25–40 c.e.; Cat. nos. 2–3, fig. 4.7:2) were found in fourth-century contexts at Yotvata and must have circulated as early fourth-century nummi (for the same conclusion at Avdat, see Erickson-Gini 2002: 116). Nabataean coins are regularly found in fourth-century contexts in the region (see, for example, the coin list from Avdat in Erickson-Gini 2010: 277–83 and the lists for multiple sites in Arabia and Palaestina in Noeske 2000: 676–713). The remaining coin finds belong to the third and fourth centuries, with the exception of a well-worn provincial coin, perhaps struck at Caesarea Maritima, which could only be dated to some time between the mid-first to early third centuries. No other coins from the new excavations could be identified as provincial coinage, although Kindler (1989: 261 [no. 4] and 263 [no. 25]) identified two Severan provincial coins from Meshel’s excavations; one (p. 263, no. 25) certainly was struck at Caesarea Maritima. All three provincial coins from Yotvata are very worn, owing to the fact that they circulated for several decades until the end of the provincial coinage in the later third century in areas that were more isolated from important urban and political centers such as Caesarea (see Kindler 1989: 265). In the 2005 and 2006 seasons, excavations in the western half of Room 2 produced a deposit of 31–34 fourth-century coins (see Elkins 2011), likely reflecting the contents of a purse, on the earliest late Roman floor in that room (Floor 5; L2067 + L2068) and in and around a pit that may have been a latrine (Davies and Magness 2006a; Davies and Magness 2006b; Davies and Magness 2007). A coin of Licinius I dating to 321–324 (fig. 4.7:28, Cat. no. 28; Elkins 2011: 142, Cat. no. 1) is the earliest coin securely associated with the deposit, while the latest coins are two “fallen horseman” types of Constantius II from ca. 354–358 (fig. 4.7:99, Cat no. 99; and Cat. no. 105; Elkins 2011: 145, Cat. nos. 30–31). The coins likely were lost or deposited in the late 350s or early 360s. Room 2 is one of several areas in the fort where mid-fourth century coins were found on the earliest Roman floors. Three coins from this area, including a Nabataean bronze of ca. 25–40 c.e. (fig. 4.7:2, Cat. no. 2; Elkins 2011: 145, Cat. no. 32), were retrieved in sifting and were possibly associated with the deposit. Forty-seven Late Roman imperial coins from the excavations have legible mintmarks. The following mints are represented: Lugdunum 1 Arles 2 Rome 6 Ticinum 1 Carthage 1

Siscia 5 Thessalonica 2 Heraclea 2 Constantinople 3

Nicomedia 2 Cyzicus 6 Antioch 9 Alexandria 7

Immediately, one is struck by the vast distances that many of the coins traveled to be received by the sands of a rather small and isolated military installation on the edge of the eastern Roman Empire, including coins struck in southern France, Italy, and Croatia. Altogether, coins from western mints comprise one-third of the imperial coin finds with legible mintmarks. Almost all of the western coins found at Yotvata can be dated to before 324 c.e., the year that Constantine defeated Licinius (see fig. 4.1). At the legionary fortress at el-Lejjun, there is also a greater number of western mints represented among the pre-324 c.e. coin finds (see fig. 4.2).The dominance of western coinage in this period may reflect the transfer of troops from Europe to this region (Betlyon 2006:

174

The Coins

Fig. 4.1.  Western and eastern imperial mints represented at Yotvata and the chronological spread of individual coins.

19 suggests a similar scenario to explain an abundance of early fourth-century coins from European mints at el-Lejjun). Another possibility is that, when Constantine’s armies moved east against Licinius, they infused the East with western coinage carried in their purses. After 324 c.e., eastern mintmarks are predominant on the legible coins. As one might expect, the best-represented imperial mints at Yotvata are from the most proximate cities to strike coins: Antioch (9 coins) and Alexandria (7 coins).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Coin Finds as Chronological Indicators In the realm of archaeological numismatics, coin finds can be studied according to the entire series from a site or in the more defined contexts of the individual features in which they were discovered (see, for example, Wigg-Wolf 2009 and von Kaenel 2009: 9–15). While the latter approach may provide sharper images of a site from more discrete moments in time, the more traditional treatment of the entire series of finds is a standard method of establishing the bigger chronological picture for a site, reflecting the foundation, periods of greatest activity, and abandonment. The examination of a series of finds also illuminates broader historical factors that affected coin circulation, as with the abundance of western types before ca. 324 c.e. discussed above. Davies and Magness have already attended to the treatment of the coin finds in their spatial context using my attributions, noting the peculiarity of mid-fourth-century coins on top of the earliest floors. Coins from the mid-fourth century were associated with the earliest Roman floors in several areas of the fort: 1. Room 2.  Two “fallen horseman” types of ca. 354–358, one with partially legible legends, from the purse hoard (fig. 4.7:99, Cat no. 99; Cat. no. 105; Elkins 2011: 145, Cat. nos. 30–31) were associated with the earliest Roman floor.

The Coins

175

Fig. 4.2.  Western and eastern imperial mints represented at el-Lejjun and the chronological spread of individual coins.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2. Room 3.  A ‘Vota’ type of 347–348 (Cat. no. 83) was associated with the earliest Roman floor. 3. Room 5.  A very clear “fallen horseman” type dating to 354–355 from the imperial mint at Siscia (fig. 4.7:97, Cat. no. 97) was associated with the earliest Roman floor. 4. Room 6.  A “fallen horseman” type with a partially legible legend dating to ca. 354–358 (Cat. no. 104) was found on the earliest Roman floor. The spectrum of coins from the 2003–2007 excavations largely reflects the find series recorded by Kindler (1989), with two important exceptions as regards the Tetrarchic and Valentinianic finds. Kindler’s evidence for the third century was provided by only three specimens: two Severan provincial coins and an antoninianus of Probus (1989: 261, Cat. no. 4; 263, Cat. nos. 21 and 25). The lack of coins of the First Tetrarchy was remarkable for a Tetrarchic foundation (Kindler 1989: 266). The more extensive excavations of 2003–2007 produced a greater number of third-century coins, with two, possibly three, additional antoninani of Probus (fig. 4.7:6, Cat. nos. 5–7). There are also four Tetrarchic coins, including three antoniniani, two of Diocletian and one of Maximian (fig. 4.7:8, 10 = Cat. nos. 8–10), which predate Diocletian’s coinage reform of ca. 294 c.e. The fourth Tetrarchic coin is a post-reform nummus of Galerius from the mint at Carthage (305–306 c.e.) (fig. 4.7:11, Cat. no. 11). 3 Kindler (1989: 264, Cat. nos. 34–35) recorded two coins for Valentinian I (364–375 c.e.), while the latest legible types from the new excavations are “fallen horseman” types of Constantius II. There is one coin that might belong to the period of Valentinian II (375–392 c.e.) (Cat. no. 128), although this is a tentative reading. Another coin is tentatively identified as a late-fourth-century minimus (Cat. no. 262). While the presence of “fallen horseman” types on the earliest Roman floors is interesting, the series of finds from Yotvata points to a Tetrarchic foundation. Large Tetrarchic nummi are very rare as site finds, even at sites with extensive coin series such as Antioch or Berytus, where there is continuity of occupation (Butcher 2003: 81–84). Their rarity among the relatively small coin 3.  These large coins are often referred to as folles, although that term more appropriately refers to a coin purse. See Abdy 2012: 587–88.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

176

The Coins

Fig. 4.3.  The chronological spread of identifiable late Roman imperial coins from Yotvata. Single finds only.

series from Yotvata is therefore to be expected. Pre-reform third-century antoniniani continued to circulate as fractional currency after Diocletian’s reforms before gradually disappearing. That these coins would circulate into the site after Constantine’s coinage reforms is unlikely. The majority of dateable coins at Yotvata belong to the period between ca. 330 and 358 (see fig. 4.3). As a general rule, the most frequent coins at a site generally belong to the last two or three decades before the period of abandonment. While “fallen horseman” types are abundant at Yotvata, none is securely dated later than the 350s. The other common coin types that circulated alongside the “fallen horseman” types are the “SPES REIPVBLICE” types of 355–363 c.e. The absence of “SPES REIPVBLICE” types is conspicuous, as the lack of these common coins would normally suggest

The Coins

177

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 4.4.  The chronological spread of identifiable late Roman imperial coins from Avdat. Several generally dated third century provincial coins are not included in this chart.

that the site was abandoned before they had the opportunity to circulate in during the late 350s or early 360s. 4 The other possibility is that occupation continued but no new coins reached the site after this time. There are similar coin profiles at Avdat, En Hazeva, and el-Lejjun. At Avdat, archaeological evidence suggests construction in the late third century/early fourth century, on top of earlier Nabataean and Hellenistic remains, and an abandonment in the fourth century, perhaps due to an earthquake (see Erickson-Gini 2002; for the coin lists, see Erickson-Gini 2010: 277–83). The coin profile from Avdat (fig. 4.4) shows a predominance of coin finds between ca. 330 and 360 c.e. At En Hazeva, the Roman fortress dates between the second and fourth centuries. It is surmised that the fort went out of use in the second half of the fourth century, perhaps due to the earthquake of 363 c.e. that devastated the region (Cohen 1994: 204–7). The coin profile from Hazeva again shows an abundance of finds between ca. 330 and 360 c.e. (fig. 4.5). 5 The legionary fortress at el-Lejjun was built ca. 300 and rebuilt after the earthquake of 363 c.e. (Parker 2006: 117). The coin profile from el-Lejjun (fig. 4.6) resembles those from Yotvata, Avdat, and En Hazeva, with a predominance of coin finds between ca. 330 and 360. All of these sites are also lacking “SPES REIPVBLICE” types, except En Hazeva, where one specimen is recorded. 4.  Several purse hoards at Petra have been associated with the earthquake of July 363 and are used to date the destruction; they also include “SPES REIPVBLICE” types; see Peter 1996. 5.  The coin finds from En Hazeva have not been published. The data for the coin finds derives from an unpublished list of identifications prepared by Helena Sokolov for the En Hazeva excavation team.

178

The Coins

Fig. 4.5.  The chronological spread of identifiable late Roman imperial coins (i.e., those dated between 270 and 408 c.e.) from En Hazeva.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Conclusion Although the fort at Yotvata was a small installation at the margins of the Roman Empire, the coin finds represent seven centuries of numismatic history and attest to the continued use of some types—the coin of Ptolemy IV and the Nabataean coins—in regions where they were of similar size and weight to the official coinages. The sample of coin finds is also significant enough to illustrate that, in spite of Yotvata’s isolation from major urban centers, it received imperial coins from a variety of mints; western mints are well represented before ca. 324 c.e. and may reflect an influx of western coinage to the east, brought by troop transfers or by Constantine’s armies during his war against Licinius. The coins are also essential tools for dating the Late Roman fort at Yotvata. Despite the discovery of the “fallen horseman” types on the earliest floors in several areas, the presence of late third-/early fourth-century coins, especially the large Tetrarchic nummi, is consistent with a Tetrarchic foundation date, because these would normally have gone out of circulation after the reforms of Constantine and his sons (Butcher 2003: 82).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Coins

179

Fig. 4.6.  The chronological spread of identifiable late Roman imperial coins from el-Lejjun (through 384 c.e., because there are no coin finds again until Anastasius I).

List of Lost Coins These coins are recorded in the field notebooks but have been lost subsequently. It is probable that they disintegrated during cleaning. 2004 season: L2007, B30013; B30148; B30193; B30202; B30207 2005 season: L2045, B20648 2006 season: L7036, B70209

180

The Coins

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References Abdy, R. 2012 Tetrarchy and the House of Constantine. Pp. 584–600 in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, ed. W. E. Metcalf. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barag, D. 1978 Hanita, Tomb XV: A Tomb of the Third and Early Fourth Centuries c.e. ʿAtiqot English Series 13. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Betlyon, J. W. 2006 The Coins. Pp. 413–44 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, ed. S. T. Parker. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Bijovsky, G. 2010 The Coins from Iqrit. ʿAtiqot 62: 97–106. Butcher, K. 2003 Small Change in Ancient Beirut: The Coin Finds from BEY 006 and 045; Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Berytus 45–46 (2001–2002): 1–304. Cohen, R. 1994 The Fortresses at En Haseva. The Biblical Archaeologist 57.4: 203–14. Davies, G., and J. Magness 2006a The Roman Fort at Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 56: 105–10. 2006b Yotvata — 2005. HadashotArkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 118. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id= 324&mag_id=111. 2007 Yotvata — 2006. HadashotArkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id= 477&mag_id=112. Eck, W. 1992 Alam Costia Constituerunt. Klio 74: 395–400. Elkins, N. T. 2011 A Mid-Fourth Century Purse Hoard from the Roman Auxiliary Fort at Yotvata. Israel Numismatic Research 6: 139–46. Erickson-Gini, T. 2002 Nabataean or Roman? Reconsidering the Date of the Camp at Avdat in Light of Recent Excavations. Pp. 113–30 in Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), ed. P. Freeman et al. BAR International Series 1084(1). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2010 Nabataean Settlement and Self-Organized Economy in the Central Negev, Crisis and Renewal. BAR International Series 2054. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Kaenel, H.-M. von 2009 Coins in Context: A Personal Approach. Pp. 9–24 in Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds, ed. H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kindler, A. 1989 The Numismatic Finds from the Roman Fort at Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 261–66. Meshel, Z. 1989 A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 228–38. Noeske, H.-C. 2000 Münzfundeaus Ägypten I: Die Münzfunde des ägyptischenPilgezentrums Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfundeaus den Diocesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.-8. Jh. n. Chr. Prolegomena zueiner Geschichte des spät­ römischen Münzumlaufs in Ägypten und Syrien, vol. 2. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Parker, S. T. 2006 The Legionary Fortress of el-Lejjūn. Pp. 111–22 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, ed. S. T. Parker. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

The Coins

181

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Peter, M. 1996 Die Fundmünzen. Pp. 91–114 in Petra–EzZantur I: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992, ed. A. Bignasca et al. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Roll, I. 1989 A Latin Imperial Inscription from the Time of Diocletian Found at Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 39: 239–60. Vitto, F. 2010 A Burial Cave from the Third–Early Fourth Centuries c.e. at Iqrit. ʿAtiqot 62: 59–96. Wigg-Wolf, D. 2009 Sites as Context. Pp. 109–25 in Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds, ed. H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

182

Fig. 4.7.  A selection of coin finds from Yotvata.

The Coins

The Coins

183

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Diameter (mm)

Cat. No.a

Weight (grams)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

Notesb

24

12

Ptolemy IV

L2063/ 20735

Purse hoard? (sifter)

L2068/ 20802

 1*

Head of Zeus r.

[ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] Eagle stg. l., cornucopia to l., monogram: EP/SE

ca. 221–205 b.c.e.

Alexandria

Cf. SNG Cop. 230– 231

 2*

Jugate busts of Aretas IV and Shaqilath I r.

Two cornucopiae crossed and filleted; between [-–-]

ca. 25–40

Petra

Cf. SNG ANS 6: pl. 50:1440

3.40

17

12

 3

Same

Same

ca. 25–40

Petra

Same

1.33

13

12

 4

Obliterated

Wreath and obliterated legend

ca. mid-1st to early 3rd cent.

Caesarea Maritima?

2.80

19

 5

[-–-] Radiate bust r.

CONCORDIA [MILITVM]? Emperor stg. receiving globe from Jupiter

ca. 270–290

1.59

20

12

 6*

IM[P C M] AVR PROBVS P F AVG Radiate, dr. and cuir. bust r.

RESTITVT ORBIS Female figure stg. on l. presenting wreath to emperor stg. on r., holding globe and scepter; in ex: XXI in field: Δ

276–282

Antioch

RIC V.II:120, no. 925

2.58

20

12

 7

IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG Radiate bust r.

[C]L[EME]NT[IA TEMP] Emperor stg. receiving globe from Jupiter, in field: */KA

276–282

Antioch

RIC V.II:119, No.920v.

4.00

22

6

 8*

IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS [P F AVG Radiate, dr. and cuir. bust r.

[CO]NCORDIA MILITVM Tetrarch stg. to r. receiving small Victory on a globe from Jupiter stg. to l. and leaning on scepter

284–294

1.67

22

12

 9

IMP CC VAL DIO[CLETIANVS–- -] Same

[C]ONCOR[DIA MILITVM] Same; in field: [-] | XXI

284–294

Siscia, Cyzicus, or Heraclea

2.30

21

12

10*

IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG Dr. and radiate bust r.

CONCORDIA MILITVM Same

293

Cyzicus

2.60

21.5

6

a.  * = illustrated in fig. 4.7. b.  For coins from the purse hoard, see Elkins 2011.

RIC V.II:291, no. 607

Locus/ Reg. No

L9034/ 90404 Provincial type

L2068/ 20812 L6031/ 60292

Some silvering remaining

L3012/ 30164 

L9004/ 90015

Severe damage to lower quadrant of flan

L3012/ 30151

L9024/ 90240

Error in RIC obv. legend

L2065/ 20760

184

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

11*

IMP MAXIMIANVS P F AVG Laur. bust. r.

SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART Carthago stg. facing, hd. to l. , holding fruits in both hands; in ex: B, in field: I

305–306

Carthage

RIC VI:428, . No 39b

8.80

28

6

L2068/ 20817

12

CONSTANTINVS P [F AVG] Laur. and cuir. bust r.

[M]AR[TI] CONSERVATORI Mars stg. r. holding inverse spear and leaning on shield; in ex: ST

312–313

Ticinum

RIC VI:298, no. 124a

3.42

23

12

L3007/ 30173

13*

IMP LIC LICINIVS P F AVG Laur. bust r.

IOVI CON[SER] VATORI Jupiter stg. to l., leaning on eagletipped scepter and holding Victory on globe, eagle and captive at feet; in ex.: SIS, in field: |B

313–315

Siscia

RIC VII:423, no. 8

2.83

20

6

L3c/ 90

14

[-–LICI]NIVS [-–-] Bust r. of Licinius I or II

IO[VI CONSERVA] TORI Jupiter stg. l. with eagle at his feet, holding globe and leaning on scepter

313–324

1.12

23

6

15*

CONSTANTINVS P F AVG Laur., dr. and cuir. bust r.

SOLI INVICTO COMITI Sol stg. l. raising r. hand, holding globe in l.; in ex: R*P,in field: R | F

314

Rome

RIC VII:298, no. 19

2.29

22

12

L1c/ 77

16

IMP LICINIVS P F AVG Same

SOLI INVICTO COMITI Same; in ex: R*S , in field: R|F

314

Rome

RIC VII:298, no. 23

3.00

21

6

L6031/ 60293

17

CONSTANTINVS P F AVG Same

[SOLI I]NVICTO COMITI Same; in ex: [RT], in field: R/ X | F

314–315

Rome

RIC VII:299, no. 27

2.93

21

12

L1c/ 75

18

[IMP CONS] TANTINVS P F AVG Same

SOLI INVICTO COMITI Same ; in ex: RT, in field: R/ X | F

314–315

Rome

RIC VII:299, no. 27.

2.08

18

12

L3007/ 30205

19

IMP [LICINIVS P F AVG] Bust r.

[-–-] Same; in ex: [PARL], in field: S|F

315–316

Arles

RIC VII:239, no. 59–60

2.22

20

11

L6031/ 60280

20*

IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG Laur. and cuir. bust r.

SOLI INVICTO COMITI Same; in ex: PLG, in field: A | S

316

Lugdunum

RIC VII:125, no. 53

2.88

18

6

L3b/ 33

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Notesb

Severe damage

Locus/ Reg. No

L3017/ 30277

The Coins

185

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

21

CONSTANTI[NVS] P F AVG Laur., dr. and cuir. bust r.

SOLI INVICT[O] C[OMITI] Same; in ex: RT

316–317

Rome

RIC VII:302, no. 52

2.71

20

6

L3c/ 91

22

CONSTANTINVS IVN [NOB CAES] Bust r.

SOLI INVICTO COMITI Same, in ex: ASIS

317

Siscia

RIC VII:428, no. 36

2.00

19

6

L6031/ 60270

23

FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES Bust l.

[PROVIDENTIA]E CAESS Camp gate with two turrets, star between, no doors

317–326

3.11

19

12

L6034/ 60369

24*

IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG High crested helmeted and cuir. bust l., spear over r. shoulder

VICTORIA LAETAE PRINC PERP Two Victories stg. facing each other, holding inscribed shield; VOT/ PR in shield, in ex: ΓSIS

318–319

Siscia

RIC VII:432, no. 55

2.96

18

10

L3a/ 135

25*

CRISPVS NOB CAES Laur. cuir. and dr. bust r.

PRINCIPIA IVVENTVTIS Mars stg. l. leaning on shield and holding spear; in ex: Q'A, in field: P|

318–319

Arles

RIC VII:251, no. 168

2.76

19

12

L4c/ 102

26

[-–- CONSTAN]TINVS IVN NOB C Laur., dr. and cuir. bust l.

[-–-] Wreath enclosing VOT/ X

ca. 321–324

2.21

18

12

L2024/ 20342

27*

IVL CRISPVS NOB C Laur. bust r.

CAESARVM NOSTRORVM Wreath enclosing VOT/ X; in ex: ΓSIS

321–324

Siscia

RIC VII:445, no. 175

2.47

19

12

L4d/ 128

28 *

I[MP C VAL LICIN L] IC[INIVS P F AVG] Rad., cuir. and dr. bust r.

IOVI CONSERVATORI Jupiter stg. to l., leaning on eagletipped scepter and holding Victory on globe, eagle and captive at feet; in ex.: SMHA, in field: X/II@

321–324

Heraclea

RIC VII:548, no. 52

2.95

19

12

29

[-–-] LIC LICIN [-–-] Helmeted bust l., spear over r. shoulder

[IOVI CONS] ERV[ATORI] Same

321–324

2.29

22

12

L1c/ 76

30*

D N VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C Helmeted and cuir. bust l., spear on r. shoulder, shield on l. arm

IOVI CONSERVATORI Same; in ex: SMAL[-], in field: X/II@

321–324

2.53

19

12

L4c/ 99

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Alexandria

Reference

RIC VII:708, no. 30

Notesb

Purse hoard

Locus/ Reg. No

L2068/ 20818

186

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

2.19

18

6

L9035/ 90458

1.89

19

6

L2063/ 20782

RIC VII:692, no. 84

2.18

19

6

L9024/ 90235

Constantinople

RIC VII:579, no. 60

1.71

17

12

330–333

Constantinople

RIC VII:579, no. 60

1.65

18

6

GLOR–IA EXERC–ITVS Same; in ex: SMANΘ

330–333

Antioch

RIC VII:693, no. 87

2.52

16

12

CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Same

GLORIA EXERCITVS Same, in ex: SMANS

330–333

Antioch

RIC VII:693, no. 87

2.02

17

12

L2063/ 20781

38

D N [CONSTANTI] NVS MAX AVG Same

[GLOR]IA EXERCITVS Same

330–335

1.80

17

6

L9024/ 90248

39

[-–-] Bust r.

