Gamla III. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989. Finds and Studies, Part 2 9789654065399, 9789654066242, 9654065398

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 59

Gamla III The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989

Finds and Studies Part 2 Danny Syon

With contributions by Shua Amorai-Stark, Yoav Arbel, Chaim Ben-David, Baruch Brandl, Deborah Cassuto, Carol Cope, Yoav Farhi, Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Patrick Geyer, Shimon Gibson, Malka Hershkovitz, Andrew E. Holley, Shimon Ilani, Ruth Jackson-Tal, Omri Lernau, Nili Liphschitz, Jodi Magness, Orna Nagar-Hillman, Matthew Ponting, Ronny Reich, Aharon Shemesh, Guy D. Stiebel and Herbert J. Wagner

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2016

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Judith Ben-Michael Series Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume and Production Editor: Lori Lender Production Coordinator: Lori Lender Front Cover: View of Gamla, looking west (photographer: Danny Syon) Back Cover: Gems from Gamla (photographer: Michael Nemlich) Cover Design and Production: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav and Hagar Maimon Layout and Typesetting: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav and Hagar Maimon Illustrations: Natalya Zak Printing: Art Plus Ltd., Jerusalem Copyright © 2016, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-539-9 eISBN 9789654066242 www.antiquities.org.il

Gamla—before the excavations (drawing by D. Ben-Ami).

220 000

219 800

219 600

iv la

am

G al ah.

cie nt

Tr ail

N

Byzantine Cemetery

An

257 800

Roman Ramp Tower Cisterns 0

22

257 600

Area B

Synagogue Area G

Area BA

Hasmonean Quarter

Area M

all yW

250

Cemetery?

duct

Aque

Eastern Quarter Cit

Area P

‘Basilica’ Area S

Area A

Area N

0

25

Area H Area K

Area T

Cistern Area R

Western Quarter 257 400

220

t

iyyo

l Dal

Nah. a

200 m

0

Topographic map. Area P

Ridge

Area N

Area D Round Tower Area L

Area B

‘Basilica’

Area B77 Area F

Area RN Area S

Cistern

Area E

Area A

Area H

Synagogue

Hasmonean Quarter Area C

Western Quarter

Area R Olive-Oil Press and Miqveh

Area G

Area K

300m

Area M

Eastern Quarter Area T

Area T

0

General site plan of Gamla, showing the major areas.

40 m

v

Contents

Part 1 ABBREVIATIONS

viii

FOREWORD

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION—A HISTORY OF GAMLA

Danny Syon

1

CHAPTER 2: ARROWHEADS AND PROJECTILE POINTS

Jodi Magness

21

CHAPTER 3: STONE PROJECTILES AND THE USE OF ARTILLERY IN THE SIEGE OF GAMLA

Andrew E. Holley

35

CHAPTER 4: MILITARY EQUIPMENT

Guy D. Stiebel

57

CHAPTER 5: COINS

Danny Syon

109

Matthew Ponting

224

CHAPTER 6: THE COINS MINTED IN GAMLA: AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Yoav Arbel

233

CHAPTER 7: ROMAN–BYZANTINE PERIOD SETTLEMENTS NEAR GAMLA

Chaim Ben-David

239

Appendix: Compositional Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin

Part 2 ABBREVIATIONS

vii

FOREWORD

ix

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

Ruth Jackson-Tal

1

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

Shimon Gibson

49

CHAPTER 10: A STONE SCALE-WEIGHT OF THE LATE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD

Ronny Reich

83

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

Rafael Frankel and Danny Syon

85

vi CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Shua Amorai-Stark and Malka Herskovitz

97

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

Ruth Jackson-Tal

191

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS AND SIMILAR ARTIFACTS

Orna Nagar-Hillman

213

CHAPTER 15: A BRONZE PENDANT IN THE SHAPE OF HORUS THE CHILD (HARPOKRATES) FROM THE HASMONEAN QUARTER

Yoav Farhi

225

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Yoav Farhi

229

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Deborah Cassuto

261

CHAPTER 18: SEALS, SEAL IMPRESSIONS AND A VIOLIN FIGURINE

Nimrod Getzov

283

CHAPTER 19: THREE ‘HYKSOS’ OR LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CANAANITE SCARABS

Baruch Brandl

287

CHAPTER 20: STUDY OF A MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SICKLE SWORD

Herbert J. Wagner and Danny Syon

297

CHAPTER 21: THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE NON-FERROUS METALWORK

Matthew Ponting

305

CHAPTER 22: COMPOSITION OF FRESCO AND SECCO PIGMENTS

Shimon Ilani

325

CHAPTER 23: BUTCHERING PATTERNS

Carol Cope

331

CHAPTER 24: FISH REMAINS

Omri Lernau and Aharon Shemesh

343

CHAPTER 25: POLLEN ANALYSIS

Patrick Geyer

351

CHAPTER 26: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS

Nili Liphschitz

363

vii

Abbreviations

AASOR ADAJ AIHV AJA ANETS ANGSBA ‘Atiqot (ES) ‘Atiqot (HS) BA BAIAS BAR Bar British S. BAR Int. S. BASOR BSAE ESI HA–ESI IAA Reports IEJ IMJ INR JAS JEA JFA JGS JJPES JRA JRA Suppl. S. JSP LA NEAEHL NEAEHL 5 OBO

Annual of the American Schools of Oreintal Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Association International pour l'Histoire du Verre American Journal of Archaeology Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology English Series Hebrew Series Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Biblical Archaeology Review British Archaeological Reports (British Series) British Archaeological Reports (International Series) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research British School of Archaeology in Egypt Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hadashot Arkheologiyot–Excavations and Surveys in Israel (from 1999) Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Museum Journal Israel Numismatic Research Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Glass Studies Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology (Supplementary Series) Judea and Samaria Publications Liber Annuus E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem 1993 E. Stern. ed. New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5. Jerusalem 2008 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

viii OBO.SA OIP OJA PEFQSt PEQ QDAP RB RDAC SBF ZDPV

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica Oriental Institute Publications Oxford Journal of Archaeology Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Biblique Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ix

Foreword

Driven by exogenous factors related to publication, the finds from Gamla—great in quantity, bewildering in variety, and fascinating—were published in two parts. Gamla III, Part 1, provided the background for much of the finds presented in this volume. Chapter 1 provided an an overview of Gamla’s history, based on the data in Gamla I and II and from historical sources. Chapters 2–4 presented the finds related to the Jewish War, followed by the coin finds (Chapter 5), a prime chronological indicator, and Chapter 6, which studied the historical implications of the coins. Chapter 7 closed Part 1 with some observations on the role of Gamla and its fate in the context of current scholarship on Jewish settlement on the Golan. Continued here are Chapters 8–26. Two schematic plans at the beginning of the volume facilitate orientation with respect to the various areas. Those wishing to investigate the context of the finds in some detail are referred to Volume II of the series, which includes all relevant plans and architectural details. Chapters 8–20 present a wide diversity of small finds. Chapter 8 presents the glass vessel finds and Chapter 9 deals with the soft limestone vessels. A lateSecond Temple period stone scale-weight is discussed in Chapter 10 and the mills and querns discovered at Gamla are presented in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 provides a comprehensive catalogue and discussion

of jewels found at the site and Chapter 13 presents small finds made of metal and glass. Chapters 14–17 discuss metal weights and other objects, the worked bone items and textile-related implements. The next three chapters present finds from the Bronze Age, although only Chapter 18 deals with objects related to the periods of occupation at Gamla; Chapters 19 and 20 discuss rather esoteric objects that somehow found their way to the site. The final six chapters dealing with analytical studies are arranged by material. They present seemingly technical lists, but most have an added value with some rather interesting insights about the behavior of Gamla’s ancient residents. The tedious and often frustrating work of editing and production by Lori Lender, and the exacting work of placing a myriad of characters, digits and strange monograms in their right place during typesetting and layout by Ann Abuhav and Hagar Maimon make all the difference in the content and the appearance of this book, and deserve special thanks. It is my hope that the scope of data presented in these volumes may serve as a cornerstone for future studies.

Danny Syon June, 2016

Chapter 8

Glass Vessels Ruth E. Jackson-Tal

Introduction

disruptions during the preparations for the Roman siege, but the majority of the glass finds are typologically late Hellenistic cast grooved bowls. The quantity, diversity and secure archaeological context of this glass assemblage provide an important case study for Early Roman glass research in the southern Levant and much beyond. This site is especially significant to the study of glass vessels in the country because less was known about glass finds in the region of the Golan. The glass vessels are presented in typological order, classified primarily according to the different manufacturing techniques. Parallels are given mainly from Israel and, when possible, from the vicinity of the site. In general, well-dated Early Roman contexts are better known from Judea, and therefore, the majority of the comparative material derives from sites there. Several settlements and burials in the country with glass assemblages are well dated to around 70 CE, based on destruction layers attributed to the Jewish War according to ceramic and numismatic

Over 5000 fragments of glass vessels and objects, dated from the first century BCE until the destruction of the site in 67 CE, were found during the excavations at Gamla.1 Of these, some 3500 fragments are identifiable, and include core-formed, cast, sagged, mold-blown and free-blown vessels. Additional glass finds such as beads, gaming pieces, glass rods and pins are presented in Chapter 12 (Stark and Herskovitz) and Chapter 13 (Jackson-Tal). The glass finds were found in all areas with the exception of Area F, with the largest quantities discovered in Area R, and substantial amounts, in Area S (Fig. 8.1), both in the Western Quarter, dated primarily to the first century, until the destruction of 67 CE. Large numbers of mostly late Hellenistic cast, grooved bowls were found in Area B in the Eastern Quarter, dated to the first century BCE. The areas near the wall (A, E, F, G, L, M and T) contained mixed late Hellenistic and Early Roman finds because of the strata

2158 40

Percent

30

20

890

800

10 205

185 40

43

45

BE

D

E

173

55

115

132

K

L

203 59

0 A

B

G

H

HN

M

R

Area

Fig. 8.1. Distribution of glass fragments throughout the site (n = 5103).

S

T

2

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Core-Formed Vessels (Fig. 8.2:1–9)

evidence, as well as historical sources. Parallel glass assemblages were studied from a number of Jewish sites that yielded well documented destruction layers from the Jewish War—mainly Jerusalem, Jericho and Masada. For scholars, Gamla’s importance lies in its preservation of the remains of a prosperous Jewish town in the Golan Heights that existed for two centuries— from the first century BCE and the first century CE until the town’s fall and total abandonment in 67 CE, as a result of the Jewish war against the Romans.

2

1

4

3

6

5

9

8

7

10

The technique of core-forming was used from the beginning of glass-vessel production in the mid-second millennium BCE until the beginning of the Early Roman period for the creation of small, closed colorful vessels, probably used to store precious cosmetic substances (Grose 1989:46). Nineteen fragments of core-formed vessels were found at Gamla, mainly in Areas S (seven fragments) and R (six fragments)—in the wealthy Western Quarter—with few finds in Areas E

11

12

13

0

4

Fig. 8.2. Core-formed and cast polychrome vessels.

3

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

(one fragment), L (three fragments) and T (two fragments)—in the Eastern Quarter. Nine fragments are presented; while most are too fragmentary to be attributed to a specific vessel, three fragments may belong to amphoriskoi or alabastra (Nos. 1–3). The trail design on the vessels in horizontal lines, feather or festoon shapes and colors are typical of core-formed vessels of the Third Mediterranean Group, dated between the third or mid/late second century BCE and the early first century CE (Harden 1981:53–54, 122–137; McClellan 1984:127; Grose 1989:122–125). Core-formed vessels of the this group are known in small numbers in late Hellenistic-Early Roman contexts, mainly at urban sites (Jackson-Tal 2004:15–16). Several well preserved amphoriskoi were found in burial caves dated to the late first century BCE–first century CE at Tell Abu-Shusha/ Geva (Jackson-Tal 2004:15–16, Fig. 5), at Ramat Rahel (Stekelis 1934:19–40, Fig. 7:1) and Jericho, in contexts dated to the first century CE (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999:134, Fig. III.71:1).

Cast Vessels Casting is a generic term used for several techniques. It was another early method used to produce glass vessels and other objects from the very inception of the technology in the mid-second millennium BCE. This method, used to produce closed and open vessels and other objects, mainly from the Late Bronze Age until the Early Roman period, originated in the metal industry (Grose 1989:47–48; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994:119–124, 138–155; Schlick-Nolte and Lierke 2002:26–28). The cast bowls are divided into two

groups: polychrome bowls—mosaic and network; and monochrome bowls—grooved, fluted, linearcut, ribbed and Imperial. Mosaic vessels were first produced in the Late Bronze Age and continued to be manufactured in the late Hellenistic, Early Roman and later periods (Oliver 1968; Grose 1989:189–193). A parallel form of mosaic vessel known from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods is network glass (also called reticella/lace) (Grose 1989:195–196, 253– 254). As was the case with core-forming, mosaic and network vessel production was a lengthy and expensive process, made by creating composite canes and fusing their sections or rods in a mold, resulting in colorful and precious vessels. The monochrome grooved, fluted, linear-cut and ribbed bowls were produced during the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, made on a former mold by sagging, and then polished and cut with a lathe. The sagging process was quicker and cheaper than core-forming and the making of mosaic vessels, thereby allowing the creation of daily mass-produced vessels (Grose 1989:193–194, 244–247). The Imperial cast bowls are a typical high quality Early Roman product, produced in Italy and the northern provinces, imitating well-known Early Roman ceramic, stone and metal vessel shapes (Grose 1991:2, 8–9). They were made in a complicated process by casting in several molds (Grose 1989:254–256). This bowl vessel group represents the last stage of high quality casting, before the complete transition to the blowing technique. Cast bowls form the largest group of glass finds at Gamla, more than 69% (Fig. 8.3); they probably served as drinking vessels. There are many parallels in shape and ornamentation from well-known clay, metal, stone

3528 60

Percent

50 40 1330

30 20 10 0

226

19 Cast

Blown

Core-Formed

Small Finds

Fig. 8.3. Distribution according to manufacturing method (n = 5103).

4

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

2285 60

Percent

50 40 30 599

20 10

350 17

0

Grooved Linear-Cut Ribbed

Fluted

3 Imperial

4 Mosaic

Fig. 8.4. Cast bowls (n = 3258).

and wood vessels from the late Hellenistic period (Jackson-Tal 2004:22, 24, n. 24). Grooved bowls are the dominant type, comprising 65% of the cast vessels. Ribbed bowls are also found in large quantities, linearcut bowls, in moderate numbers, and fluted and cast Imperial Roman and mosaic types are rare (Fig. 8.4). The bowl remains are mainly rim and wall fragments with few grooved rounded and flat bases. Most of the cast bowls are made of colorless glass, with variations in light green, yellow-brown and light blue. Mosaic Polychrome Vessels (Fig. 8.2:10, 11) Two rim and wall fragments belonging to mosaic bowls were found in Area R, in the wealthy Western Quarter. One (Fig. 8.2:10) is too weathered to define; the other (Fig. 8.2:11) is made of orange glass decorated with a spiral design. Mosaic vessels in Early Roman contexts were found at Tel Anafa (Grose 2012:53–54, Fig. 22: G243–G245), and in Jerusalem in the City of David (Ariel 1990:155–156, Fig. 29: GL23) and in contexts dating from the second half of the first century BCE– first century CE in Area E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2006:252, Pl. 10.5: G57–G60). Network Polychrome Vessels (Fig. 8.2:12, 13) The rim and wall fragments of two network glass bowls from Area B in the Eastern Quarter, in a secure

first-century BCE context, and from Area L, which contained mixed late Hellenistic and Early Roman finds, are important. They are made of colorless canes wound with white(?) trails and the rim fragment is made of a blue cane wound spirally with a white trail. A single parallel for this network fragment is known from unpublished excavations at late Hellenistic Maresha (courtesy of I. Stern). Network mosaic bowls first appeared in the Canosa hoards, dated to the second half or final quarter of the third century BCE (Harden 1968:27, 31, Fig. 18–19), where they were widely distributed (Grose 1989:190) and, in a similar context, at Nimrud (Barag 1985:85–86, Fig. 8, Pl. 12:107). Such vessels are also known at Delos in late Hellenistic contexts (Nenna 1999:36–37, Pls. 45:B1–3, B58, B69, B75; 61:B4; 63:B88) and from the Antikythera shipwreck, dated to 80 BCE (Weinberg 1965:38–39, Figs. 20–23; de Solla Price 1974:8). The Early Roman examples are known mainly from museum collections and are attributed to Italy and the neighboring Western provinces (Grose 1989:253). Grooved Monochrome Bowls (Figs. 8.5–8.8) Monochrome bowls are dominant among the cast bowls. Few are plain while the majority is decorated with groove variations, usually on the interior, but sometimes on the exterior. They are large in diameter (12.4–24.5 cm), with straight or flaring, rounded

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

14

16

15

17

18

19

20

0

4

21

Fig. 8.5. Cast conical monochrome bowls.

5

6

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

22 23

25 24

26

27

28

0

4

Fig. 8.6. Cast conical monochrome bowls (cont.).

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

29

31

30

33 32

34 35 0

4

Fig. 8.7. Cast hemispherical monochrome bowls.

7

8

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

36

37

39 38

40

41

42 0

43

4

Fig. 8.8. Cast ovoid and conical monochrome bowls.

polished or ground rims, thick walls and rounded grooved bases. The most common shape at Gamla is conical, but hemispherical bowls are known as well, in smaller quantities, while ovoid bowls are rare. Though found throughout the site, they were especially dominant in Areas B (dated to the first century BCE) and R (Figs. 8.9, 8.10) and less so in Area S (Fig. 8.11). Their appearance in large quantities in Early Roman domestic contexts at Gamla is rather unusual and could be an indication of a long period of use, perhaps in appreciation of their value.2

Grooved bowls are well known in the country in a late Hellenistic context, mainly at urban sites (JacksonTal 2004:22, Table 2). Other recently published finds were discovered at Tel Anafa, in contexts dated from 125–80 BCE (Grose 2012:27–29, Figs. 5–21, 22: G234–G238), in Strata 4–2 in Area E in the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, dated to the second half of the first century BCE and the first century CE (GorinRosen 2006:240–243, Pls. 10.1: G1–G13; 10.2: G14– G17), and in Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:102–103, Pl. 3.1:5–8).

9

705 80 70

Percent

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

14

50

21

7

3

Grooved Linear-Cut Ribbed

Fluted

Blown

Small Finds

Fig. 8.9. Area B: distribution of vessel types (n = 800). 1074

40 644

Percent

30

20 300 10 44 0

Grooved LinearCut

Ribbed

6

14

CoreFormed

Fluted

76 Blown

Small Finds

Fig. 8.10. Area R: distribution of vessel types (n = 2158). 324 60

271

50

Percent

40 30

138 109

20 44

10 7 0

G rooved Linear-Cut Ribbed

CoreFormed

B lown

Fig. 8.11. Area S: distribution of vessel types (n = 890).

Small Finds

10

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Fluted and Vegetal-Cut Bowls (Fig. 8.12)

Linear-Cut Bowls (Fig. 8.13)

The origin of fluted and vegetal-cut ornamentation is apparently in imitation of Achaemenid metal bowls, which were decorated with various vegetal patterns; the style continued in the Hellenistic period on metal, ceramic and glass vessels, with the vegetal patterns sometimes ‘evolving’ into flutes. The designs were made by lathe cutting and polishing. Fluted bowls and two bowls with a vegetal-cut design, one illustrated here (No. 44),3 were found in the Western Quarter, in Area R (14 fragments) and in Area B (3 fragments). They share the same profile, a flaring or straight, rounded rim, with a single exterior horizontal groove underneath it, creating a rib, and rounded sides with vertical flutes (Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994:252). Their appearance mainly in Early Roman contexts is also unusual, like that of the grooved bowls. In Israel, fluted and vegetal-cut bowls are known in small numbers in late Hellenistic contexts, mainly at urban sites (Jackson-Tal 2004:19–21). Other recently published finds were discovered at Tel Anafa (Grose 2012:24–27, Figs. 3, 4); in Strata 3–1 in Area E, the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, dated to the second half of the first century BCE and the first century CE (GorinRosen 2006:243–245, Pl. 10.2:G18–G21); and in Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:102, Pl. 3.1:3, 4).

These bowls are similar to the grooved bowls in production technique and decoration, but differ from them in size (diam. 7.2–17.3 cm), shape, wall thickness, fabric and dating. They were shaped with straight or flaring, rounded or polished rims, straight, conical or hemispherical walls and flat incised bases and are dated to the last quarter of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century CE (Grose 1979: ‘Group D’, 63–65; 1989:247). Linear-cut grooved bowls were found throughout Gamla, especially in Areas S (approximately 271 fragments) and R (approximately 44 fragments), with less in the other areas (between 14 and 30 fragments). However, it is not always possible to assign unequivocally small fragments to either grooved or linear-cut bowls. Similar bowls were found in the Golan, at Bab elHawa (Hartal 2005:225, Fig. 159:1), at Tel Anafa (Grose 2012:54–59, Figs. 23–25), and in Jerusalem— in the City of David, Stratum 5 (up to 70 CE; Ariel 1990:150, 154, Fig. 28:21–22), in the Jewish Quarter, Area A, mainly Strata 5 and 4 (early first century CE; Gorin-Rosen 2003:380–381, Pls. 15.3:G26–G33, 15.5:G44–G49, 15.7:G69–G72, 15.8:G79, G80, G83), Area E, Stratum 3 (second half of the first century BCE; Gorin-Rosen 2006:250, Pl. 10.4:45) and Area J—

45

44

46 0

4

Fig. 8.12. Cast fluted and vegetal-cut monochrome bowls.

11

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

47

48

49

50

52 51

54

53

55

56

58

57

59

60

61

Fig. 8.13. Cast linear-cut monochrome bowls.

0

4

12

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

the refuse from the glass workshop (mid-first century BCE) (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:423, Pl. 21.22:200).4 Additional bowls were found in a firstcentury CE context at Jericho (Pritchard 1958:54, Pl. 53:3; Jackson-Tal 2013a:103–105, Pls. 3.2, 3.3); in Stratum 2 of the officina at ‘En Boqeq, dated to the first half of the first century CE until 66 CE (Jackson-Tal 2000:73–74, Fig. 4.1:1); on the surface at Machaerus (Loffreda 1996:115, Fig. 52:12); and at Samaria, in contexts dated to the late first century BCE (Crowfoot 1957:407, Fig. 93:2, 4).

Ribbed Bowls (Figs. 8.14, 8.15) Ribbed bowls were found throughout the site, especially in Areas R (300 fragments) and S (109 fragments). They are dated to the last quarter of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century CE (Grose 1989:244–247). There are a few, probably earlier, types with the widely spaced large ribs and thick walls known from the late Hellenistic period (Fig. 8.14:62– 66); for parallels see Jackson-Tal 2004:21–22, Fig. 13), and a large number of Early Roman types (Figs.

62 63

65 64

66

67 0

4

Fig. 8.14. Cast ribbed monochrome bowls.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

69

68

71

70

72

74

73

75

76

77

0

4

Fig. 8.15. Cast ribbed monochrome bowls (cont.).

13

14

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

8.14:67; 8.15), dated to the first half of the first century CE with short, central ribs and elongated ribs—the so called ‘pillar-molded’ types. Similar bowls with thin walls and short, even ribs were found in small numbers, for example at Tel Anafa in late first century BCE–early first century CE contexts (Grose 2012:59–73, Figs. 26: G290, 28: G314, G318, 29: G326, G327, 31: G377a, 32: G384), in Jerusalem—in the City of David, L1, dated until 70 CE (Ariel 1990:161, Fig. 33: GL82), in the Jewish Quarter, in Area A, Stratum 4a, dated to the mid-first century CE until 70 CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003:379, Pl. 15.5: G52–G55) and in Area E, in Stratum 3, dated to the second half of the first century BCE (GorinRosen 2006:247–248, Pl. 10.3: G 30, G34); and in Herodian contexts at Machaerus (Loffreda 1996:115, Fig. 52:15) and ‘Aro‘er (Jackson-Tal 2011:369, Pl. 262:1). Bowls with evenly spaced elongated ribs were found in large numbers in the country and in the Golan at Bab el-Hawa (Hartal 2005:225, Fig. 159:2); at Tel Anafa in late first century BCE–early first century CE contexts (Grose 2012:59–73, see especially Figs. 26– 32 with numerous examples); in Hasmonean contexts at Horbat Shema‘ (Meyers, Kraabel and Strange

1976:345, Pl. 8.4:5–9); in an unknown context at Bethsaida (Rottloff 2000:142, Figs. 1:2, 4, 6; 2:6, 8); in Jerusalem—in the City of David, L1, dated until 70 CE (Ariel 1990:154, 161, Fig. 33:80–81), in the Jewish Quarter in Area A, mostly in Stratum 4, dated to the mid-first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003:379–380, Pls. 15.2:G17, 15.5:G57, 15.6:G58–G59, 15.7:G76– G78, 15.8:G86, G87) and in Area E, Stratum 2, dated to the first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2006:248, Pl. 10.3:G40); at Jericho (Pritchard 1958:53–54, Pl. 53:1, 2, 5; Jackson-Tal 2013a:105–106, Pl. 4:25–30); and at ‘En Boqeq Stratum II (Jackson-Tal 2000:74, Fig. 4.1:3, 6–11). Flared Rim Bowl with Ring-Base (Fig. 8.16:78, 79) These bowls were cast in a one-piece or multi-part mold, with the ring-base cast as part of the vessel. The bowl and ring-base were found in the Western Quarter, in Area R. Two similar bowls were found at Maresha in a late Hellenistic context (Jackson-Tal 2005b:51, Fig. 2:1). Two ring-bases were found in Jerusalem in the Jewish Quarter in Area E, Stratum 3, dated to the second half of the first century BCE (Gorin-Rosen

78

79

80

81

82 0

4

Fig. 8.16. Cast bowls with flaring rims and ring-bases and Imperial bowls.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

2006:245, Pl. 10.2:G23, G24). Monochrome bowls with a similar design were still being manufactured in the Early Roman period, but mostly in strong translucent colors such as dark green and cobalt blue of the cast translucent vessel group discussed below (see Grose 1989:254–256; 1991:2–11, Fig. 1). Imperial Cast Bowls (Fig. 8.16:80–82) This group represents the last stage of quantity casting before the complete transition to the blowing technique. According to Grose, such bowls are a typical Early Roman product that was produced in Italy in imitation of well-known Early Roman ceramic, stone and metal vessel shapes (Grose 1989:255–256). Cast Early Roman vessels were studied by Grose (1991), who divided them into two groups, according to their color, shape and decoration, place of manufacture, and date. The first group is divided into cast translucent and opaque colored vessels. The translucent colored type is dated to the second quarter of the first century CE (Grose 1991:2–11) and the opaque, to the first half of the first century CE (Grose 1989:256). The second group comprises cast, colorless vessels, none of which were found at Gamla. At Gamla, three examples of Imperial cast bowls were uncovered—two fragments in the Western Quarter in Area R and one fragment in Area K— including a single example of an opaque red bowl and two solid base-rings made of emerald green and light yellow glass. Thus, the Gamla vessels belong to the first group, dated, based on the site’s stratigraphy, to the first half of the first century CE. Publication of similar vessels from excavations in the country is rare. However, bowls of opaque red glass are known from Samaria (Crowfoot 1957:407, 409, Fig. 93:12); from the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, Area A, Stratum 6, dated to the late second century BCE until the early first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2003:381–382, Pl. 15.2:G16), and Area E, Strata 3 and 2, dated to the second half of the first century BCE and the first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2006:251–252, Pl. 10.5:G55–G56). There is also a fragment from Cypros (Jackson-Tal 2013b:166, Pl. 6.1:2). A few bowls of the translucent colored subgroup were found at Bethsaida (Rottloff 2000:142, Fig. 2:10, 17, 18) and in unpublished excavations at Jaffa (courtesy of O. Tsuf) and Herodium (courtesy of E. Netzer).

15

Blown Vessels (Figs. 8.17–8.24) Blown vessels were found in moderate quantities in all areas and comprise 28% of the glass finds at the site (see Fig. 8.3). The majority was free-blown, but several examples of mold-blown and polychrome cast and blown vessels were also found. Most of the vessels were made of colorless glass; however, bluish, green, bluish-green and yellow glass fragments are known. Mold-Blown Vessels Mold-blown vessels were made by inserting a gob of glass into a single or multipart mold before or after blowing an initial parison/bubble. The glass was expanded by blowing to fill the mold (Stern 1995:45), after which the mold designs were impressed on the vessel. After the vessel was released from the mold, the rim and base were shaped, other details were added and the vessel was annealed. The importance of this technique lies in the quick and economical working process, which enabled the production of a vast amount of vessels in a short time and the ability to create identical vessels from one mold. For scholars, these molds can be of assistance in tracing the presence of workshops (Stern 1995:65). Mold blowing was introduced at the beginning of the first century CE (Stern 1995:66). Ribbed Bowls (Fig. 8.17:83–89) Two types of blown ribbed bowls were found at Gamla—mold-blown and free-blown. The mold-blown type (Fig. 8.17) features a flaring or straight, cut-off rim, deep hemispherical thin walls and even, densely set thin vertical ribs that extend below a horizontal polished band. These vessels were found mostly in the Western Quarter, in Area S (two fragments) and Area R (one fragment), and single examples were retrieved in the Eastern Quarter from Areas A, H and T. These bowls are dated to the first half of the first century CE (Price 1991:64–65, 70; Stern 1995:111–113, Figs. 13–14). This vessel type was found throughout the Roman world (see Cool and Price 1995:51–53; Stern 1995:113). In the Eastern Roman world, however, they are rare. Parallels were found in undated contexts at Paneas/Baniyas (Gorin-Rosen and Jackson-Tal 2008:141, Fig. 9.1:3) and Bethsaida (Rottloff 2000:142, Fig. 2:12, 15); in contexts dated until 70 CE at ‘Ain

16

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

0

4

Fig. 8.17. Mold-blown ribbed bowls.

‘Arrub (Tsafrir and Zissu 2002:26, Fig. 17:3), ‘En Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2005a:74*, Fig. 1:2); and, in Herodian contexts, at Herodium (courtesy of E. Netzer). Jugs and Bottles (Fig. 8.18:90–95) Several small mold-blown jugs or bottles blown in multi-part molds and decorated below the neck with vertical and upturned flutes were found at Gamla, mostly in the Western Quarter, in Areas R (four fragments) and S (three fragments). Single fragments were recovered in the Eastern Quarter in Areas A and B. Area B is dated to the first century BCE, thus providing one of the earliest known contexts for such vessels, usually dated to the first half of the first century CE (Stern 1995:163). Therefore, this single find is probably a late intrusion. Small flasks or juglets (Nos. 90–95) with delicate flutes are usually called ‘Sidonian’ vessels. They were identified by Harden as products of the glass artist Ennion because of the similar handle shape and mold-blown designs (Harden 1944– 1945:84–87, Pl. 7). They are occasionally decorated with Dionysiac or floral designs (Stern 1995:160–169, Nos. 71–78). There is no parallel yet from excavations in the country for this type of vessel.