[-–-] Same

330–335

0.60

13

12

L7020/ 70137

40*

CONSTAN[TINOPOLI] Helmeted and pearl diad. bust l. of Constantinopolis, spear over l. shoulder

Victory stg. l. on prow with a spear and shield; in ex: SM[··]

330–340

1.52

17

6

41

CONSTAN[TINOPOLI] Same

Same

330–340

1.76

17

12

L9018/ 90109

42

[-–-] Helmeted Bust of Roma l.

She-wolf suckling twins

330–340

0.73

15

6

L2052/ 20688

43

[-–-] Helmeted bust l. of Constantinopolis or Roma

Obliterated

330–340

1.44

17

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

31*

CONSTANTINVS AVG Laur. hd. r.

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with two turrets, star above, no doors; in ex: R6P

324–325

32

[-–-] Bust l.

[-–-] Camp gate type

ca. 325–330

33

CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG Diad. bust r.

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with two turrets, star above, no doors; in ex: SMANTE

329–330

Antioch

34*

CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Laur. and cuir. bust r.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. flanking two standards; in ex: CONSΓ

330–333

35

[CONSTAN]TINV[S IVN] NOB C Same

[GLORIA EX] ERCITVS Same; in ex: CONS[-]

36*

CONSTANTINVS [IVN N]OB C Same

37

Mint Rome

Reference Cf. RIC VII:325, no. 264

Notesb

Purse hoard

Locus/ Reg. No

L2068/ 20831

L9012/ 90046

Purse hoard

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20842a

L2068/ 20833

L6034/ 60362

The Coins

187

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

44

[-–-] Bust r.

[-–-] Two soldiers flanking one or two standards

330–340

1.30

13

6

L2063/ 20729

45

Same

Same

330–340

1.44

20

6

L6016/ 60191

46

CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG Rosette diad. and dr. bust. r.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. flanking two standards, in ex: SMALB

333–335

Alexandria

1.70

18

6

L6002/ 60012

47

[-–-] Helmeted and pearl diad. bust l. of Constantinopolis, spear over l. shoulder

Victory stg. l. on prow with a spear and shield, in ex: SMAL[-]

333–337

Alexandria

1.74

16

12

L2063/ 20724

48

CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG Rosette diad., dr. and cuir. bust r.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Same; in ex: SMANB

335

Antioch

RIC VII:693, no. 86

2.45

18

10

L3005/ 30069

49*

CONSTANTINOPOLI Helmeted and pearl diad. bust l. of Constantinopolis, spear over l. shoulder

Victory stg. l. on prow with a spear and shield, in ex: SMKE

335

Cyzicus

RIC VII:657, no. 108

1.97

18

6

50

CONSTANTINOPOLI Helmeted and pearl diad. bust l. of Constantinopolis, spear over l. shoulder

Victory stg. l. on prow with a spear and shield, in ex: SMANI

335–337

Antioch

RIC VII:697, no. 114

1.61

17

12

L6034/ 60336

51

VRBS ROMA Helmeted Bust of Roma l.

She-wolf suckling twins, in ex: SMAL[-]

335–337

Alexandria

RIC VII:712, no. 70

2.00

18

12

L9024/ 90211

52

[-–-] NOB CAES Bust r.

[-–-] Two soldiers stg. flanking a single standard

335–337

0.92

16

12

L 2018/ 20322

53

[D N CON[-–-]S AVG Bust r.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Same, in ex: SM[-–-]

335–340

1.53

15

6

L6034/ 60344

54

[-–-] Same

[-–-] Same

335–340

0.98

17

12

L2018/ 20291

55

Same

Same

335–340

1.66

15

6

W533/ 70183

56

Same

Same

335–340

1.14

15

12

L9030/ 90373

57

Same

Same

335–340

0.58

14

5

L6008/ 60050

58

Same

Same

335–340

1.06

14

6

L6034/ 60343

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

RIC VII:711, no. 58

Notesb

Purse hoard

Locus/ Reg. No

L2068/ 20835

188

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

59

Same

Same

335–340

1.11

15

12

Purse hoard

L2069/ 20838

60

Same

Same

335–340

1.93

15

6

Purse hoard

L2069/ 20823

61

CONSTANTINVS MAX [AVG] Rosette diad., dr. and cuir. bust r.

GLOR[IA EXERC] ITVS Two soldiers flanking a single standard; in ex: CONS[H]

336–337

Constantinople

RIC VII:460, no. 137

1.34

14

12

Purse hoard? (sifter)

L2068/ 20722

62*

FL CONSTANS NOB [CAES] Laur., dr. and cuir. bust l.

GLORIA EXE[RCITV]S Two soldiers stg. flanking a single standard; in ex: SMNA

336–337

Nicomedia

RIC VII:605, no. 202

0.94

15

6

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20842b

63*

FL CONSTANS NOB CAES Same

GLORIA [E]XERCITVS Same; in ex: SMNA

336–337

Nicomedia

RIC VII:605, no. 202

1.06

17

12

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20846

64*

FL IV[L C] ONSTANTIVS NOB C Pearl diad., dr. and cuir. bust r.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. flanking a single standard; in ex: SMKS

336–337

Cyzicus

RIC VII:659, no. 141

0.90

17.5

12

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20844

65

Veiled hd. r. of deified Constantine

Emperor veiled in quadriga, hand of God reaching down to him

337–340

1.35

14

6

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20832

66*

Same

Same

337–340

1.31

13

12

67

Obliterated

Same

337–340

0.69

14

68

[CON]STANS AVG Laur., diad. and dr. bust l.

[GLORIA] EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. flanking a single standard; in ex: SMHΔ

337–340

Heraclea

RIC VIII:431, no. 27

1.03

15

5

69

CONSTANTI[NVS MAX AVG] Laur. bust r.

[GLOR]IA EXERCITVS Same, in ex: SMAL[A]?

337–340

Alexandria

RIC VIII:539, no. 13

1.27

15

12

70

[-–-] Bust r.

GLOR[IA EXERCITVS] Same; in ex: [SM]ANΘ

337–340

Antioch

0.99

14

6

71*

[D]N CONSTANS P F AVG Laur. hd. r.

GLO[RIA EXERC] ITVS Two soldiers stg. flanking a single standard; in ex: SMK[A]

340 (before April)

Cyzicus

1.32

16

12

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

RIC VIII:490, no. 18

Notesb

Locus/ Reg. No

L9020/ 90139 L9026/ 90338 L3007/ 30174

Imitation?

L2066/ 20840

L9022/ 90228

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20836

The Coins

189

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

72*

DN CONSTAN[-–-]S P F AVG Laur. Bust r. of Constantine II or Constantius II

GLORIA EXERCITVS Same; in ex.: SMKA

340 (before April)

Cyzicus

RIC VIII:491, Nos. 20 or 21

1.00

15

6

Purse hoard

L2069/ 20825

73*

CON[STAN]TIVS A[VG] Pearl diad. bust r. of Constantius II

[-–-] Same; in ex: SMAL[·]

340 (after April)

Alexandria

RIC VII:539, no. 18

1.30

14

4

Purse hoard; Rough and worn

L2069/ 20824

74

CONSTANS AVG Dr., cuir. and pearl diad. bust r.

GLORIA EXERCITVS Same; in ex.: [SM] AL[·]

340 (before April)

Alexandria

RIC VIII:539, no. 21

1.14

15

6

Purse hoard; Broken at 11 o’clock

L2068/ 20808

75

DN CONSTA[NTIVS–- -] Bust r.

VOT/XX/MVLT/ XXX Within wreath

ca. 341–348

1.57

15

12

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20801

76

[-–-] Same

VOT/XX/MVLT/ XXX Within wreath

ca. 341–348

1.28

15

12

L7026/ 70168

77

Same

VOT/XX[MVLT/ XXX] Within wreath

ca. 341–348

0.76

14

6

L6034/ 60338

78

[-–-] Diad. bust r. of an uncertain son of Constantine

VOT/XX/MVLT/ XXX Same

ca. 341–348

1.34

15

12

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20843

79

[-–-] Bust r. of an uncertain son of Constantine

[VOT/X]X/[MV] LT/[X]XX Same

ca. 341–348

0.72

14

6

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20820a

80

Bust r.

Possible Vota type

ca. early to mid- 4th c.

0.72

12

L2013/ 20231

81

Bust r.

Obliterated

ca. early to mid- 4th c.

0.46

15

L2016/ 20692

82

[D N CONS]TANTIVS [P F AVG] Pearl diad. hd. r.

Wreath enclosing VOT/XX/ MVLT/XXX; in ex: SMANBI

347–348

83

[-–-] Bust r. of an uncertain son of Constantine

Wreath enclosing[-] MVLT/XX

347–348

0.47

11

12

84

Veiled hd. r. of deified Constantine

Veiled Constantine stg. r.; in fields: VN–[MR]

347–348

0.77

15

6

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20807

85

Same

Same; in fields: [VN]–MR

347–348

1.74

15

6

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20849

86

Same

Obliterated

ca. 348 or before

1.14

13

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20806

87*

DN [-–-] Bust r. of Constans or Constantius II

Phoenix on rocky mound/pyre, in ex: TE[··]

348–350

0.79

13

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20845

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Antioch

Thessalonica

Reference

Notesb

RIC VIII:521, no. 113

Locus/ Reg. No

L6001/ 60004

12

L3017/ 30273

190

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

88

[-–-] Bust r. of an uncertain son of Constantine

Illegible Vota type

ca. mid4th c.

0.64

13

6

89

Same

Same

ca. mid4th c.

0.66

13

90

Obliterated

Obliterated

ca. mid 4th c.

0.33

11

91

Same

Same

ca. mid 4th c.

0.56

92

Same

Same

ca. mid 4th c.

93

Same

Same

94

Same

95

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Notesb

Locus/ Reg. No

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20837

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20841

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20819

13

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20820b

0.79

15

Purse hoard? (sifter)

L2068/ 20811

ca. mid 4th c.

0.96

13

Purse hoard

L2068/ 20839

Same

ca. mid 4th c.

0.17

12

Purse hoard

L2048/ 20850

Same

Same

ca. mid 4th c.

0.78

13

Purse hoard

L2069/ 20821

96

[-–-] AVG Bust r.

[FEL TEMP REPA] RATIO Soldier spearing fallen horseman

348–354

2.48

20

6

L7026/ 70167

97*

CONSTANTIVS P F AVG Diad. bust r.

FEL TEMP REPARATIO Same; in ex: ASISÍ

354–355

Siscia

RIC VIII:375, no. 352

1.76

16

12

L6034/ 60353

98

D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG Diad. and dr. bust r.

FEL T[E]MP [REPARATIO] Same; in field: A; in ex: SMTS

354–355

Thessalonica

RIC VIII:419, no. 189

1.72

18

6

L6008/ 60047

99*

[-–-CONST]AN[TIVS-–-] FEL [TE]MP Diad. bust r. [REPARATIO] Same

1.81

17

6

100

[D N] CONSTANTIVS P F AVG Same

[F]EL TEMP [REPARATIO] Same; in field: D | [-]

ca. 354–358

1.86

19

12

L9012/ 90043

101

[-–-CONST]ANTIVS[-–-] [FEL TEMP RE] Laur. and diad. bust r. PARATIO Same

ca. 354–358

3.78

20

6

L7019/ 70019

102

[-–-]VS P F AVG Bust r.

[FEL] TEMP [REPARA]TIO Same

ca. 354–358

2.56

18

11

L7029/ 70192

103

[-–-] Same

[FEL TEMP] REP[ARATIO] Same

ca. 354–358

2.24

18

6

L2077/ 20973

104

Same

[FEL TEMP RE] PARATIO Same

ca. 354–358

2.92

20

6

L9035/ 90495

105

Same

[-–-] Same

ca. 354–358

1.51

15.5

12

ca. 354–358 Arles or Nicomedia

12

Purse hoard

Purse hoard

L2069/ 20822

L2068/ 20834

The Coins

191

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

106

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

0.83

15

6

L9030/ 90398

107

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

1.06

17

6

Not recorded/ 90210

108

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

0.54

14

12

L2063/ 20734

109

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

2.69

19

110

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

1.69

15

6

L9030/ 90341

111

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

1.40

16

3

L9017/ 90112

112

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

1.14

14

12

L7020/ 70136

113

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

2.49

17

4

L5003/ 50013

114

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

2.63

16

115

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

1.77

17

116

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

2.06

16

117

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

2.10

16

6

L6016/ 60198

118

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

2.70

17

6

L9030/ 90343

119

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

0.95

14

6

L2063/ 20754

120

Same

Same

ca. 354–358

1.54

15

L2063/ 20755

121

Same

[-–-] Soldier spearing fallen horseman?

ca. 354–358?

0.93

15

L3004/ 30034

122

Same

Same?

ca. 354–358?

1.93

14

L2076/ 20943

123

Same

Same?

ca. 354–358?

2.46

14

L2079/ 21043

124

Same

Same?

ca. 354–358?

0.82

15

L9030/ 90359

125

Same

Same?

ca. 354–358?

2.16

14

L5029/ 50229

126

Same

Same?

ca. 354–358?

2.32

20

L7027/ 70127

127 *

D N CONSTAN[TINVS P F AVG] Rosette diad., dr. and cuir. bust r.

[-–-] Soldier spearing fallen horseman, in ex: [S]MKS

355–358

1.76

19

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Cyzicus

Reference

RIC VIII:499, no. 111

Notesb

Locus/ Reg. No

L9034/ 70409

L2012/ 20223 3

L3004/ 30033 L2034/ 20467

6

L2063/ 20716

192

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

Axis

128

[–- -] Bust r.

Standing figure?

ca. Mid to late 4th c.

1.04

18

5

129

Obliterated

[-–-] Emperor holding standard and dragging barbarian captive?

364–378?

1.80

17

6

L1019/ 10089

130

Bust r.

[-–-] Same?

364–378?

1.20

19

12?

L9021/ 90159

131

[-–- A]V[G] Same

[-–-]C[-–-] Victory ?

364–378?

0.70

11

L5022/ 50356

132

Obliterated

Obliterated

4th c.

3.02

21

L4c/100

133

Same

Same

4th c.

2.10

20

L4c/101

134

Same

Same

4th c.

0.75

16

L1008/ 10023

135

Same

Same

4th c.

0.96

17

L1008/ 10040

136

Same

Same

4th c.

0.85

15

L1019/ 10077

137

Same

Same

4th c.

1.00

10

L1019/ 10081

138

Same

Same

4th c.

1.33

13

L1019/ 10083

139

Same

Same

4th c.

1.45

15

L1019/ 10086

140

Same

Same

4th c.

2.33

14

L1019/ 10087

141

Same

Same

4th c.

1.16

13

L1019/ 10090

142

Same

Same

4th c.

0.47

12

L1019/ 10104

143

Same

Same

4th c.

0.50

9

L1026/ 10105

144

Same

Same

4th c.

1.83

13

L2016/ 20682

145

Same

Same

4th c.

1.13

19

L2018/ 20289

146

Same

Same

4th c.

0.98

17

L2018/ 20291

147

Same

Same

4th c.

1.85

14

L2035/ 20486

148

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Notesb Valentinian II?

Disintegrated

Locus/ Reg. No L2019/ 20282

L2062/ 20707

The Coins

193

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

149

Same

Same

4th c.

0.80

14

L2063/ 20728

150

Same

Same

4th c.

1.40

14

L2063/ 20736

151

Same

Same

4th c.

1.12

14

L2063/ 20737

152

Same

Same

4th c.

1.40

14

L2063/ 20738

153

Same

Same

4th c.

0.30

14

L2063/ 20747

154

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

155

Same

Same

4th c.

1.15

13

L2063/ 20783

156

Same

Same

4th c.

1.08

16

L2063/ 20784

157

Same

Same

4th c.

1.51

12

L2063/ 20785

158

Same

Same

4th c.

0.58

14

L2065/ 20757

159

Same

Same

4th c.

1.33

12

L2065/ 20796

160

Same

Same

4th c.

0.16

13

L2068/ 20809

161

Same

Same

4th c.

0.47

12

L2068/ 20810

162

Same

Same

4th c.

0.79

15

L2068/ 20811

163

Same

Same

4th c.

0.78

13

L2069/ 20821

164

Same

Same

4th c.

0.65

12

L2079/ 21021

165

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

166

Same

Same

4th c.

0.66

13

167

Same

Same

4th c.

0.75

-

168

Same

Same

4th c.

1.00

16

169

Same

Same

4th c.

0.91

-

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Axis

Notesb

Disintegrated

Disintegrated

Locus/ Reg. No

L2063/ 20752

L3003/ 30008 L3003/ 30020

Small frags.

L3004/ 30080 L3004/ 30091

Small frags.

L3005/ 30070

194

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

170

Same

Same

4th c.

1.35

17

171

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

172

Same

Same

4th c.

0.34

11

173

Same

Same

4th c.

1.41

-

174

Same

Same

4th c.

0.61

13

L3009/ 30150

175

Same

Same

4th c.

1.15

15

L3009/ 30176

176

Same

Same

4th c.

1.77

13

L3009/ 30191

177

Same

Same

4th c.

0.20

11

L3010/ 30134

178

Same

Same

4th c.

1.55

13

L3010/ 30171

179

Same

Same

4th c.

1.91

15

L3018/ 30315

180

Same

Same

4th c.

0.79

13

L3018/ 30316

181

Same

Same

4th c.

1.72

16

L3018/ 30319

182

Same

Same

4th c.

1.64

13

L4000/ 20321

183

Same

Same

4th c.

1.02

15

L4000/ 30118

184

Same

Same

4th c.

1.22

15

L5010/ 50034

185

Same

Same

4th c.

0.33

11

L5010/ 50040

186

Same

Same

4th c.

0.46

13

L5012/ 50057

187

Same

Same

4th c.

0.33

11

L5020/ 50145

188

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

Disintegrated

L5020/ 50171

189

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

Disintegrated

L5034/ 50307

190

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

Disintegrated

L5034/ 50319

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Axis

Notesb

Locus/ Reg. No L3007/ 30093

Disintegrated

L3007/ 30112 L3007/ 30210

Small frags.

L3007/ 30775

The Coins

195

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

191

Same

Same

4th c.

0.86

17

L5634? or 5834?/ 50287

192

Same

Same

4th c.

0.62

12

L6002/ 60008

193

Same

Same

4th c.

0.60

12

L6002/ 60014

194

Same

Same

4th c.

1.56

14

L6008/ 60051

195

Same

Same

4th c.

1.29

16

L6008/ 60055

196

Same

Same

4th c.

0.87

13

L6008/ 60058

197

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

198

Same

Same

4th c.

1.07

16

L6009/ 60076

199

Same

Same

4th c.

2.71

15

L6013/ 60126

200

Same

Same

4th c.

0.95

13

L6013/ 60130

201

Same

Same

4th c.

202

Same

Same

4th c.

1.00

15

L6015/ 60164

203

Same

Same

4th c.

0.45

11

L6015/ 60165

204

Same

Same

4th c.

0.51

12

L6016/ 60194

205

Same

Same

4th c.

0.42

12

L6016/ 60197

206

Same

Same

4th c.

1.01

15

L6031/ 60272

207

Same

Same

4th c.

0.19

9

L6031/ 60280

208

Same

Same

4th c.

1.16

14

L6031/ 60285

209

Same

Same

4th c.

1.17

15

L6031/ 60306

210

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

211

Same

Same

4th c.

1.11

13

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Axis

Notesb

Disintegrated

Disintegrated

Disintegrated

Locus/ Reg. No

L6009/ 60073

L6013/ 60138

L6034/ 60321 L6034/ 60327

196

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

212

Same

Same

4th c.

0.63

12

L6034/ 60358

213

Same

Same

4th c.

0.83

13

L7003/ 70010

214

Same

Same

4th c.

215

Same

Same

4th c.

1.02

13

L7018/ 70102

216

Same

Same

4th c.

0.82

17

L7018/ 70114

217

Same

Same

4th c.

1.30

14

L7028/ 70189

218

Same

Same

4th c.

1.00

15

L7029/ 70193

219

Same

Same

4th c.

0.64

10

L7048/ 70241

220

Same

Same

4th c.

4.31

20

L7055/ 70277

221

Same

Same

4th c.

0.81

12

L7055/ 70285

222

Same

Same

4th c.

0.76

13

L7082/ 70437

223

Same

Same

4th c.

1.43

15

L8016/ 80115

224

Same

Same

4th c.

2.77

19

L9012/ 90049

225

Same

Same

4th c.

0.67

18

L9014/ 90085

226

Same

Same

4th c.

0.81

13

L9015/ 90077

227

Same

Same

4th c.

0.32

10

L9015/ 90078

228

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

229

Same

Same

4th c.

0.79

13

L9019/ 90140

230

Same

Same

4th c.

1.40

14

L9019/ 90143

231

Same

Same

4th c.

0.80

14

L9019/ 90145

232

Same

Same

4th c.

1.41

15

L9020/ 90142

233

Same

Same

4th c.

1.50

18

L9021/ 90165

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Axis

Notesb

Disintegrated

Disintegrated

Locus/ Reg. No

L7003/ 70012

L9017/ 90091

The Coins

197

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

234

Same

Same

4th c.

0.70

18

L9021/ 90182

235

Same

Same

4th c.

2.53

15

L9022/ 90168

236

Same

Same

4th c.

0.72

13

L9022/ 90170

237

Same

Same

4th c.

0.59

13

L9022/ 90216

238

Same

Same

4th c.

0.91

11

L9022/ 90239

239

Same

Same

4th c.

2.37

18

L9024/ 90194

240

Same

Same

4th c.

0.78

15

L9024/ 90212

241

Same

Same

4th c.

0.90

15

L9025/ 80328

242

Same

Same

4th c.

2.18

16

L9026/ 90339

243

Same

Same

4th c.

1.55

20

L9028/ 90272

244

Same

Same

4th c.

0.50

14

L9028/ 90312

245

Same

Same

4th c.

1.80

16

L9030/ 90337

246

Same

Same

4th c.

-

-

247

Same

Same

4th c.

0.97

12

L9030/ 90347

248

Same

Same

4th c.

0.71

17

L9030/ 90348

249

Same

Same

4th c.

1.06

16

L9030/ 90369

250

Same

Same

4th c.

0.25

10

L9030/ 90385

251

Same

Same

4th c.

0.30

10

L9030/ 90403

252

Same

Same

4th c.

1.45

11

?

253

Same

Same

4th c.

0.96

13

?

254

Same

Same

4th c.

1.85

13

Balktrim/ 90206

255

Same

Same

4th c.

0.92

16

E balkwall / 90266

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Axis

Notesb

Disintegrated

Locus/ Reg. No

L9030/ 90342

198

The Coins

Weight (grams)

Diameter (mm)

Appendix 4.1. Catalogue of Coins from the 2003–2007 Excvaations

256

Same

Same

4th c.

2.02

15

Surface

257

Same

Same

4th c.

3.32

19

Surface

258

Same

Same

4th c.

1.89

15

Surface

259

Same

Same

4th c.

1.10

14

Surface

260

Same

Same

4th c.

1.39

13

W538/ 90191

261

Same

Same

4th c.

0.48

13

W539/ 90072

262

Bust r.

Same

Late 4th c.?

0.32

11

L3017/ 30269

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cat. No.a

Obverse

Reverse

Date (c.e.)