Hexagonal Bottle (Fig. 8.18:96). One tiny fragment of a light blue opaque hexagonal bottle with vessel depictions in high relief was retrieved in the Western Quarter in Area S. Only the panel depicting a kantharos was preserved. This fragment belongs to opaque and translucent hexagonal small ‘Sidonian’ or Syro-Palestinian bottles blown in multi-part molds with various depictions of vessels, masks, fruit, birds and mixed symbols in high relief on separate panels on the vessel’s center (Stern 1995:74–75). These bottles have seldom been found in well-dated contexts and, therefore, are dated in general to the mid-first century CE (Stern 1995:83–84). A complete hexagonal bottle was recovered from Tell Abu-Shusha/Geva (Israeli 1988:228, No. 138) and a fragment of another with vessel depictions of a type made by Ennion was found in Jerusalem in the Jewish Quarter, Area J, near a mansion dated to the first century CE (Avigad 1983:107, Figs. 95, 96; Israeli 1983). Date Bottle (Fig. 8.18:97) A single example of a date-shaped bottle made of typically yellow-brown glass was found at Gamla in the Western Quarter in Area R. Two such bottles were

17

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

unearthed at Tell Abu Shusha/Geva (Israeli 1988:228, No. 137) and another specimen was found in Late Roman–Byzantine Tomb 3 of the North Cemetery at Samaria (Crowfoot 1957:413, Fig. 95:23). Another single find was found in Beirut (Jennings 2006:68–69, Fig. 3.12:1). These realistically fashioned bottles were probably blown into a two- or three-part mold, perhaps cast directly on an actual piece of fruit (Stern 1995:92). They are dated from shortly before the mid-first century to the early second century CE and were widespread throughout the Roman Empire, mostly in burial contexts (Stern 1995:92–93).

90

Base (Fig. 8.18:98) This base is decorated with two concentric moldblown circles. From the Early Roman period, such bases are known from bottles, jugs and beakers (Stern 1995:277–279, 300–309, 313). A similar base of a beaker with almond-shaped bosses was found at ‘En Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2007:481, Pl. 5:3). Color-Band Mosaic Vessels (Fig. 8.18:99, 100) Color-band mosaic bottles are decorated with parallel bands of colored glass. Their production technique is somewhat enigmatic. Grose suggested that these Early

92

91

93

94

96

99

97

95

98

100

Fig. 8.18. Mold-blown jugs and bottles and color-band mosaic vessels.

0

4

18

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Roman luxury vessels were produced by a combination of casting and blowing, from sections or lengths of preformed cast mosaic canes and blown on a blowpipe (Grose 1989:261–262). The cane-section vessels were made of three to four large cane sections, gathered on the blowpipe, and blown. The vessels made of lengths of canes were made of one or two canes assembled in parallel rows that were then fused and cast into a flat rectangular blank. After reheating, the blank was folded up and blown on a blowpipe (Grose 1989:262; Whitehouse 1997:39). These vessels are dated to the first half of the first century CE and are known mostly in the Western provinces. Grose emphasized the importance of these vessels as documenting the transition from casting to blowing, as they employ a combination of the two techniques (Grose 1989:262). Two small fragments of color-band vessels were found in the Western Quarter in Areas R and S. Fragment No. 99 was made of layered brown and white canes on a dark blue cane and blown, while fragment No. 100 was made of applied parallel canes on a primary light greenish cane and blown, creating parallel lines. The fragment section suggests a process of layering of the different cane sections of brown, white and blue glass. Free-Blown Vessels Free-blown vessels form the largest group within the blown category. Glass blowing was probably invented during the mid-first century BCE (see n. 4). The earliest evidence for blown glass was discovered in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in a deposit dated to the mid-first century BCE (Avigad 1983:186–191; Israeli 1991:47; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006). Although the early vessels were probably initially made by tube blowing (Israeli 1991), the dominant blowing method included gathering molten glass on the end of a blowpipe and blowing an initial parison, which was shaped into the desired vessel by re-blowing, marvering and manipulating with various tools. Skyphoi (Fig. 8.19:101, 102) These are shallow or deep bowls decorated with loop handles with thumb-rests (‘winged handles’), which have parallels in ceramic and metal vessels. They are dated to the first century CE (Isings 1957:55–56, Form 39). The flattened thumb-rest sometimes bore a stamp with the maker’s name, but unfortunately, the fragments preserved at Gamla were not inscribed, apart

from one, a handle with the inscription NEIKΩN on one side and ΣIΔΩN on the other, found in Area S (L1912).5 Two plain handles were found in the Western Quarter, in Area S. Skyphoi are rarely uncovered during excavations in this country. A single skyphos rim and handle fragment was discovered in Stratum 3 in Area E of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, dated to the second half of the first century BCE (Gorin-Rosen 2006:250– 251, Pl. 10.4:G52), and a rim and handle fragment, from unpublished Camp F at Masada (courtesy of H. Goldfus and B. Arubas). Several types of free-blown bowls were found. These included bowls with splayed-out rims, exterior loops/ collar ridges, incurving and straight rounded rims and many bowls with out-folded rims and tubular folds. Blobbed Bowl (Fig. 8.19:103) Blobbed, marvered vessels were produced by rolling the initial parison in chips of glass (usually in a contrasting color to the original parison), marvering, reheating and further inflating. This decorating process created vessels adorned with elongated blobs (Whitehouse 1997:207). The vessels are bichrome, or sometimes, polychrome. Closed shapes are the most frequent, comprising mainly jars, jugs, oenochoai and amphoriskoi. However, cups/deep bowls and kantharoi are also known, albeit in smaller numbers (see e.g., Harden et al. 1987: Nos. 44, 45; Whitehouse 1997: Nos. 360–365; Kunina 1997:106: No. 70, 109: No. 72, 149– 153: Nos. 115–118, 155: No. 120). Blobbed, marvered vessels, attributed to the Eastern Mediterranean and South Russia, appear in museum collections, mostly without provenance (Harden 1987:102). Those of known provenance are usually from the western regions of the Roman Empire, particularly northern Italy (for detailed parallels see Whitehouse 1997:207). Accordingly, Fremersdorf, who was the first scholar to study this group, suggested that they were produced by Syrian glassmakers in northern Italy (Fremersdorf 1938:116–121). Whitehouse dated this group from the early first century to around 70 CE (Whitehouse 1997:207), based on Fremersdorf (1938:121), and on evidence from archaeological excavations (Berger 1960:34; Biaggio Simona 1991:239–240). At Gamla, a single small rim and wall fragment of deep blue glass decorated with white blobs was retrieved in the Western Quarter, in Area S, too small to attribute it securely to a vessel type. The appearance of such vessels in

19

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

102

101

105

104 103

106

107

108

111

109

110

113

112

115 114

116

118

117 0

4

Fig. 8.19. Free-blown skyphoi, a ladle and bowls.

20

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

excavations in the country is extremely rare. A single similar fragment was found at Herodium (Jackson-Tal 2015:405–106, Pl. 9.111:24). Ribbed Bowl (Fig. 8.19:104) The ribbed bowl is represented by a single find (No. 104). It was found in Area S in the Western Quarter. The fragment is decorated with thin, widely spaced tooled ribs that create ‘arches’ below the unpreserved rim area. This example belongs to the Zarte Rippenschalen ribbed bowl type (Isings 1957:35–36, Form 17); it is made of colored glass, usually with applied marvered white trails. The ribs were tooled from the wall of the vessel. Bowls of this type were found in first-century CE contexts at Tel Anafa (Grose 2012:74–75, Fig. G387– G392); Tell Qiri (Barag 1987:34–35, Fig. 6:12); and Jerusalem, in the Jewish Quarter, prior to excavation in Area A (Gorin-Rosen 2003:383, Pl. 15. 15.6:G60– G61), in Area E, Stratum 2 (Gorin-Rosen 2006:253– 254, Pl. 10.5:G64), and at the International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005:197–198, Fig. 1:6). Bowl with Splayed-Out Rim (Fig. 8.19:105) This example was found in the Western Quarter, in Area S. Similar bowls were recovered, for example, in Early Roman contexts from a burial cave at Akhziv, dated to the first–second centuries CE (Abu Uqsa 2000:9*–10, Fig. 15:2); at Capernaum, in a context dated to the late first–early second centuries CE (Loffreda 1984: Fig. 6:4, 10:4); and in a tomb at ‘Akko (Fortuna 1965:23). Bowl with Exterior Loop (Fig. 8.19:106) The bowl was found in the Western Quarter, in Area S. Bowls of this type are dated to the second half of the first century CE (Isings 1957:89, Form 69a, with parallels in the Western Roman Empire; Barag 1985:94–95, Fig. 9:122, 123). Similar bowls were found in a first-century CE context in Beirut during the Souks excavation (Jennings 2006:64–65, Fig. 3.6). In Israel, these bowls have not been widely published; single examples were found in the Early Roman cemetery at ‘Akko (Fortuna 1966:551, No. 15); Caesarea (Israeli 2008:372–373, No. 25); and Jerusalem—in the City of David, L1 (Ariel 1990:163: Fig. 33:GL89) and in a burial cave on Mount Scopus (Kloner 1993:86, Fig. 9:6). This bowl type, with a collar-shaped exterior fold, seems to continue into the fourth century CE, and similar bowls were found in such contexts at Jalame (Weinberg and

Goldstein 1988:52–53, Fig. 4–14), and in Catacomb 15 at Bet She‘arim (Barag 1976:205, Fig. 98:15). Ladle Handle (Fig. 8.19:107) This handle probably belonged to a ladle with a vertical handle. It was found in the Western Quarter, in Area S. Ladles are small bowls with an elongated vertical ribbed handle attached to the rim. Similar handles have rarely been documented in Israel. Two handles identified as ladles were found in a first-century CE context in Jerusalem, in the ‘Burnt House’ (Israeli 2010:222, Pl. 6.1:G7); and at ‘Aro‘er (Jackson-Tal 2011:374, Pl. 263:5). A large quantity of intact ladles is known from Early Roman burial contexts in Slovenia (DeMaine 1987, 1990; Lazar 2005:91); and in Italy, in Cosay (Grose 1974:42, Fig. 4:23) and Ercolano (Scatozza-Höricht 1986:38–39, Table 27:2342, 2345, 2347). Ladles are depicted in high relief on the panels of the ‘Sidonian’ hexagonal bottles (Stern 1995:78, Fig. 49, Series C). Bowls/Beakers with Flaring, Straight and Incurving Rims (Fig. 8.19:108–118) This type, bowls or beakers with flaring, straight or incurving rounded rims and straight walls, were ubiquitous in the Roman Empire throughout the Roman period, mostly in the late first–early second centuries. However, the Gamla pieces are dated earlier and were free-blown with no further decoration. They were found in Areas R and S in the Western Quarter and Areas G and E in the Eastern Quarter. Straightwalled bowls with flaring rims were found in a miqveh at Alon Shevut, dated to the late first century–midsecond centuries CE (Gorin-Rosen 1999:85, 87, Figs. 1:3, 4; 2:8); in an Early Roman settlement above ‘En Gedi and in the bathhouse in the village (Jackson-Tal 2007:474, 477, Pls. 1:1; 3:2, 3); in the Judean Desert, in contexts dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Cave VIII/9 (Jackson-Tal 2002a, 1:167, Fig. 1:2; 2:127) and in the Wadi ed-Daliyeh Cave (Weinberg and Barag 1974:104, Pl. 39:7). In Israel, straight-walled beakers with straight rims are numerous. They were found in the City of David, Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:156, 163, Figs. 30:24–25; 33:90–94); in Stratum 2 at ‘En Boqeq in contexts dated up to 70 CE (Jackson-Tal 2000:75– 76, Fig. 4.2:5–9); at Machaerus in a Herodian context (Loffreda 1996:115, Fig. 52:6); in an Early Roman context at ‘Ain ez-Zara (Dussart 1997:97, Pl. 22:15– 18); and in the Judean Desert, in Burial Cave VIII/9,

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

dated to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2002a, 1:167, Fig. 1:1; 2:127). Bowls with incurving rims were recovered from Rujm el-Bahr, dated to the second half of the first century–second centuries CE (Bar-Adon 1989:14, Fig. 11a–13). Bowls with Folded-Out Rims (Fig. 8.20:119–123) These bowls are known throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods and are therefore usually dated according to their archaeological context, shape and fabric. They were found in the Western Quarter in Areas R and S and in the Eastern Quarter in Area G. When attributed to Early Roman contexts, bowls of this type are usually dated to the late first–early second centuries CE, but the Gamla pieces are dated earlier, to the first half of the first century CE. Similar bowls were found at Bab el-Hawa in mixed contexts (Hartal 2005:225, Fig. 159:3, 4); at Capernaum in contexts dated to the late first–early second centuries CE (Loffreda 1984:400, Figs. 6:3, 5–14, 10–12; 10:3, 5; 11:6, 7; 12:8–10; 13:11, 12, 14); and at ‘Ein ez-Zeituna in a single-period mansio dated to the end of the first and second centuries CE (Winter 2006:77, Fig. 1:1, 3, 5–8). Many parallels are known from the Judean Desert, in contexts dated to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Variations occur in the location and size of the fold, occasionally with a crimped trail decoration: in the Cave of Horror (Barag 1962:210, Fig. 4); in the Cave of the Pool (Avigad 1962:178, Fig. 6:3); at Rujm el-Bahr (Bar-Adon 1989:11, Fig. 11A:12); in the Cave of the Twins (Bar-Adon 1989:17, Fig. 2B:14); in Cave VI/52 along the Jebel Abu Saraj cliff (Jackson-Tal 2002d, 1:78, Fig. 34:2; 2:63); in Cave V/59 along the Jebel Quruntul escarpment (Jackson-Tal 2002b, 1:102, Fig. 14:3; 2:93); in Cave VII/1 along the eastern scarp of Jebel Quruntul (Jackson-Tal 2002c, 1:131, Fig. 6:2, 3; 2:110); and in Cave VIII/28 (Gorin-Rosen 2002:144, Fig. 1:1). Similar bowls were found at a site above and in the village at ‘En Gedi in an Early Roman context (Jackson-Tal 2007:475, 479, Pls. 1:6; 4:1); in ‘En Gedi Stratum 1, dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt (JacksonTal 2005a:74*–75*, Fig. 1:8); and at Shu‘afat, in a settlement dated between 70 and 135 CE (Katsnelson 2007:6*–7*, Fig. 3:3). Bowls with Tubular Folds (Fig. 8.20:124–128) These bowls are well known in the country throughout the Roman period. They were found in the Western Quarter, in Areas R and S. Similar bowls, usually with

21

a crimped trail, are known in contexts dated mainly from 70 to 135 CE in the Judean Desert caves, but the Gamla pieces are earlier in date. Similar bowls are known from the Cave of Horror (Barag 1962:208–210, Figs. 1, 5); the Cave of Letters (Barag 1963:104–105, Fig. 38:7); the Twin Cave (Bar-Adon 1989:17, Fig. B2:14); Cave V/59 along the Jebel Quruntul escarpment (Jackson-Tal 2002b, 1:102, Fig. 14:1, 2; 2:93); and Cave VII/1, along the eastern escarpment of Jebel Quruntul (Jackson-Tal 2002c, 1:126, 131, Fig. 6:1; 2:110). Similar bowls were found in an Early Roman context in a settlement above and in the village at ‘En Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2007:475, 479, 481, Pls. 1:5, 7; 4:2; 5:2); ‘En Gedi Stratum 1, dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2005a:74*, Fig. 1:12); at ‘Ain ezZara in an Early Roman context (Dussart 1997:97, Pl. 22:6, 7); and at the International Convention Center, Jerusalem (Gorin-Rosen 2005:199, Fig. 1:9, 10). Other finds were discovered in Stratum 3 in Area E in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, dated to the second half of the first century BCE (but are probably intrusive; Gorin-Rosen 2006:253, Pl. 10.5:G61), and at Shu‘afat (Katsnelson 2007:6*–7*, Fig. 4:4). Bowls/Cups (Fig. 8.21) A large number of cylindrical or rounded bowls/cups with exterior horizontal wheel-cut incisions and grooves were found. This type is known from the first to the fourth centuries CE (Isings 1957:27–30, Form 12; 44, Form 29; 48–49, Form 34). These vessels are known in late first–second century CE contexts in both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires (see Jennings 2006:61, 63–64, Figs. 3.4, 3.5 and Rütti 1991: Table 67:1456) and were probably used as drinking vessels. Similar vessels were found at Bab el-Hawa in the Golan (Hartal 2005:225, Fig. 159:5); in a burial cave at Ha-Gosherim dated to the first century CE (Ovadiah 1999:37*, Fig. 3:2, 3); in Burial Cave 1 at Berit Ahim, north of ‘Akko, dated to the first century CE (Edelstein 2002a:83*, Fig. 3:2); in Tomb 72 at Nazareth (Bagatti 1967: Fig. 192:24); in the Cave of Horror (Barag 1962:213, Fig. 17), in Caves VIII/9 and VIII/28 in the Judean Desert, dated to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (GorinRosen 2002:144, Fig. 1:4; Jackson-Tal 2002a, 1:167– 168, Fig. 1:3, 4; 2:127); and at Machaerus in a Herodian context (Loffreda 1996:115, Fig. 52:5). In Jerusalem, a similar decorated intact beaker and a cup were found in Burial Cave 1 at Akeldama, dated to the first century CE (Winter 1996:95–96, Fig. 8.1:1). Vessels of this

22

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

119 120

121

122

123

124

126

125

127

128 0

4

Fig. 8.20. Free-blown bowls.

type were discovered in the Jewish Quarter—Area A, in Stratum 6, dated to the end of the second century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE, and in mixed loci (Gorin-Rosen 2003:382–383, Pls. 15.2:G18; 15.8: G88–G89); in Area E, in Stratum 2, dated to the first century CE (Gorin-Rosen 2006:254, Pl. 10.5:G66–67); at the International Convention Center, in a context dated to the Second Temple period (Gorin-Rosen 2005:201, Fig. 1:14, 15); and at Shu‘afat (Katsnelson 2007:7*–8*, Fig. 4:1, 2).

Bottles and Jug Several bottles and a single jug were found, rounded, with wide, wheel-cut grooves and out-turned, upright and curved-in rims. Surprisingly, the typical Early Roman pear-shaped bottle type is rare. Bottle with Wheel-Cut Grooves (Fig. 8.22:141, 142) Two fragments, probably deriving from the same vessel, were found in the Western Quarter, in Area S. They belong to a rounded bottle with thick walls

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

decorated with deep, wide, intersecting horizontal and slanted grooves. Bottles with a similar grooved decoration appear in the Israel Museum collection (Israeli 2003:299, No. 399) and in the Corning Museum (Whitehouse 1997:253, No. 433). Jugs decorated with shallower, narrower horizontal incisions are known in Early Roman contexts from Kfar Yama (Arbel 1999:37*, Fig. 70:5) and the Cave of the Letters (Barag 1963). A rounded bottle with wavy bands in low relief was found in Tomb 22, located between Nahsholim and Ha-Bonim, dated to the late first century BCE– second half of the first century CE (Ovadiah 1985:163, Pl. XL:4). Jug and Bottles with Folded-Out-and-Up Rims (Fig. 8.22:143–149). These are extremely typical of Early Roman bottles and jugs. Similar bottles and jugs were found in an Early Roman context in Burial Cave 2 near Tel Qedesh (Edelstein 2002b:100*, 259, Fig. 2:4), at Caesarea (Israeli 2008:375, Nos. 55–58), in Tomb 22 between Nahsholim and Ha-Bonim (Ovadiah 1985:163, Pl. XL:4), in a burial cave at Kafr Yama (Arbel 1999:37*, Fig. 70:5), and in the Cave of the Letters (Barag 1963:102, Fig. 38:1, 8). Bottles with Folded-In Rim (Fig. 8.22:150–157). These pieces probably belong to pear-shaped or candlestick bottles. Pear-shaped bottles were found mainly in burial caves but also within settlements, e.g., from Burial Cave Nos. 1, 7 and 14 at Berit Ahim near ‘Akko, dated to the first century CE (Edelstein 2002a: Figs. 3:3–5, 13:2, 3, 5; 24:1–4). In Jerusalem, they occur in large numbers in burial caves dated until 70 CE, for example at Dominus Flevit (Bagatti and Milik 1958:141, Fig. 33:1–2, 5); at Binyamin Mitudela Street (Rahmani 1961:114–116, Pl. 17:6); and in the Akeldama Tombs in the Qidron Valley (Winter 1996:96, Fig. 8.2:1, 2). Similar fragments were found in Jerusalem in the Jewish Quarter, Area A (Gorin-Rosen 2003:383, Pl. 15.2: Gl19) and in the Judean Desert, in the Cave of the Pool (Avigad 1962:178, Fig. 6:1). Candlestick bottles are known throughout the country from the mid-first to the first half of the third centuries CE (Barag 1970:209–218, Figs. 46, 47). Similar rim fragments were found in Jerusalem, in the Akeldama Tombs in the Qidron Valley, where a vast

23

quantity of such bottles was found (Winter 1996:96, 98, Figs. 5.3–5.5 with further references therein); and, in the Judean Desert, in the Cave of the Pool (Avigad 1962:178, Fig. 6:1) and in the Cave of Horror (Barag 1962:212, Fig. 10). Miscellaneous Free-Blown Vessel Parts Bowl and Bottle Walls and Bases Several types of bases were found that could belong to either bowls or bottles, of the types described above. Solid Bases (Fig. 8.23:158–165). Base fragment Nos. 158–160 are flat and solid. Similar bases, usually with thin, vertical ribs, are well known in Early Roman contexts in the country. They could belong to cups or to bowls. Usually, only the bases are preserved and the exact shape and type of vessel remain unknown. Similar bases, from ribbed vessels, were found in the officina at ‘En Boqeq, Stratum 1, dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2000:76, Fig. 4.2:11). In an Early Roman context, they occur at ‘En Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2007:480, 482, Pls. 4:4–5; 5:5), in the Cave of Horror (Barag 1962:213, Fig. 18), at Rujm el-Bahr (Bar-Adon 1989:14, Fig. 11a:15), in the Cave of the Pool (Avigad 1962:178, Fig. 6:2), at Qumran (Wouters et al. 2002: Figs. 4:2; 19), and in the City of David, Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:161–163, Fig. 33:84). A comparable vessel was found in Stratum 2b at Ashdod, dated to the Herodian period (Barag 1971:204, No. 14, Fig. 105:11). Base fragment Nos. 161–165 are solid, concave or flat bases typical of Early Roman bowls or cups. Similar bases were found at ‘En Boqeq (JacksonTal 2000:76, Fig. 4.2:10, 11). Tubular Bases (Fig. 8.23:166–169). These bases are low-pinched or higher base-rings, and are typical of the Early Roman period; based on their small diameters, they were used for small bowls or cups. Similar bases are known in contexts dated mainly to the Early Roman period, e.g., at ‘Ein ez-Zeituna (Winter 2006:77, Fig. 1:9–13); Stratum 2 at ‘En Boqeq (Jackson-Tal 2000:76, Fig. 4.2:12); in the Cave of the Pool (Avigad 1962:178, Fig. 6:6); in Cave VII/1 along the eastern scarp of Jebel Quruntul (Jackson-Tal 2002c, I:126, 131, Fig. 6:4; 2:110); at the Essene site and village of ‘En Gedi

24

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

129 130 131

133

132

134

136

135

137

138

139

140 0

4

Fig. 8.21. Wheel-cut bowls/cups.

25

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

142 141

145

144

143

148

147

149

146

153 152 150

151

157

155 154

156 0

4

Fig. 8.22. Bottles and jug.

26

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

(Jackson-Tal 2007:475, 480, Pls. 1:8–10; 4:6); and at ‘Ain ez-Zara (Dussart 1997:97, Pl. 23:6, 6a, 6b). Others were found in the el-Jai cave (Eshel and Zissu 1999:87– 88, Fig. 2:3) and in caves at Ketef Jericho from the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Eshel and Zissu 1998:139–140, Figs. 5:1, 3; 6:2); in Jerusalem—in the City of David, dated until 70 CE (Ariel 1990:163, Fig. 33:GL87), in the Jewish Quarter, in Stratum 4, Area A, dated to the fourth decade of the first century CE (Gorin-

158

159

161

165

169

Rosen 2003:382, Pl. 15.6:G63); at Shu‘afat (Katsnelson 2007:7*, Fig. 3:7); and in the miqveh near Alon Shevut (Gorin-Rosen 1999:85, 87, Figs. 1:6–7; 2:10). Hexagonal Base (Fig. 8.23:170). Based on its shape, this small base and wall fragment probably belongs to a hexagonal bottle. In the Early Roman period, these types appear in decorated mold-blown versions; some are signed by Ennion (Stern 1995:70, 89–90, Figs. 45,

160

162

163

166

167

164

168

170

172

171

173 0

174 4

Fig. 8.23. Bowl/cup and bottle bases.

27

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

64). A hexagonal jug was found in a burial cave near Zikhron Ya‘akov (Schumacher 1887:222), dated by Barag to the Early Roman period (Barag 1970:160, Fig. 35); however, the unclear illustration there makes this difficult to corroborate. Concave and Rounded Walls and Bases (Fig. 8.23:171– 174). Concave and rounded walls and bases were common in bowls, cups, bottles and jugs dated throughout the Roman period. These bases belong probably to the vessel types discussed above, with cylindrical or rounded walls. Fragment No. 173 is the best preserved and probably belonged to a rounded bottle, typical to the Early Roman period (Isings 1957:40–41, Form 26a). Rounded bottles are well known in Early Roman contexts in the country, mainly from burial caves (Barag 1970:187–188, Fig. 41:1, 1–3, 2).

Handles (Fig. 8.24:175–178) These handles belong to a variety of vessels of unknown types. Small, rounded No. 175 could belong to a delicate vessel with a single or double handle. Inkwells have similar handles (Isings 1957:93, Form 77). Handle No. 176 belongs to a bowl with an applied pinched trail. Handle Nos. 177, 178 belong to jugs— No. 177 is crudely shaped and No. 178 is more delicate. Glass Drop (Fig. 8.24:179) A single remnant of a small, flattened oval glass drop was found at the site; as it was the sole specimen, it cannot serve as sufficient evidence of local glass production. Perhaps it was deformed, and cherished as a souvenir, recalling Barag’s suggestion for a single, unworked glass chunk found at Tel Qiri (Barag 1987:36).

175 176

177

179 178 0

4

Fig. 8.24. Miscellaneous handles and production remains.

28

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Summary The amount and diversity of the glass assemblage discovered at the city can be studied from several aspects that further our understanding of chronological, cultural, technological and economic issues. Similar Jewish settlements destroyed during the Jewish War that contained glass finds are Jericho, destroyed in 68 CE, Jerusalem, which fell in 70 CE, and Masada, demolished in 74 CE. In Jericho, the destruction layers are evident in both the settlement and the burials (Pritchard 1958; Hachlili and Killebrew 1999). However, the glass assemblages are rather scanty in quantity, and in Pritchard’s publication, they are not well documented and illustrated.6 Glass vessels from the Winter Palaces at Jericho are better documented, mainly dated to the first half of the first century CE (Jackson-Tal 2013a). The glass finds from Jerusalem present an important contribution because of the scale of the excavations and the thorough specialized study, which revealed large and varied assemblages.7 Glass finds were retrieved in the City of David in the residential areas of Strata 6–5 (Ariel 1990); in the Jewish Quarter in Areas J and A, in Strata 6–4a, in Area E in Strata 4–2, and in Area B in Strata 3–2 (Avigad 1983; Israeli 1983, 2010; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006; Gorin-Rosen 2003, 2006); and in numerous burial complexes (Barag 1970:17–40). Masada was held by the Zealots from 66 CE until the Roman destruction in 74 CE, after which it was occupied by Roman garrisons, probably until 113 CE (Barag 1991:137; Arubas and Goldfus 2008:1938– 1939). The glass vessels uncovered there have been only preliminary published and their exact context is uncertain. Therefore, it is very hard to attribute the glass vessels to the Zealots or to the Roman military occupation.8 In terms of regional comparanda, geographical or ethnic, the available archaeological evidence is relatively scanty, confined to the sites mentioned above and a few additional sites dated by the archaeological remains until 70 CE, indicating a peaceful abandonment. For example, a burial cave at HaGosherim was dated to two phases, the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods—until the mid-first century CE (Ovadiah 1999).9 Other well dated gentile sites are Tel Michal Stratum 2, which contained remains

of a Roman fortress dated to the beginning of the first century CE that served as a buffer against Jewish naval attacks and as a supply station for Roman ships on the Yarqon River. According to Derfler, the fortress was abandoned in 66 or 68 CE, when the Romans conquered Jaffa and built a military camp there (Derfler 1989:193–194).10 Stratum 2 of the officina at ‘En Boqeq is also well dated—by the numismatic finds and stratigraphy—to the first half of the first century CE, until 66 CE (Fischer, Gichon and Tal 2000:137–138).11 Comparison of the Gamla glass finds with these similar Jewish and gentile sites well dated to around 70 CE reveals an interesting phenomenon. In the residential settlements, we encounter the similar appearance of a vast majority of cast bowls and a smaller variety of blown vessels. In contrast, in the burial complexes, we see a different glass assemblage composed mainly of free-blown pear-shaped, candlestick or rounded bottles. This difference might be explained by the function of the bottles in burial rituals as containers for water, lighting oil or perfumed oils, used by the undertakers or mourners. Furthermore, specific references to the use of oils in these rites may be found in Jewish, Christian and pagan historical sources (Barag 1972:26; Hachlili and Killebrew 1999:168). The vessels recovered from residential contexts were used in everyday life as tableware, and therefore clearly were more varied in order to serve diverse functions. The new techniques that were introduced at Gamla alongside the continuing traditional techniques resulted in a greater availability of glass vessels—the wares became affordable for the ordinary citizen. Alongside these wares were luxury glass vessels that attest to the town’s wealth. The quantities of cast bowls at Gamla indicate that they were common tableware. The number of cast-grooved bowls (around 2285 fragments) can be compared to similar amounts retrieved at Tel Anafa, although from an earlier, late Hellenistic stage (Weinberg 1970; Grose 2012). Luxury vessels are found only in small numbers, but show that there was a demand for such objects. The question of the location of production centers remains unanswered, as no such remains were discovered at Gamla or Tel Anafa. It is possible that the glass workshop discovered in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem supplied the grooved bowls, or, more likely, due to geographical proximity, that other unknown centers from Syro-Palestinian

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

centers along the northern Phoenician coast supplied vessels to the residents of Gamla and Anafa. The more expensive vessels, namely the mosaic, network, cast-Imperial and polychrome vessels may have been produced elsewhere. Gamla’s importance to the study of glass production lies in our knowledge of the exact terminus ante quem of the site. This period is one of great significance in the development of glass technology. It marks the turning point away from the old production techniques of core-forming, casting and sagging toward the new technique of blowing. However, the range of types at Gamla demonstrates that the old casting technique still dominated the first half of the first century CE. The evidence reveals continuous use of the cast late Hellenistic grooved bowls side by side with the new linear-cut and ribbed bowls in Early Roman domestic contexts, especially apparent in Areas R and S. Variation in types begins to change with the addition of the new method—blowing. The blown vessels display a larger variety of open and closed bowls, cups, jugs and bottles, in comparison to the limited shapes of the cast bowls. The appearance of blown vessels alongside the old established production techniques is well-known, e.g., at Tell Qiri (Barag 1987:36); Horbat ‘Eleq, at Ramat Ha-Nadiv (unpublished data, courtesy of Y. Tepper and O. Peleg); ‘En Boqeq (Jackson-Tal 2000:76); Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:149, Table 13; Gorin-Rosen 2003:382, 2006:256–257); Jericho (Pritchard 1958:53– 54; Jackson-Tal 2013a); Herodium (unpublished data, courtesy of E. Netzer); ‘En Gedi (Avigad 1962:183; Barag 1981:78–79); and Masada (Barag 1991). The excavations at the City of David and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem (Ariel 1990; Gorin-Rosen 2003; 2006) reveal a very similar picture to that of the finds from Gamla. There too, in layers dated to the first half of the first century CE (or late first century BCE), cast vessels were discovered together with blown vessels, but in Jerusalem, they dominated the assemblage (see especially Gorin-Rosen 2006:257). The majority of the cast bowls are grooved conical bowls and the colorless hue prevails. The vessel types are also similar: most are everyday tableware, with a few fragments of luxury vessels. The same picture emerges from the Souks excavations at Beirut (Jennings 2006:286).

29

Grose, who addressed this issue and studied similar finds from Italy, noted the same phenomenon there, and stated that the emergence of the blowing technique actually boosted the production of the cast bowls. He also noted that in Italy, blowing did not replace casting until late in the second quarter of the first century CE (Grose 1977:29; 1983:45). This statement raises several important issues concerning the beginning of glass blowing. The technique no doubt began in the mid-first century BCE, as the archaeological remains attest, but it seems that the integration of the blowing technique was a slow, gradual process. Although this technique has clear advantages—it is possible to produce a larger variety of vessels, quickly and inexpensively—it is apparent that during the first half of the first century CE, the consumer market for glass vessels demanded familiar shapes, which the glass artist provided mostly by sagging and sometimes by blowing. The ribbed mold-blown bowls are an attempt to create the familiar shapes using the new, easier method, as is the case with the color-banded vessels that combine the use of mosaic elements with free blowing in imitation of luxury mosaic vessels. Only later, during the second half of the first century CE, did glass artists separate their products from the traditional styles and turn in new directions. The historical sources lend support to this assumption; the earliest direct reference to glass blowing is by Seneca in 60 CE (Epistulae morales ad lucilium 90.31) and by Pliny in 70 CE (Natural History 36.194; Grose 1977:15). To sum up, the importance of Gamla in comparison to the above-mentioned archaeological sites is in the large amount and variety of the glass fragments retrieved, and in particular, the absolute date of the site’s abandonment. These finds indicate that, contrary to former assumptions concerning the invention and adoption of glass blowing as an immediate and speedy process, cast vessels still dominated during the first half of the first century CE, in both the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. The analysis of the glass finds of Gamla, as well as other excavated Palestinian sites, clearly show that the production and consumption of blown vessels was slow and gradual, lasting about one hundred years; archaeological evidence shows that by the second half of the first century CE, blown vessels were fully incorporated into everyday life.

30

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Catalogue Core-Formed and Cast Polychrome Vessels 1. Amphoriskos/Alabastron(?), Core-Formed Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.2:1) Area R; L5153; Reg. No. 5321. Rim D 2.2 cm. Deep blue with white trails. Thick white, black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, short cylindrical neck with applied white horizontal trails. Beginning of curving shoulder with applied white trails in feather design. 2. Amphoriskos/Alabastron(?), Core-Formed Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.2:2) Area S; L1907; Reg. No. 7336. Rim D 2 cm. Deep blue with yellow and white trails. Flaring rounded rim, short cylindrical neck with applied yellow and white horizontal trails. Beginning of sloping shoulder. 3. Amphoriskos/Alabastron(?), Core-Formed Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.2:3) Area E; L1501; Reg. No. 5037. Deep blue with yellow trails. Gray inner core, silver weathering and pitting. Small curving thick neck fragment with applied horizontal yellow trails. 4. Core-Formed Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:4) Area S; L5021; Reg. Nos. 7394+7433. Deep green with yellow trails. Gray inner core and iridescence. Small curving wall with applied thick horizontal yellow trails. 5. Core-Formed Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:5) Area S; L2014; Reg. No. 3690. Deep blue exterior with yellow trails. Brown inner core, silver weathering and iridescence. Small wall fragment with applied yellow trails in feather design. 6. Core-Formed Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:6) Area S; L2002; Reg. No. 3163. Unknown color with white trails. Silver weathering and severe pitting. Small curving wall with applied white trails in feather design. 7. Core-Formed Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:7) Area S; L1920; Reg. Nos. 7631+7640+7748.

Light blue with yellow and white trails. Severe pitting. Small curving thin wall with applied yellow and white trails in feather design. 8. Core-Formed Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:8) Area S; L5014; Reg. No. 6203. Deep blue with white trails. Gray inner core and silver weathering. Small curving thin wall with applied white trails in feather design. 9. Core-Formed Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:9) Area L; L1681; Reg. No. 5501. Deep blue with yellow and white trails. Silver weathering and extreme pitting. Small thick curving wall with applied yellow and white trails in festoon design. 10. Bowl, Mosaic-Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:10) Area R; L5032; Reg. No. 422. Rim D 9.2 cm. Unknown color. Severe pitting. Flaring rounded rim and curving in straight conical wall with yellow mosaic. Vegetal(?) designs. 11. Bowl, Mosaic-Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:11) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 139. Rim D 16.1 cm. Orange with white trails. Pitting. Flaring rounded rim, straight wall made of mosaic rods in white spiral design. 12. Bowl, Network-Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:12) Area L; L1681; Reg. No. 5501. Light blue rim with white trails and colorless wall. Iridescence. Small rounded straight rim made of blue cane with spirally wound white trails. Straight wall made of colorless canes wound spirally with white(?) trails appearing as parallel horizontal lines. 13. Bowl, Network-Cast Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.2:13) Area B; L1293; Reg. No. 2913. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Curving wall of colorless canes wound spirally with white(?) trails appearing as parallel horizontal lines.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

Cast Monochrome Conical Bowls 14. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:14) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6729. Rim D 13.5 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring ground rim, curving-in thick conical wall. 15. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:15) Area H; L1801; Reg. Nos. 6214+6217. Rim D 16.4 cm. Deep yellow-brown. Golden weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded thick rim, curving thick conical wall. 16. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:16) Area D; L3002; Reg. No. 561. Rim D 19.1 cm. Yellow. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving conical wall with single horizontal groove below rim on interior. 17. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:17) Area T; L4035; Reg. No. 2077. Rim D 15.5 cm. Yellow. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving conical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 18. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:18) Area B; L1282; Reg. No. 3335. Rim D 24.5 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence, pitted. Flaring thick rounded rim, curving conical wall with three horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 19. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:19) Area A; L1404; Reg. No. 858. Rim D 18.4 cm. Yellow-green. Thick black and silver weathering. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving thick conical wall with three horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 20. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:20) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6907/1. Rim D 15.1 cm.

31

Light green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring ground rim, curving conical wall with three horizontal grooves on interior. 21. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.5:21) Area D; L3002; Reg. No. 4065. Rim D 17.4 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving conical wall with three horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 22. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:22) Area S; L2012; Reg. No. 3293/1. Rim D 16.1 cm. Greenish. Thick black and silver weathering. Flaring rounded rim, thick curving, conical wall with three horizontal grooves below rim on interior and on wall. 23. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:23) Area B; L1269; Reg. No. 1635. Rim D 17.2 cm. Light yellow. Thick black and white weathering and iridescence. Flaring ground rim, curving conical thick wall with two horizontal grooves below rim and four on interior wall. 24. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:24) Area B; L1304; Reg. No. 406. Rim D 16.3 cm. Yellow-green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring ground rim, curving conical wall with four horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 25. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:25) Area B; L1255; Reg. No. 733/1. Rim D 18.4 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving conical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim and four additional grooves in two pairs on interior wall. 26. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:26) Area R; L5161; Reg. No. 5902. Rim D 19.3 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring ground rim, curving thick conical wall with single horizontal groove below rim and three grooves divided into a pair of grooves and a single one on interior wall.

32

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

27. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:27) Area B; L1253; Reg. No. 1054/2. Rim D 19.2 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring thick rounded rim, curving thick conical wall with six horizontal grooves, two below rim and the remainder in pairs on interior wall. 28. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.6:28) Area B; Sq. B15; Reg. No. 3141. Rim D 18.3 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring ground rim, curving conical thick wall with seven horizontal grooves below rim and on interior wall, alternatingly wide and narrow. Cast Monochrome Hemispherical Bowls 29. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:29) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6497. Rim D 15.1 cm. Yellow-green. Silver and golden weathering and iridescence. Flaring polished rim, curving hemispherical thick wall with two wide deep horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 30. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:30) Area D; L3005; Reg. No. 4107+4114. Rim D 14 cm. Colorless with yellow tinge. Iridescence. Straight rounded rim, curving hemispherical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior.

33. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:33) Area B; L1255; Reg. No. 733/2. Rim D 16.1 cm. Light yellow. Iridescence. Straight polished rim, curving hemispherical wall with two deep horizontal grooves below rim on interior. 34. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:34) Area HN; L8006; Reg. No. 141. Rim D 12.4 cm. Light green. Thick black and silver weathering, iridescence. Flaring polished rim, curving rounded wall with single horizontal groove below rim on interior. 35. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:35) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 3138. Rim D 17.8 cm. Yellow. White and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring thick rounded rim, curving thick rounded wall with six horizontal grooves, two below rim and the remainder in pairs on interior wall. Cast Monochrome Ovoid and Conical Bowls 36. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:36) Area B; L1293; Reg. No. 2913/1 Rim D 12.5 cm. Colorless with yellow tinge. Thick black, silver and golden weathering. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving conical wall with four horizontal grooves below rim on interior wall and four on exterior wall.

31. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:31) Area D; L3002; Reg. No. 4065. Rim D 14.5 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight rounded rim, curving hemispherical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior.

37. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:37) Area B77; L1218; Reg. No. 5288/1. Rim D 14.5 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving conical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim and two on exterior wall.

32. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.7:32) Area B; L1266; Reg. No. 1022. Rim D 13.5 cm. Light yellow. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring thick rim, curving in thick rounded wall near base, with three horizontal grooves below rim on interior.

38. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:38) Area B; L1292; Reg. No. 2416. Rim D 14.3 cm. Yellow-green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly curving rounded rim, curving conical thin wall with four horizontal grooves on interior wall in two pairs.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

39. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:39) Area B; L1302; Reg. No. 3/1. Rim D 16.1 cm. Yellow. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring ground rim, straight wall with four horizontal grooves in two pairs on interior wall. 40. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:40) Area R; L5101; Reg. No. 4321. Rim D 16.1 cm. Yellow-brown. Iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving out wall with two grooves below rim and two on exterior wall. 41. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:41) Area D; L3002; Reg. No. 514. Yellow-green. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Rounded base and rounded thick wall. 42. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:42) Area D; L3002; Reg. No. 4065/3. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Curving base with two circular grooves on exterior. Thick rounded wall. 43. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.8:43) Area H; L1808; Reg. No. 6544. Yellow. Black, silver and golden weathering and iridescence. Rounded thick base with one incision on exterior. Thick rounded wall. Cast Fluted and Vegetal-Cut Bowls 44. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.12:44) Area R; L5010; Reg. No. 6430. Rim D 15.2 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Flaring ground rim, curving thick wall with horizontal groove creating rib below rim, vertical flutes and slanted cut design on exterior. 45. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.12:45) Area R; L5156; Reg. No. 5514. Rim D 16.2 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight rounded rim, curving thick wall with horizontal groove creating rib below rim and even vertical flutes on exterior.

33

46. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.12:46) Area B; L1302; Reg. No. 3/2. Rim D 17.8 cm. Yellow. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight rounded rim, curving thick wall with horizontal groove creating a rib below rim and even vertical flutes on exterior. Cast Monochrome Linear-Cut Bowls 47. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:47) Area R; L5010; Reg. No. 6313. Rim D 11.1 cm. Yellow-brown. Iridescence. Straight rounded rim, curving in conical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim and on interior wall. 48. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13;48) Area R; L5004; Reg. No. 4649/1. Rim D 10.2 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Flaring rounded rim. Straight wall with horizontal groove below rim and two below on interior wall. 49. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:49) Area S; L1912; Reg. No. 7255/1. Rim D 14.2 cm. Colorless with green tinge. Iridescence. Flaring thickened rounded rim, straight wall with single horizontal groove below rim and two on interior wall. 50. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:50) Rim D 11.7 cm. Area R; L5163; Reg. No. 5680. Colorless. Iridescence. Straight polished rim, straight thin wall with two horizontal grooves below rim and on interior wall. 51. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:51) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 4647/1. Rim D 12.2 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving, conical wall with two horizontal groove below rim on interior. 52. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:52) Area H; L1801; Reg. No. 6214+6217. Rim D 9 cm.

34

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering, extremely pitted. Slightly flaring polished rim, curving conical thin wall with single horizontal groove below rim on interior.

59. Bowl, Cast Base Fragment (Fig. 8.13:59) Area S; L2002; Reg. No. 3275. Colorless. Iridescence and severe pitting. Flat thin base with one circular incision on exterior.

53. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:53) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 6965/2. Rim D 15 cm. Light yellow. Iridescence. Flaring polished rim, curving conical wall with two horizontal grooves on interior below rim.

60. Bowl, Cast Base Fragment (Fig. 8.13:60) Area G; L1506; Reg. Nos. 6489+6511+6587+6632. Yellow-brown. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flat base with three circular grooves on exterior.

54. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:54) Area R; L5010/11; Reg. No. 6046. Rim D 12 cm. Colorless. Silver weathering. Flaring polished rim, curving-in conical thin wall with single horizontal groove on interior wall. 55. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:55) Rim D 7.2 cm. Area S; L1912; Reg. No. 7042+7174+7198+7227. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Curving in rounded rim, curving thin rounded hemispherical wall. 56. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:56) Area B; L1251; Reg. No. 734/3. Rim D 17.3 cm. Colorless with greenish tinge. Iridescence. Curving in rounded rim and curving rounded hemispherical wall. 57. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:57) Area R; L5022; Reg. Nos. 7403+7441+7502. Rim D 15.2 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black weathering and iridescence. Straight polished rim, curving in hemispherical wall with two horizontal grooves on interior below rim and on wall. 58. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.13:58) Area S; L1900; Reg. No. 6630. Rim D 15 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight polished rim, curving hemispherical wall with single horizontal groove below rim and two grooves on interior wall.

61. Bowl, Cast Base Fragment (Fig. 8.13:61) Area B; L1263; Reg. No. 1132. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Rounded base with central circular groove bordered by two circular grooves on exterior. Cast Ribbed Bowls 62. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.14:62) Area G; L1507; Reg. Nos. 6720+6888+6934. Rim D 12.5 cm. Yellow-green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving thick wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior and a single thick short rib on exterior. 63. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.14:63) Area T; Sq. A21/22; Reg. Nos. 1645+1717. Rim D 13.4 cm. Colorless with light purple tinge. Silver and goldencolored weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving rounded wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior and crudely spaced slanted ribs on exterior below a polished band. 64. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.14:64) Area B; L1291; Reg. No. 2602. Rim D 12.2 cm. Yellow. Thick white, silver and golden weathering and iridescence. Flaring thickened rounded rim, curving wall with single horizontal groove below rim on interior and short slanted ribs on exterior below polished band. 65. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.14:65) Area R; L5024; Reg. No. 7820. Rim D 15.3 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving in wall with

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

three horizontal grooves below rim and on interior wall and even ribs on exterior below polished band. 66. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.14:66) Area B; L1290; Reg. No. 2506. Rim D 15.4 cm. Green. Iridescence. Flaring round rim, curving, conical wall with two horizontal grooves below rim on interior and large spaced crude ribs on exterior below polished band. 67. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.14:67) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3312. Rim D 21.4 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly flaring rounded rim, curving rounded wall with single horizontal groove below rim on interior and spaced even ribs on exterior below polished band. 68. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:68) Area B; L1296; Reg. No. 3191. Rim D 14.2 cm. Colorless. Iridescence and extreme pitting. Straight polished rim, curving wall with single horizontal grooves below rim and two on interior wall and thin protruding ribs on exterior below polished band. 69. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:69) Area K; L7011; Reg. No. 1582/1. Rim D 13.8 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering. Straight ground rim, curving in shallow hemispherical wall with single horizontal groove below rim, on interior wall and thin even ribs below polished band on exterior. 70. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:70) Area G; L1706; Reg. No. 6032. Rim D 14.1 cm. Colorless with yellow tinge. Iridescence. Flaring thin rounded rim, conical wall with single groove on interior and even densely set ribs on exterior. 71. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:71) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 267/2. Rim D 12.2 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering. Straight ground rim, curving-in shallow hemispherical wall with narrow, short, even ribs below polished band on exterior.

35

72. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:72) Area S; L2019; Reg. Nos. 3482+3896. Rim D 16 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight cut-off rim, curving wall with short narrow slanted ribs on exterior. 73. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:73) Area R; L5004; Reg. No. 4649/2. Rim D 13.3 cm. Colorless. Black weathering and strong iridescence. Slightly flaring rounded rim, straight wall with single horizontal groove on interior and shallow even ribs on exterior below polished band. 74. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:74) Area S; L1912; Reg. Nos. 7042+7174+7198+7227. Rim D 16.2 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. No weathering. Flaring rounded rim, curving, conical wall with even ribs on exterior below polished band. 75. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:75) Area R; L5157; Reg. No. 5434/1. Base D 5 cm. Colorless with yellow tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Thin flat base, curving wall with three horizontal grooves above base on interior and even ribs on exterior. 76. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:76) Area R; L5101; Reg. No. 4438/1. Base D 9 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Iridescence. Flat, slightly concave base with two inner circular incisions and exterior narrow even ribs. 77. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.15:77) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5676. Light blue. Thick black and silver weathering. Flat base with two circular grooves on interior and even ribs on exterior. Cast Monochrome Bowls with Flaring Rims and Ring-Bases and Imperial Bowls 78. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.16:78) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5474. Rim D 14.3 cm.

36

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving rounded wall. 79. Bowl, Cast Base Fragment (Fig. 8.16:79) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 6965/1. Base D 6 cm. Light yellow. Iridescence. Thick solid base-ring. 80. Bowl, Cast Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.16:80) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 139. Rim D 23.7 cm. Red. Lime and green thick weathering. Flaring pointed rim, curving rounded wall with single deep horizontal groove below rim on interior and exterior, three additional horizontal grooves on exterior wall. 81. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.16:81) Area R; L5025; Reg. Nos. 7619 + 7691. Base D 2.5 cm. Deep emerald green. Silver and golden weathering and iridescence. Small solid base-ring and curving wall. 82. Bowl, Cast Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.16:82) Area K; L7003; Reg. No. 1520. Base D 3 cm. Light yellow. White and silver weathering and iridescence. Low solid base-ring, thick curving wall. Mold-Blown Ribbed Bowls 83. Bowl, Mold-Blown Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:83) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3482+3896. Rim D 8.8 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Slightly flaring cut-off rim, thin curving-in wall with mold-blown ribs below wide band on exterior. 84. Bowl, Mold-Blown Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:84) Area T; L4008; Reg. No. 1137/1. Rim D 9 cm. Colorless with green tinge. Iridescence. Straight cutoff rim, thin curving-in wall with mold-blown ribs on exterior. 85. Bowl, Mold-Blown Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:85) Area H; L1807; Reg. No. 6529.

Rim D 12 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Flaring cut-off rim, thin curving-in wall with mold-blown ribs on exterior. 86. Bowl, Mold-Blown Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:86) Area A; L1026; Reg. No. 914. Rim D 11 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Flaring cut-off rim, thin curving-in wall with mold-blown even ribs on exterior. Could connect to base fragment No. 88. 87. Bowl, Mold-Blown(?) Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:87) Area S; L1906; Reg. No. 6789+6791. Rim D 9.1 cm. Light yellow. Iridescence. Flaring cut-off rim, thin curving-in wall with exterior horizontal grooves. 88. Bowl, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:88) Area S; L2002; Reg. No. 3095+3155+3171+3210. Colorless with bluish tinge. Iridescence. Curving rounded wall with narrow even mold-blown ribs on exterior. 89. Bowl, Mold-Blown Base Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.17:89) Area R; L5031; Reg. No. 580. Base D 4.2 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering. Concave base and rounded wall with mold-blown narrow ribs on exterior. Mold-Blown Jugs and Bottles and Color-Band Mosaic Vessels 90. Small Flask or Juglet, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:90) Area R; L5106; Reg. No. 4568. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Curving-out and angled-in wall with mold-blown flutes and curving straight in. 91. Small Flask or Juglet, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:91) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 271. Colorless. Thick silver weathering and iridescence. Cylindrical neck, curving out and angled wall with mold-blown flutes beginning to curve in.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

92. Small Flask or Juglet, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:92) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 271. Colorless. Thick white and silver weathering. Angled wall fragment with mold-blown flutes. 93. Small Flask or Juglet, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:93) Area S; L2002; Reg. Nos. 3095+3155+3171+3210. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering, severe pitting. Straight wall, curving out and straight in with mold-blown vertical flutes on exterior. 94. Small Flask or Juglet, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:94) Area S; L1904; Reg. No. 6802. Yellow. Silver weathering and iridescence. Curving wall with mold-blown horizontal rib above delicate narrow flutes on exterior. 95. Small Flask or Juglet, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:95) Area B; L1292; Reg. No. 2430. Colorless. Iridescence. Straight wall, beginning to curve in with mold-blown shallow flutes on exterior. 96. Bottle, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:96) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3628. Light opaque blue. Lime deposits. Angled wall with mold-blown kantharos bordered by pillar on exterior. 97. Bottle, Mold-Blown Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:97) Area R; L5038; Reg. No. 473. Yellow-brown. Silver weathering and iridescence. Small curving date-shaped bottle. 98. Mold-Blown Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:98) Area A; L1026; Reg. No. 914. Base D 4 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Iridescence. Concave base with two mold-blown concentric circles on exterior. Beginning of thin wall. 99. Color-Band Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:99) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 4647/2. Layers of blue, white and brown. Small curving wall made of layers of brown, white and blue canes.

37

100. Color-Band Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.18:100) Area S; L1909; Reg. Nos. 6961+7102. Light green with layers of blue, white and yellowbrown canes. Small curving wall made of yellowbrown white and blue parallel canes. Free-Blown Skyphoi, Ladle and Bowls 101. Skyphos, Handle and Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.19:101) Area S; L1915; Reg. No. 7115. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight rounded rim with remains of horizontal pinched handle. 102. Skyphos, Handle and Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.19:102) Area S; L1911; Reg. No. 6920. Rim D 9.4 cm. Light green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight rounded rim with horizontal pinched-in thumb-shaped attached handle drawing down vertically. 103. Bowl, Blobbed, Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:103) Area S; L2111; Reg. No. 36. Deep blue. Iridescence. Small curving wall with applied and marvered white glass drops. 104. Bowl, Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:104) Area S; L2012; Reg. No. 3293/2. Colorless. Iridescence. Curved wall with widely set tooled narrow ribs creating arches on exterior. 105. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:105) Area S; L5027; Reg. No. 7868. Rim D 13 cm. Yellow. Silver weathering and iridescence. Splayed out rounded rim, straight thin wall. 106. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:106) Area R; L5017; Reg. No. 6604/07/7856. Rim D 9 cm. Light green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim with exterior loop below, straight wall. 107. Ladle, Rim and Handle Fragment (Fig. 8.19:107) Area S; L1907; Reg. Nos. 7471+7478. Rim D 6 cm. Light green. White and silver weathering and iridescence. Straight tubular rim with attached vertical flattened ribbed handle.

38

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

108. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:108) Area R; L5032; Reg. No. 422/1. Rim D 6 cm. Colorless. Pitted. Flaring cut-off rim, straight thin wall.

115. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:115) Area G; L1506; Reg. Nos. 6489+6511+6587+6632. Rim D 6.2 cm. Light blue. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight thickened rounded rim, straight wall.

109. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:109) Rim D 6.5 cm. Area S; L2002; Reg. Nos. 3095+3155+3171+3210. Colorless. Iridescence. Slightly flaring cut-off rim, curving thin wall.

116. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:116) Area G; L1702; Reg. No. 6087. Rim D 9 cm. Light green. Iridescence. Straight thickened rim and wall.

110. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:110) Area G; L1703; Reg. No. 6093/2. Rim D 7 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and extreme pitting. Straight cut-off rim, curving thin wall.

117. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:117) Area G; L1506; Reg. Nos. 6489+6511+6587+6632. Rim D 13.1 cm. Light blue. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim, curving wall.

111. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:111) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5434/2. Rim D 7 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering and severe pitting. Flaring cut-off rim, straight thin wall. 112. Bowl/Beaker, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:112) Area S; L1902; Reg. No. 6659/1. Rim D 7 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering. Splayed out and up cut-off rim, straight thin wall. 113. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:113) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 4647/3. Rim D 9.1 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Curving-in rounded rim, curving wall. 114. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:114) Area E; L18; Reg. No. 5124. Rim D 9.5 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering. Iridescence. Curving-in rounded rim, curving wall.

118. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.19:118) Area S; L5019; Reg. No. 6817. Rim D 17 cm. Colorless with blue tinge. Iridescence. Straight thickened rim, curving wall. 119. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.20:119) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 267/1. Rim D 12.5 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Folded-out rim and beginning of wall. 120. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.20:120) Area S; L2002; Reg. Nos. 3095+3155+3171+3210. Rim D 15.2 cm. Colorless. Iridescence and pitting. Slightly flaring folded out rim, curving wall. 121. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.20:121) Area G; L1708; Reg. No. 6232. Rim D 16.2 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-out rim, curving thin wall. 122. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.20:122) Area S; L2002; Reg. No. 3275/2. Rim D 18 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering. Slightly flaring folded out rim, curving wall.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

123. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.20:123) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6907/2. Rim D 18 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-out rim, curving-in thin wall. 124. Bowl, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.20:124) Area R; L5108; Reg. No. 4964. Rim D 17 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering. Flaring rounded rim with exterior loop below. 125. Bowl, Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.20:125) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3482/1+3896. Rim D 13 cm. Light green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim with double tubular fold below. 126. Bowl, Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.20:126) Area S; L2014; Reg. No. 3588/1. Rim D 13 cm. Colorless with bluish-green tinge. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim with double tubular fold below. 127. Bowl, Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.20:127) Area R; L5017; Reg. No. 6604/07/7856. Rim D 14.2 cm. Light green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Flaring rounded rim with double tubular fold below. 128. Bowl, Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.20:128) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3069. Rim D 14 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Splaying out rounded rim with double tubular fold below. Wheel-Cut Bowls/Cups 129. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:129) Area S; L2002; Reg. Nos. 3095+3155+3171+3210. Rim D 9.2 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Iridescence and pitting. Straight cut-off rim, curving wall with horizontal groove below rim on exterior.

39

130. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:130) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 4647/4. Rim D 9 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and pitted. Straight thin cut-off rim, curving thin wall with single horizontal groove below rim on exterior. 131. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:131) Area G; L1703; Reg. No. 6221. Rim D 7.2 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Iridescence. Straight cutoff rim, straight thin wall with horizontal groove on exterior. 132. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:132) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 4647/2. Rim D 6.9 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and pitted. Flaring thin cut-off rim, straight thin wall with single horizontal groove on exterior wall. 133. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:133) Area S, L1909, Reg. Nos. 6961+7102. Rim D 7 cm. Light yellow. Iridescence. Straight cut-off rim with horizontal groove below rim and two thin incisions on curving exterior wall. 134. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:134) Area A; L1084; Reg. No. 357. Rim D 7 cm. Colorless. Iridescence. Straight cut-off rim, curving wall with horizontal grooves below rim and on exterior wall. 135. Bowl/Cup Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:135) Area S; L1902; Reg. No. 6659/3. Light yellow-green. Iridescence. Curving-in wall with narrow groove above wide horizontal groove bordered by two incisions on exterior. 136. Bowl/Cup Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:136) Area R; L5018; Reg. No. 7763. Rim D 8 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and pitting. Curving-in cut-off rim, curving-in wall with three horizontal incisions, one below rim and two on exterior wall.

40

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

137. Bowl/Cup, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:137) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3429. Rim D 11 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and pitting. Straight cut-off rim, curving rounded wall with five narrow horizontal incisions below rim and on exterior wall. 138. Bowl/Cup, Rim and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:138) Area S; L2052; Reg. No. 3925. Rim D 8.2 cm. Yellow. Silver weathering and iridescence. Straight cut-off rim and straight conical wall with multiple narrow horizontal grooves on exterior. 139. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:139) Area S; L2106; Reg. No. 1051A. Base D 5.8 cm. Colorless. Thick white and silver weathering. Flat base, curving-up straight wall with wide horizontal groove above base on exterior. 140. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.21:140) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3379. Base D 5.3 cm. Colorless with greenish tinge. Black weathering and iridescence. High pushed-in base and straight wall with two horizontal incisions on exterior. Bottles and Jug 141. Bottle, Neck and Shoulder Fragment (Fig. 8.22:141) Area S; L5010/11; Reg. No. 6122. Iridescence. Probably part of No. 142. Sloping rounded shoulder with horizontal groove on exterior wall and narrow groove below neck. Beginning of cylindrical neck. 142. Bottle, Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.22:142) Area S; L1916; Reg. No. 7393+7522. W 8.1 cm. Yellow-green. Iridescence. Curving-in thick wall with horizontal and slanted crossing wide grooves on exterior. 143. Jug, Complete Rim, Neck and Shoulder Fragment (Fig. 8.22:143) Area R; L5102; Reg. No. 4078.

Rim D 3.9 cm. Bluish-green. Black and silver weathering and extreme pitting. Folded out, up and in rim, short cylindrical neck and slanted shoulder with remains of handle. 144. Bottle, Rim, Neck and Shoulder Fragment (Fig. 8.22:144) Rim D 2 cm. Area S; L2002; Reg. Nos. 3095+3155+3171+. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering, severe pitting. Folded-out, -up and -in rim, short cylindrical neck and sloping rounded shoulder. 145. Bottle, Rim Fragment (Fig. 8.22:145) Area S; L1908; Reg. No. 7082+7211. Rim D 6 cm. Light yellow. White and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-out, -up and -in rim. 146. Bottle, Complete Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:146) Area S; L2052; Reg. No. 4016. Rim D 3.4 cm. Light green. Thick black and silver weathering. Foldedout, up and in rim, beginning of cylindrical neck. 147. Bottle, Complete Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:147) Area K; L7018; Reg. No. 1628. Rim D 2.8 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-out, up and in rim, beginning of cylindrical neck. 148. Bottle, Complete Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:148) Area R; L5105; Reg. No. 4499. Rim D 3.5 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Bottle rim, folded-out, up and in, beginning of cylindrical neck. 149. Bottle, Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:149) Area R; L5055; Reg. No. 6865. Rim D 1.9 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Silver weathering. Flaring thickened rounded rim with exterior loop below and beginning of cylindrical neck.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

150. Bottle, Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:150) Area S; L1922; Reg. No. 7981. Rim D 2.2 cm. Colorless with greenish tinge. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-in, delicate rim, elongated cylindrical neck. 151. Bottle, Complete Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:151) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3909. Rim D 1.6 cm. Colorless. Thick silver and golden weathering. Foldedin funnel-shaped rim and cylindrical neck. 152. Bottle, Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:147) Area B; L1291; Reg. No. 2602/2. Rim D 1.8 cm. Colorless. Thick white weathering. Folded-in rim, cylindrical neck. 153. Bottle, Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:153) Area S; L1905; Reg. Nos. 6873+6895. Rim D 3.3 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-in and flattened rim, cylindrical neck. 154. Bottle, Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:154) Area R; L5201; Reg. No. 651. Rim D 3.7 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-in rim and beginning of curving neck. 155. Bottle, Rim and Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:155) Area S; L2014; Reg. No. 3588/2. Rim D 4.2 cm. Colorless. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-in rim and cylindrical neck. 156. Bottle, Rim, Neck-Beginning of Shoulder Fragment (Fig. 8.22:156) Area S; L1912; Reg. No. 7196. Rim D 1.5 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Folded-in delicate rim, short cylindrical neck and beginning of shoulder.