Mint

Reference

Axis

Notesb

Locus/ Reg. No

The Coins

199

Appendix 4.2. Chart of Coins by Emperor

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Ruler

Number of Coins

Fourth Century Unidentifiable 137 2 Valentinianic Dynasty ? (ca. a.d. 364–378) Constantius II (337–361) 55 Constans (337–350) 3 Constantine II (337–340) 1 Constantine I (306–337) 44 Licinius I (308–324) 6 Maximian (Post-reform 294–305) 2 Diocletian (Pre-reform 284–294) 2 Probus (276–282) 3 Third Century Roman Provincial 1 2 Aretas IV and Shaqilath I (9 b.c. – a.d. 40) Ptolemy IV (221–205 b.c.) 1

Chapter 5

The Militaria and Small Finds Alexandra Ratzlaff

Introduction The Yotvata excavations yielded a collection of small finds consisting of 165 objects in total. 1 These finds are related to the construction and occupation of the Late Roman fort and comprise artifacts associated with the garrison, as well as domestic items. Included in this corpus are portable metal objects, portable worked stone and shell, and a small quantity of militaria. These objects provide information about the utilization of interior space at the site and reflect the range of activities that took place there. The following discussion provides an analysis according to general types: metal (constructional and non-constructional) objects; militaria; and non-metal objects. The objects illustrated in figs. 5.3–5.8 are discussed in depth within each section (numbered sequentially in the illustrations), followed by a complete catalogue of small finds at the end of this chapter. In some instances, several similar objects were found together in the same stratigraphic deposit and were assigned a single number based on the assumption that they might belong to the same object.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Chronology and Contexts of the Small Finds Metal objects used for constructional purposes (such as nails) represent the commonest type of small find. The highest concentrations of constructional objects were found in Area 2000 (29 objects: 68% of the area’s small finds assemblage), Area 5000 (12 objects: 60% of the area’s small finds assemblage), and Area 9000 (29 objects: 50% of the area’s small finds assemblage). Metal objects not associated with constructional uses, including those damaged to the extent they could not be assigned a specific function, were found with the greatest frequency in Area 6000 (13 objects: 48% of the area’s small finds assemblage) and Area 7000 (10 objects: 59% of the area’s small finds assemblage). The largest collection of militaria was found in Area 9000, where nine objects were recovered, representing 16% of the overall assemblage of small finds for the area. The secondhighest concentration of militaria was recovered from Area 2000, which yielded five objects, 1.  All measurements are in millimeters. Technical abbreviations: diam. = diameter, H. = height, l. = left, L. = length, lg. = large, mm. = millimeters, max. = maximum, P.L. = preserved length, P. W. = preserved width, sm. = small, Th. = thickness, W. = width. The limited number of small finds recovered from clearly modern (Bedouin) contexts were not studied by the author.

200

Militaria and Small Finds

201

Fig. 5.1.  Distribution of small finds assemblages by area.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 5.1.  Distribution of small finds according to category and area assemblage.

representing 12% of the assemblage for the area. Non-metal objects, such as spindle whorls, were concentrated in Areas 2000 (3 objects: 7% of the area’s small finds assemblage) and Area 9000 (4 objects: 7% of the area’s small finds assemblage). Overall trends in the distribution of the small finds show that objects such as building fittings were found throughout the fort, where they would have been used in the construction of the second storey, roofing, and other architectural features. Portable items such as militaria were found in interior rooms (in Areas 9000 and 6000) and as part of the second storey collapse in the southeast corner tower. Objects such as spindle whorls and knife fragments associated with domestic activities were concentrated in Area 9000.

Metal Artifacts Metal objects (excluding militaria) come primarily from Roman occupation layers in several rooms. These finds comprise structural fittings, slag, and miscellaneous metal objects too badly

202

Militaria and Small Finds

corroded to distinguish their original form. The majority are made of iron (71%) or copper-alloy (24%), which in some cases may have served as a base metal for ornamental decoration.

Constructional Metal Objects Nearly all of the structural fittings are made of iron, consisting of clamps and nails of varying shapes and sizes. There are only a few examples of complete nails. Two types of heads can be distinguished in this small corpus: round-domed (Type 1) and round-flat (Type 2). In addition to these two main typological groups, there are a few examples of nails with a head slightly more squared than rounded (Waldbaum 1983: pl. 22). This does not suggest an addition to the typology of nails found at Yotvata but may simply be a poorly made version of Type 2 (Manning 1985: fig. 86). All of the nails have a square, tapered shaft. Because there are so few complete nails, there are insufficient examples to allow typological differentiation on the basis of length alone. The majority of the iron nails were used in wooden constructions such as the entrance gate, internal doors, and the wooden beams associated with the second storey and roof. Other, smaller nails may come from furniture or other wooden fittings within the fort’s interior. There are also several examples of tacks, which typically are distinguished from nails by their round shafts. 1. L2076 / B20907 Iron nail with round-domed head, square tapered shaft with a curving bent end. Complete nail. (Type 1). L. 87.94 mm; W. 13.28 mm; Head diam. 21.59 mm. See Rafael 2008: 439, no. 67.

2. L2074 / B20895 Iron nail with round-flat head, square tapered shaft with a slight bent end (complete) (Type 2). L. 90.72 mm; W. 18.43 mm; head diam. 25.36 mm. See Waldbaum 1983: pl. 21, Type 2; McDaniel 2008: fig. 15.10:104.

3. L2076 / B20923 Iron nail with round-flat head, square tapered shaft (incomplete) (Type 2). P.L. 78.40 mm; W. 17.62 mm; head diam. 31.61 mm. See Manning 1985: fig. 86:D.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

4. L2076 / B20917 Iron nail with square-flat head, square tapered shaft with end broken off (incomplete). P.L. 86.47 mm; W. 12.59 mm; head diam. 29.06 mm. See Waldbaum 1983: 69, nos. 319, 320, 324.

5. L7024 / B70152 Iron nail, round-domed head, square shaft (incomplete) (Type 1). P.L. 45.97 mm; W. 14.46 mm; head diam. 24.96 mm. See Rafael 2008: 439, no. 67.

6. L7024 / B70152 Iron nail, round-flat head, square tapered slightly bent shaft (incomplete) (Type 2). P.L. 59.92 mm; W. 10.62 mm; Head diam. 19.85 mm. See McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.17: 186.

7. L2074 / 20894 Iron nail, square-flat head with a square straight shaft (incomplete). pl. 98.55 mm; W. 20.48 mm; head diam. 24.25 mm. See Rafael 2008: 455, no. 19.

Militaria and Small Finds

203

8. L5034 / B50324 Iron spike or revetment pin, corroded but original head was rectangular-diamond shaped, square shaft with charred wood attached (incomplete). P.L. 77.61 mm; head diam. 49.94 mm. See Waldbaum 1983: pl. 19:271.

9. L2068 / B20853 Iron tack or nail, round-flat head, round shaft (incomplete). P.L. 40.51 mm; W. 7.55 mm; head diam. 21.32 mm. See McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.16:184.

10. L2076 / B20933 Iron tack or nail, only the profile of the round-flat head remains attached to the round shaft (incomplete). P.L. 37.21 mm; W. 23.65 mm.

Non-Constructional Metal Objects Metal objects and fragments of objects that do not fall within the categories of building fittings or militaria are included in this group. There are also several objects in this group that were most likely kept as valuable metal for future recycling. 15. L9028 / B90284 Needle, copper-alloy, flattened head with pierced oblong eye, round tapered shaft. L. 107.28 mm; diam. 4.81 mm. See Rafael 2008: 448, no. 221; Waldbaum 1983: pl. 17:234.

26. L5039 / B50377 Iron square object with one side slightly curved, it is not from a knife or blade. It was likely preserved for reuse. P.L. 47.56 mm; P.W. 43.93; Th. 6.13 mm.

27. W538 / B90192 Flat square fragment, copper-alloy, one rounded edge, kept for repurposing. P.L. 48.21 mm; P.W. 24.32 mm.

28. L7022 / B70146

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Folded thin object, copper-alloy, the original shape is unknown but the preserved remains taper to one end. The remains were likely kept for repurposing the metal. P.L. 77.61 mm; P.W. (widest point) 37.98 mm.

Militaria A small assemblage of 16 objects associated with the Roman army comprise a subgroup of militaria within the small-finds category. Militaria include offensive and defensive weapons, as well as other army equipment, tools, dress fittings, and accessories. The majority of items are of metal, made of iron or a copper-alloy base that might have been covered with more ornamental metals. The objects in this group all fall within the date range of the Late Roman occupation of the fort. 11. L2077 / B20982 Iron ring, oval-shaped, round in section, overlapping terminals (possible finger ring). Exterior diam. 23.77 mm; interior diam. 15.12 mm; profile Th. 4.85 mm. See McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.19:232.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

204 Militaria and Small Finds

Fig. 5.3.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Militaria and Small Finds

Fig. 5.4.

205

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

206 Militaria and Small Finds

Fig. 5.5.

Militaria and Small Finds

207

12. L9038 / B90502 Copper-alloy ring, diamond-shaped profile. Possibly used as part of a fitting associated with army dress such as a Late Roman belt. Exterior diam. 33.99 mm; interior diam. 23.47, profile W. 5.72. See Johnson 2006: fig. 22.4:15; Crummy 1983: fig. 162:4253.

13. L9041 / B90515 Iron knife blade, flat on one side and slightly convex on the reverse side. P.L. 77.61 mm; P.W. 29.08 mm. See McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.15:163.

14. L9022 / B90259 Iron oval ring (fragment), semi-square in profile. pl. 54.86 mm; W. 41.34 mm; Profile W. 11.29 mm. See Harper 1995: fig. 24:5.

16. L9035 / B90500 Iron spearhead with a solid tip and hollow socket for the attachment of the shaft. P.L. 120.82 mm; diam. 20.77 mm tapers to 4.10 mm. See Bishop and Coulston 1989: pl. 52:5.

17. L9035 / B90469 Iron spearhead or butt with a solid tip and hollow socket for the attachment of the shaft. P.L. 70.96 mm; diam. 16.62 mm tapers to 3.62 mm. See Stephenson 2001: fig. 20.

18. L9035 / B90425 Iron spearhead with a solid tip and hollow socket for the attachment of the shaft. P.L. 98.09 mm; diam. 18.98 tapers to 5.88 mm. See Rafael 2008: 443, no. 130.

19. L9018 / B90115 Fibula, copper-alloy, bow-shaped simple hinge design, very thin and flat body. L. 17.16 mm; W. 17.94 mm.

20. L9030 / B90357 Iron arrowhead or fragment of spearhead, oblong, tapering to point, and flattish surface with built-up curvature on the reverse side. Broken off at the bottom where the tang connects to the head; very badly corroded. P.L. 86.93 mm; W. 16.19 mm.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

21. L6010 / B60105 Copper-alloy buckle. Late Roman military strap-buckle with a D-shaped loop, 3rd–5th c. c.e. P.L. 36.12 mm; W. D-ring 20.14 mm. See Appels and Laycock 2007: 228, no. 10.27; Vujović 2013: pl. II:9.

22. L2068 / B20853 Iron arrowhead (fragment of tip), flat triangular, slightly curved toward tip. pl. 34.03 mm; W. 19.38 at widest to 7.72 mm at tip; Th. 5.62 mm.

Helmet, Nos. 23 and 24 23. L6034 / B60348 Helmet, cheek guard, iron with copper-alloy rivets. L. 110.95 mm; W. 161.30 mm; Th. 6.41 mm. Most likely part of the same helmet as the neck guard (B60349). It is possibly a “Ridge” helmet, a type dating to the fourth–sixth centuries. The cheek guard found at Yotvata shows variations in the connection between the cheek guard and bowl of the helmet. The general shape of the piece is consistent with the cheek guard from the Ridge type, but the riveted connection resembles an example from Deir el-Medineh. See James 1986: 113–14; Bishop and Coulston 1993: no. 123-2.

208

Militaria and Small Finds

Fig. 5.6. 24. L6034/ B60349 Helmet, neck guard, iron. L. 154.37 mm; W. 177.70 mm; Th. 6.13 mm. Most likely part of the same helmet as the cheek guard (B60348). The bend and outward flaring of Yotvata neck guard is consistent with the shape found on the Ridge-type helmets. See Bishop and Coulston 1993: no. 123-2.

25. L5022 / B50353 Chert sling stone. Diam. 47.47 mm. See McDaniel 2008: fig. 15.23:310; Groot 1987: no. 121.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

29. L7086 / B70459 Flat pieces of iron (2), not part of a blade but with similarities in composition to other militaria, possibly part of a fitting for weaponry. Lg. fragment P.L. 53.14 mm; P.W. 38.60 mm, Sm. fragment P.L. 35.10 mm; P.W. 27.72 mm.

30. L7085 / B70462 Flat iron piece, not part of a blade but with similarities in composition to other militaria, possibly part of a fitting for weaponry. P.L. 77.01 mm; W. 38.71 mm.

Non-Metal Artifacts The non-metal artifacts represent the smallest sub-group of items within the small finds category. Objects were manufactured from ceramic, stone, and shell. There is some variety in the functionality within this group, ranging from domestic to recreational items. Concentrations of this sub-group are highest in Areas 2000 and 9000.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Militaria and Small Finds

Fig. 5.7.

209

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

210 Militaria and Small Finds

Fig. 5.8.

Militaria and Small Finds

211

31. L9036 / B90456 Spindle Whorl (half), limestone. Diam. 24.88 mm. See McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.20:265.

32. L9027 / B90278 & L9027 / B90273 Ceramic Spindle Whorl (broken in half). Diam. 35.31 mm. See McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.14:157.

33. L9037 / B90472 Worked shell, the bottom is polished and flat. This likely was used as a gaming piece, substituting glass or ceramics for the more readily available shell. H. 6.25 mm; diam. 14.94 mm.

34. L2076 / B20920 Worked shell, the bottom is polished and flat. Possible gaming piece, similar to B90472. H. 8.33 mm; diam. 18.93 mm.

35. L2079 / B20993 Worked stone object, limestone, possible gaming piece or a tool used for burnishing. L. 30.29 mm; W. 24.96 mm; H. 21.82 mm.

36. L2077 / B20980 Worked shell pierced with hole in center, possibly worn as a pendant or bead. H. 14.26 mm; diam. 17.88 mm. See Ayalon 2006: photo 23.7; Harper 1995: fig. 28:21.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References Appels, Andrew and Stuart Laycock. 2007 Roman Buckles and Military Fittings. Essex: Greenlight. Ayalon, Etan 2006 Bone, Ivory, Shell, and Steatite Objects from the Roman-Byzantine Periods. Pp. 666–74 in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume I: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, ed. A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Bishop, Michael C., and John C. Coulston 1989 Roman Military Equipment. Aylesbury: Shire. 1993 Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. London: B. T. Batsford. Crummy, Nina 1983 Military Equipment, with Contributions from Graham Webster and Stephen Greep. Pp. 129–40 in Colchester Archaeological Report 2: The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester 1971–9, ed. N. Crummy. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust. Feugère, Michel 2006 Roman militaria from Zeugma. Pp. 91–95 in Uluslararası geçmişten geleceğe Zeugma Sempozyumu / International Symposium on Zeugma, from Past to Future, ed. R. Ergeç. Gaziantep: Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Groot, Jennifer C. 1987 The Small Finds. Pp. 497–521 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, 2 vols., ed. S. T. Parker. BAR International Series 340. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Harper, Richard 1995 Upper Zohar: An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia Final Report of Excavations in 1985–1986. New York: Oxford University Press. James, Simon 1986 Evidence from Dura Europos for the origins of late Roman helmet. Syria 63.1–2: 107–34.

212

Militaria and Small Finds

Johnson, Barbara L. 2006 Clay, Stone, and Metal Objects from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period. Pp. 654–56 in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume I: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, ed. A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Manning, W. H. 1985 The Iron Objects. Pp. 289–99 in Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress, ed. L. Pitts, and J. K. St. Joseph. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. McDaniel, Joann 2006 The Small Finds. Pp. 293–315 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on The Limes Arabicus Project 1980–1989, ed. S. T. Parker. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Rafael, Kate 2008 The Metal Objects. Pp. 435–59 in Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima Areas CC, KK and NN Final Reports, Volume I: The Objects, ed. J. Patrich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Stephenson, I. P. 2001 Roman Infantry Equipment: The Late Empire. Gloucestershire: Tempus. Vujović, Miroslav 2013 Roman Weapons and Military Equipment from Singidunum. Journal for History, Museology and Art, Vesnik No. 40:29–48. Waldbaum, J. C. 1983 Archaeological Exploration of Sardis: Metal Work from Sardis (The Finds through 1974). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Small Finds Catalogue Objects are organized by area, followed by the locus and basket number. Publication numbers refer to objects illustrated in figs. 5.3–8. Measurements of individual objects are given in millimeters. Some objects were so badly corroded or fragmentary that no clear measurements could be taken and are omitted for those entries. Abbreviations: diam = diameter, H = height, L = length, P.L. = preserved length, P. W. = preserved width, th = thickness, W = width. Area 2000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

2068

20853

22

2068

20853

9

2070

20858

Iron nail, square shaft bent at the bottom. P.L. 25.57; P.W. 9.17; head diam. 6.42.

2072

20860

Iron slag.

2074

20889

Iron clamp, head and end broken off, square shaft. P.L. 65.18; W. 15.06.

2074

20893

2074

20894

Reference

Iron arrowhead (fragment of tip), flat triangular, slightly curved towards the tip. P.L. 34.03; W. 19.38 widest – 7.22 at tip; th. 5.62. Iron tack or nail, round-flat head, round shaft. P.L. 40.51; P.W. 7.55; head diam. 21.32.

McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.16: 184

Copper-alloy small fragment. 7

Iron nail, square-flat head, square shaft. P.L. 98.55; P.W. 20.48; head diam. 24.25.

Rafael 2008: 455, no. 19

Militaria and Small Finds

213

Area 2000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no. 2

Description

Reference

Iron nail, round-flat head, square shaft tapers with a bent end. Complete. 104 L. 90.72; W. 18.43; head diam. 25.36.

Waldbaum 1983: pl. 21; McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.10

2074

20895

2074

20897

Iron nail, round-domed head, square shaft bent and tapering toward end. Complete; L. 76.83; W. 14.47, head diam. 22.41.

2074

20898

Iron nail, round-domed head, square tapering shaft broken. Fragment; P.L. 61.32; W. 12.34; head diam. 22.86.

2074

20899

Iron round object. Fragment; P.L. 55.67; W. 9.21.

2075

20942

Copper slag.

2075

20965

Copper slag.

2076

20906

Iron nail, segment of square shaft, bent at end. P.L. 47.62; P.W. 12.42.

2076

20907

2076

1

Iron nail, round-domed head, square shaft tapering to bent end. Complete; L. 87.94; W. 13.28; head diam. 21.59.

Rafael 2008: 439, no. 67

20910

Iron clamp with ends bent in opposite directions, only one end is preserved W. 23.83; leg P.L. 47.67; crossbar P.L. 36.52.

Crummy 1983: fig. 127: 4071–72

2076

20910

Iron nail, round-domed head, square tapering shaft bending at the end and middle. Complete L. 48.05; W. 17.46; head diam. 22.24.

2076

20911

Iron nail, round-domed head, square tapering shaft. Fragment; P.L. 45.51; W. 16.84; head diam. 26.15.

2076

20912

Iron nail or tack, round shaft with bent end. Fragment; P.L. 36.27; W. 16.16; head diam. 12.35.

2076

20915

Copper slag.

2076

20917

2076

20918

2076

20920

2076

20922

2076

20923

2076

20924

Iron nail, flat rectangular head, square shaft tapering and bent. L. 110.30; W. 19.35; head diam. 17.19.

2076

20925

Iron clamp, flat square head, square shaft bent at right angle, with short end. P.L. 82.05; W. 11.80; head 16.24.

2076

20926

Iron nail, round-flat head, square shaft. Fragment; P.L. 42.00; W. 17.25; head diam. 20.52)

2076

20933

2077

20964

Iron nail fragments. P.L. 25.23 & 14.41; P.W. 9.11 and 11.05.

2077

20967

Iron nail fragments.

2077

20972

Iron nail fragments.

2077

20980

4

Iron nail, square-head, square tapered shaft. Fragment; P.L. 86.47; W. 12.59; head diam. 29.06.

Waldbaum 1983: 69, nos. 319, 320, and 324

Iron nail, segment of square shaft. Fragment; P.L. 33.58; W. 13.22. 34

Worked shell, with flat polished bottom, gaming piece. H. 8.33; diam. 18.93. Iron nail, round-domed head, square shaft tapering to broken end. Fragment; P.L. 76.69; W. 17.28; head diam. 22.80.

3

10

36

Iron nail, round-domed head, square shaft tapering to broken end. Fragment; P.L. 78.40; W. 17.62; head diam. 31.61.

Manning 1985: fig. 86:D

Iron nail, round-flat head, round shaft. Fragment; P.L. 37.21; P.W. 23.65.

Worked shell pierced with hole through center. H. 14.26; diam. 17.88

Ayalon 2006: photo 23.7 Harper 1995: fig. 28: 21

214

Militaria and Small Finds

Area 2000 Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

2077

20981

2077

20982

2077

20985

Iron nail, round flat head, square shaft tapering to a broken end. P.L. 70.99; P.W. 20.14; head diam. 27.06.

2077

20987

Copper slag.

2079

20993

2079

21002

Iron nail, segment of shaft. P.L. 43.53; W. 8.87.

2079

21020

Iron spear-butt, hollow cylindrical tapering to point. P.L. 72.30; P.W. – widest 18.07.

2079

21025

Iron triangular fragment, possibly from a buckle. P.L. 21.31.

2079

21034

Iron object, round. Fragment; P.L. 93.11; W. 16.67.

2080

21040

Iron nail, round-flat head, square shaft. Fragment; P.L. 52.01; P.W. 21.44; head diam. 24.35.

Reference

Iron nail, round-flat head, square shaft. P.L. 32.74; P.W. 7.79. 11

35

Iron ring, non-ornamental. Internal diam. 15.12; Exterior diam. 23.77; profile diam. 4.85.

McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.19:232

Worked stone, gaming piece. L. 30.29; W. 24.96; H. 21.82.

Area 5000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

5012

50107

Copper-alloy square fragment, badly corroded. P.L. 33.67; P.W. 7.45

5020

50155

Copper slag. Iron nail, square shaft. P.L. 39.21; P.W. 8.74.

5021

50153

Iron fragment. P.L. 39.21; P.W. 8.74

5022

50353

5022

50354

Iron nail fragment, badly corroded

5029

50230

Spindle whorl, ceramic broken in half; diam. 16.91.

5033

50272

Iron nail, two segments of shaft. P.L. 25.64 & 16.91; P.W. 13.05 & 8.93.

5033

50281

Iron object, badly corroded – unidentified.

5034

50302

Iron nail fragments corroded to wood, poor condition.

5034

50309

Iron nail fragments, poor condition.

5034

50313

Iron nail fragments (66 splinters and tiny pieces, very poor condition).