41

157. Bottle, Rim, Beginning of Neck Fragment (Fig. 8.22:157) Area R; L5032; Reg. No. 422/2. Rim D 1.5 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Small folded in rim and beginning of cylindrical neck. Bowl/Cup and Bottle Bases 158. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:158) Area G; L1706; Reg. No. 6032/1. Base D 4 cm. Colorless with bluish tinge. Iridescence. Flat, angledout, pinched base, rounded wall. 159. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:159) Areas H; L; 1802; Reg. No. 6569. Base D 3 cm. Unknown color. Thick white weathering. Flat, angledout base, curving wall. 160. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:160) Areas S; L1915; Reg. No. 7111. Base D 5 cm. Bluish. Iridescence. Flat, angled-out base with inner small rounded high concavity, rounded wall. 161. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:161) Area S, L2019, Reg. Nos. 3482+3896. Base D 4.5 cm. Light bluish. Silver weathering and iridescence. Low solid base-ring with remains of pontil mark. 162. Bowl/Cup, Complete Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:162) Area S, L5027, Reg. No. 7932. Base D 4.4 cm. Bluish-green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Low solid base-ring with large pontil mark (2.5 cm). Beginning of curving-out thick wall. 163. Bowl/Cup, Complete Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:163) Area R, L5037, Reg. Nos. 405+571+610. Base D 4 cm.

42

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Light bluish-green. Silver weathering and iridescence. Low solid base-ring with central concavity and beginning of curving-out wall. 164. Bowl/Cup, Complete Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:164) Area G, L1703, Reg. No. 6093. Base D 4 cm. Colorless. Thick black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flat low solid or tubular base, beginning of curving-up wall. 165. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:165) Area S, L1917, Reg. No. 7411. Base D 3 cm. Light blue. Silver weathering and iridescence. Solid, slightly concave base, beginning of wall. 166. Small Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:166) Area H, L1801, Reg. No. 6214+6217. Base D 4 cm. Light bluish-green. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Flat pinched base with beginning of concavity and wall. 167. Small Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:167) Base D 4 cm. Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3982/2. Colorless. Black and silver weathering. Flat pinched tubular base, curving-out wall. 168. Small Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:168) Area S, L5004, Reg. No. 4649. Bluish-green. Iridescence. Tubular base ring with flat bottom, beginning of thin wall. Base D 6.8 cm 169. Bowl/Cup, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:169) Area S, L5016, Reg. No. 6583. Base D 7 cm. Greenish-blue. Black and silver weathering. Large and crude concave tubular base-ring.

170. Bottle, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:170) Area S, L2107, Reg. No. 37. Colorless with green tinge. Black and silver weathering. Hexagonal flat base, straight wall. 171. Bowl/Bottle, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:171) Area R, L5101, Reg. No. 4438. Colorless with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering. Concave large base, curving wall. 172. Bottle, Complete Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:172) Base D 1.7 cm. Area A, L1030, Reg. No. 2. Colorless. White and silver weathering and iridescence. Small flat base and rounded thin wall. 173. Bottle, Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:173) Area R, L5151, Reg. No. 5695. Base D 2.4 cm. Yellow. Thick white and silver weathering and iridescence. Flat base, thin rounded wall. 174. Base and Wall Fragment (Fig. 8.23:170) Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3482+3496. Base D 2 cm. Colorless with yellow tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Slightly concave base, curving-out wall. Miscellaneous Handles and Production Remains 175. Inkwell(?), Complete Handle (Fig. 8.24:175) Area S, L2016, Reg. No. 3349. Colorless, silver weathering. Small rounded loop handle attached to thin wall. 176. Bowl, Handle Fragment (Fig. 8.24:175) Area S, L1902, Reg. No. 6659/2? Bluish-green. Black and silver weathering. Folded-out rim with applied crude and thick glass piece, pinched twice. 177. Jug, Handle Fragment (Fig. 8.24:177) Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3472. Unknown color, thick white and silver weathering. Crude handle drawn and pinched horizontally.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

178. Jug, Handle Fragment (Fig. 8.24:178) Area R, L5037, Reg. Nos. 405+571+610. Light green. Black and silver weathering and iridescence. Horizontally and vertically drawn handle.

43

179. Deformed Waste Piece (Fig. 8.24:179) Area S, L1912, Reg. Nos. 7042+7174+7198+7227. Yellow. White weathering and iridescence. Flattened, oval, deformed glass piece.

Notes I would like to thank Danny Syon, for granting me permission to work on the finds from Gamla, and for his help and support throughout; Yael Gorin-Rosen, for inviting me to study these finds and for her help in the initial stage of sorting; and Dan Barag, for his intriguing comments. I owe special thanks to Oren Tal, for his valuable comments. The glass vessels were drawn by Hagit Tahan-Rosen and were photographed by Clara Amit, both of the IAA. 2 Stratigraphically, Areas R and S are well dated to the first century CE, based on the ceramic finds in Gamla I (Berlin 2006) and the architectural finds in Gamla II (Syon and Yavor 2010), although they include large quantities of late Hellenistic glass vessels. 3 The other, a cast bowl wall fragment (Area R; L5005; Reg. Nos. 130+187), was made of light green glass and had an engraved lathe-cut vegetal (leaf?) design. 4 The beginning of glass-vessel blowing is dated to the midfirst century BCE. This is based on the earliest evidence of such activity, revealed by refuse in the glass workshop in the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem. The refuse was discovered in the fill of a miqveh, which was covered with a stone pavement during the reign of Herod. The discovery of 100 coins of Alexander Jannaeus and the absence of any coins of Herod date the deposit to the mid-first century BCE or even slightly earlier (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:411–412). This dating has been validated, although the excavators date the laying of the pavement to late in the reign of Herod (after 20–15 BCE), based on the latest coins found in other fills sealed by this same pavement (Geva 2006:68–69). The existence of a large number of coins of Alexander Jannaeus of a single type in the same assemblage can be interpreted as a hoard; this, combined with the lack of coins of King Herod, indicates a date in the mid-first century BCE, even if they were still in use later. Furthermore, the glass workshop producing the finds discovered had ceased to exist when the fragments were discarded in the miqveh, indicating a date that predates its sealing. Evidence of blown vessels at Qumran in a deposit dated to 31 BCE (Mizzi 2010:110, 118, Table 7), and in the Western Roman Empire, as early as 1

40 BCE (Grose 1977:27), corroborate the early dating of the assemblage and the beginning of the blowing of glass vessels. 5 It was recorded, but unfortunately, stolen during the excavations (D. Syon, pers. comm.). 6 The glass vessels found in the Herodian building are cast grooved and ribbed bowls, blown bowl fragments and a rounded bottle (Pritchard 1958:53–54, Pl. 53:1–8). The few glass vessels found in Tombs D12, A6 and H at Jericho, include a core-formed amphoriskos, a candlestick bottle and constricted pear-shaped bottles retrieved from coffin and ossuary burials (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999:134, Fig. III.71:1–5). 7 The glass vessels found in the residential areas include a mixture of core-formed, cast mosaic, grooved and ribbed bowls alongside free-blown and mold-blown bowls, beakers, jugs and bottles (Avigad 1983:107, Figs. 95, 96; Israeli 1983; Ariel 1990:151, 153–157, 161–163, Figs. 26:3, 4, 27–30, 33; Gorin-Rosen 2003:365–384, Pls. 15.1–15.8, 2006:239–257, Pls. 10.1–10.5). The glass vessels found in the burial complexes were retrieved mainly from multiple family burials, and include large quantities of pear-shaped, candlestick and rounded bottles alongside a few bowls and other finds (Barag 1970:17–28). 8 The brief report recounts several glass vessel types, probably from contexts attributed to the Zealot occupation, including cast mosaic and ribbed bowls, free-blown pearshaped bottles, mold-blown almond-decorated inscribed beakers, an hexagonal bottle and enameled bowls (Barag 1991:138–139). 9 The glass finds from the Early Roman phase include a cast, ribbed bowl and free-blown beakers, pear-shaped and candlestick bottles, a jug and a jar (Ovadiah 1999:37*, 40*– 41*, Figs. 3:1–14, 4:1, 2). 10 The few glass finds related to Stratum 2 include cast ribbed bowls (Kertesz 1989:368, Fig. 33.1:14–16). 11 The glass vessels retrieved there include cast grooved and ribbed bowls, blown bowls, a rounded bottle and a jug handle (Jackson-Tal 2000:73–76, Figs. 4.1:1–12, 4.2:1, 2, 5–10, 12).

44

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

R eferences Abu Uqsa H. 2000. Akhziv, Eastern Cemetery. ESI 20:9*– 10*). Arbel Y. 1999. Kafr Yamma. HA–ESI 110:36*–37* (Hebrew, p. 48). Ariel D.T. 1990. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shilo II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Arubas B. and Goldfus H. 2008. Masada, The Roman Siege Works. NEAEHL 5:1937–1939. Avigad N. 1962. Expedition A—Nahal David. IEJ 12:169– 183. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Bagatti B. 1967. I vetri del Museo francescano di Nazaret. LA 17:222–240. Bagatti B. and Milik J. T. 1958. Gli scavi del ‘Dominus Flevit’ (Monte Oliveto-Gerusalemma) I: La necropoli del periodo romano (SBF Collectio Maior 13). Jerusalem. Bar-Adon P. 1989. Excavations in the Judean Desert (‘Atiqot [HS] 9). Jerusalem (English summary, pp. 4*–8*). Barag D. 1962. Glass Vessels from the Cave of Horror. IEJ 12:208–214. Barag D. 1963. The Glassware. In Y. Yadin. The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Judean Desert Studies). Jerusalem. Pp. 101–110. Barag D. 1970. Glass Vessels of the Roman and Byzantine Periods in Palestine. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. I–VIII). Barag D. 1971. The Glass Vessels. In M. Dothan. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965; Soundings in 1967 (‘Atiqot 9–10 [ES]. Jerusalem. Pp. 202–205. Barag D. 1972. Two Roman Glass Bottles with Remnants of Oil. IEJ 22:24–26. Barag D. 1976. Glass Vessels. In N. Avigad. Beth She‘arim, Report on the Excavations during 1953–1958 III: Catacombs 12–23. Jerusalem. Pp. 198–209. Barag D. 1981. Towards a Chronology of Syro-Palestinian Glass. Annales de l’AIHV 8:73–81. Barag D. 1985. Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum I. London. Barag D. 1987. The Glass. In A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali. Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley; Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975–1977 (Qedem 24). Jerusalem. Pp. 34–36. Barag D. 1991. The Contribution of Masada to the History of Early Roman Glass. In M. Newby and K. Painter. eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London. Pp. 137–140. Berger L.1960. Römische Gläser aus Vindonissa (Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa IV). Basel. Berlin A. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem. Biaggio Simona S. 1991. I vetri romani, provenienti dale terre dell`attuale Cantone Ticino. Locarno.

Cool H.E.M. and Price J. 1995. Colchester Archaeological Report 8: Roman Vessel Glass from Excavations in Colchester, 1971–85. Colchester. Crowfoot G.M. 1957. Glass. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria–Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 403–422. DeMaine M.R. 1987. Ancient Glass Distribution in Illyricum: The Emona Ladles. Annales de l’AIHV 10:135–160. DeMaine M.R. 1990. The Northern Necropolis at Emona: Banquet Burials with Ladles. Annales de l’AIHV 11:129– 144. Derfler S.L. 1989. The Hasmonean Revolt: Rebellion or Revolution (ANETS 5). Lewiston, N.Y. Dussart O. 1997. Les verres. In C. Clamer. Fouilles archéologiques de ‘Aïn ez-Zâra/Callirrhoé; Villégiature hérodienne (Institut français du Proche-Orient; Bibliothèque archéologique et historique CXLVII). Beirut. Pp. 96–171. Edelstein G. 2002a. A Section of the Hellenistic–Roman Cemetery at Berit Ahim North of ‘Akko (Acre). ‘Atiqot 43:75*–98* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 257–258). Edelstein G. 2002b. Two Burial Caves from the Roman Period near Tel Qedesh. ‘Atiqot 43:99*–105* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 259). Eshel H. and Zissu B. 1998. Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Caves at Ketef Jericho. In H. Eshel and D. Amit. Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Tel Aviv. Pp. 113–151 (Hebrew). Eshel H. and Zissu B. 1999. An Archaeological Survey in ElJai Cave in Nahal Michmash (Wadi Suweinit). In Y. Eshel ed. Judea and Samaria Research Studies; Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting 1998. Ariel–Qedumim. Pp. 81–96 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XIV). Fischer M., Gichon M. and Tal O. 2000. ‘En Boqeq; Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea II: The Officina— An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore. Mainz am Rhein. Fortuna M.T. 1965. I vetri soffiati della necropoli di Akko. JGS 7:17–25. Fortuna M.T. 1966. Campagne di scavo ad Akko, 1960–1962 (Memorie dell’Istituto Lombardo-Accademia di Scienze e Lettere XXIX/4). Milan. Fremersdorf F. 1938. Römische Gläser mit buntgefleckter Oberfläch. In H. von Petrokovits and A. Steeger eds. Festschrift für August Oxé zum 75. Geburtstag, 23 Juli 1938. Darmstadt. Pp. 116–121. Geva H. 2006. Stratigraphy and Architecture. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–78. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of Areas Gorin-Rosen Y. 1999. The Glass Vessels from the Miqveh near Alon Shevut. ‘Atiqot 38:85–90. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002. The Glass Vessels from Cave VIII/28. ‘Atiqot 41/2:143–145.

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

Gorin-Rosen Y. 2003. Glass Vessels from Area A. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A. W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 364–400. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2005. The Glass. In B. Arubas and H. Goldfus eds. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha-’Uma), a Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex; The Pottery and Other Small Finds (JRA Suppl. S. 60). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 195–210. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2006. Glass Vessels. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 239–265. Gorin-Rosen Y. and Jackson-Tal R.E. 2008. Area F: The Glass Finds. In V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli. Paneas I: The Roman to Early Islamic Periods Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H (IAA Reports 37). Jerusalem. Pp. 141–154. Grose D.F. 1974. Roman Glass of the First Century AD: A Dated Deposit of Glassware from Cosa. Annales de l’AIHV 6:31–52. Grose D.F. 1977. Early Blown Glass: The Western Evidence. JGS 19:9–29. Grose D.F. 1979. The Syro-Palestinian Glass Industry in the Later Hellenistic Period. Muse 13:54–67. Grose D.F. 1983. The Formation of the Roman Glass Industry. Archaeology 36:38–45. Grose D.F. 1989. The Toledo Museum of Art; Early Ancient Glass: Core-Formed, Rod-Formed, and Cast Vessels and Objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 B.C. to A.D. 50. New York. Grose D.F. 1991. Early Imperial Roman Cast Glass: The Translucent Colored and Colorless Fine Wares. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London. Pp. 1–18. Grose D.F. 2012. The Pre-Hellenistic, Hellenistic, Roman, and Islamic Glass Vessels In A.M. Berlin and S.C. Herbert eds. Tel Anafa II, ii: Glass Vessels, Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels. Ann Arbor. Pp. 1–98. Hachlili R. and Killebrew A.E. 1999. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7). Jerusalem. Harden D.B. 1944–1945. Two Tomb-Groups of the First Century A.D. from Yahmour, Syria, and a Supplement to the List of Romano-Syrian Glasses with Mould-Blown Inscriptions. Syria 24:81–95. Harden D.B. 1968. The Canosa Group of Hellenistic Glasses in the British Museum. JGS 10:21–47. Harden D.B. 1981. Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British Museum I: Core- and Rod-Formed Vessels and Pendants and Mycenaean Cast Objects. London. Harden D.B. 1987. Glass of the Caesars. Milan. Hartal M. 2005. Land of the Ituraeans, Archaeology and History of Northern Golan in the Hellenistic, Roman and

45

Byzantine Periods (Golan Studies 2). Qazrin (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–19*). Herbert S.C. 1994. Tel Anafa I, i: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel (JRA Suppl. S. 10). Ann Arbor. Isings C. 1957. Roman Glass from Dated Finds (Archaeologica Traiectana II). Groningen–Djakarta. Israeli Y. 1983. Ennion in Jerusalem. JGS 25:65–69. Israeli Y. 1988. Glassware and Other Vessels from a Tomb at Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq. In B. Mazar ed. Geva: Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-’Emeq. Jerusalem. Pp. 226–232 (Hebrew). Israeli Y. 1991. The Invention of Blowing. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London. Pp. 46–55. Israeli Y. 2003. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts (Israel Museum Catalogue 486). Jerusalem. Israeli Y. 2008. The Glass Vessels. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK, and NN Final Reports 1: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 369–418. Israeli Y. 2010. Glass Vessels. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 IV: The Burnt House of Area B and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 221– 235. Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 411–460. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2000. Glass Vessels. In M. Fischer, M. Gichon and O. Tal. ‘En Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea II: The Officina—An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore. Mainz. Pp. 73–80. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2002a. The Glass Finds from Cave VIII/9 (‘The Large Caves Complex’). ‘Atiqot 41/1:167–168 (Hebrew; English summary, ‘Atiqot 41/2:127). Jackson-Tal R.E. 2002b. Glass Finds. In A. Aronshtam. Region V: Survey and Excavations of Caves along the Jebel Quruntul Escarpment between Wadi Abu Seraj and Wadi Halq er-Rummana. ‘Atiqot 41/1:102–103 (Hebrew; English summary, ‘Atiqot 41/2:93). Jackson-Tal R.E. 2002c. The Glass Finds. In T. Abeles. Region VII: Survey and Excavations of Caves along the Eastern Escarpment of Jebel Quruntul. ‘Atiqot 41/1:126, 131–132 (Hebrew; English summary, ‘Atiqot 41/2, pp. 110–111). Jackson-Tal R.E. 2002d. The Glass Vessels. In O. Sion. Regions IV and VI: Survey and Excavations of Caves along the Jebel Abu Saraj Cliff. ‘Atiqot 41/1:78 (Hebrew; English summary, ‘Atiqot 41/2:63). Jackson-Tal R.E. 2004. The Late Hellenistic Glass Industry in Syro-Palestine: A Reappraisal. JGS 46:11–32.

46

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Jackson-Tal R.E. 2005a. The Glass Vessels from ‘En Gedi. ‘Atiqot 49:73*–82* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 138). Jackson-Tal R.E. 2005b. A Preliminary Survey of the Late Hellenistic Glass from Maresha (Marisa), Israel. Annales du l’AIHV 16:49–53. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2007. Glass Vessels from En-Gedi. In Y. Hirschfeld. ‘En Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2002). Jerusalem. Pp. 474–506. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2011. Glass Objects. In Y. Thareani. Tel ‘Aroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic and Early Roman Settlement; The Avraham Biran (1975– 1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations (ANGSBA, Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion VIII). Jerusalem. Pp. 369–378. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2013a. The Glass Finds from the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 100–129. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2013b. The Glass Finds from the Palatial Fortress at Cypros. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 165–173. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2015. The Glass Finds from the Area of Herod’s Tomb. In R. Porat, R. Chachy and Y. Kalman. Final Reports of the 1972–2010 Excavations Directed by Ehud Netzer I: Herod’s Tomb Precinct. Jerusalem. Pp. 396–408. Jennings S. 2006. Vessel Glass from Beirut, BEY 006, 007, and 045 (Berytus 48–49). Beirut. Katsnelson N. 2007. Early Roman Glass Vessels from Judea—Locally Produced Glass? Preliminary Report. In J. Patrich and D. Amit eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region: Collected Papers 1. Jerusalem. Pp. 5*–11*. Kertesz T. 1989. Glass Artifacts. In Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 8). Minneapolis–Tel Aviv. Pp. 365–369. Kloner A. 1993. Burial Caves and Ossuaries from the Second Temple Period on Mount Scopus. In I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and M. Stern eds. Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem. Pp. 75–106 (Hebrew). Kunina N. 1997. Ancient Glass in the Hermitage Collection. St. Petersburg. Lazar I. 2005. Patterns of Use of Roman Glass in Slovenia— Some Observations. Annales du l’AIHV 16:89–93. Loffreda S. 1984. Vasi in vetro e in argilla trovati a Cafarnao nel 1984, Rapporto preliminare. LA 34:385–408. Loffreda S. 1996. La ceramica di Macheronte e dell’Herodion (90 a. C.–135 d. C) (SBF Collectio Maior 39). Jerusalem. McClellan M.C. 1984. Core-Formed Glass from Dated Contexts. Ph.D. diss. University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor.

Meyers E.M., Kraabel A.T. and Strange J.F. 1976. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema‘, Upper Gallilee, Israel 1970−1972 (AASOR 42). Durham, N.C. Meyers E.M., Strange J.F. and Meyers C.L. 1981. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Gallilee, Israel 1971−72, 1974−75, 1977 (Meiron Excavation Project III). Cambridge, Mass. Mizzi D.J. 2010. The Glass from Khirbet Qumran: What Does It Tell Us about the Qumran Community? In C. Hempel ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Texts and Context (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 90). Leiden– Boston. Pp. 99–198. Nenna M.-D. 1999. Les verres (Exploration archéologique de Délos 37). Paris. Oliver A. Jr. 1968. Millefiori Glass in Classical Antiquity. JGS 10:48–70. Ovadiah A. 1985. Soundings on the Hadera–Haifa Road between Nahsholim and HaBonim. ‘Atiqot (ES) 17:161– 167. Ovadiah R. 1999. A Burial Cave of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods at Hagosherim. ‘Atiqot 38:33*–47* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 223–224). Price J. 1991. Decorated Mould-Blown Glass Tablewares in the First Century AD. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London. Pp. 56–75. Pritchard J.B. 1958. The Excavations at Herodian Jericho, 1951 (AASOR 32–33). New Haven. Rahmani L.Y. 1961. Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 3 (ES):93–120. Rottloff A. 2000. Hellenistic, Roman and Islamic Glass from Bethsaida (Iulias, Israel). Annales du L’AIHV 14:142–146. Rütti B. 1991. Die Römischen Gläser aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Augst. Scatozza Höricht L.A. 1986. I vetri romani di Ercolano (Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei Cataloghi 1). Rome. Schlick-Nolte B. and Lierke R. 2002. From Silica to Glass. On the Track of the Ancient Glass Artisans. In R.S. Bianchi ed. Reflections on Ancient Glass from the Borowski Collection, Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. Mainz am Rhein. Pp. 11–40. Schumacher G. 1887. Recent Discoveries—Notes and News from Galilee. PEFQSt: 221–226. de Solla Price D. de. 1974. Gears from the Greeks: The Antikythera Mechanism: A Calendar Computer from ca. 80 B.C. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 64). Philadelphia. Stekelis M. 1934. A Jewish Tomb-Cave at Ramath Rachel. JJPES 3:19–40 (Hebrew). Stern E.M. 1995. The Toledo Museum of Art Roman MoldBlown Glass: The First through Sixth Centuries. Rome. Stern E.M. and Schlick-Nolte B. 1994. Early Glass of the Ancient World, 1600 B.C.–A.D. 50. Ostfildern. Tsafrir Y. and Zissu B. 2002. A Hiding Complex of the Second Temple Period and the Time of the Bar

CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

Kokhba Revolt at ‘Ain-‘Arrub in the Hebron Hills. In J.H. Humphrey ed. The Roman and Byzantine Near East 3 (JRA Suppl. S. 49). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 7–36. Weinberg G.D. 1965. The Glass Vessels from the Antikythera Wreck. In G.D. Weinberg, V.R. Grace, G.R. Edwards, H.S. Robinson, P. Throckmorton and E.K. Ralph. The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 55). Philadelphia. Pp. 30−39. Weinberg G.D. 1970. Hellenistic Glass from Tel Anafa in Upper Galilee. JGS 12:17−27. Weinberg G.D. 1973. Notes on Glass from Upper Galilee. JGS 15:35–51. Weinberg G.D. and Barag D. 1974. Glass Vessels. In P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp eds. Discoveries in the Wâdi edDâliyeh (AASOR 41). Cambridge, Mass. Pp. 103–105.

47

Weinberg G.D. and Goldstein S.M. 1988. The Glass Vessels. In G.D. Weinberg ed. Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine. Columbia, Mo. Pp. 38–102. Whitehouse D. 1997. Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass 1. Corning, N.Y. Winter T. 1996. The Glass Vessels. In G. Avni and Z. Greenhut. The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (IAA Reports 1). Jerusalem. Pp. 95–103. Winter T. 2006. The Glass Vessels from ‘Ein ez-Zeituna. ‘Atiqot 51:77–84. Wouters H., Fontaine-Hodiamont C., Donceel R., Aerts A. and Janssen K. 2002. Antique Glass from Khirbet Qumeran Archaeological Context and Chemical Determination. Koninklijk Instituut Voor Het Kunstpatrimonium Bulletin 28:9–40.

Chapter 9

Soft Limestone Vessels Shimon Gibson

Introduction This study deals with an assemblage of 487 soft limestone vessel fragments of Late Second Templeperiod date recovered from the excavations at Gamla,1 454 objects from the 1976–1989 excavations, examined by the author in 1990, and an additional 33 items from the 1997–2000 excavations that were examined in 2001. These fragments were identified at the time of the excavations as diagnostic stone artifacts designated for separation among the identifiable ‘small finds’ of the dig. However, Berlin (2006:19), in her study of the contextual pottery from the site, has called attention to the fact that additional stone vessel fragments (258 objects)2 were left by the excavators as ‘stray’ finds within unsorted bags of pottery. Yet, caution is advised against adding these figures together and concluding that 739 stone vessel fragments were recovered from the site, since it is conceivable that some of the items from the boxes of ‘small finds’, which I examined, particularly from the earlier excavations (1976–1989), may also have been examined by Berlin. As at this stage it is impossible to reassess the material and to clarify this point, we must take into consideration that the number of stone vessel fragments from Gamla is surely larger than the 487 fragments that served as a basis for the present study.3 Study of late Second Temple-period soft limestone vessels4 has benefited from a number of key publications, notably the City of David excavations in Jerusalem by Cahill (1992), and the Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem and the workshop for the manufacture of these vessels at Hizma by Magen (2002). These publications reveal that Jerusalem and its vicinity were undoubtedly a major manufacturing center for stone vessel production in the late Second Temple period, particularly in the first century CE (see Gibson 2003 and detailed bibliography therein).

However, the discovery of extramural workshops in the Galilee, at Reina and at other locations near Nazareth (Gal 1991; Amit 2010), has made clear that the manufacture of these vessels was not limited to Jerusalem and Judea, whence vessels were imported into the Galilee, as was once thought. Clearly, vessels were being independently made and distributed in the north of the country, including in the Golan Heights. Stone vessels have been found in the Galilee at Meiron, Sepphoris, Nazareth, Kefar Hananya, Kafr Kanna, Yodefat, Nabratein, Bethlehem-in-theGalilee, Migdal Ha-‘Emeq, Capernaum and Tiberias, and in the Golan at Deir Qruh, Horbat Kanaf, and at Tel Dover on the Yarmukh River.5 The discovery of stone cores—waste resulting from lathe-turning—at Sepphoris, Capernaum, Nabratein and Bethlehem-inthe-Galilee, as well as at Gamla (see below), seems to indicate the existence of intramural workshops at these locations (for the significance of such cores, see Gibson 2003:291; contra Cahill 1992:219).

Hand-Carved Vessels Hand-carved vessels at Gamla consist of mugs, bowls, tubs and various pierced objects. Typical of the handcarved assemblage are cylindrical mug-shaped vessels, previously referred to in publications as ‘measuring cups’, but since no common standard is evident in the interior capacity of such vessels, the term ‘mugs’ is used instead (Gibson 1983:184, 2003:292–293; Cahill 1992:210; Magen 2002:97). Type 1: Hand-Carved Mugs The following subdivisions were made for this group of mugs based on the material available from the Gamla excavations (note that intact vessels or even complete profiles had a limited effect on the conclusions, as they were largely unavailable at the site):

50

SHIMON GIBSON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

22

21

15

19

20

25

24

23

28 29 26

30

27

32 31 33 34

35

36

37

39 38

Fig. 9.1. Mug Types 1A–1E.

0

10

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

51

◄ Fig. 9.1 No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

1

1A

S

1916

7660

Thick base; diam. 8 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; gray limestone

Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount), 40, 2.33:4, 5, 6; 2.37:1: Type II.A (Hizma): “mug”

2

1A

R

5054

3285

Thick base; diam. 9 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed int. with chisel marks on bottom; white limestone with reddish hue from burning

Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount), 40; 2.33:4, 5, 6; 2.37:1: Type II.A (Hizma): “mug”

3

1A

K

7018

1626

Thick base; diam. 8.5 cm; knifepared ext.; smoothed base and int.; white with signs of burning

Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40; 2.33:4, 5, 6; 2.37:1: Type II.A (Hizma): “mug”

4

1B

S

2011

3321

Base and wall; base diam. 9 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1–1.2 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40; 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

5

1B

S

2106

6/1

Base and wall; diam. 7.5 cm; knifepared ext.; smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40; 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

1B

S

Sq G10

3067/1

Base and wall; diam. 8 cm; knifepared ext.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40; 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

7

1B

S

2023

3754

Base; diam. 9 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed base with chisel marks visible and smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40; 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

8

1B

S

2019

3854/1

Base; diam. 8.5 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Figs. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40; 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

9

1B

S

2106

18/1

Base; diam. 8 cm; knife-pared ext.; chisel marks on int. base; white; worn fragment

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13-15, 17

10

1B

R

5053

7976

Base and wall; diam. 7 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1.0–1.5 cm wide); smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

11

1B

S

2016

3350/2

Base and wall; diam. 7 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1.2 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006: 20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

12

1B

S

Sq G10

3067

Base and wall; diam. 8.2 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); white; worn base

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

13

1B

S

2106

18/2

Base and wall; diam. 7 cm; knifepared ext.; smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 4, Type 2.a.i.A.1(City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

14

1B

S

1924N

8287

Base; diam. 8 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

6

52

SHIMON GIBSON

◄◄ Fig. 9.1 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

15

1B

S

1919

7886

Base and wall; diam. 10 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1.5 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

16

1B

S

1916N

7645

Base and wall; 10 cm diameter; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992: 255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

17

1B

S

1919

7820

Base; diam. 9 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed int.; gray; worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

18

1B

R

5104

4627

Base and wall; diam. 8.5 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1.2 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; gray

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

19

1B

S

2106

6/3

Base and wall; diam. 9 cm; knifepared ext.; smoothed base and int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

20

1B

S

1916

7587

Base and wall; diam. 8 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed base and int.; white; 2 fragments—ancient breaks; burning on ext.

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

21

1B

S

2107

46

Base and wall; diam. 10 cm; knifepared ext.; smoothed base and int.; white; numerous signs of burning on int. and ext.

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

22

1B

S

2107

74/2

Base and wall; est. diam. 8.5 cm; knife-pared ext.; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:9: Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:13–15, 17

23

1C

R

5161

5577

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; knifepared ext. (blade marks 1.5 cm wide); smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:12

24

1C

S

2107

74/1

Rim and wall; est. diam. 12 cm; knife-pared ext.; chisel marks on int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:2, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

25

1D

S

2026

3879/2

Everted rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1.2 cm wide); smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, Type 2.a.i. (City of David): “mug”? Magen 2002:40, Fig. 2.37:4, Type II.A.Form 2 (Hizma): “mug”

26

1D

S

2019

3854/2

Everted rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1.2 cm wide); smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 3, Type 2.a.i. (City of David): “mug?” Magen 2002: 40, Fig. 2.37:4, Type II.A.Form 2 (Hizma): “mug”

27

1D

S

2109

34/1

Everted rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; knife-pared ext.; chiseled marks on int. and smoothing; white; possible brown/orange wash on ext.

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20: 3, Type 2.a.i. (City of David): “mug?” Magen 2002:40, Fig. 2.37:4, Type II.A.Form 2 (Hizma): “mug”

28

1E

S

2106

35/1

Rim and handle; diam. 10 cm; knife-pared ext.; smoothed int. and handle; white (gray from burning)

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

53

◄◄◄ Fig. 9.1 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

29

1E

S

2012

3292/19

Rim and handle; smoothed handle; white; worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

30

1E

S

2106

18/3

Rim and handle; smoothed int. and handle; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

31

1E

S

1907

7456

Rim and handle; diam. 10 cm; knife-pared ext. (worn); smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1: “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

32

1E

S

2016

3350/1

Rim and handle; diam. 10 cm; knife-pared ext.; smoothed int. (2 grooves evident) and handle; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, 4, Types 2.a.i. and 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug?” and “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

33

1E

S

2019

3948/2

Rim and handle; diam. 10 cm; knife-pared ext.; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

34

1E

T

4007

1209

Rim and base, and broken handle; base diam. 8 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1.3 cm wide); smoothed int. and base; white; 2 fragments with ancient break

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:4, Type 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

35

1E

S

2019

3854/3

Handle; smoothed; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, 4, Types 2.a.i. and 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug?” and “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

36

1E

S

2106

18/4

Rim and handle; smoothed int. and handle; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, 4, Types 2.a.i. and 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug?” and “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

37

1E

S

2109

34

Handle; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, 4, Types 2.a.i. and 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug?” and “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

38

1E

R

5038

408/35

Handle; smoothed; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, 4, Types 2.a.i. and 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug?” and “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

39

1E

S

2107

74/5

Handle; smoothed; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:3, 4, Types 2.a.i. and 2.a.i.A.1 (City of David): “mug?” and “mug”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:1, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.33:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “mug”

Type 1A: Medium mug with thick base (Fig. 9.1:1–3). Type 1B: Medium mug with normal base (Fig. 9.1:4– 22). Type 1C: Medium mug with cylindrical profile (Fig. 9.1:23, 24). Type 1D: Medium mug with everted profile (Fig. 9.1:25–27).

Type 1E: Medium mug with drilled hole in handle (Fig. 9.1:28–39). Type 1F: Small mug with handle (Fig. 9.2:40–45). Type 1G: Small mug with thick base (Fig. 9.2:46). Type 1H: Small mug with spout and handle (Fig. 9.2:47–50).

54

SHIMON GIBSON

Type 1I: Medium mug with handle and lid emplacement (Fig. 9.2:51). Type 1J: Mug with visible manufacturing signs (Fig. 9.2:52, 53). The mugs come in different sizes, have one or two handles with drilled holes, the occasional spout, smoothed interiors, knife-pared exterior walls and a flat base, and cylindrical (Type 1C) or slightly everted (Type 1D) bodies in profile. At sites in Jerusalem, the vessels range in height from 5 to 15 cm, and larger examples are also known. In regard to the overall heights of mugs, the lack of complete profiles prohibits drawing precise conclusions except to say that they fall into two main categories: medium (with one Type 1E example reaching a height of 13.5 cm) and small (with one Type 1H example reaching a height of 7.5 cm). Mouths are 10–12 cm in diameter and smaller examples, 5–6 cm in diameter; rims are either pointed (Types 1C, D; Type 1E:28, 32) or, occasionally, flat (Type 1E:31). The majority of the vessels are of soft to medium-hard white to light yellow limestone; a few examples are of grayish limestone (Munsell, light gray 10YR 7/1), but these are definitely exceptions to the rule and are probably the result of burning. Clear signs of burning were evident on numerous mug fragments, with patches of a slight gray or reddish hue. The mug exteriors were knife-pared (usually with bands 1.0–1.2 cm wide and a few, 1.5 cm wide). Rim edges, handles, interior walls and bases were smoothed intentionally, with an abrasive material. Two mugs (Types 1D:27 and 1H:50) bear signs of an orange/brown wash on their exteriors (for painted stone vessels, see Gibson 2003:307, n. 44).6 The distinctive knife paring (Cahill’s ʻchisel-markingʼ) on the exterior walls may have also served a decorative purpose. Yet other vessels were polished with an abrasive to such an extent that the knife paring is barely visible. In many cases, the handle was the focus of the polishing, much more so than other parts of the vessel, but in some cases the polish on the handles may have been the result of handling. Some of the mugs (Type 1H) have an open spout extending out from the lip of the vessel, positioned at a right angle to the handle, not opposite it. Presumably, these vessels were used for pouring liquids. Cahill describes the spouted version as a ‘pitcher’, as opposed to a ‘mug’, though I am not sure that they differ typologically. Spouts tend to be 2.1–4.5 cm in length and 1.8–2.5 cm in width.

One rare vessel (Type 1I:51) is a medium mug with a handle and a lid emplacement. The small protruding knob above the handle was presumably inserted into a corresponding hole on one side of a round lid, held in position by the vessel’s grooved lip; this lid may resemble Lid Type 11A (see Fig. 9.12:159). Parallels for mugs of this type are known from the City of David, Jerusalem (Cahill 1992: Fig. 20:2), and a half-finished example, from Hizma (Magen 2002: Fig. 2.37:5). The protruding well-smoothed rectangular handles have oval to round drilled perforations in them (Types 1E–1F). Since the Gamla mugs are fragmentary, and few complete vessels are available, I was not able to distinguish between those with single handles and those with double handles. The handles of the medium mugs (Type 1E) are 6.3–7.5 cm in height (Type 1E:32 is unusual, merely 4.6 cm high), with an average width of 1 cm along their edges, and drilled holes 2.0–2.6 cm in diameter. The handles of the small mugs (Types 1F and 1H:50) are 3.6–4.6 cm in height, with an average width of 1 cm along their edges and drilled holes 1.3– 1.8 cm in diameter. The top and bottom edges of the handles are sometimes angled or slightly rounded. Bases are 7–10 cm in diameter and smaller examples—5–6 cm in diameter. Most of the bases of the medium mugs (Type 1B) are of uniform thickness (1.0–1.5 cm), but a small number (Type 1A) have exceptionally thick bases (2.5–2.8 cm). This obtains for the smaller Type 1F mugs, with bases 1 cm thick, although a few (Types 1G:46, 1H:50) have bases 1.6 cm thick. Thick-based examples are known from Jerusalem and from caves in the Judean Desert (cf. Yadin 1963: Fig. 43:59.10). Whether this is of any significance is unclear; they might represent the personal preference of the craftsperson making them. Alternatively, the thicker bases may represent a group of vessels that required greater stability and thicker bases would undoubtedly have facilitated this. Instead of having a sharp edge, many of the bases have slightly rounded, or chamfered, edges (Type 1 A:1; Type 1B:13, 20), providing a band of separation between the knife-pared exterior and the flat underside. Studies conducted on half-finished objects from Hizma, Tell el-Ful and Mount Scopus (Gibson 1983, 2003; Cahill 1992; Magen 2002) have shed light on the procedure for manufacturing these cylindrical mugs. Cone-shaped blocks of stone were first obtained from a quarry, roughly cut using a chisel and then a dentate-edged hammer or chisel. After softening the stone by immersing it in water to facilitate the carving

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

process, the cones were roughly cut with a chisel into the exterior shape of the finished vessels, leaving protrusions for the handles and spouts. The interiors were then chipped out in stages with the flat side and sharp edge of a chisel and the remainder was gouged out with a scalpel (see Types 1F:42, 1I:51), which gave the vessels a smoother finish. Finally, the exterior was knife-pared into vertical bands, with distinctive perpendicular ‘rilling’ occurring occasionally along the length of the bands. Round or oval holes were drilled into the sides of the handles. Most of these vessels, especially their lips, spouts, handles and bases, were polished with an abrasive. It is interesting to note that some of the mugs, particularly those found in the towns, had been polished to such an extent that none of the original tooling remained visible. This was the case with a number of vessels from Gamla, though whether this was due to the abrasive or to usage or weathering is uncertain. Two examples (Type 1J:52, 53) from Gamla confirm that, in addition to the mugs, which were entirely handmade and in my opinion represent the main assemblage, there were also the occasional few whose interiors (cores) were extracted with the use of a drill. This phenomenon was first noticed at Jebel Mukabbar and at Khirbet el-Muraq (see Gibson 2003:295), and evidence has emerged from Reina in the Galilee (Gal 1991), with examples also reported from Sepphoris, Capernaum and Nabratein (Reed 2009:298–299, n. 2; 305: Nos. 12–16), and more recently, from Mount Scopus, Jerusalem (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbod 2000). The Jerusalem examples firmly show that it was not a regional variation restricted only to the north of the country. The method that may have been used to make these vessels is reconstructed as follows: first, the exterior of a block was roughly cut by hand into the shape of a mug and then the core was removed using a hand-held vertical drill with a semicircular hollow-edged blade. A vestigial mark where the vessel was held in position is visible on the base of mug Type 1J:53. Signs of core removal were visible inside one example of a mug from Gamla (Type 1J:52; Fig. 9.3). The latter appears to have been sawn in two halves at some stage, perhaps discarded during work in an intramural workshop within the town. Type 2: Hand-Carved Bowls In addition to the ubiquitous mugs, other hand-carved vessels are known, including medium to large bowls.

55

While most were made of soft to medium-hard white to light yellow limestone, a few examples were of grayish limestone, but these may possibly be a result of burning. The following subdivisions were made for this group: Type 2A: Medium bowl or large mug (Fig. 9.2:54, 55). Type 2B: Medium bowl (Fig. 9.2:56, 57). Type 2C: Medium bowl with lug handles (Fig. 9.2:58, 59). Type 2D: Medium bowl base (Fig. 9.2:60, 61). Type 2E: Large bowl (Fig. 9.2:62, 63). Type 2F: Large bowl or oval tub-like receptacle with thick walls (Fig. 9.2:64, 65). The lack of complete vessels or profiles made it difficult to identify Type 2A vessels (diam. of mouths 16–18 cm) as large mugs or medium-sized bowls (cf. Gibson 1983, Fig. 1:19). Two examples were recorded: one flat-rimmed and the other with a rim with a slightly inverted and polished lip. Both had knife-pared exteriors cut with vertical bands, narrow (0.6 cm; Type 2A:54) and broad (1.4 cm; Type 2A:55). Types 2B and 2C are undoubtedly mediumsized bowls (diam. of mouths 16–18 cm). While no complete profile was found, the overall height of the bowls at Gamla was probably no more than 10–15 cm. A number of features distinguish Type 2B from Type 2C: the former has a horizontal knifepared exterior (1.2–1.5 cm), whereas the latter has a well smoothed exterior and lugs (Gibson 1983, Fig. 1:11). As far as I am aware, there are no examples of horizontal knife-paring known on mugs of any size. Interestingly, at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, horizontal knife paring and lugs feature on the same bowl (Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:8). The lugs (3.8 cm long, 1.9 cm high) appear either as an extension of the rim (Type 2C:58) or are positioned just below the rim (Type 2C:59). Type 2D represents bases of mediumsized bowls. A few examples were found of large bowls. One rim and a base fragment are represented here (Type 2E:62, 63). In regard to the larger bowls or tubs (Type 2F:64, 65) with thick walls (2.0–2.5 cm), the small size of the fragments preserved at Gamla made it difficult to assess their overall size and appearance. However, they may very well have been oval based on examples found elsewhere (for better-preserved basins or tubs from Jerusalem, see Cahill 1992: Fig. 20:16).

56

SHIMON GIBSON

40

42

41

47

48

43

49

45

44

46

50

54

51

52

53

55

58 56

57

59

61

60

63

62

65 64

66

68

70 72

67

69

71

73

0

Fig. 9.2. Mug Types 1F–1J (Nos. 40–53), bowl Types 2A–2F (Nos. 54–65), and miscellaneous Types 3A–3C (Nos. 66–73).

10

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

57

◄ Fig. 9.2 No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

40

1F

R

5201

683/5

Rim, part of base and handle; diam. 6 cm; knifepared ext.; smoothed int. and handle; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Clamer 1997: Pl. 14:28; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

41

1F

R

5151

5498/1

Base and handle; diam. 5 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed int., base, and handle; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

42

1F

S

1925

8256

Base of handle and wall; diam. 5 cm; smoothed ext.; chisel marks on int.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

43

1F

S

2106

116

Handle; smoothed; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i. (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

44

1F

S

1919

7820

Handle; smoothed; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

45

1F

S

1916

7482/27

Handle; smoothed with visible chisel marks; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

46

1G

S

2013

3721

Thick base; diam. 5 cm; white; worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:7, 8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

47

1H

R

5038

408/33

Rimand spout; est. diam. 6 cm; smoothed; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:13, “small mug”; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A(Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

48

1H

S

1914

7347/11

Rim and spout; diam. 6 cm; smoothed ext.; smoothed int. with visible chisel marks

Gibson 1983: Fig.1:13 “small mug”; Andersen 1985: Pl. 18:333; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002: 98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

49

1H

S

1920

8183

Rim and spout; diam. 5 cm; smoothed; white

Gibson 1983: Fig.1:13, “small mug”; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002: 98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”

50

1H

-

Surface

1652

Complete mug with broken spout and handle; diam. at top 7 cm; diam. at base 6 cm; knife-pared ext.; chisel marks on int.; white; signs of orange paint on ext.

Aharoni 1962, Pl. 6:5; Yadin 1963, Fig. 43:59.10; Gibson 1983: Fig.1:13: “small mug”; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:1, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:4, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.34:8, 9, Type II.A.Form 1 (Hizma): “spouted mug”; for painted ext., see Gibson 2003:307, n. 44

51

1I

R

5038

408/34

Rim and handle; diam. 9 cm; knife-pared ext.; chisel marks on int.; white; worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:2, Types 2.a.i (City of David): “mug?”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:3, Type II.A (Temple Mount); 40, Fig. 2.37:5, Type II.A.Form 3 (Hizma): “spouted mug” and “mug”

52

1J

R

5017

6774

Base and wall; diam. 6 cm; smoothed ext., int. and base; signs of core removed from int.; white

Gal 1991:26*, Fig. 2:4; Gibson 2003:295

53

1J

R

5053

7875/1

Base; diam. 8 cm; knifepared ext.; chiseled hole in base (diam. 1.5 cm, 0.3 cm deep); gray

Gibson 2003:295

54

2A

R

5054

3339/3

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; knife-pared ext.; bands of chisel marks on int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:19, “bowl”; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:9, Type 2.a.ii.A.3 (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:10, Type II.B.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “large bowl”

58

SHIMON GIBSON

◄◄ Fig. 9.2 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

55

2A

R

5151

5498/13

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1.5 cm wide); smoothed int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:19, “bowl”; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:9, Type 2.a.ii.A.3 (City of David): “bowl”: Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:10, Type II.B.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “large bowl”

56

2B

R

5054

7124

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; horizontal knife-pared ext.; chisel marks on int.; white

Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:8, Type II.B.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “large bowl”

57

2B

R

5107

5088

Base and wall; diam. 16 cm; horizontal knife-pared ext. (blade marks 1 cm wide); smoothed int. and base; white

Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:8, Type II.B.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “large bowl”

58

2C

R

5038

408/16

Rim and lug handle; diam. 16 cm; smoothed; lug 3.8 cm long and 1.9 cm high; white

Bar-Adon 1961:28, Fig. 1:6; Yadin 1963: Fig. 43: A.7, “measuring-cup”; Aharoni 1964:68, Pl. 34:22; Dothan 1971: Fig. 28:1; Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:11, “deep bowl with lug handle”; Andersen 1985: Pl. 18:334; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:9, Type 2.a.ii.A.3 (City of David): “bowl” with similar lug; Finkelstein 1993:191, Fig. 6.69:10; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:5, 6, 7, Type II.B.Form 1 (Temple Mount); 46, Fig. 2.40:5, Type II.B.i.Form 1 (Hizma): “large bowl” with similar lugs

59

2C

T

4033

1988

Rim and lug handle; est. diam. 18 cm; gray; worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:8, Type 2.a.ii.A.2 (City of David): “bowl” with lug mid-body; Magen 2002:98, Fig. 3.60:7, Type II.B.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “large bowl”

60

2D

R

5052

6399

Base and wall; diam. 16 cm; smoothed ext. with tooling visible; smoothed int. and base; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:3, “deep bowl”; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:5, Type 2.a.i.or ii (City of David): “mug?”

61

2D

S

5051

6398

Base; diam. 18 cm, smoothed; gray; slightly worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:5, Type 2.a.i.or ii (City of David): “mug?”

62

2E

S

2101

1018

Rim and wall; diam. 20 cm; smoothed; white

Cahill 1992:255, Figs. 20:15, Type 2.a.iv; 258, 22:1, 2, Type 1.b.ii (City of David): “tub” and “basin”; Magen 2002:51, Fig. 2.50:3, Type II.C (Hizma): “basin”

63

2E

R

2107

66/2

Base and wall; diam. 24 cm; gray, worn

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:15, Type 2.a.iv (City of David): “tub”; Clamer 1997: Pl. 14:24; Magen 2002:51, Fig. 2.50:3, Type II.C (Hizma): “basin”

64

2F

R

5038

408/17

Rim and wall; diam. 22 cm; roughly cut; white

McGovern 1989:127, Fig. 2:7; Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:15, Type 2.a.iv (City of David): “tub”; Magen 2002:51, Fig. 2.50:3, Type II.C (Hizma): “basin”

65

2F

G

1752

6241

Rim and wall; diam. 16 cm; smoothed roughly cut ext.; white

Cahill 1992:255, Fig. 20:15, Type 2.a.iv (City of David): “tub”; Magen 2002:51, Fig. 2.50:3, Type II.C (Hizma): “basin”

66

3A

S

2053

4031/1

Roughly oval fragment 3 × 2 cm, 1.4 cm thick, with drilled hole 0.8 cm; gray

On drilling: Gibson 2003:307, n. 55

67

3A

S

1925

8117

Roughly round fragment 2.5 × 3.0 cm, 1.2 cm thick, with drilled hole 0.6 cm; white

On drilling: Gibson 2003:307, n. 55

68

3A

S

2053

4031/21

Roughly round fragment 2.8 × 2.6 cm, 0.9 cm thick, with drilled hole 1 cm; white; worn

On drilling: Gibson 2003:307, n. 55

69

3A

R

5002

577

Roughly round fragment diam. 2.9 cm, 1.1 cm thick, with unfinished drilled hole 0.7 cm; white

On drilling: Gibson 2003:307, n. 55

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

59

◄◄◄ Fig. 9.2 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

70

3A

S

1919

7574/1

Roughly round fragment diam. 3.6 cm, 1 cm thick, with drilled hole 0.6 cm; white

On drilling: Gibson 2003:307, n. 55

71

3A

R

5007

1001/4

Roughly oval fragment 2.6 × 1.8 cm, 1.5 cm thick, with gouged hole 1.0 × 0.8 cm; white

On drilling: Gibson 2003:307, n. 55

72

3B

S

1921

8071

Carved object (toy?); 4.0 × 1.8 cm top, 2.8 wide, with pointed legs 3.2 cm long; gray

73

3C

S

1921

8228

Weight; diam. 8.8 cm, 4.8 cm thick; carved symbol 3.7 cm long, 1.3 cm wide; white

Type 3: Hand-Carved Miscellaneous The following subdivisions were made for this Type 3 group of miscellaneous objects: Type 3A: Hand-carved vessel fragment with drilled hole (Fig. 9.2:66–71). Type 3B: Carved object (toy?) (Fig. 9.2:72). Type 3C: Stone scale weight (Fig. 9.2:73; and see below, Chapter 10). Miscellaneous fragments of soft limestone hand-carved vessels (Type 3A), roughly round or oval in shape (approximately 2.5 × 3.0 cm) with drilled holes (diam. 0.7–1.0 cm), were also found at Gamla (on drilling, see Gibson 2003:307, n. 55). Two examples (Type 3A:69, 71) appear to have been discarded because of incorrect perforations. The function of these artifacts is uncertain, though one possibility is they were used as loom weights, similar to ceramic counterparts found at the site (see below, Chapter 17). The carved object (Type 3B:72) may be a toy— perhaps a highly schematized rendering of an animal

0

See Chapter 10

with pointed legs. An additional find is a stone scale weight (Type 3C:73), weighing 754.9 g, with an incised mark—perhaps a ‘branch motif’—on its upper surface, similar to those known almost exclusively from Jerusalem (see below, Chapter 10). Measuring weights made of copper and lead are also known from Gamla (see below, Chapter 14).

Lathe-Turned Vessels Lathe-turned vessels from Gamla include small jars, chalices or goblets, cups or bowls, hemispherical bowls, shallow bowls, platters, lids and stoppers. Similar assemblages have been found at various sites in the Galilee (e.g., at Nabratein, Sepphoris, Yodefat and Capernaum), and particularly in Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings and in villages in the Judean Hills (Cahill 1992; Magen 2002). There can be no doubt that some of these vessels share common morphological characteristics with contemporary lathe-turned wooden and metal vessels (cf. Yadin 1963:125–129, Fig. 20; Hadas

10

Fig. 9.3. Mug Type 1J:52, top and side views (see Fig. 9.2:52).

60

SHIMON GIBSON

1994: Figs. 14, 61), in particular, as well as with certain glass bowls and ceramic platters (notably certain forms of red-gloss terra sigillata ware). Since some Jews deemed stone as insusceptible to impurity as opposed to the rest of these materials, it is not surprising that some of these stone vessels would inevitably end up resembling vessels made of the latter materials (Magen 2002:138; for the shape of lathe-turned stone vessels and suggested prototypes see Avigad 1983; Magen 1988:49; Cahill 1992:202–203, 293–294). These vessels have very smooth surfaces and they are decorated mainly with incised lines. The receptacles do

not have handles, though lugs are sometimes left on the chalices/goblets. Some of these vessels were also painted; orange paint was detected near the base of one of the lathe-turned vessels (Type 7E:138; see Gibson 2003:307, n. 44). Present research on the production of the small vessels suggests that they were made either with the use of a bow-powered lathe or with a wheelpowered lathe (Figs. 9.4–9.6; Gibson 2003:295–299). In contrast, the small jars from Gamla (Type 4) were probably made in a similar fashion to the large jars— on a lathe that comprised a tournette set in a frame between vertical beams with a horizontal beam above it (Fig. 9.7).

A

2

1

9

7 6

8

3

4 B

5

C

Wood Stone

0.5

Metal

Fig. 9.4. Reconstruction of bow-powered lathe: (A) the stone mass fixed to the axle by cementing with bitumen according to the Iranian method (see Gibson 2003); (B) possible bow-powered lathe used in the first-century CE southern Levant: (1) main beam; (2) holes for pegs; (3) adjustable traverse beam; (4) stationary traverse beam; (5) wooden beam; (6) stone mass; (7) axle-head; (8) metal connection of axle to traverse beam; (9) metal center point in the adjustable beam; (C) bow (drawing, F. Amirah).

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

Fig. 9.5. Bow-powered lathe used in Iran (drawing, F. Amirah).

Fig. 9.6. Reconstruction of wheel-powered lathe (drawing, F. Amirah; based on Magen 2003: Fig. 4.10).

61

62

SHIMON GIBSON

Wood

0.5

Stone Metal

Fig. 9.7: Reconstruction of lathe used for making large jars (drawing, F. Amirah).

Type 4: Lathe-Turned Small Jars/Chalices It appears that at Gamla, the small jar (Type 4) was the vessel that replaced the large vase-like barrel-shaped receptacle, sometimes described as a ‘jar’ or ‘krater’ (or qalal), which is found at numerous sites in Jerusalem and Judea, and in the Galilee (Cahill 1992:207–209; Magen 2002:80–90, 130; Gibson 2003:294, 299–300). The small jars at Gamla also have smaller chalice/ goblet variants. Type 4A: Small jar with everted rim and chiselled band (Fig. 9.8:74, 75). Type 4B: Chalice with chiselled band (Fig. 9.8:76, 77). Type 4C: Small jar with chiselled lug or decorated band (Fig. 9.8:78, 79). Type 4D: Cylindrical small jar and chalice/goblet (Fig. 9.8:80, 81). Type 4E: Small jar with profiled rim (Fig. 9.8:82). Type 4F: Small jar with inverted profiled rim (Fig. 9.8:83, 84). Type 4G: Chalice with profiled rim (Fig. 9.8:85–90). Type 4H: Base of small chalice/goblet (Fig. 9.8:91). The absence of complete small jars or even complete profiles at the site extremely limits a discussion of this vessel type. Vessels were made of soft to medium-

hard white limestone; the gray color of one example (Type 4F:84) may be the result of burning. Their upper portions have everted (Type 4A:74, 75), inverted (Type 4F:83, 84), cylindrical (Types 4C:78, 4D:80) and vertical (Type 4E:82) profiles. Judging by their stance and preserved profiles, we suggest the small jars were 25–30 cm in height, but this needs verifying with complete vessels. Mouths are a constant 24 cm in diameter, except for vessels with inverted rims (Type 4F), which range between 16 and 18 cm in diameter. Rims are slightly inverted (Types 4A; 4C:78), flat (Types 4D:80; 4F) or rounded (Type 4E), and sometimes, the upper edge is grooved with an incised line (Types 4A:75 [see Fig. 9.9]; 4C:78; 4D:80). At Gamla, the small jar appears to have replaced the much larger vase-like jar/krater counterpart known from the Jerusalem region, and, to a more limited extent, from sites in the Galilee. At the same time, this small jar is much larger than the chalice/goblet (see below) that also occurs at Gamla; hence, we believe it should be designated a hybrid of the two. The small jar was made from a cylindrical block of stone positioned vertically on a wheel-powered or winch-manipulated lathe. The exterior was first shaped on a lathe, leaving protruding bands below the rim and then the interior was cut out by hand and smoothed. Vessel No. 80 (Type 4D)

63

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

74 75

77

76

78

79 80

82

81

83

85

84

87

86

89

88

91

90

92

94 93

95

96

97

0

Fig. 9.8. Small jar and chalice Types 4A–4H (Nos. 74–91), cup/bowl Types 5A, 5B (Nos. 92–97).