5034

50321

Iron nail, round-flat head, square shaft tapers to broken end. P.L. 72.54; P.W. 17.24; head diam. 27.20.

5034

50324

5034

50325

Iron nail fragments (16) and slag.

5034

50294

Iron nail, round-flat head, square shaft tapering to broken end. P.L. 79.25; P.W. 25.03.

25

8

Chert, sling stone; diam. 47.47.

Iron spike or revetment pin, corroded but original head was rectangular-diamond shaped, square shaft, with charred wood attached. P.L. 77.61; head diam. 49.94.

Reference

McDaniel 2008: fig. 15. 23: 310; Groot 1987: no. 121

Waldbaum 1983: pl. 19, no. 271.

Militaria and Small Finds

215

Area 5000 Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

5034

50294

Iron slag fragments (4).

5035

50330

Iron fragment – unidentified.

5037

50337

5039

50377

Reference

Iron fragments – unidentified and slag. 26

Iron semi-square flat fragment – unidentified.

Area 6000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no. 21

Description Buckle, copper-alloy, Late Roman military strap-buckle type with a D-shaped loop. P.L. 36.12; W. D-ring 20.14.

Reference

6010

60105

Appels and Laycock 2007: 228, no. 10.27; Vujović 2013: pl. II:9

6016

60193

Copper-alloy, semi-circular, flat object – unidentified.

6016

60203

Iron fragment – unidentified.

6020

60225

Iron object attached to charred wood – unidentified.

6020

60228

Iron fragment, flat and slightly curved – unidentified.

6020

60235

Iron nail, fragment of shaft.

6020

60235

Iron object attached to charred wood – unidentified.

6020

60216

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

6026

60241

Iron nail, fragment of shaft.

6031

60268

Iron, hollow tapered objects (2), possible spear-butts. P.L. 41.17 & 51.72; P.W. 11.58 & 13.43.

6031

60275

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

6031

60282

Iron, flat fragment – unidentified.

6031

60288

Iron nail fragment of shaft. P.L. 42.62; P.W. 21.92.

6031

60290

Copper-alloy, semi-conical (1), flat (7) fragments.

6031

60298

Copper-alloy fragments (9).

6031

60299

Iron nail fragments, very badly corroded.

6031

60312

Iron fragments (21) – unidentified.

6034

60319

Copper-alloy fragments (5) – unidentified.

6034

60330

Iron fragment – unidentified.

6034

60343

Iron, fragments of tips of nails.

6034

60348

23

Helmet, cheek guard, iron with copper-alloy rivets, likely part of the same “Ridge” helmet, as the neck guard B60349. P.L. 154.37; W. 177.

James 1986: 113–14; Bishop and Coulston 1993: no. 123–270; Th. 6.13.

6034

60349

24

Helmet, neck guard, iron, likely part of the same “Ridge” helmet, as the cheek guard B60348. L. 110.95; W. 161.30; Th. 6.41.

Bishop and Coulston 1993: no. 123-2

6034

60356

Iron fragments flat (9) – unidentified.

6034

60360

Copper-alloy fragments (2) – unidentified.

6034

60368

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

6034

60371

Iron nail, fragment of shaft. P.L. 28.85; P.W. 5.49.

216

Militaria and Small Finds

Area 7000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

Reference

7022

70146

28

Copper-alloy, folded thin object, original shape is unknown. P.L. 145.11; P.W. widest 37.98.

7024

70152

5

Iron nail, round-domed head, square. Fragment; P.L. 45.97; W. 14.46; Head diam. 24.96.

Rafael 2008: 439, no. 67

7024

70152

6

Iron nail, round-flat head, square tapered and curved square shaft. Fragment; P.L. 59.29; W. 10.62; head diam. 19.85.

McDaniel 2006; fig. 15.17:186

7027

70175

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

7027

70181

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

7047

70279

Copper-alloy fragments (2) – unidentified.

7048

70245

Copper slag.

7054

70278

Iron nail round-flat head, curved square shaft. Fragment; P.L. 49.59; P.W. 19.25; head diam. 27.36.

7057

70286

Iron nail, square shaft, bent at end. P.L. 57.87; P.W. 18.67.

7061

70297

Iron slag. P.L. 55.78; P.W. 21.41.

7063

70307

Copper-alloy fragment, semi-conical, hollow, possible spearbutt (very corroded).

7065

70460

Iron nail, square shaft, tapering to end fragment. P.L. 47.85; P.W. 10.14.

7075

70445

Iron slag.

7076

70421

Iron, square-flat fragments (2). P.L. 9.99 & 8.38; P.W. 18.92 & 19.04.

7085

70462

7085

70862

Iron fragments – unidentified.

7086

70459

Iron tack, round head and shaft. P.L. 38.89; P.W. 21.46; head diam. 29.57.

7086

70459

30

29

Iron flat fragment – may join with B70459. P.L. 77.01; P.W. 38.71.

Iron, flat-square objects (2). Fragments; Lg. P.L. 53.14; P.W. 38.60, Sm. P.L. 35.10; P.W. 27.72.

Area 9000 Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

9018

90095

Iron nail, segment of shaft, tapers to end. Fragments; P.L. 39.78; P.W. 8.31.

9018

90115

9018

90125

Iron nails (3) fragments corroded together.

9019

90131

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

9019

90132

Wood fragment.

9019

90146

Iron, flat-curved fragment – unidentified.

19

Fibula, copper-alloy, bow-shaped simple hinge design, very thin and flat body. L. 17.16; W. 17.94.

Reference

Militaria and Small Finds

217

Area 9000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

Reference

9019

90151

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified

9022

90259

9026

90314

Iron slag

9026

90316

Copper-alloy fragment – unidentified.

9027

90306

Iron nail, segment of shaft.

9027

90308

Iron fragment – unidentified.

9027

90310

9027

90273

32

Ceramic spindle whorl, broken in half (other half B90278), diam. 35.31.

McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.14: 157

9027

90278

32

Ceramic spindle whorl, broken in half (other half B90273), diam. 35.31.

McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.14: 157

9028

90284

15

Needle, copper-alloy, flattened head with pierced oblong eye, round tapered shaft. L. 107.28; diam. 4.81.

Rafael 2008: 448, no. 221; Waldbaum 1983: pl. 17: 234

9028

90286

Iron nail, segment of shaft.

9028

90291

Iron slag.

9029

90332

Iron nail, segment of shaft.

9030

90362

Iron nail fragments (5), segments of shafts.

9030

90344

Copper-alloy fragments – unidentified.

9030

90346

Iron slag.

9030

90356

9030

90357

9030

90361

Iron fragment – unidentified.

9030

90371

Iron nail, segment of shaft. P.L. 47.34; P.W. 9.80.

9030

90386

Iron nail, round-flat, square shaft, tapering to the end (poor condition).

9031

90389

Iron nail, segment of shaft.

9035

90424

Iron nail, segment of shaft. P.L. 37.13; P.W. 7.14.

9035

90425

9035

90427

Iron nail fragments (5) (highly corroded).

9035

90428

Iron fragments (10) (highly corroded).

9035

90429

Iron nails, segments of shafts (9) (highly corroded).

9035

90430

Iron nail, segment of shaft.

9035

90433

Iron fragments (17) (highly corroded).

9035

90440

Iron nail, segments of shafts (5).

9035

90444

Iron fragments – unidentified.

9035

90454

Iron nail, segments of shafts (9).

14

Iron ring fragment (constructional). P.L. 54.86; W. 41.34; profile diam. 11.29.

Harper 1995: fig. 24:5

Iron fragment – unidentified.

Copper-alloy flat fragment – unidentified. 20

18

Iron arrowhead or fragment of spearhead, oblong, tapering to a point, flattish surface with a built-up curvature on the reverse side. P.L. 86.93; P.W. 16.19.

Iron spearhead with a solid tip and hollow socket for attachment of the shaft. P.L. 98.09; P.W. tapers from 18.98 to 5.88.

Rafael 2008: 443, no. 130

218

Militaria and Small Finds

Area 9000

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus Basket

Pub. no.

Description

Reference

9035

90455

Iron nail, segments of shafts (10).

9035

90459

Iron nail, segments of shafts (11).

9035

90463

9035

90469

9035

90480

9035

90495

9035

90500

16

Iron spearhead with a solid tip and hollow socket for the attachment of the shaft. P.L. 120.82; P.W. tapers 20.77 – 4.10.

Bishop and Coulston 1989: pl. 52:5

9036

90456

31

Spindle whorl, worked stone, fragment broken in half, diam. 24.88. 20: 265

McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.

9037

90472

33

Worked shell with polished flat bottom, gaming piece. H. 6.25; diam. 14.94.

9037

90474

Iron fragment – unidentified.

9038

90494

Iron nail, segment of square shaft (highly corroded).

9038

90499

Iron nail, segment of shaft. P.L. 33.32; P.W. 9.75.

9038

90501

Iron nail fragments (10).

9038

90502

9038

90503

Iron, flat fragments (24) (high corroded).

9041

90512

Copper slag.

9041

90515

9044

90533

W538

90192

Iron fragments (high corroded). 17

Iron spearhead or butt with a solid tip and hollow socket for the attachment of the shaft. P.L. 70.96; P.W. tapers 16.62 – 3.62.

Stephenson 2001: fig. 20

Iron, thin-walled vessel, diam. 70.00. Iron spear-butt, fragment. P.L. 98.21; P.W. tapers 16.74 – 2.87.

12

13

Ring, copper-alloy, diamond-shaped profile. Fitting on army dress. External diam. 33.99; Internal diam. 23.47; W. profile 5.72.

Iron knife blade fragment. P.L. 77.61; P. W. 29.08. Copper-alloy fragment–unidentified

27

Copper-alloy, flat fragment, one rounded edge, kept for recycling. P.L. 48.21; P.W. 24.32.

Johnson 2006: fig. 22.4:15; Crummy 1983: fig. 162:4253

McDaniel 2006: fig. 15.15: 163

Chapter 6

The Faunal Remains Rebecca Halbmaier Zooarchaeological remains totaling 6,318 pieces of animal bone, including refits and fragments, have been analyzed from the 2003–2007 Yotvata excavations. Analyses were designed to provide a better understanding of the Roman garrison’s diet, animal procurement and usage, and the impact of environmental factors on the assemblage.

Background Research

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Availability of Faunal Resources Available fauna in the desert are determined largely by water sources and environmental factors; as such, wild species have likely not changed dramatically in this region since the Neolithic period. Fauna mentioned in the Hebrew Bible include large cats, bear, several deer species (some of which are now extinct), wild ox (extinct), ostrich, and crocodile. Historical and archaeological records note the presence of sheep and goats in abundance, as well as equids, camels, and gazelles. Species such as lions, leopards, wild ox, and several deer species have become extinct locally through hunting or habitat reduction. The availability of these resources during the occupation of the fort at Yotvata is questionable (Orni and Efrat 1964; Rast 1992), and no conclusive evidence exists for their presence or absence in the southern Arava. Conversely, marine resources have been less depleted as these species are less vulnerable to human interference over short timespans. The Red Sea has been noted for its variety of marine resources, which would have been relatively easy to obtain during the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods. As Yotvata lies along a major trade route originating at the port of Aqaba, these should have been available at the fort.

Resources in the Late Roman Period Although a desert environment, the region contained various faunal resources, both domestic and wild; it would have been feasible for the Roman army to subsist off local resources or those transported only short distances. Throughout the Near East, the common pattern seen at sites is one of very low pig numbers, generally low cattle numbers, and very high sheep and goat numbers. This may be regarded as the “natural” pattern for the region and fits well within arid and 219

220

The Faunal Remains

semi-arid environmental constraints, especially for sites close to the margins of subsistence (King 1999; Toplyn 2006). An analysis of faunal remains, including the relative proportions of exotic species, from sites such as Yotvata can reveal whether the Roman army was relying more heavily on local goods or imported supplies.

Secondary Uses of Animals in the Late Roman Period Animal use in the Roman Empire consisted of more than meat consumption, most notably the use of animals as draft and transport for the army and its supplies. Based on the extent and operational capabilities of the Roman army, secondary uses of animals would have occurred at all sites and on a level significant enough to be noticeable in archaeological remains. Notably, camels and donkeys would have been able to thrive in desert and arid regions, including the Negev and Eastern Roman frontier area (Wilson 1989). These species would have been important to the Roman army in such a harsh environment, because horses and cattle, commonly used by Romans, would have found it harder to survive. Camels were used extensively in this region for transport; their low food and water requirements are in direct contrast to their high carrying capacity (Toynbee 1973). Their ability to travel long distances between water supplies and the quickness with which they replenish make them well-suited to desert regions and transport (Evenari et al. 1982), vital for a provincial army stationed in a sparsely occupied territory. Although these animals were primarily work/draft resources, they were at times used in lieu of local food and were often butchered and eaten when they were no longer able to fulfill their function within the army (Toynbee 1973; King 1999).

Constraints of Research at Yotvata

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The main constraint to this study is the limited sample size. In addition, many of the remains do not come from contexts such as refuse accumulations and hearths, which are useful for the reconstruction of subsistence activities. Also, as no excavations were conducted outside the fort, it is impossible to determine whether animals were raised, pastured, or stabled nearby. Another constraint is the lack of comparative research on the eastern frontier. Most zooarchaeologists have focused on earlier periods in the Middle East in relation to the question of animal domestication (Horwitz et al. 1989). For this reason, later periods have often been neglected, especially in the case of smaller forts and way-stations.

Comparisons of Sites and Implications for Yotvata Roman Fort A comparison of four Roman military sites—Aqaba (Toplyn 1987; Parker 1999), Mons Claudianus (van der Veen 1998), Upper Zohar (Clark 1995), and Vindolanda (Hodgson 1977)—highlights similarities and differences in the faunal assemblages (Halbmaier 2005). Each site appears to have been provisioned chiefly from local resources: sheep and goats in the deserts and on the eastern frontier, and cattle and pigs on the western frontier. These locally available resources comprise the major proportion of the assemblages at each of these sites. It appears that regionally available provisions were also used. Exotic resources are scarce but not absent; as such, it was possible to obtain exotics via trade networks on the frontiers of the Roman Empire. Five sites excavated by the Limes Arabicus Project have investigated the Roman military presence on the Arabian frontier, yielding more than 85,000 bones which were analyzed (Toplyn

The Faunal Remains

221

2006). The study of the legionary fortress at el-Lejjun reconstructed the subsistence economy of frontier troops, and concluded that the economy in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods was geared to be autonomous. Local herds of sheep and goats were managed for meat, pigs and chickens supplemented the intake of animal protein, and cattle were kept as draft animals. The Limes Arabicus Project also looked at smaller sites with much smaller skeletal samples, where the evidence was consistent with a self-sufficient pastoral economy. Comparisons will draw heavily on this project due to the extensive and recent nature of the excavations and the regional similarities.

Overview of the Faunal Remains from Yotvata Although many of the bones from the fort at Yotvata were diagnostic and identifiable with regard to both species and elements, the sample size is still limited, especially when material from Late Roman and Islamic contexts is separated (see Catalogue). Because sieving was employed mainly for Late Roman contexts, larger animals and elements may be over-represented and smaller species and elements under-represented, a phenomenon seen at other sites in the region (Weber 1997; Toplyn 2006). Quantification of meat weights, body part representations, MNI (minimum number of individuals), and dental ageing for most species have not been calculated because of the sample size. Nonetheless, there were enough remains to answer basic questions about food resources for the Roman garrison at this fort and to compare the results to other sites in the region.

Methodology The basic analysis and identification of animal remains from the Yotvata excavations were conducted under my supervision in the field lab. The faunal remains were cleaned, labeled, and separated into elements. Each element was then examined individually and separated into taxon and species categories. For ease of recording, these are discussed within this chapter primarily by common name (i.e., horse, cow, pig). Material was recorded utilizing Microsoft Excel and Access databases; recording allowed for basic data entry and queries.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Quantification Relative frequencies of taxa are most commonly used to identify the importance of specific animals in human diets and lifestyles (Reitz and Wing 1999) and can also be used to identify specialized activity areas or to compare data across time. Basic NISP (number of individual specimens) quantifications were calculated to identify the species exploited at Yotvata and to quantify relative differences in the proportions of these species. NISP was used because it does not suffer from aggregation error and requires few assumptions about the data set. The variable is calculated by counting all remains assigned to elements and species (Grayson 1984). MNI was attempted based on the most easily identified portion of the most common skeletal element per taxon in the assemblage, while taking into account several considerations, including distinguishing immature and adult individuals, matching left and right elements, and separating the sample based on stratigraphic layers. For this project, MNI was calculated by period, resulting in the lowest possible MNI count per period. From this information, other quantifications were attempted, including ageing by fusion and dental data to conclude the mortality profiles of certain species at the site. Once analysis began, it became apparent that the limited number of identified remains made MNI

222

The Faunal Remains

Table 6.1.  Late Roman period assemblage by occupation level and floor Lowest/Earliest Roman floor Bird

Two Earliest Roman Floors

Intermediate Roman Floors

Uppermost/Latest Roman Floor

All Roman Periods

15

0

5

17

36

1 (1)

0

1 (1)

2 (1)

4

5

0

7

5

17

Dog

1 (1)

0

0

0

1

Pig

27 (3)

0

2 (1)

3 (1)

32

Sheep

6 (2)

0

3 (2)

6 (2)

15

Goat

7 (2)

0

5 (2)

2 (1)

14

29

0

20

41

90

19 (5)

0

9 (3)

9 (3)

37

1 (1)

0

1 (1)

0

2

50

2

17

37

106

Turtle Carnivore

Sheep/Goat Deer/Gazelle Ibex Sheep/Goat/Deer Donkey

0

0

0

5 (1)

5

Cow

1 (1)

0

1

2 (1)

4

Horse

2 (1)

0

0

2 (2)

4

Camel

15 (2)

0

12 (3)

10 (2)

37

2

0

5

1

8

190

0

98

214

502

Cow/Camel/Horse Fish Small Mammal Medium Mammal

7

0

7

3

17

183

0

62

19

264

55

0

27

23

105

549

2

380

369

1,300

Large Mammal Totals

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

* ( ) represents MNI

quantifications useless (see Table 6.1). The taxa and quantities of remains have been analyzed to suggest whether excavated areas were used for different processing activities. Butchery patterns and abundance were examined to show the amount and intensity of processing of carcasses at the site, as well as the species that commonly exhibited butchery marks. These methods and quantifications were conducted using site-wide information in addition to species-specific calculations, where the sample size was large enough. As will be shown, the limited sample size has caused problems with the quantifications and analysis, and in many cases, conclusions beyond simple presence or absence of species were not possible.

Taxonomic Identification Taxonomic identifications were made to species where possible. Due to the lack of access to reference material, number of remains, and time constraints, analysis focused on diagnostic material. Bone fragments were divided into animal size categories, including large mammal (camel, horse, and cattle sizes), medium mammal (1) (sheep, goat, deer sizes), medium mammal (2) (pig, dog, cat sizes), and small mammal, where these elements could be identified. Ribs and skulls were

The Faunal Remains

223

Table 6.2.  Late Roman period assemblage by locus Earliest/Lowest Roman Floor

Intermediate Roman Floor

Latest /Uppermost Roman Floor

L2038

L6034

L2035

L5026

L2018

L7027

L2045

L6038

L2039

L5027

L2019

L7028

L2055

L7067

L2062

L5029

L2034

L9022

L2067

L9033

L2063

L5031

L3007

L9026

L2068

L9035

L2065

L5032

L5018

L9027

L3017

L9036

L3011

L7062

L5019

L9028

L3018

L9037

L3012

L7081

L5020

L9029

L5034*

L9038

L5021

L7085

L6016

L9030

L6023

L9032

L6031

L5022

L7026 *represents two earliest Roman floors

separated into size categories rather than species, as further identification would have been difficult. Other studies in the area have utilized this method, including the fort at Upper Zohar, where many more bones were recovered and identified (Clark 1995). At Yotvata, further categorization was made between unidentifiable long bones and post-cranial bones. Long bones were those that could be recognized as limb bones, while post-cranial could have been long bones or other elements such as vertebrae, scapula, etc. Although some of these classifications are not specific, they can provide information about the relative significance of general groups of animals and their state of preservation. A conservative approach has been taken with the faunal assemblage due to the fragmented nature and lack of diagnostic features. In cases where post-cranial elements of taxonomically similar groups (i.e., artiodactyls) were encountered, the elements were identified as species combinations, such as sheep/goat/deer.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Faunal Remains from the Fort at Yotvata Quantifications Although a total of 6,318 remains was identified during the excavations, only faunal remains from dated contexts are included in the quantifications (e.g., earliest Roman floor, intermediate Roman floor(s), Islamic floor). Due to the limited number of quantifiable remains from specific contexts, this study primarily constitutes a presence versus absence study; additional quantifications are discussed briefly. The most abundant deposits of bones were recovered from Late Roman contexts and occupation levels, with the Islamic and Byzantine periods represented by lesser numbers. Bones from all phases were reasonably well-preserved based on texture and completeness. NISP was calculated using all fragments identified to species level to gain a rough understanding of the types of taxa and species and the proportions of each. Although many archaeologists dismiss NISP as

224

The Faunal Remains

Fig. 6.1.  Late Roman period large mammals by occupation level and floor.

too simple or over-representative of certain bones and species (O’Connor 2001), it is essential for quantifying assemblages with small sample sizes.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Quantifications by Period Late Roman Period The Late Roman assemblage is comprised of 1,702 recorded bones, 1,300 of which have been identified to species or size level. The majority are identified as sheep, goat, and gazelle sized. There are also bones from camel, cow, horse, donkey, pig, and dog, as well as one human phalanx. Small mammal, bird, and fish bones are recorded from the Late Roman period but are not identified to species level. There are recorded bones for nearly every element, including vertebrae, skull, and pelvis, which generally do not survive as well as more dense elements (Lyman 1994: 248) for well-represented species. The bones have been separated according to the various Late Roman occupation surfaces and floors (Table 6.1). Loci attributed to Late Roman contexts containing quantifiable bones are presented in Table 6.2. Large Mammals Four main species of large mammal were identified (fig. 6.1): camel, horse, cow, and donkey. There are also several catch-all categories, including large mammals and horse/camel/cow. These could not be assigned to species but were noted as elements from larger taxa. The majority of the unidentified large species are believed to be camels, due to their size. Camel (Camelus) Although camels do not represent a large proportion of the overall assemblage, they are the most abundant large mammal species identified. This species is likely not proportionately under-

The Faunal Remains

225

Table 6.3.  Late Roman period camel assemblage by locus Earliest/Lowest Roman Floor

Intermediate Roman Floor

Latest /Uppermost Roman Floor

L2045

L3012

L2019

L3017

L2063

L2034

L2067

L2065

L3007

L6034

L5032

L5032

L9033

L6031 L7028 L9022

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

represented, as the size and density of large mammal bones (camel, equids [horse/donkey], and cow) lead to excellent preservation and collection. A total of 36 bones was identified as camel, including one intact mandible and one intact skull (found in L3017 and L3007, respectively). Although camel was identified in each of the Late Roman floor contexts (Table 6.3), the small number of remains precludes further analysis. Nearly all elements of camel are present at Yotvata, although there are not enough bones to constitute a body-part representation (BPR). Many camel bones show evidence of butchery, which suggests that camels were used not only for transport but for consumption as well. Based on observed fusion data from camel bones, it appears the majority were adults. Evidence of juveniles was also found (L2063, L2067, L3007, L3017, and L6034), although in much lower percentages (n = 9). The adult bones suggest that camels were used for transport or other military purposes into adulthood and presumably eaten or disposed of after they were no longer “useful.” This evidence suggests that camels were used in greater numbers than horses by the cavalry in this part of the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire, a phenomenon also attested at comparable sites examined by the Limes Arabicus project (Toplyn 2006). Interestingly, camels appear to be the only animal with possible ritual use at the fort (see below). Horse/Donkey (Equid) Nine elements could be identified positively as equids in the Late Roman levels; these data can only be used to show presence of these animals at the fort. Donkey elements (n = 5) appear to represent the remains of one animal, consisting of lower left-side tarsal and metatarsal fragments (latest floor L3007). Each of the four horse elements is located in different loci (L2018, L3007, L3017, and L9037), although horse is not present in intermediate floor contexts. Cow (Bos) Cow is one of the most interesting species represented at Yotvata. Only four cow elements were identified, two of which are fragments from a radius and humerus (L2018 and L3017, respectively). The predominance of limb bones suggests that prime meat yielding elements were imported to the fort in small quantities (Zeder 1988). The other elements are teeth fragments, which may indicate the importation of other elements or the presence of a live animal; however, they are from different loci (L2019 and L2062). Two of these four elements (radius, one molar) are from the uppermost Roman level (L2018 and L2019); one molar is located on an intermediate

226

The Faunal Remains

Fig. 6.2.  Proportions of sheep, goat, and deer in the Late Roman levels.