10

64

SHIMON GIBSON

◄ Fig. 9.8 No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

74

4A

S

2106

12/1

Rim and wall; diam. 24 cm; chiseled band; white

75

4A

S

1910

7797

Rim and wall; diam. 24 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; groove on rim; chisiled band; dentate tooling visible above edge of band; white; 9 fragments

76

4B

S

1910

7661/13

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; smoothed int.; s-band; gray

77

4B

S

1914

7264/7

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; groove and incised line on ext.; chiseled band; smoothed int.; white

78

4C

R

5035

315/4

Rim and wall; smoothed ext. and int.; groove on rim; chiseled lug 2.7 cm long, 1.2 cm high and band; white

79

4C

S

2053

4031/2

Lug (unclear length) and wall fragment, reconstructed rim; smoothed ext. and int.; chiseled band; white; worn

80

4D

S

2015

3317/2

Rim and wall; diam. 24 cm; worn ext.; groove on rim and light grooves on int.; white

81

4D

S

2106

6/2

Rim and lug handle (broken); diam.16 cm; groove on rim; white; signs of burning

82

4E

R

5109

5127

Rim and wall; diam. 24 cm; grooves on ext.; smoothed (hand cut?) int.; white

83

4F

M

Sq A9/10

2501

Rim and wall; diam. 16 cm; grooves and incised lines on ext.; smoothed int.; white

84

4F

R

5054

3360

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; grooves and incised lines on ext. smoothed rim and int.; gray

85

4G

S

2014

3395

Rim and wall; diam. 17 cm; grooves on ext.; groove on rim; gray

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:21, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72: Fig. 3.15:1, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount); 30, Fig. 2.17:2, 3, Type I.1.C (Hizma): “goblet”

86

4G

R

5011

6617/1

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; grooves on ext.; groove on rim smoothed int.; white

McGovern 1989:127, Fig. 2:12; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:21, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72, Fig. 3.15:1, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount); 30, Fig. 2.17:2, 3, Type I.1.C (Hizma): “goblet”

87

4G

R

5151

5457/2

Rim and wall; 16 cm diameter; grooves on ext.; groove on rim; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:21, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72, Fig. 3.15:1, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount); 30, Fig. 2.17:2, 3, Type I.1.C (Hizma): “goblet”

88

4G

R

5054

3413/1

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; grooves on rim; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:21, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72: Fig. 3.15:1, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount); 30, Fig. 2.17:4, Type I.1.C (Hizma): “goblet”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:7

89

4G

R

5053

7875/3

Rim; est. diam. 11 cm; grooves on rim; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:21, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72, Fig. 3.15:1, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount); 30, Fig. 2.17:4, Type I.1.C (Hizma): “goblet”

90

4G

R

5151

5683/7

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; grooves on ext.; white; worn; 4 fragments with ancient breaks

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:21, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72, Fig. 3.15:1, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount); 30, Fig. 2.17:4, Type I.1.C (Hizma): “goblet”

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

65

◄◄ Fig. 9.8 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

91

4H

S

2025

3887

Base; diam. 7.8 cm; smoothed with groove on ext.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 2:9, “chalice”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:23-24, Type 1.a.ii (City of David): “goblet”; Magen 2002:71–72, Fig. 3.15:1; 3.16, Type I.1.C (Temple Mount): “goblet”

92

5A

R

5038

408/31

Rim and wall; diam. 15 cm; groove on ext.; smoothed int.; gray

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:17, 18, 19, Type 1.a.i.K (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.11:1, Type I.1.A.iv (Temple Mount): “deep open bowl”

93

5A

R

5032

415/1

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; groove and faint lines on ext.; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:17, 18, 19, Type 1.a.i.K (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.11:1, Type I.1.A.iv (Temple Mount): “deep open bowl”

94

5A

S

2053

4031/5

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; groove on ext.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:17, 18, 19, Type 1.a.i.K (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.11:1, Type I.1.A.iv (Temple Mount): “deep open bowl”

95

5A

R

5054

8082/5

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; incised lines on ext.; smoothed int.; gray

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:17, 18, 19, Type 1.a.i.K (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.11:1, Type I.1.A.iv (Temple Mount): “deep open bowl”

96

5B

H

1804

6293

Rim and wall; diam. 16 cm; smoothed ext. with groove and incised line; the appearance of “ribbing” on int.; white

Vriezen 1994: Fig. XI.1:11

97

5B

H

1801

6247/3

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; incised line on ext.; appearance of “ribbing” on int.; white

Vriezen 1994: Fig. XI.1:11

0

10

Fig. 9.9. Small jar Type 4A:75 (see Fig. 9.8:75).

shows faint traces of tooling. Some of these vessels had external bands that were completely removed with a chisel (Type 4A:74, 75; Fig. 9.9), occasionally leaving short, decorative lugs, continuous or placed on either side (Type 4C:78, 79). The bands of the profiled jars remain with a decoration of incised lines (Type 4E:82). The exteriors of these jars were smoothed. One (Type 4A:75) displays a ‘finish’ consisting of fine dentate tooling along the edges of a chiseled band and even smaller jar Type 4F is decorated with one incised line on its upper shoulder. The walls of these small jars are 1.0–1.5 cm thick. The Gamla assemblage includes chalices/goblets that resemble the small jars, but are much smaller. Their upper portions have slightly everted to vertical profiles (Types 4B; 4D:81; 4G). Judging by their stance and preserved profiles we suggest these chalices were 15 cm high, but again, this would need verifying with

66

SHIMON GIBSON

complete vessels. Their mouths range between 11 and 16 cm in diameter. Rims are slightly inverted (Types 4B), flat (Type 4F) or rounded (Types 4D:81; 4G). The upper edge of the rim is occasionally grooved with an incised line (Types 4D:81; 4G:85–87). The chalices have chiselled bands (Type 4B:76, 77) or decorative lugs below the rim (Type 4D:81). Profiled rims are also in abundance (Type 4G). Made of soft to mediumhard white limestone, one of the chalices was evidently burnt (Type 4D:81); two other examples are gray (Types 4B:76; 4G:85), perhaps due to the conflagration of the town. One chalice disk base (diam. 7.8 cm) was found, decorated along its edge with an incised groove (Type 4H:91). Type 5: Lathe-Turned Cups/Bowls The assemblage from Gamla includes a number of cups/bowls: Type 5A: Small cup/bowl (Fig. 9.8:92–95). Type 5B: Large cup/bowl (Fig. 9.8:96, 97). There are two vessel subtypes: the first has a slightly everted, rounded rim and the second, a vertical rounded rim, both with incised grooves on the exterior, just below the rim. The larger examples (Types 5A:92, 93; 5B) are most likely bowls (diam. of mouths 15–18 cm) and the smaller examples (Type 5A:94, 95) probably functioned as cups (diam. of mouths 12–14 cm). Their height is unknown, but it is likely that Type 5A was at least 7 cm high and that Type 5B was 8 cm high or more; we have no information on their bases. They are made of soft to medium hard white limestone; a few gray examples (Type 5A:92, 95) may be the result of burning. Wall thicknesses range from 0.7 to 1.0 cm. The Type 5B vessels have shallow ‘ribbing’ on their interiors. Type 6: Lathe-Turned Hemispherical Bowls Hemispherical bowls are ubiquitous at Gamla, as they are elsewhere. There are two vessel subtypes: Type 6A: Hemispherical bowl (Fig. 9.10:98–106). Type 6B: Hemispherical bowl with carinated shoulder (Fig. 9.10:107–114). Hemispherical Type 6A has a rounded body, a thin, pointed rim and a single incised groove on the exterior,

just below the rim. Type 6B is similar but also has a rounded or angled carinated shoulder. Some of the carinations are very slight. Incised grooves were cut on the exterior rims of the vessels, or just below the carinated shoulders. Mouths of vessels of both subtypes 9–18 cm in diameter. Their general height is estimated to be 10 cm, but complete vessels have not hitherto been found at the site. Made of soft to medium hard white limestone, two examples are gray (Types 6B:110, 112), one (Type 6A:102), showing clear signs of burning. Both types are known from Nabratein (Reed 2009:305, Nos. 1, 2). Type 7: Lathe-Turned Bowl Bases Numerous vessel bases were found, classified into five subtypes: Type 7A: Large flat disk base with chamfered edge (Fig. 9.10:115–117). Type 7B: Small flat and thick disk base with chamfered edge (Fig. 9.10:118, 119). Type 7C: Small flat disk base with chamfered edge (Fig. 9.10:120–129). Type 7D: Flat disk base with rounded edge (Fig. 9.10:130–133). Type 7E: Flat disk base with sharp edge (Fig. 9.10:134– 139). Most of these disk bases probably belonged to cups/ bowls (see Types 5A, B) and hemispherical bowls (see Types 6A, B), but it is possible that some of them (especially the larger examples) belong to small jars (see Types 4A, 4C–F). The bases are 7–12 cm. in diameter. Most have chamfered edges (Types 7A–C), while one subtype has a rounded edge (Type 7D) and another a sharp edge (Type 7E). The latter also has incised grooves along the lower edges (Type 7E:137, 139). Made of soft to medium hard white limestone, two examples are gray (Types 7C:129; 7D:132) and three others (Type 7C:121, 122, 127) show clear signs of burning. All have smoothed exterior and interior walls. One example has shallow ‘ribbing’ on its interior (Type 7A:117) and another shows clear signs of having been disengaged from the axle head of a lathe (Type 7E:136). Signs of orange paint are evident on the lower external wall of another vessel (Type 7E:138; Fig. 9.11).7

67

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

99 98

101

100

105 104

103 102

106

107

108

110

109

113

111

114

117

115

122

126

127

131

135

120

123

124

128

129

133

132

136

116

119

118

121

112

130

134

137

138 0

125

139

10

Fig. 9.10. Bowl Types 6A, 6B (Nos. 98–114) and bowl base Types 7A–7E (Nos. 115–139).

68

SHIMON GIBSON

◄ Fig. 9.10 No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

98

6A

R

5052

6446

Rim and wall; diam. 16 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed interior; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Vriezen 1994:272, Fig. XI.1:3; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

99

6A

R

5154

5326

Rim and wall; diam. 16 cm; smoothed ext. with groove, smoothed interior; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

100

6A

A

Sq O11

130

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; smoothed ext. with incised line; smoothed int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

101

6A

R

5017

7826

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

102

6A

S

1907

7353

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; white; signs of burning

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

103

6A

S

1924

6618

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b, c, d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

104

6A

R

5151

5683/1

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

105

6A

S

1916

7600/5

Rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; white

Aharoni 1962, Pl. 6:4; Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

106

6A

R

5151

5498/5

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:2, “spherical bowl”; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, Fig. 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:10, 11

107

6B

S

1914

7426/12

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; smoothed ext. with incised lines; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”

108

6B

R

5201

683/6

Rim and wall; diam. 18 cm; smoothed ext. with groove, smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

69

◄◄ Fig. 9.10 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

109

6B

R

5018

8031/1

Rim and wall; diam. 16 cm; groove on ext.; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2–6, Type 1.a.i.I: “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14:b–d, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.11, Type I.1.A.iii (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl”

110

6B

R

5036

374/4

Rim and wall; diam. 11 cm; smoothed ext. with groove on rim; smoothed int.

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:1, Type 1.a.i.H (City of David): “bowl”

111

6B

R

5151

5498/3a + 5683/3

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; incised lines on ext.; white; 2 matching fragments from different baskets

Dornemann 1990:145, Fig. 1:22; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:1, Type 1.a.i.H (City of David): “bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:8, 9

112

6B

G

1506

6562

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; incised lines on ext.; smoothed int.

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:1, Type 1.a.i.H (City of David): “bowl”

113

6B

R

5011

7517/3

Rim and wall; diam. 9 cm; smoothed ext. with incised lines; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:1, Type 1.a.i.H (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Figs. 3.13:1; 3.14:a, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:4

114

6B

R

5151

5498/2

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; smoothed ext. with groove on rim; smoothed int.; white

Magen 2002:70, Figs. 3.13:1; 3.14:a, Type I.1.A.vi: (Temple Mount); 25, Fig. 2.8:7, Type I.1.A.ii.Form 2 (Hizma): “hemispherical bowl” and “deep open bowl”

115

7A

S

1921

8271

Base and wall; diam. 10 cm; incised lines on ext.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:4, 5, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14, Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

116

7A

G

1507

6708/1

Base and wall; diam. 10 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:4, 5, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

117

7A

H

1801

6247

Base and wall; diam. 8 cm; smoothed ext.; “ribbing” on int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:4, 5, Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Figs. 3.13:2, 3, 3.14: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

118

7B

R

5032

4593/1

Base and wall; diam. 6.5 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”

119

7B

R

5028

3385/2

Base and wall; smoothed int.; chisel marks on base; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:2: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”

120

7C

A

1063

134/43 and 140/46

Base and wall; diam. 8 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

121

7C

R

5024

8091

Base and wall; diam. 7 cm; white; signs of burning

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

122

7C

R

5052

6616/1

Base; diam. 7 cm; smoothed int. and base; white; signs of burning

McGovern 1989:127, Fig. 2:11; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

123

7C

R

5014

6292/1

Base and wall; diam. 6.4 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

124

7C

R

5007

1001/3

Base; diam. 5.7 cm; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David):“bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

125

7C

S

2005

3115

Base; diam. 8 cm; handmade int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

70

SHIMON GIBSON

◄◄◄ Fig. 9.10 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

126

7C

R

5011

6805

Base; diam. 8 cm; smoothed int. and base; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

127

7C

R

5021

7753/4 and 7810/1

Base; diam. 8 cm; white; 2 fragments with ancient breaks from different baskets; signs of burning on fragment 7810/1

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Clamer 1997: Pl. 14:14; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

128

7C

R

5110

4971

Base; diam. 7.8 cm; well smoothed ext. and int.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

129

7C

R

5037

567/1

Base; diam. 8 cm; smoothed ext. and int.

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:3: Type 1.a.i.I (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:70, Fig. 3.14:d: Type I.1.A.vi (Temple Mount): “hemispherical bowl”

130

7D

S

1907

7291

Base; smoothed ext. and int.; white

131

7D

R

5021

7862

Base; diam. 9 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

132

7D

R

5032

421/3

Base; diam. 10 cm; smoothed ext. and int.

133

7D

R

5151

5560/3

Base; diam. 12 cm; smoothed with grooves still visible; white

134

7E

R

5004

4616

Base; diam. 8 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

135

7E

S

1921

7731

Base; diam. 8 cm diameter; smoothed int.; white

McGovern 1989:127, Fig. 2:10

136

7E

R

5151

5560/7

Base; diam. 8 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; smoothed base with extraction chisel marks visible; white

Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:18, 19

137

7E

S

1920

8162/21

Base and wall; diam. 8 cm diameter; smoothed int.; groove on bottom of base; white

Vriezen 1994:272, Fig. XI.1:9; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:18, 19

138

7E

G

1702

6047/27

Base; diam. 7 cm; smoothed; white; traces of orange paint on ext.

Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:18, 19

139

7E

A

1407

823/20

Base; diam. 8 cm; smoothed int.; groove on bottom of base; white

Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:18, 19

Fig. 9.11. Bowl base Type 7E:138 (see Fig. 9.10:138).

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

Type 8: Lathe-Turned Cups

71

None of the cups is complete and the estimated height is more than 8 cm. The mouth of one (Type 8A:140) is 8 cm in diameter. The cups are decorated with incised grooves or protruding bands just below the exterior rim and midriff. Made of soft to medium hard white limestone, the interiors and exteriors are highly smoothed. The flat bases are 4.5–6.0 cm in diameter.

rounded rims, with incised grooves on their exterior (Types 10A:154; 10B:156, 157) or interior (Type 10A:153) sides. The exterior of one platter (Type 10B:155) has a series of incised grooves, lending it a profiled appearance. Type 10A platters have flat bases, whereas Types 10B–C have very slight disk bases (see Type 10D). One of the platters (Type 10B:156) has an affinity with a shallow bowl (Type 9B:152), suggesting that a sharp distinction between Types 9 and 10 may not have been important to the manufacturers. Made of soft to medium hard white limestone with one gray example (Type 10A:153), the interiors and exteriors were highly smoothed.

Type 9: Lathe-Turned Shallow Bowls

Type 11: Lathe-Turned Lids/Stoppers

Two subtypes of shallow bowls are known from Gamla: Type 9A: Shallow bowl (Fig. 9.12:145–148). Type 9B: Shallow bowl with everted rim (Fig. 9.12:149–152).

The lids are classified into three subtypes: Type 11A: Lid with ring projection (Fig. 9.12:159). Type 11B: Stopper with disk base and knob handle (Fig. 9.12:160, 161). Type 11C: Stopper with flat base and knob handle (Fig. 9.13).

The assemblage from Gamla includes a few cups: Type 8A: Cup (Fig. 9.12:140, 141). Type 8B: Flat base of cup (Fig. 9.12:142–144).

Vessel Type 9A is distinguished from the cup/bowl (Type 5A) and cup (Type 8A) by its limited height— no more than 3–4 cm—compared to 7–8 cm for the high cup/bowl and cup. Type 9B is almost a hybrid between Type 9A and the platters (see Type 10, below). The mouths of the bowls of Type 9A are 10–12 cm in diameter, while those of Type 9B are 10–14 cm in diameter. The cups have incised grooves on the external rims. The rims of Type 9A are rounded with walls more or less vertical or slightly everted, and the rims of Type 9B are angled (similar to those of bowls Type 6B) and their walls are sharply everted. Made of soft to medium hard white limestone with one gray example (Type 9A: 146), the interiors and exteriors are highly smoothed. Type 10: Lathe-Turned Platters The platters are quite distinct within the assemblage and are grouped into four subtypes: Type 10A: Platter with everted rim and flat base (Fig. 12:153, 154). Type 10B: Platter with vertical rim (Fig. 9.12:155, 156). Type 10C: Platter with thickened rim and disk base (Fig. 9.12:157). Type 10D: Platter disk base (Fig. 9.12:158). These vessels are probably no more than 4 cm high, their mouths, 14–20 cm in diameter. They have

Type 11A is 9 cm in diameter and its lower ring projection would have allowed it to slot into a vessel with a mouth of 7 cm in diameter. It feasibly was used to cover a mug (see Type 1I:51, with a lid emplacement). A similar lid but without the ring projection is known from Jerusalem (Magen 2002:74, Fig. 3.25:4). Another lid of this sort was found at Gamla but was not examined in this study (Berlin 2006:19, Fig. 2.3:21; 113, Fig. 4.10:6). The example illustrated here is gray, perhaps because of burning. The ‘stopper’ is better known, and has been found in stone assemblages at many sites, particularly in Jerusalem and Judea. They are often depicted in the archaeological literature with their knobs positioned downward (Cahill 1992: Fig. 17:1–6; Magen 2002: Figs. 3.25, 3.28). However, my examination of the Gamla examples suggests the knobs were actually used as handles, when placing the stoppers into the mouths of the vessels they were supposed to cover (as they appear in Reed 2009:305, Nos. 5–7). The assumption is that these stoppers were used to cover narrow-necked ceramic vessels, notably jugs, juglets and jars (Magen 2002:76), which is certainly possible, but unproven. While narrow-necked stone vessels are absent from assemblages, the stoppers could feasibly have been used to cover the openings of small mugs

72

SHIMON GIBSON

142

141

140

145

143

151

150

153

152

154

156

155

157

160

148

147

146

149

161

144

159

158

163

162

164

165

166

171

167

172

169

168

173

170

174

0

Fig. 9.12. Cup Types 8A, 8B (Nos. 140–144); bowl Types 9A, 9B (Nos. 145–152); platter Types 10A–10D (Nos. 153– 158); lid Types 11A, 11B (Nos. 159–161); miscellaneous Types 12A, 12B (Nos. 162, 163); core and bowl Types 13A, 13B (Nos. 164–166); pestle and mortar Types 14A,14B (Nos. 167–170); and pierced object Type 15 (Nos. 171–174).

10

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

73

◄ Fig. 9.12 No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus No.

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

140

8A

R

5151

5560/5

Rim and wall; diam. 8 cm; grooves on ext.; smoothed int. with faint marks visible; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:7–10: Type 1.a.i.J (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.13:4, 5, Type I.1.B (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.14:4–9: Type I.1.B (Hizma): “cup”

141

8A

S

2106

12/3

Body fragment (est. diam.); incised lines on ext.; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:7–10: Type 1.a.i.J (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002: 69, Fig. 3.13:4, 5, Type I.1.B (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.14: 4–9: Type I.1.B (Hizma): “cup”

142

8B

R

5151

5560/4 + 5498/15

Base and wall; diam. 4.5 cm; smoothed ext. with faint marks; smoothed int.; 2 fragments from different baskets; white

Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:7–10: Type 1.a.i.J (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.13:4, 5, Type I.1.B (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.14:4–9: Type I.1.B (Hizma): “cup”

143

8B

S

1916

7645

Base and wall; diam. 6 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:5; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:7–10: Type 1.a.i.J (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.13:4, 5, Type I.1.B (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.14:4–9: Type I.1.B (Hizma): “cup”

144

8B

R

5003

4632

Base and wall; diam. 4.5 cm, smoothed ext. and int.; white; worn

Gibson 1983: Fig. 2:11; Cahill 1992:247, Fig. 16:7–10: Type 1.a.i.J (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:69, Fig. 3.13:4, 5, Type I.1.B (Temple Mount); 24, Fig. 2.14:4–9: Type I.1.B (Hizma): “cup”; Berlin 2006: 20, Fig. 2.3:20

145

9A

R

5032

415/2

Rim and wall; diam. 12 cm; white; worn

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:2, 4: Types 1.a.i.B and 1.a.i.D (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:1, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “bowl”

146

9A

S

1924

7784/1

Rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; gray

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15: 2, 4: Types 1.a.i.B and 1.a.i.D (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:1, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “bowl”

147

9A

S

1924

7784/2

Rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int. with incised line; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15: 2, 4: Types 1.a.i.B and 1.a.i.D (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:1, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “bowl”

148

9A

R

5151

5498/4

Rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; smoothed ext. with groove; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:2, 4: Types 1.a.i.B and 1.a.i.D (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:1, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:3, 5

149

9B

S

1919

7715/2

Rim and wall; est. diam. 10 cm; incised line on rim; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:2, 4: Types 1.a.i.B and 1.a.i.D (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:1, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “bowl”

150

9B

R

5024

7555/2

Rim and wall; diam. 10 cm; incised line on ext.; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:2, 4: Types 1.a.i.B and 1.a.i.D (City of David): “bowl”; Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:1, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Temple Mount): “bowl”

151

9B

S

5053

7875/2

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; groove on rim; white

Clamer 1997: Pl. 14:17; Magen 2002:66, Figs. 3.5:8; 3:9: Type I.1.A.iii.Form 2 (Temple Mount): “bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:6

152

9B

R

5151

5683/2a

Rim and wall; diam. 14 cm; groove on rim; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:22: Type 1.a.i.F “bowl” (City of David); Magen 2002:65, Fig. 3.2:4: Type I.1.A.ii.Form 2 (Temple Mount): “bowl” Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:2

153

10A

R

5054

3413/3

Rim and base; diam. 20 cm; smoothed ext. and int.; incised lines on rim; groove on int. rim; gray

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:20, 21: Type 1.a.i.F “bowl” (City of David); Clamer 1997: Pl. 14:16; Magen 2002:66, Figs. 3.5:3–5; 3.6, 3.7: Type I.1.A.iii.Form 1 (Temple Mount); 22, Fig. 2.6:7, Type I.1.A.i.Form 2 (Hizma): “large shallow open bowl”

154

10A

R

5054

8082/6

Rim and base; diam. 14 cm; incised line on rim; smoothed int.; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:20, 21: Type 1.a.i.F “bowl” (City of David); Magen 2002:66, Figs. 3.5:3–5, 3.6, 3.7: Type I.1.A.iii.Form 1 (Temple Mount); 22, Fig. 2.6:7, Type I.1.A.i.Form 2 (Hizma): “large shallow open bowl”

74

SHIMON GIBSON

◄◄ Fig. 9.12 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus No.

Reg. No.

Description

Parallels

155

10B

R

5007

931/1

Rim and base; diam. 20 cm; grooves on ext.; smoothed int.; white; worn

Saller 1957:337, Fig. 65:1657; Gibson 1983: Fig. 1:4 (unfinished); Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:15–17: Type 1.a.i.F “bowl” (City of David); Magen 2002:66, Figs. 3.5:1, 2; 3.8: Type I.1.A.iii.Form 1 (Temple Mount); 22, 2.4:4, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Hizma): “large shallow open bowl”; 2:10, “shallow bowl”; Berlin 2006:20, Fig. 2.3:1

156

10B

R

5151

5560/8

Rim; diam. 14 cm; groove on ext.; white

Cahill 1992:245, Fig. 15:15–17: Type 1.a.i.F “bowl” (City of David); Magen 2002:66, Figs. 3.5:1, 2; 3.8: Type I.1.A.iii.Form 1 (Temple Mount); 22, 2.4:4, Type I.1.A.i.Form 1 (Hizma): “large shallow open bowl”

157

10C

S

1919

7715/1

Rim and base; diam. 18 cm; grooves on ext.; white; 2 fragments with ancient break

Cahill 1992:249, Fig. 17:13, Type 1.a.v: “unfinished vessel” (City of David)

158

10D

R

5011

6954

Base; diam. 10 cm; white

Clamer 1997: Pl. 14:13

159

11A

R

5021

7753/2

Lid: diam. 9 cm; gray

Magen 2002:74, Fig. 3.25:4; Fig. 3.26b: Type I.1.F.Form 2 (Temple Mount): “small lid”; Berlin 2006:20, 113, Figs. 2.3:21; 4.10:6

160

11B

R

5101

4084

Stopper: diam. 8 cm; smoothed hand-carved base; white

Cahill 1992:249, Fig. 17.5: Type 1.a.iii.E “stopper” (City of David); Magen 2002:74, Fig. 3.25:1, 2: Type I.1.F.Form 1, “small lid”; 76, Figs. 3.25:7–11; 3.28: Types I.1.G.Form 1, 2; “stopper” (Temple Mount); 24, Figs. 2.19:7, 8; 2.21: Type I.1.E, “stopper”

161

11B

R

5102

4032

Stopper: diam. 8 cm; smoothed hand-carved base; white

Cahill 1992:249, Fig. 17.5: Type 1.a.iii.E “stopper” (City of David); Magen 2002:74, Fig. 3.25:1, 2: Type I.1.F.Form 1, “small lid”; 76, Figs. 3.25:7–11; 3.28: Types I.1.G.Form 1, 2, “stopper” (Temple Mount); 24, Figs. 2.19:7, 8; 2.21: Type I.1.E, “stopper”

162

12A

S

1924

8242

Decorative lug handle; incised lines; white

Magen 2002:86, Figs. 3.41:1, 2; 87, 3.42 (for similar handle decoration but not vessel type)

163

12B

S

2107

26

Inkwell base; diam. 6 cm; incised marks on ext.; groove on ext.; signs of core extraction from int.; white

Magen 2002:72, Figs. 3.18:2; 3.20: Type I.1.D.Form 2, “inkwell” (Temple Mount)

164

13A

R

5033

235/4

Core; diam. 9 cm; chisel marks on top and bottom; incised lines on sides; white

Cahill 1992:249, Fig. 17:15–26: Type 1.a.vi.B “core” (City of David); Magen 2002:77: Type I.1.H (Temple Mount):32–38: Type I.1.G (Hizma): “core”

165

13B

R

5151

5560/6

Bowl base: diam. 7.5 cm; groove on int.; chisel marks on base; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 3:3

166

13B

R

5023

7345

Bowl base: diam. 7 cm; chisel marks on int. and base; white

Gibson 1983: Fig. 3:3

167

14A

R

5011

6058

Pestle; diam. 5.2 cm; 6.5 cm high; smoothed; polishing on base; hard limestone: yellow/ white

168

14A

S

1914

7264/20

Pestle? diam. 5.5 cm; white; worn

169

14B

R

5038

408/32

Rim and base; diam. 13 cm; 6.2 cm high; irregular surface with no signs of tooling; hard limestone: white

75

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

◄◄◄ Fig. 9.12 (cont.) No.

Vessel Type

Area

Square/ Locus No.

Reg. No.

Description

170

14B

D

3004

712

Mortar; diam. 9 cm; 5.5 cm high; hard white crystalline limestone

171

15

R

5032

4600

Loom weight? diam. 7.2 cm; 2.4 cm thick; 1.4 cm drilled hole; hard crystalline reddish-brown stone

172

15

S

2053

4029/25

Weight/mace head? diam. 5.2 cm; 4.1 cm high; 1.7 cm drilled hole; well smoothed; limestone; white

173

15

R

5010

4728

Loom weight? diam. 5.2 cm; 1.5 cm thick; 0.8 cm drilled hole; soft and light chalk; gray

174

15

R

5028

3385/1

Loom weight? diam. 4.6 cm; 1.3 cm thick; 0.9 cm drilled hole; limestone; white

0

Parallels

10

Fig. 9.13. Stopper Type 11C.

(Type 1F–H). At Gamla, there are different forms of stoppers with high and low knob handles and flat (Type 11C; Fig. 9.13) or disk (Type IIB) bases with diameters of 7–8 cm. Type 12: Lathe-Turned Miscellaneous Two miscellaneous items are represented here: Type 12A: Decorative lug handle (Fig. 9.12:162). Type 12B: Inkwell base (Fig. 9.12:163). It is assumed that this lug handle, decorated with parallel incised grooves (Type 12A), was part of a small bowl (Fig. 9.14). Similar decorations appear on a different kind of vessel, from Jerusalem (Magen

0

10

Fig. 9.14. Decorative lug handle Type 12A:162 (see Fig. 9.12:162).

2002:86, Fig. 3.41:1, 2; 87, Fig. 3.42). Type 12B, the thick lower part of an inkwell (diam. 6 cm), is made of a harder variety of limestone. An incised groove was cut in its lower external wall. Additional markings (an inscription?) are visible on the upper wall of the vessel.

76

SHIMON GIBSON

The interior bears clear signs of a core having been disengaged at the time it was made. Stone inkwells are quite rare—one is known from Machaerus and a number of examples have been found in Jerusalem (Magen 2002:72, Fig. 3.18:2).8 Type 13: Core and Unfinished Bowls A number of items are included here that shed light on the production processes involved in the making of lathe-turned bowls: Type 13A: Core (Fig. 9.12:164). Type 13B: Unfinished bowl base (Fig. 9.12:165, 166). Many of the small vessels were made with the use of a bow-powered or a wheel-powered lathe (Gibson 2003:295–299). The discovery at Gamla of a core (Type 13A; Fig. 9.15) that had been removed during the manufacture of a bowl, as well as two unfinished bowls (Type 13B) with chisel marks on their bases, confirms that at least one intramural workshop existed at the site since it is unlikely that stone-vessel debitage would have been imported from the Galilee. Three additional vessels provide further evidence for a workshop at Gamla: a mug that had its core removed (Type 1J:52) and was then sawn in half, the inkwell with traces of a

core having been removed from its interior (see above, Type 12B:163) and the base of a bowl with signs of having been disengaged from the axle head of a lathe (see above, Type 7E:136). Type 14: Pestles and Mortars The following objects were also examined: Type 14A: Pestles (Fig. 9.12:167, 168). Type 14B: Mortars (Fig. 9.12:169, 170). The pestles were made of hard white limestone, their lower parts worn, and the mortars were made of hard and crystalline limestone. Their small size (diam. 9–13 cm) suggests they were used for grinding spices and ointments. Type 15: Pierced Objects A number of pierced objects were found: Type 15: Pierced objects (Fig. 9.12:171–174). One of the circular objects (Type 15:171) was made of a crystalline reddish-brown stone (diam. 7.2 cm) with a drilled hole (diam. 1.4 cm). Another object (Type 15:172), made of hard limestone, resembles Chalcolithicperiod mace-heads, and may have been residual, within the Early Roman stratum.9 Two of the circular objects (Type 15:173, 174) were made of soft limestone and may have been used as loom-weights (diam. 4.6 cm, 5.2 cm) with drilled holes (diam. 0.8, 0.9 cm).

Conclusions

0

10

Fig. 9.15. Core Type 13A:164 (see Fig. 9.12:164).

The assemblage is characterized by a much larger percentage of hand-carved (66%) as opposed to latheturned (34%) vessels (Fig. 9.16). There are two main groups of vessels. The first group is the hand-carved cylindrical mugs (48%), sometimes referred to (incorrectly) as ‘measuring cups’; they are small to medium in size, usually with one or two handles, but only a few have spouts. The mugs have hand-carved interiors, except for two examples exhibiting signs suggesting that their interior cores were removed with a drill. The second consists of lathe-turned bowls and platters (22.6%). These are simple vessels with incised-line decoration. The smaller groups of vessel types include hand-carved bowls (5.1%) and small jars and chalices (2.7%).

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS LT Others 8.8% LT Goblets 2.7%

LT Bowls 22.6%

HC Others 12.7%

HC Mugs 48.1%

HC Bowls 5.1%

Fig 9.16. Percentages of stone vessels from Gamla LT: Lathe-Turned basedHC: on Hand-Carved the examined assemblage of 487 objects (HC = hand-carved; LT = lathe-turned).

It is notable that the large barrel-shaped jars of the qalal type (Mishna 3:3; Brand 1953:496; cf. NT John 2:6)10, known particularly from Jerusalem and Judea, are totally absent in the Gamla assemblage. At the same time, a variety of small jars were found at Gamla (Types 4A, 4C, 4D:80, 4E and 4F) that are not represented in the assemblages known from Jerusalem and Judea. Similarly, a much greater variety of chalices are known from Gamla (Types 4B, 4D:81, 4G and 4H). We suggest, therefore, that the small jars at Gamla replaced the large jars elsewhere in the country as containers of water for ritual hand-washing purification procedures (netilat yedaim) in houses.11 A few large jars of the qalal sort have been reported from sites in the Galilee. Yet, they are never as ornate or well finished as some of their Jerusalem counterparts, and they also have a limited distribution, primarily being found in towns rather than villages, with a few examples reported from Nazareth, Sepphoris (J. Reed, pers. comm.; Weiss 2005:310) and Tiberias (Hirschfeld 1989/1990:108, Fig. 96).12 Reed has suggested socioeconomic reasons for the omission of the large stone jars in Galilean villages, believing them to be more appropriate in town contexts, sideby-side with other luxury indicators such as mosaic floors, wall paintings and imported ceramics (Reed 2009:302; see also Chancey 2009:209). However, this does not accord well with the Gamla evidence, which,

77

being a town, should have had some large stone jars in its assemblage. One possibility is that their weight was an inhibiting factor, precluding their being transported from extramural workshops in the Galilee, such as at Reina, up to the Golan Heights.13 The fact that there are no suitable sources of soft limestone in the Golan (a basaltic region) also precluded itinerant artisans from travelling to Gamla to make them on location. Very small numbers of other types of stone vessels and artifacts were found at Gamla, namely a handcarved weight, spindle-whorls and drilled fragments, lathe-turned lids/stoppers and an inkwell fragment. Some vessels revealed traces of paint on their exterior walls. A core and a number of half-finished vessels resulting from lathe-turning were found at the site, indicating that workshops for manufacturing small stone vessels must have existed within the town. The distribution of stone vessels within the various areas of the town merits discussion.14 Only single objects were found in Areas B and D (Hasmonean Quarter) and it would seem these were surface finds, not in any way directly associated with the domestic assemblages unearthed there. Based on the numismatic and ceramic finds from Areas B and D, the excavators suggested that this particular neighbourhood thrived during the first century BCE and was then abandoned (Syon and Yavor 2001:7–8; Goren 2010:114–116; see Chapter 1). The reason for this abandonment remains uncertain and the exact date when this took place is also unclear. Berlin (2006:64, 144) suggested a date at the beginning of the first century CE (c. 10 CE) particularly relying on the small number of finds of later first century date, namely coins, knife-pared bowspouted (Herodian) lamps, blown glass fragments and a few stone vessels. I would suggest, however, that these objects (attributed to Phase IIIb and from surface fills) be interpreted as rubbish that was dumped there not long before the destruction of the town in 67 CE as described by Josephus (War 4.1–10), and that they do not have any bearing on the matter of the date of the abandonment of this quarter. Occasional artifacts and coins might have simply been dropped in the period between 23 BCE and the time of the siege, which would be expected if the structures were not razed but were left in an abandoned state. While the pottery forms represented in the Hasmonean Quarter assemblages are generally attributed to the period ending approximately in the early first century CE (as Berlin shows), the long history of many of

78

SHIMON GIBSON

the pottery forms found there does not preclude the possibility that they date from no later than the time of Herod the Great (37–4 BCE). There are a number of possible internal urban and external political reasons for the abandonment of this neighbourhood. The structural precariousness of the underlying consolidation terraces, as pointed out by Stacey (2007:129), could have necessitated the abandonment of this neighbourhood after only 60 years of existence. It is conceivable (but cannot be proven) that the inhabitants of Gamla feared earthquake damage and loss of life, especially, perhaps, upon hearing about the devastating effects of the earthquake of 31 BCE that ravaged Judea, and that this might have been one of the considerations determining the eventual abandonment of this neighbourhood. There may have been an external political reason resulting from the town coming into Herod’s possession in c. 23 BCE.15 The phenomenon of structural and cultural change occurring in towns of this period is well known, but beyond the scope of this study. It should be pointed out that my proposed date of abandonment for Area B differs markedly from the views expressed by Berlin (2006:64), Goren (2010:114–116) and Syon (pers. comm.). The largest concentration of stone vessel fragments was found in interior Areas R and S (the Western Quarter), with 280 objects and 126 objects respectively, in an area covering 4.5 dunams. The large numbers of stone vessels found in this part of the town may indicate that this quarter was where the wealthy oil producers and merchants lived in the first century CE. It would appear that some of the buildings in this quarter were constructed at the end of the first century BCE or at the beginning of the first century CE (notably the ‘basilica’). In addition, the monumental public building/synagogue situated on the eastern side of the town might also have been built at this time (after 23 BCE), perhaps as part of Herod’s building activities.16 The considerable presence of stone vessels in the domestic assemblage of the Western Quarter reflects economic status, not just a concern for purity, especially when one considers that limestone was not a readily available resource to residents at Gamla as it would have been to residents of towns in the Galilee, such as at Nazareth. I have argued elsewhere that the overwhelming distribution of stone vessels in the country (from Judea to the Galilee) during that time may suggest that many in Jewish society regarded stone vessels as fashionable and utilitarian receptacles

to be enjoyed by everyone (who could afford them) and that these vessels were not related to specific ritual beliefs (Gibson 2003:304). Smaller numbers of stone vessels were found in the areas situated immediately within the town wall on the east (the Eastern Quarter): fourteen vessels in Area T, 12 in Area M, 10 in Area G and 9 in Area A. These areas combined cover an area of 3 dunams. One possibility for the scarcity of stone vessels in the Eastern Quarter may be because this was the quarter where the lower classes resided in the mid-first century CE. Judging by the excavated materials, the houses in the Eastern Quarter were established toward the end of the first century BCE; an exact date is difficult to ascertain but this could very well have been around 23 BCE, when the town came into Herod’s possession. In Areas H and K, situated further to the east, very few stone objects were found (8 and 2 respectively), but the character of the building remains suggests they belonged to the affluent residents of the town and were not dwellings of the poorer strata. Hence, the small number of stone finds there is strange by comparison to the large quantities uncovered in Areas R and S. Indeed, in Area K, parts of a splendid building (‘mansion’) dating to the first century CE were uncovered (Syon and Yavor 2005:45), leading one to expect to find numerous stone vessels, at least in that building. One possibility is that this is an accident of discovery owing to the small area excavated (250 sq m). Alternatively, there may have been an historical reason. Some of the dwellings in this area could have been ‘occupied’ by refugees in the months preceding the fall of the town to the Romans in 67 CE, as Josephus attests, “for the city had been filled with those that had fled to it for safety, on account of its strength…” (War 4.1.2 [10]), which may explain the absence of rich finds there. The large quantity of stone vessels found in Areas R and S must be interpreted as representing the final use of this neighbourhood between 50 and 67 CE. I have argued elsewhere (Gibson 2003:301–302) that while the emergence of the stone vessel industry probably began toward the end of the first century BCE, its floruit undoubtedly took place between 50 and 70 CE, based on the stratigraphic evidence derived from excavated sites, with a decrease in vessel production extending no further than 135 CE.17 Many of the stone vessel fragments from Gamla (62 fragments) bear clear signs of having been burnt: thirteen from Area R and 43 from

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

Area S, with only a few items from Areas G (2) and T (4).18 It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that these specific artifacts are to be dated to the conflagration of

79

the town which took place in October 67 CE, thereby establishing a clear terminus ad quem for their final use at Gamla.

Notes I am very grateful to the late Shmarya Gutmann, for asking me to prepare the stone vessels from the Gamla excavations for publication, and to David Goren, for giving me the material to study during a sojourn at the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. My main thanks go to Danny Syon for facilitating my research at every stage, for providing me with material from his new excavations at the site and for his constant patience while this manuscript was in preparation. I am also grateful to Jonathan L. Reed for sending me information about the stone vessels from Nabratein and Sepphoris he is studying, to Zeev Weiss for information about stone vessels from the Sepphoris synagogue and to Mareike Grosser for preparing the catalogue of stone vessels and the charts that accompany the plates of drawings. Additional thanks go to Chaim Ben-David for information about stone vessel fragments recently found in the Golan, and to Yonatan Adler for alerting me to recent bibliography. I drew the artifacts and Hagit Tahan-Rosen inked them. 2 Although Berlin in her 2006 publication refers to 258 stone-vessel objects, only 252 objects appear in a list she provided me. 3 For a preliminary account on the stone vessels from Gamla, see Gibson 2003:304–205. According to Shaked and AvshalomGorni (2004: n. 6), surveys of first-century CE settlements near Gamla and elsewhere in the Golan Heights have not brought to light stone vessels. However, contrary to this assertion, stone vessels have been reported by Zvi Ma‘oz from excavations at Deir Qruh (a Byzantine/Ottoman settlement near Gamla) and at H. Kanaf (Gibson 2003: n. 78) and Chaim Ben-David (pers. comm.) informs me that stone-vessel fragments have been found at Debiyya (near Qazrin) by Yigal Ben-Ephraim in the central Golan and by Sharya Fridman at a number of sites surveyed in the southern Golan. 4 The variability of the different types of soft to mediumhard limestone used in the manufacturing of these vessels precludes them from being described simply as ‘chalk’ vessels, as Cahill (1992:234, n. 1) has done, followed by various other scholars (see further comments on this matter in Gibson 2003:289, n. 22). 5 For distribution maps showing stone vessel findspots in the northern part of the country, see Cahill 1992:230, Plan 63; Magen 2002:161, Map 6; Aviam 2007; Edwards 2007; and Chancey 2009:209, n. 19. See also the discovery of stone vessels at Migdal Ha-‘Emeq (Shalem 1996), Nabratein (Reed 2009), Yodefat and Arbel (Aviam 2004:20, n. 9), on the Korazim Plateau, and in the southeastern Hula Valley (Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni 2004:31, n. 6). 1

Stone ossuaries in the Jerusalem region were occasionally daubed in red, orange or yellow washes of paint (see Rahmani 1994:8). 7 In addition to this bowl, two handmade mugs also bear signs of a wash of orange/brown paint on their exteriors (see above, Types 1D:27 and 1H:50). 8 See also Gibson 2003:293 and bibliography in n. 46. 9 Isolated Chalcolithic artifacts are known from the site: Syon and Yavor 2001: Fig. 5:45 and see Chapter 1. 10 The large jars reach heights of 55–80 cm, with weights of up to 100 kg (Cahill 1992:207–209; Magen 2002:80–90, 130; Gibson 2003:294, 299–300). The small jars, however, do not exceed a height of 30 cm, and it is unlikely that they weighed more than 35 k. 11 It is surmised that the large jars were used to contain purified water, whereas the mugs were used to pour water over the hands. Hence, to facilitate this process, mugs had handles and, if possible, a spout. 12 Such jars have previously been dated to the late first century BCE at the earliest, and to the early second century CE at the latest (Cahill 1992:231–232; Magen 2002:162). However, I have not been able to pinpoint their appearance in stratigraphic contexts preceding 50 CE, nor do they seem to appear in later contexts dating from the Bar Kokhba revolt, i.e., up to 135 CE (Gibson 2003:301–302), suggesting they might have had a more restricted appearance in the latter part of the first century CE than was previously thought. For this reason, the discovery of stone jar fragments at Sepphoris in the synagogue and in a farmhouse east of the town, within ‘sealed’ contexts attributable to the third and fourth centuries CE, seems to be exceptional (Weiss 2005:310). Since the five stone vessel fragments from the Sepphoris synagogue were reported to have been found sealed beneath its floor (L87.1152.1), one cannot exclude the possibility that they are actually residuals dating from the first century CE. The report regarding the farmhouse discovery suggests an “almost intact” jar was found together with coins and pottery belonging to the third and fourth centuries. One way of explaining this anomaly is that the jar was somehow preserved as an heirloom or ‘antique’ within the latercontext farm building. Alternatively, we may need to begin considering the possibility put forward by Weiss (2005:310), that—unlike other regions of the country and particularly in the south—such vessels were indeed still being manufactured by Galilean Jewry in the third and fourth centuries CE. We await further confirmation of the late date for stone vessels from other excavation areas at Sepphoris. 6

80

SHIMON GIBSON

Chaim Ben-David (pers. comm.) says that a few qalal fragments were documented during a survey conducted by Sharya Fridman in the southern Golan. If so, they would be unique, but without examining them or seeing drawings, it is difficult to assess them further. It is feasible that they are actually fragments of small jars with profiled rims (similar to our Type 4). We await their publication. 14 Berlin (2006:19, Table 2.8) published a different set of figures for stone vessels from the various areas of excavation at Gamla: 136 objects from Area R, 77 from Area S, 15 from Areas M/T, 14 from Areas B/D, 7 from Area A, and 5 from Area G. While the figures differ from ours, the statistical trend remains the same: most of the objects are from Areas R and S, with smaller numbers elsewhere. The number of objects Berlin lists from Areas B/D seems very high and I can only suggest that this may be the result of the count of small fragments derived from a single smashed vessel. 15 The conventional view is that the territories of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, and Batanaea were added by Augustus to Herod’s domain, c. 23 BCE, following the banditry suffered in these regions and supported by Zenodoros the Iturean (see 13

Millar 1993:37–38; Netzer 2006:12). Other scholars are of the opinion that Gamla was in Herod’s territory from the very start of his reign (see Hartal 2005:349, cited in Chapter 1). 16 The construction of the synagogue appears to have destroyed pre-existing dwellings in the area from the first century BCE. 17 A solitary stone vessel comes from a Period II (135– 250 CE) context at Nabratein, though it may be a residual object derived from an earlier first-century context (Reed 2009:301). Stone vessels associated with ceramics and a coin of the second century CE are also reported from Arbel (see Aviam 2004:20, n. 9). 18 There are 62 burnt/gray fragments at Gamla of which 27 have definite burnt patches (in Area T two examples showed signs of melting as a result of intense heat) and 35 possess a grayish hue that is also most likely the result of burning. In any case, the gray examples are not to be confused with the bituminous gray limestone vessels known from the Neby Musa region east of Jerusalem (Magen 2002:1; Gibson 2003:289).

R eferences Aharoni Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Rahel I: Seasons 1959 and 1960. Rome. Aharoni Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Rahel II: Seasons 1961 and 1962. Rome. Amit D. 2010. The Manufacture of Stone Vessels in Jerusalem and the Galilee: Technological, Chronological and Typological Aspects. Michmanim 22:49–66 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 35*–36*). Amit D., Seligman J. and Zilberbod I. 2000. Stone Vessel Workshops of the Second Temple Period East of Jerusalem. In H. Geva ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (reprinted and expanded ed.). Jerusalem. Pp. 353–358. Andersen F. 1985. Shiloh: The Danish Excavation at Tell Sailun, Palestine, in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963 II: The Remains from the Hellenistic to the Mamluk Periods. Copenhagen Aviam M. 2004. First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective. In D.R. Edwards ed. Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. New York–London. Pp. 7–27. Aviam M. 2007. Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation. In J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge and D.B. Martin eds. Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210). Tübingen. Pp. 115–132. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Bar-Adon P. 1961. The Expedition to the Judean Desert, 1960: Expedition C. IEJ 11:25–35.

Berlin A. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem. Brand Y. 1953. Ceramics in Talmudic Literature. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Cahill J.M. 1992. Chalk Vessel Assemblages of the Persian/ Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem. Pp. 190–274. Chancey M.A. 2009. Archaeology, Ethnicity and FirstCentury C.E. Galilee: The Limits of Evidence. In Z. Rodgers, M. Daly-Denton and A. Fitzpatrick McKinley eds. A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne (Supplement to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 132). Leiden–Boston. Pp. 205–218. Clamer C. 1997. Fouilles archeologiques de ‘Ain ez-Zara/ Callirrhoe: Villegiature Herodienne. Beirut. Dothan M. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965; Soundings in 1967 (‘Atiqot [ES] 9–10). Jerusalem. Edwards D.R. 2007. Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages. In J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge and D.B. Martin eds. Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210). Tübingen. Pp. 357–374. Finkelstein I. 1993. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv.

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

Gal Z. 1991. A Stone Vessel Manufacturing Site in the Lower Galilee. ‘Atiqot 20:25*–26* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 179–180). Gibson S. 1983. The Stone Vessel Industry at Hizma. IEJ 33:176–188. Gibson S. 2003. Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment. In G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and L.D. Chrupcała eds. One Land— Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Lofredda OFM (SBF Collectio Maior 41). Jerusalem. Pp. 287–308. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusaelm. Pp. 113–152. Hadas G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ‘En Gedi (‘Atiqot 24). Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–8*). Hartal M. 2005. Land of the Itureans: Archaeology and History of Northern Golan in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Golan Studies 2). Qazrin (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–19*). Hirschfeld Y. 1989/1990. Tiberias. ESI 9:107–109. Magen Y. 1988. The Stone Vessel Industry in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Hizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount (JSP 1). Jerusalem. McGovern P.E. 1989. The Baq’ah Valley Project 1987, Khirbet Umm ad-Dananir and al-Qesir. ADAJ 33:123–136. Millar F. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 BC–AD 337. London. Netzer E. 2006. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder. Tübingen.

81

Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. Reed J. 2009. Chalkstone Vessels. In E.M. Meyers and C.L. Meyers eds. Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs (Meiron Excavation Project 4). Winona Lake. Pp. 296–305. Saller S.J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953) (SBF Collectio Maior 12). Jerusalem. Shaked I. and Avshalom-Gorni D. 2004. Jewish Settlement in the Southeastern Hula Valley in the First Century CE. In D.R. Edwards ed. Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. New York– London. Pp. 28–36. Shalem D. 1996. Migdal Ha‘Emeq. ESI 15:36–41. Stacey D. 2007. Review of A. Berlin. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutman Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). 2006. PEQ 139:129–130. Syon D. 2014. Introduction—A History of Gamla. In Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989; Finds and Studies, Part 1 (IAA Reports 56). Jerusalem. P. 3. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2001. Gamla: Old and New. Qadmoniot 34(121):2–33 (Hebrew). Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2005. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot 50:37–71. Vriezen K.J.H. 1994. Die Ausgrabungen unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan, Jerusalem (1970–1974) (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 19). Wiesbaden. Weiss Z. 2005. The Sepphoris Synagogue: Deciphering an Ancient Message through Its Archaeological and SocioHistorical Contexts. Jerusalem. Yadin Y. 1963. The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Judean Desert Studies). Jerusalem.

Chapter 10

A Stone Scale-Weight of the Late Second Temple Period Ronny R eich1

The excavations at Gamla yielded a single stone weight, found in Area S (L1921, Reg. No. 8228), of a type found in abundance in contemporaneous strata excavated in late Second Temple-period Jerusalem (Reich 2006). The weight, made of semi-hard meleke limestone of the Bina Formation, quarried in Jerusalem, is one of about six hundred weights found in that city. The object is in the shape of a squat cylinder or drum, similarly to all other known weights of this type. The upper and lower sides are slightly convex. This implies that it rested only on the central part of the slightly convex sides, which may have had a bearing on the stone’s wear, due to constant use, as only a small part of its surface was in constant contact with the flat surfaces of tables or benches upon which the act of weighing was carried out. The vertical circular perimeter is in most cases also slightly curved.

Antipas (TJC:81–85, Pl. 49), the Roman governors (TJC: Pls. 74:327–330; 76:345–345r) and Bar Kokhba (TJC: Pls. 65:223–223h; 66:245–246a; 67:247–249a). Alternatively, this motif might be a stylized ear of corn, reminiscent of the motif of three ears of corn depicted on the ‘Year 6’ coins of Agrippa I, minted in Jerusalem (TJC: Pl. 52:120–120m). This motif is known from fourteen other stone weights, of which thirteen originate from Jerusalem (e.g., Mazar 1969: Pl. 46:12; Reich 2006:347, Weight No. JQ 149), and one, from Qumran (Lemaire 2003:358). Weighing System IV was in continuous use in Jerusalem in the third quarter of the first century CE, and was current when the city was destroyed in 70 CE. It seems likely that this incision was the official mark of a market supervisor (agoranomos), placed on these items to provide a sign

Measurements: 5.4 cm maximal height; 8.8 cm maximal diameter; 754.9 g weight of mass (Fig. 10.1; and see Chapter 9: Type 3C, Fig. 9.2:73).2 A study of a large number of the 525 weights known from Jerusalem has shown that these objects belonged to four weighing systems (one of cubic items, and three of cylindrical items) that were in consecutive use during the latter part of the Second Temple period (late first century BCE–first century CE, until the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE) (Reich 2006; 2007). The mass of the weight under discussion matches perfectly Weighing System IV, which was the last system in use—in the third quarter of the first century CE. This cylindrical weight is handmade, as can be deduced from the traces of the comb chisel extant on it. Faint incised traces of a stylized branch are visible on one of the flat sides, the simplest identification being that of a stylized palm branch. This sign, or symbol, appears in this period on coins of Herod

0

2

Fig. 10.1. The weight.

84

RONNY REICH

of authentication. This suggestion is supported by the fact that all items mentioned bearing this motif belong to Weighing System IV. The Gamla weight belongs to Group No. 46 of this system (Reich 2006:363, 366). This group includes 42 items known from the entire corpus of 525 weights, with an average mass of 750.83 grams.3 It is heavier than the average by a mere half percent. I conclude that most of the weights bearing the incised branch motif (12 of the 15 known weights)4 belong with certainty to Weighing System IV. This

conclusion provides substantial support for a division of the corpus into weighing systems. It also supports a late (first century CE) date for Weighing System IV, based on the weights that are well dated by their context of discovery. It is clear that the weight under discussion was not produced at Gamla but most probably, in Jerusalem, which yielded the majority of weights of this type (Reich 2009). It may have been brought to Gamla by one of its Jewish inhabitants, who returned home from his pilgrimage to the holy city.

Notes Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa. Photograph by Vladimir Naikhin. 3 Note that the average mass of Group 46 in my first study was 751.26 g (Reich 2006:366). This was based on only 12 of 168 weights belonging to this group, which were discovered by the Avigad Expedition to the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem. The size of the corpus belonging to this group has 1 2

since more than tripled, comprising 42 items, including the Gamla weight. The above-mentioned average, based on this extended corpus, is believed to be more accurate. 4 One item could not be restored, and the mass of two weights is far beyond the range of the averages calculated for Weighing System IV.

R eferences Lemaire A. 2003. Inscriptions du Khirbeh, des grottes et de ‘Ain Feshkha. In J.-B. Humbert and J. Gunneweg eds. Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Ain Feshkha II: Études d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie. Fribourg– Göttingen. Pp. 341–388. Mazar B. 1969. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem; Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968. Jerusalem. Reich R. 2006. Stone Scale Weights of the Late Second Temple Period from the Jewish Quarter. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies; Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 329–388.

Reich R. 2007. Stone-Scale-Weights from Masada. In J. Aviram ed. Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 207–215. Reich R. 2009. The Distribution of Stone Scale-Weights from the Early Roman Period, and Its Possible Meaning. IEJ 59:175–184. TJC: Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem–Nyack, New York. 2001.

Chapter 11

Mills and Querns R afael Frankel and Danny Syon

Introduction

Saddle Querns (Tables 11.1, 11.2)

Dozens of grinding stones of several types were found at Gamla, all made of basalt. Because of their sheer weight, most were initially left in the excavation areas. The majority of these were later moved to the campsite, where their registration number was marked with paint, and a few were moved to the Golan Museum in Qazrin. In the intervening years, much of the paint flaked off, making identification impossible. Thus, for the present report, all stones left at the site (either in the excavation areas or in the container at the campsite) were assigned new numbers, and each was photographed by the authors. Because it was mostly impractical to first sort the stones into types, the numbers do not sequentially follow the typology.

The saddle quern was the only grain-grinding device in use until the last stages of the Persian period, although it continued in use beside more sophisticated methods until modern times. Carol Meyers has shown that at Nabratein, a small, rural Roman-period site situated in the mountains of Upper Galilee, the saddle quern was still the only device used (Meyers 2005; and see Frankel 2003a:53, top left, for an example in use in the twentieth century). Regarding Gamla, however, since the site was occupied already in the Early Bronze Age, and as no examples were found clearly in situ, it is difficult to determine to what extent this type was in use in later periods. Although nearly all the examples were fragmentary, two main types could be distinguished. The first type

Table 11.1. Saddle Querns, Upper Stone (dimensions in cm) No.

Area/Locus/ Reg. No.

Condition

H

W

L

Notes

26

D

Complete, two pieces

10

21

35

Fig. 11.1

29

Fig. 11.2; five striations

31

Complete

7

14

32

Broken, two corners

5

18

33

B/surface/968

34 35

L97

Broken, two corners

7

15

Broken, two corners

6

13

Three pieces

9

15

36

B/surface/965

Broken, two corners

6

14

37

B/L3106/301

Broken, two corners

9

16

38

Broken, no corners

6.5

15

39

No corners

5

14

40 41

Broken, two corners

5

18

R/L5003/711

6

20

4

12?

B/3106/220

4

20?

17?

Fig. 11.4; round

9

15

22

Fig. 11.5; round/oval

6

7

10

Round

6

10

20

Round?

43 44 45 53 54

Fig. 11.3; semicircular section; five striations

Almost complete B/L1312/223

Round

86

RAFAEL FRANKEL AND DANNY SYON

Table 11.2. Saddle Querns: Lower Stone No.

Area/Locus/ Reg No.

Condition

42

B/L1312/263

Broken

Height (cm) 5

46

10

47

7

48

7.5

49

12

50

8.5

51

7

52

R/L5201/948

6

55

7

56

5

57

7

was rectangular with rounded corners (Nos. 26, 31–33, 35–37, 40, 41; width 15–18 cm, average height 6 cm). Only two complete upper stones were recorded, one

0

(No. 26; Fig. 11.1) in an area that revealed hardly any finds from the Roman period, suggesting that their use in this period was very limited, the other (No. 31) from an unknown location. Two examples deserve special mention: No. 31 (Fig. 11.2; 29 × 14 × 7 cm), one of the complete upper stones, with five parallel striations on its lower surface, and No. 38, a fragment of an upper stone, which is almost semicircular in section (Fig. 11.3; 15 cm wide, 6.5 cm high), also with five striations on its lower surface. The second type was rounded (Nos. 43, 44 [Fig. 11.4], 45 [Fig. 11.5], 53, 54; average diam. 20(?) cm, height about 6 cm). It can be tentatively suggested that the rounded upper stones were primarily from the Early Bronze Age and the rectangular stones, from later periods. The unusual appearance of striations on the upper stones of saddle querns suggests a late date (compare to the unusual upper stone from ‘En Koveshim (Avshalom-Gorni, Frankel and Getzov 2004:264, Fig. 1.1).

4

Fig. 11.1. Rectangular saddle quern (No. 26). Top side at left.

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

Fig. 11.2. Rectangular saddle quern (No. 31). Note striations on bottom.

87

Fig. 11.3. Rectangular saddle quern (No. 38).

0

Fig. 11.4. Round saddle quern (No. 44).

Olynthus Mills (Tables 11.3, 11.4) Olynthus mills are sometimes called hopper-rubbers. In the center of the rectangular upper stone is a hopper, triangular in section, at the bottom of which is a slit, to allow the grain placed in it to fall through and be

4

Fig. 11.5. Round saddle quern (No. 45).

ground between the two stones. The Olynthus mill is a type of lever mill; a lever, attached to the upper stone, is anchored at one end and the other end serves as a handle. The mill is operated by moving the lever back and forth. The Olynthus mill first appeared in Israel at the end of the Persian period and almost certainly derived from

88

RAFAEL FRANKEL AND DANNY SYON

Table 11.3. Olynthus Mills: Upper Stones (dimensions in cm)* No.

Area/Locus/ Reg. No.

Condition

H

LW

UW

1

B/L3102/145

1/4

11

36?

1/4

7

1/4

8

1/4

8

2 3

RN/L5105/4603

4 5

Fragment

LL

UL

SL

WSL

WLL

34?

7

4

36?

34?

7

5

32?

30?

9

3.5

34?

32?

8

4

8

Remarks

STR

6

R

1/2

14

34?

32?

40

35

7

7

4

Fig. 11.9; STR.

7

R

Complete, 2 fragments

12

34

31

40

35

14

6

4

Fig. 11.7; Gr

8

S

1/2

8

32

32

40

37

14

40

37

11

11

G/L1703

13

Complete, in situ

18

38

30

1/4

12

36

38

Fig. 11.8 8

4

Figs. 11.6, 11.10; Gr; HO

7

4

STR

* H = height; LW = lower width; UW = upper width; LL = lower length; UL = upper length; SL = slit length; WSL = width of short ledge; WLL = width of long ledge; STR = striations; Gr = vertical groove opposite slit on narrow side; HO = hole on narrow side.

Table 11.4. Olynthus Mills: Lower Stones (dimensions in cm) No.

Area/Locus

Condition

Height

9

S

Broken

8

10

S

Broken

6

12

G/L1703

Complete, in situ

the Aegean. This hand mill was used in the region during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and mention of hand mills in the New Testament, the Mishna and the Tosefta refers to Olynthus mills, not to rotary hand mills (Frankel 2003b). At Gamla, one complete Olynthus mill was found in situ (Nos. 11, 12; Fig. 11.6), an upper stone was found in two pieces (No. 7; Fig. 11.7) and an additional eight fragments of upper stones were recovered (see e.g., Fig. 11.8). Fragments of two lower stones were found as well. The upper stones are uniform in size and form, and of standard type (Frankel 2003b). In the four examples in which the length could be determined, the length was 40 cm and the widths, 32–38 cm. Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe (1993:267–269, esp. Fig. 4) have pointed

12

Width

Length

Striations

71

Figs. 11.6, 11.10; sloping striations on one side only

41 43

out that the examples from Israel are usually smaller and squarer than the Aegean stones. An example from Nahal Tut (Alexandre 2006) that was apparently brought from the Greek island Nisyros measures 50 × 42 cm, while some examples found in the Kyrenia shipwreck are 60 cm long. One example from Gamla is nearly square, 40 × 38 cm. While the working surfaces of both the upper and lower stones are usually striated, often in sophisticated patterns (Frankel 2003b: Figs. 7, 8; Alexandre 2006:169), at Gamla, striations were rarely discerned, and when they could be distinguished, appeared as simple parallel lines (Fig. 11.9). It is possible that they wore away with use. In the complete lower stone found in situ, the striations remained only on one side.

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

89

Fig. 11.6. Olynthus mill in situ in Area G (Nos. 11, 12).

Fig. 11.7. Olynthus mill No. 7 (drawing, H. Tahan-Rosen).

Fig. 11.8. Upper millstone No. 8.

Fig. 11.9. Striations on the underside of Olynthus mill No. 6.

90

RAFAEL FRANKEL AND DANNY SYON

The fact that one example was found in situ at Gamla is of great importance, as it allows us to understand precisely how the mill operated. In a reconstruction made of the Olynthus mill that was based on a relief on a mold-made bowl (Frankel 2003b: Fig. 2), it was suggested that the mill stood on a table and that the lever that operated it was attached to a pin, emplaced on the table (Moritz 1958: Fig. 4; Frankel 2003b: Fig. 3; 2008: Fig 12b). The example at Gamla shows, however, that there, the mill was placed on a built platform and the lever was anchored in a hole in the corner of the room where the two walls met (Fig. 11.10; Frankel 2003b: Figs. 5, 6; 2008: Fig. 12c). Recently, three additional almost identical examples were found: two complete installations at Nahal Haggit (Seligman 2010:199, Fig. 7.8), and one at Fahura, in the Golan Heights (Fig. 11.11; Zingboym and Avshalom-Gorni 2009). These finds at Gamla and elsewhere show for the first time that the levers of Olynthus mills were sometimes anchored in a wall and also help to elucidate two passages in the Tosefta (for a discussion of Talmudic texts referring to mills and querns, see Frankel 2003a).

Passage 1:

‫מרחיקים את הריחיים של יד שלושה מן השכב שהן ארבעה‬ ‫ר׳ יהודה אומ׳ תוקע יתד בארץ וסומך עליו את‬...‫מן הרכב‬ ‫הקורה ובלבד שלא יתקע לתוך של חברו (תוספתא בבא‬ .)3 ‫בתרא א׳‬ The lower stone of the hand mill must be placed three [hand-breadths] from the wall which are four from the

Fig. 11.11. Olynthus mill at Fahura in the Golan.

Fig. 11.10. One of the authors (R.F.) ‘operating’ the Olynthus mill.

91

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

Pompeian Donkey Mills (Tables 11.5, 11.6)

upper stone…Rabbi Yehuda says ‘he fixes a peg in the ground and places the beam upon it so long as he does not insert [the beam] into [the property] of his neighbour (Tos. Baba Batra 1.3).