Fig. 6.3.  Medium mammal elements in Late Roman levels.

floor (L2062), and the remaining humerus is from the earliest Roman floor (L3017). Cow appears to follow the general regional trend of low numbers (Toplyn 2006).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Medium Mammals: Sheep, Goat, Deer Size (Cervids, Caprines) This size category in Late Roman levels contains the highest number of elements (n = 517) and makes up the highest proportion of species (30%). This category was split between medium mammals (sheep, goat, and deer size), sheep/goat/deer, sheep/goat, sheep, goat, ibex, and gazelle. Several individual elements could be assigned to specific species, but many were unrecognizable beyond a size category (fig. 6.2). Elements identified as “most likely” were included in that species for analysis (i.e., deer? sheep?). Ibex is represented by a single horn core (L3007); a possible ibex horn core comes from L9035. Unsurprisingly, the majority of bones in this category as well as the assemblage as a whole were identified as sheep and goat. Although this size category was present in each Late Roman level, the largest proportions occurred in the earliest Roman floors (fig. 6.3). Sheep and Goat Sheep and goat comprise 23% (n = 119) of the Late Roman assemblage and nearly 45%, if unidentified medium mammals are excluded. The data indicate that sheep and goat were better represented or present in larger quantities in the earliest and uppermost Roman levels (Table 6.4). This suggests they were the main meat supply at this fort. Sheep and goat were separated using several criteria and methods, both visual and metric, based on Boessneck’s osteological differences and Payne’s and Von den Driesch’s metrical distinctions (Boessneck 1969, Payne 1969, von den Driesch 1976). Nevertheless, many bones are undistinguishable and are categorized as sheep/goat. Although only 119 bones belonging to these species were identified, they allowed bodypart representation (BPR) and mortality profiles (based on fusion data). Body-part representation (skeletal part frequency) was only possible using sheep and goats, because they provide the largest sample size and the only plausible MNI. Even then, the sample size is barely adequate to calculate

The Faunal Remains

227

Table 6.4.  Late Roman sheep/goat assemblage by locus Earliest/Lowest Roman Floor

Intermediate Roman Floor

Latest /Uppermost Roman Floor

L2045

L9033

L2035

L2018

L7027

L2068

L9035

L2039

L2019

L7028

L3017

L9036

L2063

L2034

L9022

L3018

L9037

L3012

L3007

L9026

L6031

L9038

L6031

L6016

L9028

L7085

L6023

L9030

L6034

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

L7026

Fig. 6.4.  Sheep and goat body part representation.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

228

The Faunal Remains

BPR. For this reason, the body-part representation chart (fig.  6.4) considers the percentage of bones that survive, following the “percent survival method” postulated by Brain in the late 1970s (Brain 1981; Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1988). The information can be used to theorize about the use of local resources. Nearly all elements are represented for sheep and goats, which suggests that whole animals were brought to Yotvata from local areas for consumption and use rather than importing only choice cuts. From the BPR, it appears that taphonomy did not play a large role in the composition of the assemblage. From Lyman’s bone density chart (Lyman 1994), it is evident that bones survived at Yotvata at an expected ratio—that is, denser bones are present in greater percentages. Taphonomic characteristics are discussed in greater detail below. Ageing data from Yotvata yielded surprising results. The ten mandibles recovered (L2035, L3007, L3012, L3017, L3018) do not provide much information, as the sample size is too small. Mandibles were aged using Grant’s criteria (1982) and Payne’s method (1973). These criteria and corresponding figures were integrated into the recording database and made dental recording easier and more standardized across the assemblage. Ageing of mandibles was used only in this analysis as a method of quantifying the fusion data. Mandible ageing data indicates the presence of young animals. Fusion data at Yotvata also yielded surprising results, although attribution to specific Late Roman occupation surfaces or floors was not possible. Elements were separated into unfused and fused categories. Several anomalies are apparent from the fusion data, including, apparently, that an unusually large number of sheep and goats were killed before the first year of age. This is unusual, because young animals produce much lower quantities of meat. On the other hand, meat from young animals would have been high quality, perhaps preferred by the fort’s occupants. From these results, a possible Roman military subsistence strategy at the fort may be theorized. As shown above, all body parts are represented for sheep and goats, the same species used for fusion data, leading to the conclusion that animals were brought to the fort alive. Desert travel would not readily allow the importation of entire carcasses: the meat would have spoiled rapidly en route. Animals imported alive are often older, because they are more easily herded. Therefore, a local meat supply may have been used, at least for a portion of the meat. It must be noted again that several factors could contribute to distorted results. The most obvious is the small sample size. It is possible that these remains are from one or two young animals. The fusion data for this age group come from the scapula, pelvis, distal humeri, and proximal radius, elements that usually do not survive well (Lyman 1994; Brain 1981). Owing to the good preservation at this site, these elements may be over-represented in the assemblage. However, it seems that at Yotvata there is good evidence of young animals, using mandible data for corroboration. Pig (Sus) Very few pig bones were recovered in the Late Roman levels at Yotvata (n  =  17) (L2039, L6016, L6031, L6034, L7067, L9026, L9028, L9035, and L9038). Over half of these numbers belong to parts of the head and skull (mandible, maxilla, teeth, etc.). Although pigs were considered to be a high-status food by the Romans and their army, in this part of the world pig had a religious stigma attached to it (King 1999). Therefore, it is likely that pigs were not a major part of the diet and were eaten in very small quantities. In this instance, pig elements from the earliest level may represent only one individual. However, because pig bones are relatively small, excavation bias can lead to their underrepresentation. Also, the high proportion of bones found in the earliest Roman floors may also be misleading as this level shows the highest degree of fragmentation.

The Faunal Remains

229

Table 6.5.  Late Roman period marine resources assemblage by locus Earliest/Lowest Roman Floor

Intermediate Roman Floor

Latest /Uppermost Roman Floor

L3017

L2035

L5029

L2018

L7026

L2068

L2039

L7085

L2019

L7028

L6031

L2063

L2034

L9026

L9035

L2065

L3007

L9027

L9036

L5021

L5019

L9028

L9037

L5022

L5020

L9030

L9038

L5027

L6016

Small Mammals Small mammal faunal remains were recovered at Yotvata (n  =  17), including dog and cat. However, due to the amount of fracture and not having a reference collection, these remains were recorded as present, and further identification of species was not made. Birds Several bones recovered belong to an all-inclusive bird category (n = 36). Although the species could not be identified, there was a possible ostrich shell (L6031). Most of these remains were recovered from the earliest (L6034 and L9038) and latest (L5018, L5019, L9027, L9028, L9029, L9030, L9032) Roman floors (n = 12 and n = 17 respectively). Hearths in the uppermost floor (L5018, L5019, L9029) contained 9 bird remains, 4 of which showed signs of cutting (L9029). Marine Resources Fish, represented mostly by vertebrae, as well as turtle, were found at Yotvata (Table 6.5). Fish may have been more important to the diet than previously considered, as they are found in nearly all excavated contexts. However, they have not been separated into species or size classes. These two taxa are likely severely under-represented due to preservation and excavation bias.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Byzantine Period The Byzantine period assemblage is comprised of 75 recorded bones in two loci, L6008 and L7039, 52 of which have been identified at the species or size level. The majority of these bones are identified as medium mammal, or sheep, goat and gazelle sized (n = 30). There are also bones from large mammals (n = 1), medium-to-large mammals (n = 4), carnivores (small and medium) (n = 13), and fish (n = 4). It appears that medium mammals, including sheep, goat, and deer, were the primary faunal source during this period. Because of the low numbers of remains, it is difficult to draw additional conclusions.

Early Islamic Period Early Islamic levels, like the Byzantine period, yielded a much lower number of remains than the Late Roman period (n = 48) (fig. 6.5). Sheep, goat and gazelle dominate the assemblage,

230

The Faunal Remains

Fig. 6.5.  Islamic Period assemblage

although camel, horse, cow, carnivores, fish, and small mammals were also present. Early Islamic loci with quantifiable bones include L2001, L2003, L2004, L2005, L2006, L7009, L7034, L7066, L8005, L9012, and L9015.

Special Use Areas

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Several loci in the fort contained concentrations or clusters of faunal remains, primarily camel; these are discussed briefly below, including the possible ritual nature of the deposits. It can be difficult to differentiate between butchery and consumption and ritual use of animals (Groot 2008). Several factors, including species type and excavation context need to be looked at when interpreting faunal remains as ritual deposits. Several studies, including Groot’s 2008 excavations in Teil-Passewaaij have identified faunal remains associated with ritual practices in Roman times. Toplyn’s study also found possible ritual use of sacrificial cattle, although no camels were identified in ritual contexts.

Area 2000 A possible ritual deposit was identified during the excavations in the corridor to the SE Tower (below L 2034; uppermost Roman floor). Although the confined space made floor levels difficult to distinguish, a compacted surface with a single stone tile and pieces of wall plaster was found. Several large stones which may have belonged to a step were discovered with several large camel bones, primarily lower leg and extremities (tibia and astragalus). There are also fragments of carapace and unidentified mammal skull, which were not identified in large quantities in the fort. Ritual offerings representing foundation deposits are often associated with the construction of buildings. Unfortunately, the limited number of elements found makes it impossible to conclusively identify these bones as a ritual deposit.

The Faunal Remains

231

Area 3000 A cluster of camel bones on top of a floor (L3007) was found next to W512. The bones were identified primarily as phalanx and lower extremities, although some identifiable skull fragments were also discovered. Given the number of faunal remains in this context, many of which are unidentified fragments, and their location next to a wall, this deposit likely represents refuse that was sorted by size and density rather than being a ritual deposit.

Area 5000 A single fractured (n = 10) camel scapula was buried under an intermediate Roman floor (L5032), immediately outside the fort’s east gate. This deposit, like the one in Area 2000, may be a ritual offering associated with construction.

Taphonomic Modifications Taphonomic modifications refer to any alteration or damage to faunal elements, including body coverings such as shell or carapace. These modifications may occur before or after disposal or deposition and may be natural, cultural, or both. Taphonomic processes identified in this study include weathering, burning, butchering, animal gnawing, and caliche coating (salt concretions). The amount of modification and fragmentation associated with faunal remains provides information about the taphonomic history before and after the site’s abandonment (Davis 1987; Lyman 1994).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Weathering Bone weathering is usually associated with exposure to sunlight, moisture, and temperature fluctuation prior to burial (Behrensmeyer 1978; Schiffer 1987). At Yotvata, texture was used as an indication of weathering, with four stages ranging from excellent to poor describing the preservation of the bones (see Catalogue). Late Roman and Islamic phases have fairly high levels of “good” or “excellent” preserved bones. The higher percentage of “fair” bones in Late Roman levels may be due to salt concretions or reflects the higher number of remains found. Neither of the phases displays enough differences to suggest a change in preservation or weathering patterns. The wellpreserved nature of the assemblage is likely the result of rapid deposition or burial. Rodent gnawing, although found on a significant number of bones, was not a hindrance to identification. It appears that modification and taphonomy have had little effect on the assemblage from Yotvata. The bone assemblage does not exhibit high levels of post-depositional damage, indicating that most of the bones were not left on the surface for long periods. This is also suggested by the small percentage of whitened bones, which would indicate severe weathering (Behrensmeyer 1978).

Modifications: Butchery Butchering marks reflect the methods used to cut carcasses (Binford 1978; Lyman 1994; Reitz and Wing 1999). Five types of skinning and butchering marks are attributed to human

232

The Faunal Remains

consumption of animals: cut marks, scrape marks, chop marks, blows, and saw marks (NoeNygaard 1989). Of these, only cut and chop marks are found on bones in the Late Roman levels at Yotvata, suggesting dismembering and filleting (fig. 6.6).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Late Roman Period Levels The majority of bones (97.2%) from Late Roman levels exhibited no butchery marks. Of those with butchery marks (n  =  49), the largest number were found on medium mammals (n  =  23), including signs of dismembering, chopping, and filleting. Dismembering occurred most often and follows the usual pattern

Fig. 6.6.  Example of cut-marks at Yotvata.

Fig. 6.7.  Late Roman level butchery by species and occupation level.

of placement on elements, in areas where limbs were removed from the body. Skinning was found in predictable areas near the extremities of the body (metapodials, phalanges, etc). The low number of identified butchery marks makes it difficult to theorize about the Late Roman diet. However, it appears that medium mammals, including sheep, were eaten, as well as a surprisingly high ratio of birds (fig. 6.7). In addition, the majority of butchery appears to have been centralized in specific loci (Table 6.6) which suggests these may have been cooking areas, with the highest percentage recovered from the earliest Roman floors. Byzantine and Islamic Levels The small number of elements exhibiting butchery marks in these levels (n = 1 and n = 3, respectively) precludes much analysis. The Byzantine level yielded ribs and vertebrae of medium-to-

The Faunal Remains

233

Table 6.6.  Late Roman level butchery by loci and occupation level Earliest/Lowest Roman Floor

Intermediate Roman Floor

Latest/Uppermost Roman Floor

L2068 (4)

L5022 (1)

L7026 (1)

L3018 (3)

L9026 (2)

L6031 (11)

L9029 (4)

L6034 (1) L9035 (12) L9037 (1) L9038 (9)

* (  ) denotes number of identified elements within loci

large animals with evidence of butchery. The Early Islamic level yielded only ribs and long bones of medium mammals with butchery marks. As in the Late Roman levels, only cut- and chop-marks were identified.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Modifications: Hearth Features and Burning Burned bones generally fall into two categories: (1) unintentional or accidental and (2) intentional (Lyman 1994). Unintentional burning may be attributed to fires, lightning, or hearths built over previously buried deposits. Intentional burning is associated with cooking, disposal, and trash burning (Binford 1978; Schiffer 1987) or the use of bone as fuel (Brain 1981; Lyman 1994). Cooked faunal elements should exhibit differential burning damage based on the cooking method and the length of time the element was exposed to fire (Reitz and Wing 1999; Stiner 1994). Calcined (whitened) materials may be the result of bones discarded into fires, the dropping of peripheral elements into fires during cooking processes (i.e., foot elements), the use of bone as fuel, and structural burning (Binford 1978; Schiffer 1987; Brain 1981; Lyman 1994). Experiments have shown that the length of exposure to heat and temperature causes color changes to the elements (Brain 1981; Lyman 1994). Low temperatures or short exposure times produce brown bones, which could be the result of proximity to a hearth or fire without direct contact, or material that is shielded during structural burning. Black, gray, and white bones suggest increasingly higher temperatures and longer burning periods. Late Roman Period Levels Although elements of various colors (from pink to partially gray and black) were identified in the Late Roman levels, the color of most burned elements could not be identified due to preservation and size (e.g., fish). Instead, the data can only suggest areas where burning activities took place (fig. 6.8). Numbers of elements with burning represent estimates, as many are fish vertebrae or have been fragmented due to damage. Similar to butchery marks, the majority of burning appears to have been centralized in specific loci (fig. 6.8), which suggests these were cooking areas or areas of the fort that were subjected to fire. There is evidence of burning in Rooms 2 and 6 during several different Late Roman phases (L2063, L2068, L9030, L9035, L9037, and L9038). Also,

234

The Faunal Remains

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Fig. 6.8.  Number of burned elements by occupation level and floor (Late Roman period.)

notably, a high number of burned elements is located within Area 3000, which suggests this area may have been used for cooking activities as well as refuse disposal, as discussed above. Several hearths (L7028, L9029) associated with the uppermost Late Roman floor and the second Late Roman floor (L5022) from the top yielded elements showing evidence of partial burning. A total of 67 faunal remains was located within these contexts, some (n = 24) with evidence of burning (fig. 6.9). The uppermost Fig. 6.9.  Example of burned bone from Yotvata. Late Roman floor yielded the most remains associated with hearths (n = 48). Of these, fish is the most abundant (n = 24); other species include bird (n = 9), sheep/goat (n = 8), camel (n = 1), pig (n = 1), turtle (n = 1), medium mammals (n = 1), and unidentified (n = 3). The second floor from the top contained 13 (n = 13) remains associated with hearths. Species included fish (n = 5), horse/camel (n = 1), sheep/goat/deer (n = 1), medium mammals (n = 3), and unidentified (n = 3). Unfortunately, the low number of burned bones in these contexts makes it impossible to determine the length and temperature of cooking. The majority of the elements in these contexts do not exhibit signs of burning or evidence of cooking at all. Byzantine Period Level A total of 16 long bone fragments belonging to medium mammals exhibited evidence of burning. All come from the same context (L6008). Islamic Period Level Seven faunal elements from Early Islamic contexts showed evidence of burning, all from L2001. Colors range from pink and red to partially gray and black, suggesting different temperatures and

The Faunal Remains

235

Table 6.7.  Evidence of Burning in the Late Roman Period according to Locus Earliest/Lowest Roman Floor

Intermediate Roman Floor

Latest/Uppermost Roman Floor

L2038 (1*)

L2039 (3)

L2018 (3)

L3017 (13)

L3011 (1)

L2019(1)

L3018 (3)

L3012 (7)

L3007 (11)

L6031 (20**)

L5022 (10**)

L6016 (10**)

L6034 (6)

L7081 (2)

L6023 (1)

L9033 (3)

L7028 (10**)

L9035 (20**)

L9029 (1)

L9037 (1)

L9030 (10**)

L9038 (40**)

* (  ) denotes number of identified elements within loci ** denotes estimates due to fish remains or fragmentation

lengths of burning activities. The majority of elements are from large mammals (including camel, horse, and cow) (n = 4). The remainder include pig (n = 1) and unidentified (n = 1).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Results and Conclusions Table 6.8 shows a model of resource expectation based on the data from Yotvata, integrating information from comparison sites. Despite the small sample size, the remains from Yotvata yielded interesting information, including the diet regime and resource base of the garrison. Available Taxa: Sheep, goat, and deer were found in large quantities. As these were local resources, it appears that the bulk of the meat supply was coming from local taxa. The lack of variety suggests the dominance of local resources, as does the use of hunted species including gazelle. However, limited evidence of non-local resources, including cattle and pig, suggests that small proportions of the meat supply were procured regionally. Fish, a regionally obtained resource, would repay further study, as it could have furnished a substantial proportion of the food supply. No exotic species were identified at Yotvata, suggesting that the garrison was not using them in any significant quantity. Camels were abundant in the remains, although it is unlikely that they were a main source of food. Rather, they were likely used primarily as transport for military supplies and personnel and only as a meat resource in extreme circumstances or when the animal was no longer useful. Body parts: As shown by the NISP and mortality profile, all elements and body parts of the main species (sheep and goat) are present, implying reliance on local resources. The presence of all body parts suggests that live animals were brought to the fort. Very young sheep and goats presumably were obtained locally, as they would have been difficult to herd (Zeder 1988). The evidence is too limited to study the regionally obtained species in any depth, although the scarcity of remains suggests that they were used primarily for variety in the diet.

236

The Faunal Remains

Table 6.8.  Resource Base Expectation Model

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area of Resources

Available Taxa

Represented Body Parts

Evidence of Processing

Context

Local

Camel, sheep, goat, gazelle, rodents

all body parts represented, all ages represented

carcasses/remains intensively processed; possible evidence for stabling, butchering, processing, cooking, etc.; evidence for hunting

found in many contexts, including possible stabling or butchery areas; found in noted cooking areas or rubbish dumps

Regional ProvinceWide

regional animals, including cattle, pig, and marine resources

slightly more selective body parts (if bringing in carcasses); more age restrictive (all ages excluding neonatal and very old)

less intensively processed (no evidence for stabling); some evidence for possible butchering, cooking, etc. areas

found in cooking and butchery related sites, rubbish areas

Exotic Other Provinces

exotic, non-local and non-regional resources, including Roman preferences; more varied marine resources; great species variety

very few body parts, mostly meat bearing bones or symbolic elements (antler, skull)

very little processing, mostly preparation or cooking remains

found in specific site areas, including cooking, rubbish, or possible symbolic areas

Processing: Evidence shows that some carcasses were butchered, most likely on-site. The variety of butchery marks, as well as the variety of elements and species shows that butchery was not uncommon and that processing did occur at Yotvata, in some instances intensively. There is only tentative evidence of stabling. Context: Contexts can show the intensity and location of processing at a site. However, as no definitive animal-related contexts (i.e., stabling or cooking areas) were identified, conclusions based on context are limited. It is clear that locally available animals predominate. No areas within the fort show a dominance of specific species, such as only exotic remains. As such, it is theorized that sheep and goats provided most of the meat supply at Yotvata, and regional resources supplied variety. No remains have yet been recovered that cannot be found in the Near East, and resources were not being traded or brought in from long distances The data gathered from Yotvata are consistent with subsistence economies at other regional sites, including those examined as part of the Limes Arabicus Project. The zooarchaeological evi­ dence strongly suggests that the subsistence economy of the Roman garrison at Yotvata was primarily self-sufficient, relying on locally available resources and only partially on regional or exotic animals.

References Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150–62. Binford, L. R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Faunal Remains

237

Boessneck, J. 1969 Osteological Distinctions between Sheep (Ovis aries) and Goat (Capra hircus). Pp. 331–58 in Science in Archaeology: A Comprehensive Survey of Progress and Research, ed. D. Brothwell and E. Higgs. London: Duckworth. Brain, C. K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clark, G. 1995 The Mammalian Remains from the Early Byzantine Fort of Upper Zohar. Pp. 49–84 in Upper Zohar: An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia. Final Report of Excavations in 1985–1986, ed. R. P. Harper. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, S. J. M. 1987 The Archaeology of Animals. London: B. T. Batsford. Driesch, A. von den 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Evenari M., L. Shanan, and N. Tadmor 1982 The Negev: the Challenge of the Desert. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grant, A. 1982 The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Animals. Pp. 91–108 in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, ed. B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Orlando: Academic Press. Groot, M. 2008 Animals in Ritual and Economy in a Roman Frontier Community: Excavations in Tiel-Passweaaij. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 12. Amsterdam. Halbmaier, R. 2005 Dining in the Desert: An Analysis of Faunal Resources Available to the Roman Army on the Eastern Frontier, Based on Excavations at Yotvata Roman Fort, Israel. Unpublished M.S. dissertation, University College London. Hodgson, G. W. I. 1977 The Animal Remains from Excavations at Vindolanda 1970–1975. Haltwhistle: Barcombe. Horwitz, L. K. and Tchernov, E. 1989 Animal Exploitation in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: An Overview. Pp. 279–96 in L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’age du Bronze ancien, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527 (ii). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. King, A. 1999 Diet in the Roman World: A Regional Inter-Site Comparison of the Mammal Bones. Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 168–202. Legge, A. J., and Rowley-Conwy, P. A. 1988 Star Carr Revisited. London: University of London. Lyman, R. L. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noe-Nygaard, N. 1989 Man-made Trace Fossils in Bones. Human Evolution 4(6): 461–91. O’Connor, T. P. 2001 Animal Bone Quantification. Pp. 703–10 in Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, ed. D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard. Chichester: Wiley. Orni, E., and E. Efrat 1964 Geography of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.

238

The Faunal Remains

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Parker, S. T. 1999 Roman Aqaba Project, Jordan. Retrieved on 12 July 2005 from: www.chass.ncsu.edu/history/rapweb/ home.htm. Payne, S. 1969 A Metrical Distinction between Sheep and Goat Metacarpals. Pp. 295–305 in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed. P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby. London: Duckworth. Payne, S. 1973 Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: the Mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281–303. Rast, W. E. 1992 Through the Ages in Palestinian Archaeology. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. Reitz, E. J. and E. S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffer, M. B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Stiner, M. C. 1994 Honor among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Toplyn, M. R. 1987 Sampled Faunal Remains From the el-Lejjun Barracks. Pp. 705–12 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, ed. S. T. Parker. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2006 Livestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological Evidence. Pp. 463–513 in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordon: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985, ed. S. T. Parker. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1973 Animals in Roman Life and Art. London: Thames and Hudson. Veen, M. van der, and S. Hamilton-Dyer 1998 A Life of Luxury in the Desert? The Food and Fodder Supply to Mons Claudianus. Journal of Roman Archaeology 11: 101–16. Weber, J. A. 1997 Faunal Remains from Tell Es-Sweyhat and Tell Hajji Ibrahim. Pp. 133–43 in Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat 1989–1995, Preliminary Report, ed. R. L. Zettler. Philadelphia: MASCA. Wilson, R. T. 1989 Ecophysiology of the Camelidae and Desert Ruminants. Berlin: Springer. Zeder, M. A. 1988 Understanding Urban Process through the Study of Specialized Subsistence Economy in the Near East. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 1–55

Chapter 7

The Archaeobotanical Remains Jennifer Ramsay Introduction This summary analysis of the archaeobotanical remains recovered from the material collected from the 2003–2007 excavations at Yotvata examines the evidence for subsistence, environment, and local agriculture in this hyper-arid region of the Arava.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Methodology In the summer of 2009, several of the soil samples that had been recovered from Yotvata during the 2005–2007 excavation seasons were processed for archaeobotanical remains by water flotation (Table 7.1). These included six hand-picked samples of seeds that were visible to the naked eye, such as date pits. As well, there was one sample that consisted of dessicated sticks and goat dung. The 13 soil samples selected for flotation were taken during excavation by staff and not by the author. These samples were determined subjectively in the field and were recovered from a variety of contexts such as hearths and fills. The samples were taken from contexts that were considered likely to have remains of botanical materials, such as ashy layers, visible charcoal layers, and burned deposits. The discussion that follows will focus on contexts where archaeobotanical remains were identified. The samples had been stored in plastic bags and generally ranged in size from 1–2 liters. In the summer of 2009, Ramsay (with the help of W. Caccese) retrieved the carbonized plant remains from the soil samples using the bucket flotation technique (French 1971), as it was the most efficient and cost-effective method available for the quantity of water available and the type of soil medium found at the site (Wagner 1988). Carbonized plant remains were recovered from the soil matrix in three parts: (1) material that sank to the bottom of the floatation bucket and was collected in a 1 mm mesh screen (heavy fraction), (2) material that floated (light fraction) was collected in nested 1 mm, and (3) 250 µm sieves. Once collected, the material was dried and packaged for shipping to the lab at the College at Brockport, State University of New York. During the fall of 2011, these samples were sorted using a Leica stereoscopic microscope at up to 40× magnification. The plants remains recovered consisted of charred organic material, including seed and other plant parts (e.g., cereal grain chaff). The identification of the recovered botanical material was accomplished by comparing morphological characteristics of the archaeological specimens to modern material from the archaeo239

240

The Archaeobotanical Remains

Table 7.1.  Catalogue of archaeobotanical samples taken during the 2005–2007 excavation seasons Sample # (from Lab) Period

Sampling Year

Date Recovered

Locus

Botanical Sample # (from Field)

Comments on Sample Bag

Fraction

 1

 

2007

 8-Jun

9026

90309

Date Pit

HP

 2

 

2007

14-Jun

9034

90420

Pit

HP

 3

 

2007

13-Jun

9034

90407

Pit

HP

 4

 

2007

 7-Jun

9027

90279

Soil Sample

CF/FF

 5

 

2007

12-Jun

9030

90384

Nutshell

HP

 6

 

2006

11-Jun

6016

60261

Seeds (Surface)

HP

 7

 

2006

 2-Jun

6016

60181

Seeds?

CF/FF

 8

 

2006

 4-Jun

6016

60187

Seed Sample

HP

 9

 

2006

 8-Jun

6020

60243

Seeds?

CF/FF

10

 

2006

 4-Jun

6017

60188

Seed?

CF/FF

11

 

2006

 2-Jun

6016

60182

Pot with Seed

CF/FF

12

 

2006

26-Jun

6043

60382

Soil Sample

CF/FF

13

 

2006

26-Jun

6043

60382

Soil Sample

CF/FF

14

 

2006

26-Jun

6043

60382

Soil Sample

CF/FF

15

 

2006

26-Jun

6043

60382

Soil Sample

CF/FF

16

 

2005

 3-Jun

3018

30322

Soil Sample

CF/FF

17

 

2006

26-Jun

6043

60382

Soil Sample

CF/FF

18

 

2006

26-Jun

6043

60382

Soil Sample

CF/FF

19

 

2006

19-Jun

6034

60352

Soil Under Camel Bone

CF/FF

2005

 2-Jun

3018

30314

Charcoal

HP

20

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

*HP – Hand Picked, CF – Course Flot, FF – Fine Flot

botanical reference collections of J. Ramsay at the College at Brockport, State University of New York. Drawings and pictures in reference seed atlases and publications were also consulted (Post 1932; Beijerinck 1947; Berggren 1969 and 1981; Zohary 1966, 1972; Feinbrun-Dothan 1978, 1986; Anderberg 1994; Cappers 2006).

Results Twenty-seven specimens were identified among the samples analyzed, and 13 different taxa of seeds and/or plant parts (cereal chaff, peduncles) (fig. 7.1). These include two cereals, three fruits, and eight wild species (Table 7.2), as well as evidence of dung fuel. Of the samples that had identifiable remains, only sample #16 had greater than 10 specimens. This sample comprised material recovered from a hearth feature, which likely accounts for the carbonized preservation of the barley (grain, rachis, and culm nodes), olive, and weed species present. Evidence of charred dung indicates its use as a fuel at Yotvata. It is probable that the by-products of crop processing

The Archaeobotanical Remains

241

Table 7.2.  Identified Archaeobotanical Remains from Yotvata

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Sample # (from Lab)

1

2

3

4

6

8

10

16

Period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling Year

2007

2007

2007

2007

2006

2006

2006

2005

Date Recovered

8-Jun

14-Jun

13-Jun

7-Jun

11-Jun

4-Jun

4-Jun

3-Jun

Locus

9026

9034

9034

9027

6016

6016

6017

3018

Botanical Sample # (from Field)

90309

90420

90407

90279

60261

60187

60188

30322

Comments on sample bag

Date Pit

Pit

Pit

Soil Sample

Seeds (Surface)

Seed Sample

Seed?

Soil Sample

Fraction

HP

HP

HP

CF/FF

HP

HP

CF/FF

Comments from Analysis

 

 

 

Charcoal

CF/FF Hearth

Species

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CEREALS: grains

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hordeum vulgare

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

CEREALS: chaff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Triticum sp. rachis

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

Hordeum rachis

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

3

Culm node

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

3

Fruit/Nut

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Olea europaea

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

1

Ficus carica

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Phoenix dactylifera

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Economic Taxa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medicago sp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Galium sp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Trifolium sp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Gramineae indet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Melilotus sp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Silene sp.

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

Brassicaceae

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

Compositae

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Dung Fuel Evidence

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Totals

1

1

1

3

1

1

7

12

HP=Handpicked; CF/FF = Course Flot and Fine Flot

(rachis and culm nodes) and weed species were incorporated into the sample through animals ingesting it. The characteristics of the taxa recovered from all samples are described briefly below. Analysis of the sample (#20 in Table 7.1) that contained dessicated sticks and goat dung indicates that the sticks are Nerium oleander (Oleander). Table 7.3 lists the category, scientific name and common name for each of the specimens identified following Flora Palaestina (Zohary 1966; 1972; Feinbrun-Dothan 1978; 1986). Where

242

The Archaeobotanical Remains

Table 7.3.  List of Common Names of Plant Taxa Found at Yotvata Category Cereals:

Fruit:

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Non-economic species:

Scientific Name

Common Name

Hordeum vulgare

Barley

Triticum sp.

Wheat

Ficus carica

Fig

Phoenix dactylifera

Date

Olea europaea

Olive

Medicago sp.

Lucerne/Medick

Melilotus sp. 

Sweetclover

Galium sp.

Bedstraw

Trifolium sp.

Clover

Silene sp.

Catchfly

Gramineae indet.

Grass family

Compositae

Sunflower Family

Brassicaceae

Mustard Family

Fig. 7.1.  Pie-chart of the percent distribution of taxa from Yotvata.

available, Hebrew and Arabic names for the genus or species are provided and all categories of economic crop species and non-economic wild species are described including their ecology and potential uses. The majority of the ecological information is derived from Flora Palaestina (Zohary 1966, 1972; Feinbrun-Dothan 1978, 1986), supplemented by several additional sources

The Archaeobotanical Remains

243

(Abu-Irmaileh 1987; Robson et al. 1991; Blamey and Grey-Wilson 1993; Danin and Orshan 1999; Harrison 2001; Cappers 2006). The material has been divided into economic and non-economic species, with economic species being identified as major crop species or food plants. Non-economic species are considered as weed and wild species. In this respect, a weed is considered a plant that has specific ecological requirements and is unwanted in areas that fulfil those requirements (Harlan 1992: 85). Plants that may have been used for medicinal purposes or herbs are also classified as non-economic. These plants generally were not produced in large enough quantities to play a significant role in the agricultural economy. A wild plant is considered as one growing in its natural or unaltered state.

Inventory of Identified Plant Remains Hordeum vulgare English: Six-row barley Hebrew: Sehoraw Arabic: Shaʾir ; Siʾyr Barley, alongside wheat, was a staple cereal of the ancient Near East, where it was used as a fodder food, to make bread, as a type of gruel and for beer (Harlan 1992; Nesbitt and Samuel 1996; Zohary and Hopf 2012). The barley grains from Yotvata that were preserved well enough to be identified are characterized by being pointed at both the apex and the embryo and by being rounded on the ventral surface and angular on the dorsal surface ( Jacomet et al. 1989; de Moulins 1993; Hillman et al. 1996).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Triticum aestivum English: Bread wheat/Macaroni wheat Hebrew: Hourani (T. durum) Arabic: Berssim (T. durum) Many specimens from Yotvata could be identified to the genus Triticum but could not be identified to species level because they were either too fragmentary or poorly preserved. These were placed in a Triticum sp. category. In most cases, chaff fragments are more readily identified than cereal grains, and as such, their identifications can be compared to check the accuracy of the grain identifications (van der Veen 1992; Hillman et al. 1996). The identification of both Triticum glumes and the rachis internodes from Yotvata were based on criteria defined in Hillman et al. (1996), the shape of the glume ( Jacomet et al. 1989; de Moulins 1993), and by the drawing in Nesbitt and Samuel (1996). Triticum aestivum/durum English: Bread wheat/Macaroni wheat Hebrew: Hourani (T. durum) Arabic: Berssim (T. durum) It was not possible to distinguish between Triticum durum and Triticum aestivum at Yotvata using only the grains, and as a result, they are placed in a T. aestivum/durum category. Durum wheat or Macaroni wheat (Triticum durum or Triticum turgidum subsp. Durum) is the only tetraploid species of wheat widely cultivated today (Wiersema and León 1999). Durum is the

244

The Archaeobotanical Remains

Fig. 7.2.  Photo of a charred date pit (photo by J. Ramsay)

Fig. 7.3.  Photo of a charred olive pit (photo by J. Ramsay)

hardest of all wheats. Its high protein content and gluten strength make durum good for pasta and bread. It is not, however, good for cakes, which are made from soft wheat to prevent toughness (Wiersema and León 1999). Most of the durum grown today is amber durum, the grains of which are amber-colored and larger than those of other types of wheat. Durum has a yellow endosperm, which gives pasta its color. When durum is milled, the endosperm is ground into a granular product called semolina. Semolina made from durum is used for premium pastas and breads (Wiersema and León 1999).

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Ficus carica English: Fig Hebrew: Tena; Teʾena; Fikus hattʾenah Arabic: Balas; Teen; Tin; Tyn The figs from Yotvata have been identified as Ficus carica by comparison with the reference collection. Figs are widely cultivated in several varieties and can produce 2–3 crops during the year, but the main edible crop matures between June and September. F. carica grows spontaneously along river banks and walls but is probably not indigenous to the Levant (Zohary 1966: 37–38). According to Zohary, there is a wild species (F. persica) that is very similar to F. carica that grows in the Irano-Turanian Mountains (Zohary 1966). This species has been cultivated since at least the Bronze Age and possibly earlier, especially because figs have excellent storage properties for long-distance transport. Phoenix dactylifera English: Date palm Arabic: Balah, Nakh(i)l al-balah; Nakhl; Ruzayz; Wahalan Hebrew: Tàmâr ; Deqel Several date pits were found at Yotvata (Fig. 7.2). The date palm is one of the first fruit trees that was cultivated in the Old World. It requires warm, dry climates and high temperatures and low humidity for fruit to ripen (Zohary and Hopf 2012). Cultivation depends on a steady water supply provided either through irrigation or a high water table. Date palms can withstand high levels of salinity and thrive in brackish water environments. According to Zohary and Hopf (2012), a

The Archaeobotanical Remains

245

date palm tree can yield 100–200 kg. of sugar-rich fruit. The trunks of the date palm are used as construction material, the leaves are used for matting, roofing, and basketry, and fibers of the bark are used for rope (Zohary and Hopf 2012). Date palms start to be productive 4–5 years after planting and reach their peak between 8 and 10 years (Zohary and Hopf 2012). Olea europaea English: Olive Hebrew: Zayit Arabic: Utum; Zatyn; Zet; Zaytun; Zaytoon Olive was also found at Yotvata (fig. 7.3) and is native to the Mediterranean and has been recorded in several literary sources, such as Strabo’s Geography and Theophrastus (Enquiry into Plants I & II) as being an important economic crop since early antiquity. Olives have an oil content ranging from 14% to 25% and can be consumed whole, crushed, chopped, and pressed for oil (Cappers 2006: 103). Olives are soaked in a salty brine to remove the bitter substance that they contain. There is little doubt that the olive tree was first domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean, where wild Olea europaea subsp. oleaster forms thrive (Damania 1998). Excavations in Syria–Palestine and elsewhere in the Mediterranean indicate that it is closely associated with the history of civilization, being the source of edible fruits and oil for more than 10,000 years.

Non-Economic Species

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Medicago English: Hebrew: Arabic:

Alfalfa; Medick; Burclover and Toothed medick (M. polymorpha L.); Snail medick (M. scutellata Mill.); Flat-podded medick (M. Orbicularis (L.) Bart.) Aspeset; Aspeset tarbutit (M. sativa L.); Aspeset metzuya (M. polymorpha) Nafal (M. polymorpha)

The specimen of Medicago found at Yotvata is most likely Medicago sativa. Medicago flowers between March and July (Zohary 1972: 137–53). Medicago sativa appears to have evolved in the area around the Caspian Sea. It may have been the first plant to be cultivated as a forage crop to provide feed for horses and cattle. The Greeks discovered it being used as fodder for the horses of Darius III’s Persian cavalry. The Greeks then adopted the crop for their own use (Damania 1998). Melilotus English: Sweetclover; Sweet clover; Melilot; Indian melilot (M. indicus (L.) All.) Hebrew: Divshah haddit (Divsha hodit) (M. indicus); Divsha levana (M. albus Medik.) Arabic: Handaqooq (M. indicus) Melilotus was recovered from Yotvata but could not be identified to the species level because not all of the six species found in Palestine (Zohary 1972) were available in the comparison collections. Melilotus spp. are found in moist habitats, fields and swampy areas (Zohary 1972: 153–57). Zohary (1972: 154) has noted that M. albus was used as food for livestock and was a good honey plant as it attracted bees for pollination.

246

The Archaeobotanical Remains

Trifolium English: Hebrew:

Clover Tiltan rafeh (T. nigrescens Viv.); Tiltan tat-karkai (T. subterraneum L.)

Trifolium is difficult to classify to the species level because there are 46 species documented in the region (Zohary 1972: 157–93) and not all were available for comparison. Trifolium species are generally found in fields, sandy soils, damp, swampy, or grassy places. The flowering times for most range between January and October, with the majority flowering in the spring (Zohary 1972: 157–93). Silene Synonyms: S. inflata Sm., S. latifolia (Miller) Britten and Rendle, S. cububalis Wibel. (S. vulgaris (Moench.) Garcke.) Catchfly; Conoid catchfly (S. conoidea L.); Bladder campion English: (S. vulgaris (Moench.) Garcke.); Small red-flowered catchfly (S. rubella L.); Catchfly (S. crassipes Frenzl.) Zohary has identified and discussed 35 species of Silene in this region (1966). It was not possible to identify the specimen recovered from Yotvata to species level. In Mediterranean regions, Silene appears to be a common weed species found in cropped or fallow fields. There are only two species that are found in the Arava: S. linearis Decne, and S. hussonii Boiss (the latter is very rare). Generally, the flowering period for Silene ranges from February to May (Zohary 1966: 81–100). Galium Synonyms: G. tricorne Stokes. (G. tricornutum Dandy) Bedstraw; Cleavers; Goosegrass (G. aparine L.); Rough bedstraw English: (G. tricornutum Dandy) Arabic: Dobbeyk; Edhairjeh (G. tricornutum Dandy)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Galium was found at Yotvata, but it was not possible to classify the specimen to the species level; 20 species of Galium are present in this region (Feinbrun-Dothan 1978: 240–50). The specimen from Yotvata may represent G. tricornutum or G. hierochuntinum, which are found in the Arava in shady rocks and ravines and flower in March and April (Feinbrun-Dothan 1978: 247). Galium is also common in agricultural and fallow fields.

Discussion and Conclusions This brief study of the archaeobotanical assemblage recovered from Yotvata provides potential evidence of local agriculture and the likely use of dung as a fuel source. Plant husbandry appears to have been practiced locally, as evidence by the presence of crop by-products and weed species common in crop fields. However, the presence of a number of weed and wild species may also be indicative of the use of animal dung as a fuel source, as the weeds recovered may have entered the assemblage after being ingested by browsing and grazing animals whose dung was used as a fuel. The identification of Oleander from the dessicated sticks recovered in association with goat dung suggests that Oleander wood was also used as a fuel source in small hearths or fire pits.

The Archaeobotanical Remains

247

The botanical information obtained from the Yotvata samples provides information about diet and agricultural practices of the population and the type of environment in this part of the Arava. The fort’s inhabitants appear to have subsisted on a diet composed mostly of wheats, barley, olives, dates, and figs.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

References Abu-Irmaileh, B. E. 1987 Weeds of Jordan. Amman: University of Jordan. Anderberg, A. 1994 Atlas of Seeds, part 4: Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History. Beijerinck, W. 1947 Zandenatlas der Nederlandsche flora. Amsterdam: Backhuys en Meesters. Facsimile edition 1976. Berggren, G. 1969 Atlas of Seeds, Part 2: Salicaceae-Cruciferae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History. 1981 Atlas of Seeds, Part 3: Cyperaceae. Stockholm: Swedish Natural Science Research Council. Blamey, M., and C. Grey-Wilson 1993 Mediterranean Wild Flowers. London: HarperCollins. Cappers, R. T. J. 2006 Roman Footprints at Berenike: Archaeobotanical Evidence of Subsistence and Trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 55. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Damania, A. B. 1998 Diversity of Major Cultivated Plants Domesticated in the Near East. Pp. 51–64 in The Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication, ed. A. B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C. O. Qualset. Aleppo: ICARDA. Danin, A., and G. Orshan 1999 Vegetation of Israel, I: Desert and Coastal Vegetation. Leiden: Backhuys. Feinbrun, N., and M. Zohary 1955 A Geobotanical Survey of Transjordan. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 5D:5 35. Feinbrun-Dothan N. 1978 Flora Palaestina, Part III. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities. 1986 Flora Palaestina, Part IV. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities. French, D. H. 1971 An Experiment in Water Sieving. Anatolian Studies 21: 59–64 Harlan, J. R. 1992. Crops and man. 2nd edition. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Crop Science Society of America, Inc. Harrison, M. F. 2001 Jordan Wild Flowers. Jordan: Mai Ismail Bilbeisi, National Press. Hillman, G., S. Mason, D. de Moulins, and M. Nesbitt 1996 Identification of Archaeological Remains of Wheat: The 1992 London Workshop. Circaea 12: 195–209. Jacomet, S., C. Brombacher, and M. Dick 1989 Archäobotanik am Zürichsee. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalpflege, Monographien 7. Zürich: Orell Füssli. Kislev, M. E., D. Nadel, and I. Carmi 1992 Epi-palaeolithic (19,000 BP) Cereal and Fruit Diet at Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 161–66.

248

The Archaeobotanical Remains

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2000 Jordan in Bloom: Wildflowers of the Holy Land. Jordan: Jordan River Foundation. Moulins, D. de 1993 Les restes de plantes caronisées de Cafer Höyük. Cahiers de l’Euphrate 7: 191–234. Valkoun, G. Willcox, and C. O. Qualset. Aleppo: ICARDA. Nesbitt, M., and D. Samuel 1996 From Staple Crop to Extinction? The Archaeology and History of the Hulled Wheats. Pp. 41–100 in Hulled Wheats: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats, vol. 4: Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops, ed. S. Padulosi, K. Hammer, and J. Heller. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Post, G. 1932 Flora of Syria, Palastine and Sinai. Beirut: American Press. Robson, T. O., P. J. Americanos, and B. E. Abu-Irmaileh 1991 Major Weeds of the Near East. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Veen, M. van der 1992 Crop Husbandry Regimes. Sheffield Archaeological Monograph 3. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications. Veen, M. van der, and N. Fieller 1982 Sampling Seeds. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 287–98. Wagner, G. 1988 Comparability among Recovery Techniques. Pp. 17–35 in Current Palaeoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, ed. V. Popper and C. Hastorf. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wiersema, J., and B. León 1999 USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network– (GRIN) [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. URL: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/stdlit.pl?World%20Econ%20Pl (15 January 2008). Zohary, M. 1962 Plant Life of Palestine. New York: Ronald Press. 1966 Flora Palaestina: Part I. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities. 1972 Flora Palaestina: Part II. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities. Zohary, D., and M. Hopf 2012 Domestication of Plants in the Old World. 4th edition. Rotterdam: Oxford Science.

Appendix 1

Complete Locus List (with opening and closing elevations) * Critical loci are in bold.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 1000 (The Bath House) (Darby [2006, 2007]) 1000: surface debris in the praefurnium (77.15–76.70) 1001: ash deposit in the praefurnium pit (76.76–76.70) 1002: ash deposit in the praefurnium pit below L1001 and north of L1003 (76.72–76.14) 1003: stone and ash concretion with tile fragments below L1001 in the praefurnium pit and aligned with the flue, separating L1002 (north) and L1004 (south) (76.69–76.14) 1004: ash deposit in the praefurnium pit below L1001, south of L1003 (76.70–76.14) 1005: surface debris east and south of the tepidarium (76.77–76.60) 1006: ash mixed with Bedouin occupation horizons below L1005 and west of L1007 (merged with L1007) (76.60–76.15) 1007: ash mixed with Bedouin occupation horizons below L1005 and east of L1006 (merged with L1006) (76.56–76.15) 1008: thickly plastered floor of the frigidarium and the material on top of it, below L1007, and south of W545 and west of W554 as far as the northern piers (76.28–76.21) 1009: concretion with plaster collapse south of the tepidarium, below L1005 (76.61–76.43) 1010: mortar rubble and collapse below L1009 (76.43–76.18) 1011: large, semicircular ash pit west of the praefurnium (see L1001–1004) (base at 76.14) 1012: surface debris south of L1007 as far as W546 (south) (76.68–76.22) 1013: 1 × 1 m sounding east of L1008 with Bedouin occupation horizons, merged with L1021 (76.48–76.22) 1014: modern robbers’ trench truncating W546 and cutting through L1012 (closing 75.85) 1015: gravel wadi wash in the apodyterium, below L1012 and west of L1014 (opening 76.22) 1016: sloping Bedouin occupation horizon in apodyterium, below L1012 and to the west of L1018 (76.40–76.10) 1017: sloping Bedouin occupation horizon in apodyterium, below L1012 and to the east of L1018 (76.35–76.11)

249

250

Complete Locus List

1018: stone and mud-brick collapse of the south-central pier in the apodyterium, separating L1016 and L1017 (76.40–76.10) 1019: layer of loose, wind-blown sand beneath L1017 (76.11–75.95) 1020: large Bedouin hearth below L1018 (76.14–76.05) 1021: 1 × 1 m sounding east of L1008 with Bedouin occupation horizon (see L1013), merged with L1026 (76.48–76.22) 1022: layer of loose, wind-blown sand beneath L1016 (76.10–76.06) 1023: robbers’ trench between L1020 and L1022 (closing 75.80) 1024: extension east of the frigidarium/apodyterium, consisting of a thick layer of concretion and stone debris from the oil pipeline cut (76.70–76.22) 1025: fill of a secondary semicircular stone installation over the cold water plunge bath (L1031), enclosed by W555 (76.19–75.72) 1026: layer of Bedouin occupation below L1024 (76.22–75.81) 1027: 2.5 × 1.5 m extension at the northeast corner of L1026, containing debris from oil pipeline cut (76.70–76.10) 1028: fill of the semicircular installation, below L1025 (75.72–75.35) 1029: Bedouin occupation horizon under L1027 and over W557 (76.08–76.04) 1030: rubble and ashlar collapse of the walls of the cold plunge bath and the fill, below L1027 and north of 1029 (merged with L1031) (76.10–75.00) 1031: the cold plunge bath and its fill, beneath L1028 and merged with L1030 (75.35–75.00) 1032: flagstone floor of the entrance courtyard, beneath L1026, bounded by W559 (north) and W556 (west) (75.81–75.69, due to subsidence) 1033: plaster floor of the apodyterium and the material on top of it, below L1019 (75.95–75.90)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 2000 (Avner/Davies/Magness [2003, 2004]; Darby [2005, 2006]; Werlin [2007]) 2000b: surface concretion over Area 2000 2001: Bedouin and early Islamic occupation horizons defined by W510 (east), W501 (south), W502 (west), and W507 (north), and below L2000b (77.56–77.40) 2002: early Islamic plastered floor and mud-brick concretion beneath it, in a strip west of L2001 bounded by W502 (east), W501 (south), and baulks, and below L2000b (77.52–76.71) 2003: the easternmost of three early Islamic cells (see L2005, 2006) below 2000b, bounded by thin mud-brick partition walls W503 (east), W504 (west), W505 (north), and abutting W501 (south) (77.59–77.35) 2004: Bedouin and early Islamic occupation horizon below L2000b and above L2005 and 2006 (77.63–77.45) 2005: middle of three early Islamic cells (see L2003, 2006) below 2000b, bounded by thin mud-brick partition walls W504 (east), W506 (west), and abutting W501 (south) (77.45–77.35)

Complete Locus List

251

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2006: westernmost of three early Islamic cells (see L2003, 2005) below 2000b, containing a hearth (L2085), bounded by thin mud-brick partition walls W506 (east), W502 (west), and abutting W501 (south) (77.49–77.29) 2007: merged with L2003 2008: mud-brick collapse and fill inside the entrance to the southeast corner tower (see L2026, 2034) (77.38–76.50) 2009: large Bedouin pit below L2001 (closing 77.02) 2010: large Bedouin pit in L2005, co-joining and merged with L2009 2011: Bedouin pit in L2007 (closing 76.57) 2012: fill below L2001 and west of W504; bounded by W502 (west) and W507 (north) (77.40–76.80) 2013: heavily disturbed area on the south side of the base of the baulk in Meshel’s section (Room 1), delineated on the east by the baulk and on the west by W509, down to L2027 (77.54–76.53) 2014: narrow strip north of W507 with Bedouin occupation horizons and mud-brick collapse, merged with L2046 (77.60–77.02) 2015: rectangular installation and its fill in the southeast courtyard, enclosed by mud bricks and stones and abutting W510 (merged with L2033) (76.72 [top of mud bricks]–76.15 [bottom of interior]) 2016: accumulation on the north side of the base of the baulk in Meshel’s section (Room 1), delineated on the east by the baulk and on the west by W509, down to L2032 (77.54–76.50) 2017: fill in southeast courtyard below L2001 (77.40–76.64) 2018: packed dirt floor with lime flecks and the material on top of it (the uppermost Roman floor) in the southeast courtyard (76.60–76.50) 2019: fill down to the uppermost Roman floor in Room 2, below L2012 (76.80–76.70) 2020: fill (and possible collapse of second story) below L2005 and 2006, and south of L2019, down to the uppermost Roman floor in Room 2 (77.35–76.70) 2021–2025: excavated by U. Avner in 2004 2026: collapse filling the southeast corner tower corridor, in an extension of L2008 to the east (see L2034) (78.28–76.50) 2027: heavily disturbed area on the south side of the base of the baulk in Meshel’s section (Room 1), below L2013 (76.53–76.40) 2030: make-up of L2018 (76.50–76.46) 2031: heavily disturbed area on the south side of the base of the baulk in Meshel’s section (Room 1), below L2027 (76.40–76.30) 2032: burned destruction horizon on the north side of the base of the baulk in Meshel’s section (Room 1), below 2016 (76.50–76.35) 2033: merged with L2015 2034: the merging of L2008 and 2026, down to the uppermost Roman floor inside the entrance to the southeast corner tower (76.50–76.46)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

252

Complete Locus List

2035: patchy plastered floor (the second from the top Roman floor) and the material above it in the southeast courtyard, below L2030 (76.45–76.36) 2036: excavated by U. Avner in 2004 2037: the western third of L2032, below it and adjacent to W509 (76.35–76.20) 2038: plastered earliest Roman floor and its make-up, in the eastern two-thirds of L2032 and below it (76.35–76.30) 2039: compacted dirt floor, its make-up, and the material on top of it in the southeast courtyard (third Roman floor from the top), below L2035 (76.36–76.30) 2040–2041: excavated by U. Avner in 2004 2042: hard plaster floor and the material on top of the floor in the southeast courtyard (lowest Roman floor), below L2039 and L2055 (76.30/76.15–76.10) 2043: plastered installation defined by a semicircular row of stones and mud bricks in the southeast courtyard abutting W501 (76.26–76.10) 2044: installation similar and adjacent to L2015/2033, abutting W510 in the southeast courtyard (76.44–76.19) 2045: fill below L2034 down to and including the lowest (earliest) Roman floor in the entrance to the southeast corner tower (76.46–76.10). 2046: merged with L2014 2047: gravel leveling fill below L2038, ca. 8–9 cm thick overlying the natural hard concretion on which the fort was built (76.30–76.20) 2048: natural hard concretion on which the fort was built, below L2047 (76.20–76.07) 2049: excavated by U. Avner in 2004 2050: mud-brick collapse and fill in the southeast corner tower south of W514 and east of L2034, below L2024 (77.77–76.80) 2051: early Islamic compacted shelf or surface in the southeast corner tower, bounded by W515 (west) and W516 (south) (76.95) 2052: rubble and plaster collapse outside the southeast corner tower, at the junction and south of W516 and W515 (77.68–76.68) 2053: fill and collapse over robbed out W506, southeast of L2051 (76.80–76.72) 2054: collapse inside the southeast corner tower between L2050 and 2051, including an apparent Bedouin installation (78.33–77.65) 2055: thin burned lens overlying a layer of cobblestones on top of the earliest Roman floor (L2042) in the southeast courtyard, under L2039 (76.30–76.15) 2056–2057: excavated by U. Avner 2058: mud-brick collapse and fill below L2054 (77.65–77.60) 2059: finely compacted soil on the west side of Room 2, below L2002 (77.50–77.30) 2060: compacted soil below L2059 (77.30–77.15) 2061: fill down to and including the uppermost Late Roman floor in Room 2, below L2060 (77.15–76.70)

Complete Locus List

253

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2062: fill below L2061 (76.70–76.35), probably including a Late Roman floor (which would be the second from the top in Room 2). 2063: a compacted dirt floor below L2062 (the third Roman floor from the top in Room 2) (76.35–76.30) 2064: sterile fill below L2063 (76.30–76.25) 2065: plastered floor below L2064 (76.25–76.22) (the fourth Roman floor from the top in Room 2) 2066: burned layer below L2065 (76.22–76.20) 2067 + 2068: plastered floor below L2066 (76.20–76.0) (the earliest Roman floor in Room 2) 2069: pit framed by field stones and filled with rich, dark soil, sunk through L2068 (76.0–75.5) 2070: same as L2069 2071: surface concretion and sterile fill in a 2.5 × 6 m trench outside the east curtain (W510) (77.18–76.20) 2072: collapse and fill below L2058 (77.60–77.05) 2073: collapse and fill north and east of L2072 (77.45–77.05) 2074: fill below L2072 (77.05–76.82) 2075: sterile fill below L2071 (76.20–75.84) 2076: the merging of L2073 + 2074, consisting of the apparent collapse of the second story of the southeast corner tower (76.82–76.62) 2077: below L2076, consisting of collapse with burned timbers (76.62–76.50) 2078: sterile fill below L2075, down to natural concretion (75.84–75.71) 2079: fill below L2077, presumably just above the floor of the southeast corner tower (76.50–76.23) 2080: installation enclosed by mud bricks at the junction of W515 and W516 (base at 76.40) 2081: natural concretion below the western half of L2078 (75.71–75.65) 2082: two cut stone slabs laid on their long axes, adjoining and perpendicular to W520 (west), embedded in the natural concretion below the floor (L2067 + 2068), perhaps originally supporting a bench (upper elevation: 76.47–76.33 2083: tiled platform abutting east side of the southeast staircase platform (L2084) (top elevation: 76.70) 2084: mud-brick platform for the southeast staircase (top elevation: 76.80) 2085: early Islamic hearth in L2006

Area 3000 (McCane [2004, 2005]) 3001: surface concretion over Area 3000, sloping east-west (opening elevation: 77.84–77.49) 3002: compacted earth and scattered hearths below L3001, representing Bedouin occupation horizons (77.43–77.25) 3003: Bedouin occupation horizons with friable tiles below L3002 (77.25–76.90)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

254

Complete Locus List

3004: area north of the artificial baulk created by the grounding cable, consisting of firm brown soil, below L3003 (76.90–76.67) 3005: area south of the artificial baulk created by the grounding cable, consisting of brown soil, below L3003 (76.90–76.68) 3006: sterile fill below L3005 and west of W513, down to natural concretion (76.68–76.00) 3007: fill in the western half of a room (Room 3) abutting the east curtain (W510), bounded on the west by W513, below L3005, down to and including the upper (later) Roman floor (76.68–76.15) 3008: fill in the eastern half of a room (Room 3), abutting the east curtain (W510), and separated from L3007 by the stub projecting from W512, below L3005 (76.68–76.10) 3009: fill below the western part of L3004 and west of W513 (76.60–76.15) 3010: fill between W513 and W510, below L3004 (76.60–76.20) 3011: compacted Roman dirt floor below L3009 (76.15–76.05) 3012: Roman dirt floor below L3010 (76.20–76.12) 3013: melted mud bricks on the south side of L3011 (76.08) 3014: material below L3012 down to and including the earliest Roman floor, which was of dirt and directly overlay natural concretion (76.12–76.00) 3015: make-up of L3011, laid directly over the natural concretion (76.05–76.00) 3016: melted mud bricks above L3020, originally identified as a stub projecting south from W512 (76.50) 3017: material below L3007, down to and including the earlier (lower) Roman floor, which was plastered (76.15–76.00) 3018: ashy layer below L3008 and L3017 (76.00–75.95) 3019: merged with L3021 3020: circular hearth below L3016, merged with L3021 3021: series of contiguous hearths directly overlying the natural concretion, below L3016 and L3018 (75.95) 3022 + 3023 + 3024: same as L3016 3025: merged with L3021 3026: built circular installation, ca. 1.10 m in diameter, in L3010 + 3012 (top elevation: 76.80) 3027: 1 × 1 m sounding through the natural concretion in L3015 (76.00–75.80) 3028: latrine pit of the British Mandatory police station, containing crusty greenish fill with soft patches, dug through L3004 (76.89–76.52)

Area 5000 (McCane [2004, 2005, 2007]; Nelson [2006]) 5001: surface concretion over Area 5000 (opening elevation: 77.50) 5002: foundations of the British Mandatory police station’s front porch, below L5001 (77.30–77.23) 5003: fill below the northern part of L5002, north of W525 (77.23–77.19)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Complete Locus List

255

5004: fill below the southern part of L5002, south of W525 (77.23–77.19) 5005: fill below and to the east of L5004 (77.19–76.85) 5006: extension to the north of L5003 consisting of surface concretion with fill below (77.76–77.50) 5007: earth fill below L5006 and north of W531 (77.50–77.22) 5008: earth fill below L5006 and south of W531 (77.50–77.22) 5009: merging of L5003 and L5008 (77.22) 5010: merging of L5007 and L5009, consisting of earth fill (77.22–76.86) 5011: semicircular built field stone feature (0.50 × 0.90 m) abutting W510 (top elevation 77.04) 5012: soft fill with ash deposit below L5010 (77.86–77.55) 5013: fill below L5005 (76.85–76.76) 5014: merged with L5013 5015: niche in the east curtain (W510) filled with mud-brick collapse, down to the top of platform L5025 (77.56–76.81) 5016: concretion and collapse along the outer face of the east curtain (W510) (77.53–77.03) 5017: fill below L5013 (76.76–76.50) 5018: uppermost Roman plastered floor with hearths in front of platform L5025 (Room 4), below L5012 (76.55–76.48) 5019: make-up of floor L5018 (76.48–76.42) 5020: uppermost Roman compacted dirt floor in the entrance corridor, below L5017 (76.50–76.40) 5021: second Roman plastered floor from the top, north and south of platform L5025 (Room 4), below L5018 (76.42–76.28) 5022: second Roman plastered floor from the top, covered with hearths, west of platform L5025 and contiguous with L5021 (Room 4), below L5019 (76.42–76.19) 5023: make-up of floor L5021 (Room 4) (76.28–76.19) 5024: earliest Roman compacted dirt, lime-flecked floor, below L5022 and L5023 (Room 4) (76.19–76.09) 5025: built stone platform (1.61 m wide [N-S] × 1.91 [E-W]; top elevation 76.81) in the east curtain (W510), with a step in the middle of the west side (top elevation 76.52) 5026: thickly plastered Roman floor, second from the top, and its make-up, between the piers of the main gate (W510), below L5020 (76.40–76.28) 5027: fill with possible compacted floor below L5020 (76.40–76.76.25) 5028: stone bench (ca. 3.1 × .051 m; top elevation 76.38) along W532, facing the interior of the entrance corridor 5029: second or third Roman compacted dirt floor from the top in the entrance corridor, below L5027 (76.25–76.20) 5030: threshold stones of main gate (top elevation 76.29) 5031: Roman compacted dirt floor, third from the top, inside the threshold of the main gate, below L5026 (76.28–76.19)

256

Complete Locus List

5032: Roman dirt floor and its make-up, third from the top, outside the threshold of the main gate, below L5026 (76.28–76.19) 5033: merging of L5029, 5031, and 5032 (76.19) 5034: the two earliest Roman floors below L5033 (76.19–76.00) 5035: canceled 5036 + 5037: drain below L5034, filled with moist soil (base level from 75.98 on the west to 75.91 on the east) 5038: earth fill beneath L5028 (76.16–76.10) 5039: stone foundation of bench L5028 (top elevation 76.27) 5040: earth fill below 5038 (76.10–76.00) 5041: stones possibly representing the foundations of a bench on the north side of the entrance corridor (top elevation 76.16) 5042: stone foundation of threshold of main gate, below L5030 (top elevation: 76.09) 5043: canceled 5044: mud-brick bench northwest of platform L5025, abutting W523 (Room 4) (top elevation 76.55) 5045: mud-brick bench southwest of platform L5025, abutting W525 (Room 4) (top elevation 76.55)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 6000 (Werlin [2005]; Fenwick [2006]) 6001: surface concretion over Area 6000 (opening elevation: 78.09) 6002: compacted fill below L6001 (77.83–77.50) 6003: possible early Islamic compacted dirt floor with lime flecks, below L6002 (77.50–77.43) 6004: fill below the eastern half of L6003 (77.43–77.25) 6005: fill below the western half of L6003 (77.43–77.25) 6006: fill and collapse in the opening in W523 and the area to its south; the latter was merged with L5006 (77.56–77.51) 6007: pit filled with soft soil, possibly from a tree root, cutting through L6004 and L6005 (77.35–77.15) 6008: Byzantine packed dirt surface with lime patches below L6004 and L6005 (76.95–76.87) 6009: fill and collapse below L6008 (76.87–76.74) 6010: fill with burned patches, below L6009 (76.74–76.64) 6011: fill and collapse in the opening in W523, below L6006 (77.51–77.19) 6012: semicircular installation enclosed by mud bricks and stones, with sterile fill in the angle of W510 and W524 (76.72–76.10) 6013: fill with burned patches, below L6010 (76.64–76.54) 6014: fill with burned patches, below L6013 (76.54–76.46) 6015 + 6016: upper Roman lime-flecked dirt floor and its make-up, below L6014 (76.46–76.35)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Complete Locus List

257

6017: fill and collapse in opening in W530 (77.01–76.88) 6018: fill and collapse in the opening in W523, below L6011 (77.19–77.11) 6019: fill and collapse in opening in W530, below L6017 (76.88–76.84) 6020: fill and collapse in opening in W523, below L6018 (77.11–76.50) 6021: fill and collapse in opening in W530, below L6019 (76.84–76.71) 6022: rectangular installation with sterile fill, enclosed by plastered stones in the angle of W510 and W523 (76.43–76.20) 6023: same as L6016 6024 + 6025 + 6026: fill and collapse in opening in W530, below L6021 (76.71–76.43) 6027: fill above L5044 (76.90–76.55) 6028: melted mud-brick collapse in the angle of W524 and W530 (76.94–76.41) 6029: same as L6027 6030: fill and collapse in opening in W530, below L6026 (76.43–76.38) 6031: lower Roman lime-flecked dirt floor and its make-up, below L6015 + 6016 (76.35–76.21) 6032: same as L6027 6033: rectangular installation of mud brick and stone with sterile fill in the angle of W523 and W530 (76.43–76.28) 6034: combined with L6031 6035: built stone feature (ca. 1.5 × 1.0 m) associated with L6034 (76.27–76.14) 6036: graveled surface associated with L6034 and L6035, west of L6035 (76.23–76.09) 6037: same as L6012 6038: thin layer of silt below L6034 (76.20–76.18) 6039: graveled surface associated with L6034 and L6035, east of L6035 (76.14–76.07) 6040: stone-covered drain below L6038 (dimensions 1.67 × 0.20 m) filled dark organic soil (76.18–75.84) 6041: layer of gravel over the natural concretion, north of W523 (76.20–76.15) 6042: D-shaped pit (L6042; 0.62 × 0.54 m) cut into the concretion in the center of Room 5, with stone kerbing and loose soil and pebble fill (76.13–75.98) 6043: same as L6040 6044: moist dark soil beneath L6035 (76.14–75.91)

Area 7000 (Ratzlaff [2005, 2006, 2007]) 7001 + 7002: surface concretion over the southwest courtyard (opening elevation: 78.91) 7003: layer of ephemeral Bedouin occupation (78.79–78.53) 7004: mud-brick platform and associated semicircular installation abutting W519 (top elevation 78.89) 7005: fill below 7003 (78.53–78.44) 7006: fill with burned lenses below 7005, west of W529 (78.44–78.31)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

258

Complete Locus List

7007: fill with burned lenses below 7005, east of W529 (78.44–78.24) 7008: rectangular mud-brick installation in L7009 abutting W529 (top elevation 78.31) 7009: early Islamic occupation layer with tiled hearths and burned lenses, representing the merging of L7006 and L7007 (78.31/78.24–78.20) 7010: a hearth in L7007, 1.0 × 0.75 m in diameter (78.39) 7011: fill below L7009, east of W529 (78.20–77.90) 7012: fill below L7009, west of W529 (78.20–77.91) 7013: fill down to and including compacted Byzantine dirt surface, below L7011 and L7012 (77.91–77.74) 7014: fill below L7013, east of W529 (77.74–77.34) 7015: fill below L7013, west of W529 and adjacent to W519 (77.74–77.43) 7016: fill below L7013, west of W534 and L7017 (77.74–77.61) 7017: mud-brick platform for the southwest staircase (top elevation: 77.00) 7018: fill below L7014 (77.34–77.10) 7019: earth fill mixed with pebbles below L7018 (77.10–76.94) 7020: semicircular mud-brick installation associated with L7026 + L7027, in the angle of W534 and W533 (top elevation: 77.40) 7021: soft, silty soil below L7019 (76.94–76.89) 7022: extension to the east of L7009, containing mud-bricks with adhering organic materials (79.19–78.17) 7023: fill below L7022 (78.17–78.05) 7024: canceled due to baulk collapse 7025: cleaning of contamination below L7021 (76.89) 7026 + 7027: upper Roman floor in the southwest courtyard, plastered in part, and its make-up, below L7025 (76.89–76.76) 7028: rectangular hearth in L7026, L7027, and L7029, measuring 1.3 × 0.60–70 m (76.84–76.62) 7029: lower (earlier) Roman floor in southwest courtyard, thinly plastered, below L7026 + L7027 (76.76–76.62) 7030: gravel leveling fill over the natural concretion, below L7029, including a 0.50 × 0.50 m sounding along W519 (76.62–76.60/76.51) 7031: canceled 7032: surface concretion and layers of ephemeral Bedouin occupation in the western corridor (opening elevation: 79.48) 7033: surface concretion over the postern corridor (opening elevation: 79.28) 7034: early Islamic occupation level comprising a soil layer with artifacts, below L7032 (78.48–78.39) 7035: fill below L7034 (78.39–78.20) 7036: fill below L7035 (78.20–77.60) 7037: fill below 7033 (78.62–78.38)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Complete Locus List

259

7038: fill below 7037 (78.38–78.04) 7039: thin plaster floor, possibly Byzantine, under W521 and north of L7036 (77.82–77.55) 7040: surface concretion over the northern extension to the southwest courtyard (opening elevation: 78.42) 7041: surface concretion over the entrance to the southwest corner tower (opening elevation: 79.50) 7042: collapse in southwest corner tower (79.20–78.75) 7043: fill below 7040 (78.09–77.94) 7044: combined with L7042 7045: fill below 7043 (77.94–77.69) 7046: mud-brick platforms in L7039 (top elevation 77.70) 7047: plastered early Islamic or Byzantine floor, below L7045 (77.69–77.40) 7048: fill below L7044 (78.75–78.63) 7049: fill below L7047 (77.40–77.10) 7050: fill below L7049 (77.10–77.0) 7051: fill below L7048 (78.63–78.40) 7052: fill below L7051 (78.40–78.11) 7053: uppermost Roman floor in the northern extension to the southwest courtyard, plastered, below L7050 (77.0–76.88) 7054: gravel fill below L7052 (78.11–78.06) 7055: collapse below L7041 (78.50–78.20) 7056: second Roman floor from the top in the northern extension to the southwest courtyard, of compacted dirt with plaster flecks, below L7053 (76.88–76.82) 7057: fill below L7054 (78.06–77.94) 7058: third Roman floor from the top in the northern extension to the southwest courtyard, plastered in patches, below L7056 (76.82–76.78) 7059: stone collapse in the entrance to the southwest corner tower, below L7055 (78.20–77.99) 7060: fill below 7038 (78.04–77.83) 7061: fill below L7057 (77.94–77.75) 7062: combined with L7058 7063: fill below L7060 and north of L7065 (77.83–77.65) 7064: fill below L7063 (77.65–77.35) 7065: fill below L7060 and south of L7063 (77.83–77.67) 7066: early Islamic floor of compacted dirt flecked with plaster, below L7061 (77.75–77.59) 7067: earliest Roman floor in the northern extension to the southwest courtyard, plastered, below L7058 + L7052 (76.78–76.68) 7068: fill below L7066 (77.59–77.38) 7069: make-up of floor L7067 (76.68–76.61) 7070: collapse in postern entrance, south of L7065 (78.15–77.75)

260

Complete Locus List

7071: uppermost Roman floor in the southwest corner tower, of dirt, below L7068 (77.38–76.94) 7072: stone and mud-brick collapse below L7070 (77.75–77.29) 7073: fill below L7064 (77.35–76.97) 7074: fill down to possible dirt surface, south of and outside the postern threshold (77.62–77.11) 7075: fill down to possible dirt surface below L7073 (76.97–76.85) 7076: fill below L7074 (77.11–77.0) 7077: fill below L7071 (76.94–76.88) 7078: partial removal of the mud-brick platforms (L7046) (77.70–77.40) 7079: fill below L7065 and L7072 (77.67/77.28–76.99) 7080: fill below L7076 (77.0–76.89) 7081: second Roman floor from the top in the southwest corner tower, thinly plastered, below L7077 (76.88–76.78) 7082: early Islamic or possibly Byzantine period threshold of the postern, heavily plastered, below L7072 (top elevation: 77.29) 7083: third Roman floor from the top in the southwest corner tower, thinly plastered, below L7081 (76.78–76.72) 7084: earliest Roman floor in the southwest corner tower, thinly plastered, below L7083 (76.72–76.68) 7085: Roman dirt surface abutting the inside of the postern threshold, below L7079 (76.99–76.78) 7086: probable Roman dirt surface, below L7080 (76.89–76.80) 7087: unexcavated make-up of L7084 (76.68) 7088: fill below L7075 (76.85–76.83) 7089: make-up of L7085 (76.78–76.75) 7090: Roman stone threshold of the postern, below L7082 (top elevation: 76.92)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 8000 (Pryor [2005]) 8001 + 8002 + 8003: surface concretion and collapse over Area 8000 (79.58–78.63) 8004: fill down to early Islamic surface L8010, north of W522 (78.63–78.30) 8005: fill down to early Islamic surface L8007, south of W522 (78.63–78.45) 8006: excavated as L7032 8007: early Islamic packed dirt surface, below L8005 (78.45–78.30) 8008: loose fill mixed with gravel below L8007 (78.30–78.20) 8009: canceled and merged with W526 8010: early Islamic packed dirt surface, below L8004 (78.30–78.00) 8011: loose fill in cell bounded by W518, W521, W527, and W526, below L8008 (78.20–78.00) 8012: fill in Room 8, below L8008 (78.20–78.00)

Complete Locus List

261

8013: canceled 8014: large pit filled with burned deposits in Room 7, below L8010 (77.96–77.19) 8015: fill below L8010 (78.00–77.96) 8016: fill below L8012 (78.00–77.30) 8017: canceled 8018: fill below L8011 (78.00–77.95) 8019: merged with L8014 8020: fill below L8018 (77.95–77.30) 8021: merged with L8014 8022: merged with L8014 8023: merged with L8014 8024: canceled 8025: compacted dirt surface, possibly Byzantine, below L8016 (77.30–77.20) 8026: fill below L8025 (77.20–77.04)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Area 9000 (Duncan [2006, 2007]) 9001 + 9002 + 9003: surface concretion over Area 9000 (opening elevations: 79.30/79.12/78.80) 9004: fills with ephemeral Bedouin occupation below L9001 + L9002 + 9003 (closing elevation: 78.11) 9005: surface concretion east of L9004 (opening elevation: 78.28) 9006: fill below L9005 (78.28–77.96) 9007: fill west of W536, below L9004 (78.11–77.95) 9008: fill east of W536, below L9006 (77.96–77.69) 9009: layer of Bedouin occupation in south cell, below L9007 (77.95–77.71) 9010: fill in the north cell, below L9007 (77.95–77.89) 9011: fill in the north cell, below L9010 (77.89–77.63) 9012: early Islamic surface between W536 and the east baulk, south of L9016 and below L9008 (77.69–77.63) 9013: fill between W536 and the east baulk, north of L9016 and below L9008 (77.69–77.63) 9014: soft fill under L9009 (77.71–77.48) 9015: early Islamic (?) dirt surface and fill above it, below L9011 (77.63–77.55) 9016: early Islamic mud-brick installation or partition in L9008 (77.75–77.63) 9017: fill with ashy deposit below L9012, L9013, and L9016 (77.63–77.51) 9018: make-up and fill below L9015 (77.55–77.23) 9019: fill and ashy deposit below L9017 (77.51–77.32) 9020 + 9021: dump of pottery, animal bones, and other artifacts in the south cell, below L9014 (77.48–77.37)

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

262

Complete Locus List

9022: accumulations on top of the uppermost Roman floor on the west side of Room 6, below L9019 (77.32–77.10) 9023: fill below L9018 (77.23–77.14) 9024: continuation of dump in L9020 + L9021 (77.37–77.21) 9025: fill below L9023 (77.14–77.10) 9026: large plastered hearth abutting W539, in L9030 (base at 77.00). 9027: accumulations on top of the uppermost Roman floor on the east side of Room 6, below L9019 (77.32–77.10) 9028: earliest Roman floor in the western corridor, of compacted dirt, below L9024 and L9025 (77.18–77.00) 9029: hearth in L9030, in the angle of W538 and W547 (base at 77.00) 9030: uppermost Roman floor in Room 6 and its make-up, consisting of compacted dirt with plaster flecks, below L9022 and L9027 (77.10–77.00) 9031: rectangular hearth beneath L9026, associated with L9038 (base 76.89) 9032: rectangular stone and mud-brick installation, associated with L9030, in the angle of W539 and W536 (top elevation 77.09) 9033: ash deposit on L9037 (76.99–76.91) 9034: brown soil below the southeast corner of L9030 (77.00–76.91) 9035: earliest Roman floor in Room 6, consisting of a plastered flagstone pavement north and west of L9033, and below L9030, later combined with L9037 as L9038 (77.00–76.90) 9036: gravel fill below L9028 (77.00–76.86) 9037: earliest Roman floor in Room 6, consisting of a calcined surface, below L9033, later combined with L9037 as L9038 (77.00–76.90) 9038: merging of L9035 + L9037 (77.00–76.90) 9039: gravel fill below L9036 (76.86–76.74) 9040: L-shaped pit in the corner of L9039, ca. 0.40 × 0.55 m, containing dark soil down to gravel, in the angle of W536 and W538 (76.74–76.63) 9041: gravel fill over natural concretion, below L9038 (76.90–76.65) 9042: surface concretion and fills over northwest courtyard (opening elevation: 79.43) 9043: probable Bedouin occupation level, below L9042 (78.52–78.36) 9044: fill below L9043 and south of W552 (78.36–77.85) 9045: fill below L9043 and north of W552 (78.36–77.95) 9046: surface concretion between L9042 and W558, in an area previously investigated by Meshel (opening elevation: 78.08) 9047: top of tabun measuring 1 m in diameter, abutting W558, below L9046 (78.05) 9048: thick ash deposit below L9046 (78.08–77.90) 9049: top of mud-brick platform associated with staircase at entrance to northwest corner tower, below L9045 (top elevation: 78.07)

Appendix 2

Wall List Period

Width

501

Wall no.

Roman

2.38

south curtain east of pipeline cut

stone with mud brick above

502

Islamic

0.48

partition between L2002 and L2012

mud brick

503

Islamic

0.35

east wall of L2007

mud brick

504

Islamic

0.22

partition between L2005 and L2007

mud brick

505

Islamic

0.20

north wall of L2007

mud brick

506

Islamic

0.25

partition between L2005 and L2006

mud brick

507

Islamic

0.45

north wall of L2001 and L2012

mud brick

508 (canceled)

Roman

n/a

see L2084

n/a

509

Roman

0.85

west wall of Room 1

stone socle

510 (see W517)

Roman

2.49

east curtain

stone with mud brick above

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

511

Description

Construction

canceled and merged with W501 north wall of L3007 and L3008, partly overlain by unexcavated baulk

mud brick

0.90

partition between L3006 and L3007

mud brick on stone socle

Roman

1.19

badly-damaged north wall of southeast corner tower, abutting W510

stone

515

Roman

1.42

west wall of southeast corner tower

stone with mud brick above

516

Roman

1.30

south wall of southeast corner tower, abutting W515

stone with mud brick above

517

Roman

2.71

merged with W510

stone with mud brick above

518

Roman

2.43

west curtain

stone with mud brick above

519 (see W528)

Roman

2.45–2.49

south curtain west of the pipeline cut

stone with mud brick above

520

Roman

0.84

wall between Rooms 1 and 2

mud brick on stone socle

521

Islamic

0.59

partition between L8006 and L8008, truncating Roman W527

mud brick

522

Islamic

0.50

wall between L8010 and L8012

mud brick

523

Roman

1.0

wall between Rooms 4 and 5

mud brick on stone socle

524

Roman

0.90

north wall of Room 5

mud brick on stone socle

525

Roman

0.72

wall between entrance corridor and Room 4

mud brick on stone socle

512

Islamic?

513

Islamic and Roman

514

263

264

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Wall no.

Wall List

Period

Width

526

Roman

0.80

parallel to W522, between L8010 and L8012

Description

mud brick on stone socle

Construction

527

Roman

0.68

wall between western corridor and Room 8

mud brick on stone socle

528

Roman

529

Islamic

0.40

partly overlies W534

mud brick

530

Roman

0.81

west wall of Room 5

mud brick on stone socle

531

British

0.50

north wall of porch of police station

stone

532

Roman

partition between entrance corridor and eastern courtyard, overlain by unexcavated baulk

stone with mud brick above

533

Roman

0.60

north wall of southwest courtyard

mud brick on stone socle

534

Roman

0.95

west wall of southwest courtyard

mud brick on stone socle

535

Roman + Islamic

east wall of southwest courtyard, overlaid by unexcavated baulk

mud brick on stone socle

536

Roman

0.74

wall between western corridor and Room 6

mud brick on stone socle

537

Islamic

0.40

partition wall between L9009 and L9010

mud brick

538

Roman?

possible south wall of Room 6, extending to W518, overlain by unexcavated baulk

mud brick on stone socle

539

Roman

0.75

north wall of Room 6

mud brick on stone socle

540

Roman

0.80

north wall of the northern extension to the southwest courtyard

mud brick on stone socle

541

Roman

0.68

north wall of caldarium and tepidarium

stone

542

Roman

0.93

south wall of caldarium and tepidarium

stone

543

Roman

0.77

west wall of caldarium

mud brick on stone socle

544

Roman

0.50

wall between tepidarium and frigidarium

stone

545

Roman

north wall of frigidarium, overlain by unexcavated baulk

stone

546

Roman

south wall of apodyterium, overlain by unexcavated baulk

stone

547

Roman

east wall of Room 6, overlain by unexcavated baulk

mud brick on stone socle

548

Islamic

0.40

partition between L7039 and L7045

mud brick

549

Islamic

0.50

on top of W533, blocking entrance to L7036

mud brick

550

Roman

1.50

east wall of southwest corner tower

mud brick on stone socle

551

Roman

552

Islamic

553

Roman

554

Roman

555

?

merged with W519

north wall at entrance to southwest corner mud brick on stone socle tower, overlain by unexcavated baulk partition between L9044 and L9045

mud brick

east wall of northwest courtyard, overlain by unexcavated baulk

mud brick on stone socle

1.00

wall stub between frigidarium and plunge bath

stone

0.60

rubble wall over plunge bath

stone

0.40

Wall List

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Wall no.

265

Period

Width

556

Roman

0.50

row of ashlars between apodyterium/ frigidarium and paved courtyard

Description stone

Construction

557

Roman

0.60

east wall of plunge bath

stone

558

Roman

2.49

north curtain

stone with mud brick above

559

Roman

0.35

row of ashlars east of W556 and south of plunge bath

stone

560

Roman

north wall of Room 2, overlain by unexcavated baulk

mud brick on stone socle

Appendix 3

Critical Loci List The only loci included in this list are those that were sealed and yielded datable and/or significant finds.

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Locus

Period

Significant Finds

2018

Roman

fragment of mother of pearl (B20278)

2020

Roman

large pieces of pottery

2035

Roman

bronze fibula (B20494)

2039

Roman

large pieces of pottery; lamp fragment (B20615); base of a glass vessel (B20611)

2063

Roman

several large stones with mortar and plaster still adhering; an iron nail (B20749)

2065

Roman

2067 + 2068

Roman

whole (restored) flask (B20797 + 20799 + 20805) [Fig. 2.9:2 = color fig. 18:3]; bowl with piece of copper (B20813); motherof-pearl shell (B20826)

Identifiable Coins B20291 [Cat. no. 54] B20322 [Cat. no. 52]

Illustrated Pottery

Description

Figs. 2.2:3, 7; 2.3:3; 2.4:2, 6; 2.6:6

uppermost Roman floor in the southeast courtyard

Figs. 2.1:4; 2.4:1; 2.5:5; 2.9:6

uppermost Roman floor in Room 2, including the fill on top of it second Roman floor from the top in the southeast courtyard

Figs. 2.7:3; 2.8:6; 2.12:4

third Roman floor from the top in the southeast courtyard

B20716 [Cat. no. 127] B20724 [Cat. no. 47] B20729 [Cat. no. 44] B20734 [Cat. no. 108] B20735 [Cat. no. 1] B20754 [Cat. no. 119] B20755 [Cat. no. 120] B20781 [Cat. no. 37] B20782 [Cat. no. 32]

third Roman floor from the top in Room 2, including fill on top of it

B20760 [Cat. no. 10]

fourth Roman floor from the top in Room 2

B20722 [Cat. no. 61] B20801 [Cat. no. 75] B20802 [Cat. no. 2] B20806 [Cat. no. 86] B20807 [Cat. no. 84] B20808 [Cat. no. 74] B20812 [Cat. no. 4] B20817 [Cat. no. 11] B20818 [Cat. no. 28] B20831 [Cat. no. 34] B20832 [Cat. no. 65] B20833 [Cat. no. 40] B20834 [Cat. no. 105]

266

Figs. 2.1:6; 2.2:5; 2.9:2 [= color fig. 18:3]

the earliest Roman floor in Room 2 (fifth from the top)

Critical Loci List

Locus

Period

Significant Finds

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2067 + 2068 (cont.)

Identifiable Coins

267

Illustrated Pottery

Description

B20835 [Cat. no. 49] B20836 [Cat. no. 71] B20837 [Cat. no. 88] B20841 [Cat. no. 89] B20843 [Cat. no. 78] B20844 [Cat. no. 64] B20845 [Cat. no. 87] B20846 [Cat. no. 63] B20820a [Cat. no. 79] B20842a [Cat. no. 36] B20842b [Cat. no. 62] B20849 [Cat. no. 85]

2069 + 2070

Roman

iron objects (B20853 [pub. no. 9], 20858)

B20822 [Cat. no. 99] B20823 [Cat. no. 60] B20824 [Cat. no. 73] B20825 [Cat. no. 72] B20838 [Cat. no. 59]

2076

Roman

iron nails, including one with wood (B20933)

B20943 [Cat. no. 122]

collapse of the second story of the southeast corner tower

2077

Roman

burned timbers

B20973 [Cat. no. 103]

collapse of the second story of the southeast corner tower

2079

Roman

oil lamp (B20989) [Fig. 2.10:3]

B21043 [Cat. no. 123]

3012

Roman

bronze brooch (B30192)

B30151 [Cat. no. 8] B30164 [Cat. no. 6]

Roman dirt floor in the eastern courtyard

3017

Roman

camel bones

B30269 [Cat. no. 262] B30273 [Cat. no. 83] B30277 [Cat. no. 14]

the earlier Roman floor in Room 3, including the fill on top of it

5022

Roman

chert sling stone (B50353 [pub. no. 25])

B50356 [Cat. no. 131]

the second Roman floor from the top in Room 4

5029

Roman

B50229 [Cat. no. 125]

second or third Roman compacted dirt floor from the top in the entrance corridor

6008

Byzantine

B60047 [Cat. no. 98] B60050 [Cat. no. 57]

packed dirt surface with lime patches

6015 + 6016

Roman

pottery flask filled B60191 [Cat. no. 45] with charred seeds B60198 [Cat. no. 117] (B60182); calibrated radiocarbon date of the seeds yielded a range of 250–420 c.e.

6031 + 6034

Roman

oil lamp (B60361) [Fig. 2.12:1 = color fig. 18:6]; juglets (B60350; B60294 + B60355) [fig. 2.9:3–4]

B60270 [Cat. no. 22] B60280 [Cat. no. 19] B60292 [Cat. no. 5] B60293 [Cat. no. 16] B60336 [Cat. no. 50] B60338 [Cat. no. 77]

Fig. 2.7:6

Fig. 2.10:3

soil-filled pit associated with the earliest Roman floor in Room 2

fill presumably just above the floor of the southeast corner tower

upper Roman floor in Room 5

Figs. 2.9:3, 4; 2.11:1; 2.12:1 [= color fig. 18:6]

lower (earliest) Roman floor in Room 5

268

Locus

Critical Loci List

Period

Significant Finds

6031 + 6034 (cont.)

Identifiable Coins

Illustrated Pottery

Description

B60343 [Cat. no. 58] B60344 [Cat. no. 53] B60353 [Cat. no. 97] B60362 [Cat. no. 43] B60369 [Cat. no. 23] flask (B70158) [Fig. 2.9:1 = color fig. 18:2]; grinding stone (B70204)

B70127 [Cat. no. 126] B70167 [Cat. no. 96] B70168 [Cat. no. 76]

7026 + 7027*

Roman

7029

Roman

8007

Islamic

8010

Islamic

9022 + 9027

Roman

9026

Roman

B90338 [Cat. no. 67]

9030

Roman

B90341 [Cat. no. 110] B90343 [Cat. no. 118] B90359 [Cat. no. 124] B90373 [Cat. no. 56] B90398 [Cat. no. 106]

9031

Roman

9035 + 9037 + 9038

Roman

Figs. 2.1:7 (L7019 upper Roman floor in the + 7026); 2.9:1 southwest courtyard [= color fig. 18:2]

B70192 [Cat. no. 102]

lower (earlier) Roman floor in southwest courtyard Figs. 2.24:3; 2.27:1

early Islamic surface in western corridor and Room 8 early Islamic surface in Room 7

spindle whorl (B90278) [pub. no. 32]

B90228 [Cat. no. 70]

material on top of the upper Roman floor in Room 6 Fig. 2.1:3 (L9026 + 9035)

upper Roman floor in Room 6 and its make-up

Fig. 2.2:4

iron spearhead (B90425) [pub. no. 18]; gaming piece (B90452)

B90458 [Cat. no. 31] B90495 [Cat. no. 104]

hearth associated with L9030

hearth below L9026 associated with L9035 + 9037 + 9038

Figs. 2.1:3 (L9026 lower (earlier) Roman floor + 9035); 2.11:8 in Room 6

Copyright © 2015. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

*L7026 + 7027: This floor is included in the critical locus list because of the significant finds associated with it. However, the discovery of a bowl fragment in L7019 that joins with a piece from L7026 indicates that the floor level was not sealed.