The Pompeian donkey mill consists of a conical, usually solid lower stone and an upper stone hewn in the shape of two hollow cones that are joined at their vertices. The upper cone is the hopper and the lower grinds the grain. The Pompeian donkey mill developed from the rotary hand mill in the central Mediterranean, probably in Sicily or Sardinia. It reached the Land of Israel already in the Hellenistic period, long before the rotary hand mill (see below, ʽConclusionsʼ). The Pompeian mill is called a donkey mill in Latin (mola asinaria), in Mishnaic Hebrew (‫)רחיים של חמור‬ and in New Testament Greek (muvlo~ ojniko;~; Matt. 18.6; Mark 9.42). In both Latin and Mishnaic Hebrew, the upper and lower stones had special names that differed from those of other types of mills: Upper stone: Hebrew ‫( קלת‬qlt), Latin catillus; Lower stone: Hebrew ‫’( אצטרובל‬ztrwbl), Latin meta.

Rabbi Yehuda is clearly referring to both methods: that in which the lever is attached to a pin and that in which it is anchored in the wall. The fact that he mentions a beam in connection to a hand mill shows that he is referring to an Olynthus mill and not to a rotary hand mill. Passage 2:

‫השוכר בית מחבירו מעמיד בו רחים של חמור אבל לא רחים‬ .)30 ‫של יד (תוספתא בבא מציעא ח׳‬ A man who rents a house from his neighbor may stand a donkey mill in the house but not a hand mill (Tos. Baba Mezia 8.30).

Considering that a donkey mill is larger, and is operated by a donkey, this injunction is surprising but clear: in the case of the hand mill, the lever would have been anchored in a hole in the wall, which would have damaged the house.

At Gamla, three upper stones of Pompeian donkey mills were found—one complete (No. 20; Fig. 11.12) and two broken (Figs. 11.13, 11.14), and four lower stones (e.g., No. 22; Fig. 11.15), including one outside

Table 11.5. Pompeian Donkey Mill: Upper Stone (dimensions in cm)* No.

Area/Locus/ Reg. No.

Condition

Height

UD

LD

Height of Socket

Width of Socket

Notes

20

R/ L5018

Complete

41

58

58

10

9

Fig. 11.12; depressions

24

M

Broken

41

44

56

11

9

Fig. 11.13; depressions; ‘band’

27

K/surface/1658

Broken

15

9

Fig. 11.14

* UD = upper diameter; LD = lower diameter

Table 11.6. Pompeian Donkey Mill: Lower Stone (dimensions in cm) No.

Area/Locus/ Reg. No.

Condition

Diameter

Height of Base

Height of Cone

Notes

21

R/L5017

Complete

65

20

30

Fig. 11.12

22

R/L5017

Complete

60

20

35

Fig. 11.15

23

S/L1902/6680

Complete

50

14

34

25

E/L, outside wall

Complete

60

19

29

Fig. 11.16

92

RAFAEL FRANKEL AND DANNY SYON

Fig. 11.12. Pompeian mill (Nos. 20 and 21) in Area R, two perspectives.

Fig. 11.13. Upper Pompeian mill stone near the lower reaches of the wall (No. 24).

Fig. 11.14. Upper Pompeian mill stone from Area K (No. 27).

the walls, perhaps thrown down on the Romans during the siege of 67 CE (No. 25; Fig. 11.16). One of the upper stones has a raised band around the narrowest part of the girth (No. 24; Fig. 11.13), a common feature in Israel (e.g., Frankel 2008: Fig. 16). This band is also found on mills from Pompei, but only on Peacock’s Type 3, which are made of leucitite rock. Peacock (1989:210, Fig. 2) states that this characteristic “appears to be distinctive of leucitite mills, as it is not found in other types used in the

Fig. 11.15. Lower Pompeian mill stone in Area R (No. 22).

Western Mediterranean.” However, this apparently is not the case for the Eastern Mediterranean. Two of the upper stones have two opposing small depressions close to the rim, midway between the two square sockets (see Fig. 11.12, left). Similar depressions are found on most upper stones of Pompeian donkey mills in the land of Israel (e.g., Frankel 2003a:55 [but note that here, there are four depressions, because at a certain stage the upper stone was used the other way up] Frankel 2008: Fig. 16), but this is not the case in

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

93

Conclusions

Fig. 11.16. Lower Pompeian mill stone outside the wall (No. 25).

Pompei. The two square sockets found on all Pompeian donkey mills held a wooden frame that secured beams to which the donkey’s harness was attached. By adjusting the position of the upper stone, it was possible to control the quality of the flour produced. In the land of Israel, the two additional depressions on the upper stones apparently held an additional frame that was placed at right angles to the usual one. The form of the usual framework is known from many ancient depictions (e.g., Moritz 1958: Pls. 5b, 7a, Fig. 9), but these are all from Europe, where the mills lacked the additional frame. In Israel, there are representations of donkey mills on oil lamps, but they too do not show the additional frame, perhaps because the lamps are so small (Sussman 1999:140, Figs. 8, 9). Thus, the suggested reconstruction is conjectural (Frankel 2008: Fig. 15b). The additional frame is apparently alluded to in the Tosefta:

‫צנורות התופסות את הרחיים מלמעלה הרי אלו טהורות‬ ‫שאין עשויות אלא לחזוק הסדור (תוספתא כלים בבא‬ .)15 ‫מציעא ב‬ Pipes(?) that hold the mill from above are clean because they serve to strengthen the arrangement (Tos. Kelim Baba Mezia 2.15).

Sperber (1993:144–147) suggested that the ‘pipes’/ ‫ צנורות‬were the pins that secured the wooden framework to the sockets. However, it is much more probable that they are the additional frame.

The fact that we know exactly when the town fell to the Roman army and that the site was never re-occupied are two important advantages gained from the excavations at Gamla. A moment in history has been preserved undisturbed, and allows us to study aspects of daily life that are more difficult to ascertain at other stratified sites. Yet, what can we learn about the grinding of grain from the excavations at Gamla? We know that five different devices for grinding grain were in use in the Roman period: the saddle quern, water mills, Olynthus mills, Pompeian donkey mills and the rotary hand mill. The saddle querns from Gamla contribute very little to our knowledge except, perhaps, that in some cases, the upper stones had striations. Water mills are mentioned in the Tosefta (Shabbat 1.23) and while no examples have yet been excavated from the Roman period, they undoubtedly existed at this time, so that here too, the Gamla excavations contribute nothing to our knowledge of the subject. Both Olynthus mills and Pompeian donkey mills were recovered at Gamla in considerable numbers and one Olynthus mill was found in situ. None of the Pompeian mills were found in situ, probably because they were used—or prepared for use—as weapons to be thrown down from the walls on the Roman enemy during the sige. At sites in or near the Golan Heights such as Gamla, Capernaum and Tel Dover, far more Pompeian donkey mills were found than at sites in the south of the country. At Sepphoris, for example, 25 elements of Olynthus mills were reported, but only one Pompeian donkey mill (Meyers 2005; Frankel 2008:20*–21*). This may be because the northern sites were located close to the basaltic regions where the mills were produced. Presumably, the Olynthus mill was used by private families, while the donkey mills produced flour on a large commercial scale. An important contribution of the Gamla excavations to the study of the Olynthus mill is that it is the first site at which there is evidence for the lever that operated the mill being anchored in a hole in the wall. However, perhaps the most important evidence provided by the Gamla excavations regarding the grinding of grain is not the evidence that exists but the evidence that is lacking. No examples of rotary hand mills were found at the site. Rotary hand mills are known from at least nine sites in northeastern Spain

94

RAFAEL FRANKEL AND DANNY SYON

as early as the fifth century BCE (Alonso i Martínez 1995, 1996; for typology see Sanmartí and Santacana 1992:91) but in the Eastern Mediterranean, they appear in Greece only in the first century BCE (Runnels 1990). Runnels suggests that they were brought to the area by the Roman legions. Regarding Israel, rotary hand mills, as well as Olynthus mills, were found at Masada (Netzer 1991:291), some of the latter in secondary use as paving (Netzer 1991:587–568). It was suggested that the paving be dated to the post-Zealot stage. It is probable that the Roman soldiers who occupied the site after its capture used the rotary hand mills for producing flour, while the Olynthus mills served as paving stones because the Romans had no other use for them. Thus, it is likely that the rotary hand mill was brought to Israel by the Roman legions, as was the case

in Greece. The lack of rotary hand mills at Gamla lends weight to this hypothesis. Rotary hand mills occur in the land of Israel from the Byzantine period on, but only further research will elucidate to what extent they were in use in Roman times. In the land of Israel, the Pompeian donkey mill preceded the rotary hand mill—contrary to the western Mediterranean, where the reverse is true—probably because in the East, the Olynthus mill had been satisfactory for hand grinding, but there was no mill for large-scale grinding that could be operated by animals. The picture of grain milling in the Mediterranean basin that emerges based on the evidence at our disposal today (Fig. 11.17) reveals that until about the fifth century BCE, the saddle quern was the only mill in the region. At this point, two different

Western Mediterranean

Eastern Mediterranean

A 500 BCE

500 BCE

C

B

400 BCE

400 BCE

D 300 BCE

300 BCE

200 BCE

200 BCE

100 BCE

100 BCE

1

1

100 CE

100 CE

200 CE

200 CE

300 CE

300 CE

Fig. 11.17. Development and diffusion of millstones in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean: (A) saddle quern; (B) olynthus mill; (C) rotary hand mill; (D) pompeian donkey mill.

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

devices appeared—the Olynthus mill in the eastern Mediterranean and the rotary hand mill in the western Mediterranean. The eastern mill moved westward and the western mill, eastward, but at different times and with different results. The Olynthus mill was brought to the western Mediterranean by Greek settlers very soon after its appearance in the east. Use of the Olynthus mill and the rotary hand mill concurrently in the western Mediterranean is probably one of the main factors for the development of the Pompeian donkey mill, which first appears at this time in Sicily. The Pompeian mill was the first of the western types to be used in the East because the population in the

95

East already had an efficient hand mill but no mill for large-scale operations that could be operated by animals. As a result, in the West the rotary hand mill precedes the Pompeian donkey mill while in the East, the reverse obtains. The rotary hand mill was brought to the East much later, probably by Roman soldiers. Throughout the Mediterranean, the rotary hand mill replaced the Olynthus mill, but this happened rapidly in the West and very slowly in the East. The invention of the water mill, which probably occurred in the East, was apparently closely connected to the arrival of the Pompeian mill in that region (see Ad, Saʻid and Frankel 2005; Frankel 2007).

R eferences Ad U., Sa‘id A. and Frankel R. 2005. Water Mills with Pompeian-Type Millstones at Nahal Taninim. IEJ 55:156– 171. Alexandre Y. 2006. Nahal Tut (Site VIII): A Fortified Storage Depot from the Late Fourth Century BCE. ‘Atiqot 52:131– 189. Alonso Martínez N. 1995. Les premières meules rotatives manuelles dans le nord-est de la peninsule Iberique. In M.-C. Amouretti and G. Comet. La transmission des connaissances techniques (Tables rondes Aix-en-Provence, avril 1993-mai 1994) (Cahiers d’histoire des techniques 3). Aix-en-Provence. Pp. 15–23. Alonso Martínez N. 1996. Els molins rotatius: Origen i expansió en la Mediterània occidental. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 6:181–198. Avshalom-Gorni D., Frankel R. and Getzov N. 2004. Grooved Upper Grinding Stones of Saddle Querns in Israel. Tel Aviv 31:262–267. Frankel R. 2003a. Mills and Querns in Talmudic Literature—A Reappraisal in Light of Archaeological Evidence. Cathedra 110:43–60 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 188). Frankel R. 2003b. The Olynthus Mill, Its Origin and Diffusion: Typology and Distribution. AJA 107:1–21. Frankel R. 2007. Water Mills in Israel. In J.-P. Brun and J.-L. Fiches eds. Énergie hydraulique et machines élévatrices d’eau durant l’Antiquité (Actes du colloque international, Vers-Pont-du-Gard, 20–22 septembre 2006). Naples. Pp. 215–224. Frankel R. 2008. Corn, Oil and Wine—Food Processing Installations in Galilee in the First Century CE. In O. GuriRimon. The Great Revolt in the Galilee (Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, Catalogue No. 28). Haifa. Pp. 109*– 117*.

Meyers C. 2005. Harina de otro costal: Género y cambios tecnológicos en la produción de harina en la Galilea romana. Treballs d’Arqueologia 11:25–50. Moritz L.A. 1958. Grain-Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. Oxford. Netzer E.1991. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports; The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Peacock D.P.S. 1989. The Mills of Pompei. Antiquity 63:205–214. Runnels C.N. 1990. Rotary Querns in Greece. JRA 3:147– 154. Sanmartí J. and Santacana J. 1992. El poblat ibèric d’Alorda Park, Calafell, Baix Penedes; Campanyes 1983–1988 (Excavaciones arqueològiques a Catalunya 11). Barcelona. Seligman J. 2010. Nahal Haggit: A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the Southern Carmel (IAA Reports 43). Jerusalem. Sperber D. 1993. Material Culture in Eretz-Israel during the Talmudic Period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Sussman V. 1999. Oil Lamps Reflecting Farming Communities in Two Periods: The Early Roman Period (Mishna) and the Byzantine Period (Talmud). In Y. Eshel ed. Judea and Samaria Research Studies: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting 1998. Qedumim–Ariel. Pp. 135–154 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XVII–XVIII). Williams-Thorpe O. and Thorpe R.S. 1993. Geochemistry and Trade of Eastern Mediterranean Millstones from the Neolithic to Roman Periods. JAS 20:263–320. Zingboym O. and Avshalom-Gorni D. 2009. Fakhura. HA–ESI 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=995&mag_id=115 (accessed May 3, 2015).

Chapter 12

Jewelry Shua Amorai-Stark and Malka Hershkovitz

Introduction This chapter deals with the majority of the jewels discovered during the excavations at Gamla—rings, gems, intaglios, insets, pendants, beads and tesserae— of which 536 are here presented. The earrings, fibulae and bracelets are treated by Ruth Jackson-Tal (Chapter 13).1 This report was written and submitted for publication in September, 2011. The finds originate from the various excavation areas (see Table 12.1): B (167 finds), D (4), E (1), G (11), L (3), M (2), R (197), S (90) and T (31), from the floors of houses, and from settlement and surface debris. A substantial number (30) are missing excavation data. The jewels belong to two major eras: the Early Bronze Age and the late Hellenistic–Early Roman periods. Finds from the Early Bronze Age (flint implements, pottery, etc.) were unearthed in all the excavated areas of Gamla, with significant finds particularly in Areas B, G and T. Nimrod Getzov, in his discussion of the 1997–2000 excavations, writes: “finds of the Early Bronze Age from Area G probably belong to EB II” (Getzov 2005:46). The Hellenistic–Roman periods at Gamla date to the time spanning the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties, ending in 67 CE. The majority of finds date from the first century BCE to 67 CE, which is a terminus ante quem. The chronology is based on the stratigraphy as detailed in Gamla II (Syon and Yavor 2010), particularly Chapters 2 and 3. The excavation results reveal chronological diversity between some of the areas. Area B, for example, is basically a late Hellenistic (Hasmonean) settlement (first century BCE); it was abandoned during the first years of the first century CE. Areas R and S date to the Early Roman period, predominantly the first century CE up to Gamla’s fall in 67 CE. There are no finds from the early Hellenistic period, apart from coins and some residual pottery (see Chapter 5 and Berlin 2006). It is uncommon to find jewels in a Jewish settlement that date just to the late

Hellenistic period, but at Gamla, many Hellenistic jewels can be clearly dated and separated from the Early Roman jewels due to their context. The finds are discussed in numbered catalogue format according to typology and their generic group. Of these, the rings, intaglios and the gold pendant are described in detail. Items belonging to most of the other generic groups are explained and grouped according to material and shape. The beads are discussed by period, material and typology. Some items were lost before we received the material. We included only a few of them, such as intaglios, insets and the gold pendant. Their description relies on photographs and information that was provided by the excavators. llustrations of selected finds appear under the numbered catalogue entry. The drawings were made many years ago, and details such as grooves, lines and engravings are frequently missing. Table 12.1 summarizes the overall number of finds by period, generic type and area. The typology of the intaglios and cabochons (see Fig. 12.1) is based on MaaskantKleibrink’s set of type drawings (1978:69); the type numbers of the gems appear in Types I–III below, as well as in the table with the prefix F (flat) or C (curved). The descriptions of the intaglios’ devices are from observations of the objects themselves and not from impressions. Terminology of bead shapes is according to Dubin 1995:342–343 and Spaer 2001. Glass bead techniques are usually noted within the catalogue. Lapidary, shell and bone techniques are not specified, since the majority was manually cut using a variety of tools. A few comments are due regarding our use of vocabulary for some generic types. In strict geological and mineralogical terms, only stones found in nature are called gemstones and thus, all small items made from them, such as intaglios, cameos, scarabs, beads, seals, pendants, amulets, insets, weights, statuettes and so forth, are collectively termed gems (Swersky 1996:268–269, 273). However, since in the study of ancient jewels the term gem is restricted to glyptic

Total per Area

Uncertain

Total Hellenistic– Early Roman per Area

Hellenistic–Early Roman

Total Early Bronze per Area

Early Bronze

Period

1

1

2

2

Area L

1

1

1

1

Area M

79

6

4 (1 w/ intaglio, 1 w/ scaraboid)

35

28

6

1

Area R

Beads (V.C) 167

1

104

4

3

1

1

11

6

3

1

2

196

1

160

66

49

Beads (V.B)

Tesserae

1

Gold Pendant (IV)

2

1

5 (1 w/ intaglio)

5

5

Area G

Non-Metal Pendants (IV) 2

1

Area E

2 2

49

1

3 (1 w/ intaglio)

1

1

Area D

Table 12.1. Distribution of Finds according to Area and Period

Insets: Cones (III)

Insets: Cabochons (III)

Intaglios (II)

Rings (I)

53

Beads (V.A) 62

7

2

Area B

Pendants (IV)

Insets (III)

Generic Type

92

1

75

2

30

1

35

1

6 (1 w/ intaglio/ cabochon)

16

15

1

Area S

30

1

8

2

1

5 (1 w/ intaglio/ cabochon)

21

20

1

Area T

30

20

7

12

1 (1 w/ intaglio)

10

10

Missing Data

536

4

379

2

159

1

5

2

177

9

24

153

135

15

3

Total Per Generic Type

98 SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

99

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

items and to insets, that is, to intaglios, cameos and insets (on cabochons and inlays see below), we follow this nomen culture and apply the term gems in the text and table only to intaglios and insets (no cameos were found). Furthermore, as is common in non-geological studies of jewels, we broaden the term gemstones to include intaglios and cabochons fashioned from glass and other man-made materials. Intaglios are gems incised or engraved with a design in low (bas) relief. Cameos are gems engraved with a design in high (haut) relief. Cabochons are plain, cut stones or glass pieces that are either mold-made or free-cast with curved tops set in various jewels. Several scholars suggested that some of the largest plano-convex cabochons might have been gaming pieces (Crowfoot 1957:392; Spaer 2001:233). Inlays are similar, or are larger pieces made of these and other materials with flat or slightly curved tops set in jewelry, accessories, walls, floors and so on; occasionally they are incised. Modeling is the engraving of the basic volume-like forms of the intaglio motif and of its basic shallow linear parts; detailing is the addition of details cut on the motif’s basic forms. The mineralogical information regarding the various stones used as jewels is discussed for each stone variety at its first appearance in Types III–V. However, a comment about our use of the term limestone is appropriate. We use the term limestone for all soft stones that are in fact different varieties of calcite or hydrated magnesium silicate but of diverse colors and hardness (ranging from 1 to 3 on Moh’s scale). In some archaeological publications, all varieties of soft stone jewel items, including those made of sandstones, limestone and hydrated magnesium silicate stones, are simply called stone (for example cf. Zuckerman 1996:277). For the sake of brevity and because of the close similarity between calcite and hydrated magnesium silicate, and their common softness, which made them comparatively easy to cut with harder stones as well as with metal implements (Swersky 1996:271), we use the term limestone for all these soft-stone cabochons, pendants and beads of different colors and hardnesses, throughout the text and in the tables. After ʻlimestoneʼ, we occasionally add the terms marble or serpentine in parentheses. Abbreviations used througout the chapter are as follows: D = diameter, OD = outer diameter dimensions, ID = inner diameter dimensions, DE = depth, L = length, W = width, H = height, Th = thickness, P = perforation; c. = century, UnD = Uncertain date; r = ring; intag. = intaglio; cab. = cabochon; EB = Early Bronze Age; Hell. = Hellenistic; ER = Early Roman. Measurements

are in cm and the scale is 1:1 except where indicated otherwise. All finds from squares (Sq), as opposed to loci, are surface or slightly below surface finds. Type F Wide Profiles 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Type C Depth/height of curve (Types A–C) Wide Profiles

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A

B

C

Fig. 12.1. Ring-stone typology, flat (Type F) and curved (Type C) surfaces with profiles.

Catalogue Type I. R ings (n = 24) The rings are divided into three subgroups: I.1. Rings set with gems (n = 7); I.2. Rings lacking gems (n = 3); I.3. All-metal rings (n = 14) made from bronze (n = 13), iron (n = 8); silver (n = 2) and lead (n = 1). Hoops and bezels of rings are technically cast unless otherwise noted. Type I.1. Rings Set with Scaraboids, Intaglios and Cabochons These rings come from Areas B (n = 1), G (n = 1), R (n = 2), S (n = 1), T (n = 1) and missing excavation data (n = 1). Five rings are set with glass gems—three with intaglios and two with cabochons; one ring is set with a stone intaglio and one, with a faience scaraboid. Devices on the four intaglios are zoomorphic; one, of stone, shows a lion devouring a gazelle, and three, of glass, display unidentifiable animals.

100

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

No. 1. I.1. Bronze Ring with Faience Scaraboid Context: Area R; L5037; Reg. No. 599; IAA 1997-4246. Dimensions: Ring OD 2.1, Th 0.1; scaraboid L 1.0, W 0.85, H 0.5. Ring: Wire bent to a ring-shaped hoop holding a small scaraboid. One of its ends passes through the scaraboid’s perforation and winds over the hoop on the other side; the other end of the hoop’s wire is placed in a straight line next to the scaraboid’s body, its end coiled on the hoop’s other side. The winding wire acts as a bezel to the scaraboid. Stone: Opaque green faience. Scaraboid: Curved back and flat base perpendicular to hoop. Perforation at center on the short axis. The back is schematically subdivided into thorax and wing-cases; the back’s upper third is semi-oval in shape, subdivided by a vertical line to head, the crown indicated by thin parallel grooves and to a miniature lower head. Five vertical grooves on the wing-cases. Intact, worn. Technique: Ring fabrication from wire; scaraboid, probably mold cast and tooled. Date: First century BCE. Discussion: The ring shape derives from Egyptian, Etruscan and Greco–Hellenistic swivel rings (Boardman and Scarisbrick 1977:19, 24, Nos. 20, 21; Ogden 1982:75, Fig. 4:73e; Spier 1992: Nos. 69, 151) but is of a much rougher, simpler shape. Swivel rings were still being used in Roman times, but lacked the refinements of the earlier rings (Odgen 1982:74–75, Fig. 4:73g). This schematic scaraboid, without any linear indication of the tibiae or legs above the base, is a late example of its type, apparently of Hellenistic date. It is probably of local manufacture.

No. 2. I.1. Iron Ring with Sard Intaglio of Lion Devouring Gazelle Context: Area G; L1704; Reg. No. 6196; IAA 19905003. Dimensions: Ring hoop OD 2.1, ID 1.5, W/Th 0.2 (base)–0.6 (shoulders); bezel 1.7 × 1.3, H 0.3; gem L 1.3, W 0.8, H 1.5(?). Ring: Oval bezel growing directly from hoop’s shoulders; hoop has triangular cross section. Encrusted, broken, half of lower hoop remains. Stone: Light brown sard, flat top Type F1. Horizontal oval, chipped on one end. Device: Lion standing above crouching gazelle, with open jaws and lowered tail. Gazelle has long, upright neck, small ears and long upright horns. Twig behind lion on right. Ground line. Technique: Modeled with wide, rounded, large wheel drill and medium-sized round wheel drill; little detailing with thin drill. Mediocre workmanship of a powerful scene. Date: First century CE. Discussion: This is a subtype of Boardman’s Ring Type VII. It is a very common Early Roman ring type, a subtype of long duration and many varieties (Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217; Patrich and Rafael 2008:422, No. 22). The device of a lion devouring a quadruped is very ancient and occurs frequently in Eastern art and is also a favorite first century BCE–first century CE gem device in our region (Henig and Whiting 1987:35, Nos. 365–368, cf. especially No. 368). Context indicates a first century CE date.

0

Cat. No. 1.

Cat. No. 2.

0.5

101

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

No. 3. I.1. Bronze Ring with Glass Intaglio Context: Area B, possibly L1267; IAA 1990-5063A. Dimensions: Ring hoop OD 1.8, ID 1.2, W/Th 0.1–0.2; bezel L 0.8, W 0.4, H 0.5. Ring: Low oval dish-bezel with flat underside and straight sides growing directly from thin tapering hoop of low flat section. Dish-bezel is slightly lower than gem. Broken, half of hoop remains. Stone: Translucent yellow glass. Type F2 ring-stone, oval flat top and underside with fairly high sides in diagonal base; chipped. Device: Probably an animal to left. Technique: Mold cast, engraving appears to be linear, using a small drill with few detailing. Date: First century BCE. Discussion: Delicate ring close in shape to No. 10, below.

0

0.5

Cat. No. 3.

No. 4. I.1. Iron Ring with Glass Intaglio Context: Area R; L5108; Reg. No. 5035. Dimensions: Ring hoop OD 2.0, ID 1.6, W/Th 0.2 (base)–0.7 (shoulders); bezel D 0.8, H 0.1; gem L 0.9, W 0.8, H 0.15. Ring: Hoop with shoulders widening to oval bezel. Bezel’s rim holds inset intaglio. Encrusted, broken hoop base, bezel rim and underside. Stone: Translucent white glass. Type F1 ring-stone, flat, oval top and base. Device: Horizontal motif, reclining animal to right. Technique: Mold cast, very basic linear engraving with round drill, no detailing. Date: Second half of first century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: Found in same locus as Type II stone intaglio No. 26, below. Ring type is Classical/Hellenistic (Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217, Type V) that continued into the Early Roman period (Spier 1992: No. 227, silver, first half of first century CE, from Syria).

0

0.5

Cat. No. 4.

No. 5. I.1. Bronze Ring with Glass Intaglio (or Low Cameo) Context: Area T; L4010; Reg. No. 1237; IAA 19973410. Dimensions: Ring H 1.8; hoop OD 1.3 × 1.8, W 0.1– 0.2; H 0.05; bezel L 0.8, W 0.7, H 0.2; gem L 0.6, W 0.3. Ring: Low oval bezel with plain, flat grooved rim. Thin hoop with flat section, slightly tapering to and widening to bezel. Stone: Translucent red glass. Type F ring-stone. Broken. Device: Unclear due to break (perhaps an animal). Date: Late second century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: Classical/Hellenistic ring type (Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217, Type X; Spier 1992:37, Nos. 61, 62; Patrich and Rafael 2008:422, No. 15). Smallsized gems 0.6 cm in diameter such as this occur in the Hellenistic period; in our region such small flat gems occasionally continued into the first century CE (Hamburger 1968: No. 39, Caesarea; Amorai-Stark 1999:112, Fig.1, Caesarea; 1993:94, Fig. 122). Glass cabochon Nos. 6, 7, below, are of the same miniature size. Might the appearance at Gamla of three small Type F glass gems without a design point to Jewish ownership?

Cat. No. 5.

102

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

No. 6. I.1. Bronze Ring with Glass Cabochon Context: Missing excavation data; L5063B; IAA 1990. Dimensions: Ring OD 1.8, Th 0.1–0.3; bezel L 0.8, W 0.3, H 0.3; gem L 0.6, W 0.4. Ring: Thin hoop rising directly from oval bezel. Broken hoop. Stone: Translucent yellow, oval cabochon. Type F1 ring-stone, chipped on top and sides. Technique: Mold cast. Date: First century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: See No. 5, above. No. 7. I.1. Lead Ring with Glass Gem Context: Area S; L1910; Reg. No. 7682; IAA 19975051. Dimensions: Ring OD 1.3, W/Th 1.1, H 0.4. Ring: Round bezel with tapering sides to flat top and flat underside. Broken, minor remains of thin hoop. Stone: Translucent yellow glass. Type F1 ring-stone. Chipped, appears to be missing glass’ top layer/s. Device: Probably intaglio, unclear due to break. Technique: Mold cast. Date: First century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: See No. 5 above. Lead is an uncommon jewel material, though somewhat less infrequent for rings (Ogden 1982:29).

0

0.5

Cat. No. 7.

angled sides. Bezel grows directly from wider hoop’s ‘shoulders’ and narrows toward base. Broken hoop. Date: First century BCE–early first century CE. Discussion: Subtype of Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217, Type XIII (a Greek–Hellenistic type) but with a plain hoop. The ring’s comparatively large bezel and its shape (Spier 1992:49, Nos. 88–90) suggest that it might be missing a cameo. Although this ring type is typically Hellenistic, the context points to an Early Roman horizon, not prior to the first century BCE.

Cat. No. 8.

No. 9. 1.2. Bronze Ring Fragment Context: Area S; L2056; Reg. No. 4055. Dimensions: Hoop: OD 1.4, W 0.2–0.4, Th 0.05; bezel: L 0.7, W 0.6, Th 0.05, H 0.2, DE 0.2. Ring: Thin hoop with flat section strongly tapering directly to low, ovoid bezel. In center of bezel a thin ovoid in low relief for setting gem. Broken hoop. Date: First century BCE–first half of first century CE. Discussion: This subtype is of the same basic Greco– Hellenistic ring as No. 3. Their sizes are suggestive of fragments of a woman’s or a child’s ring.

Type I.2. Rings Missing Gems or Cabochons (n = 3). These three bronze rings come from Area S, thereby suggesting an Early Roman date. No. 8. 1.2. Bronze Ring Fragment Context: Area S; L1900; Reg. No. 6639. Dimensions: Hoop OD 1.8, W 0.2–0.5, Th 0.1; bezel L 2.0, W 1.3, Th 0.1, H 0.2–0.5, De 0.2. Ring: Hoop with low hemispheroid section widening to low ovoid semi-dish bezel with slightly outward

Cat. No. 9.

No. 10. 1.2. Bronze Ring Context: Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 7778; IAA 19905060. Dimensions: Hoop OD 1.8 × 2.0, W/Th 0.1–0.2; bezel L 1.6, W 0.8, H 0.4–0.5.

103

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Ring: Thin hoop with low hemispheroid section, tapering directly to low oval dish-bezel with flat underside and thin rim. Dish-bezel with straight sides missing oval gem with flat underside. Hoop and bezel broken. Date: First century CE. Discussion: An Early Roman subtype of Boardman’s Ring Type XIV (Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217) but with an oval dish bezel that continued into the Late Roman period.

tapering tops flanking a slightly lower oval with a round central dot. Date: First century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: Uncommon bezel shape. This ring form is similar to Greek–Early Hellenistic rings with flatter bezel shapes (Boardman 1970:156, Fig.197, Types H, K). The bezel’s top with its central dot appears to be an imitation in metal of a gem.

Type I.3. All-Metal Rings (n = 14) The majority of the rings in this subgroup are evenly divided between bronze (6) and iron (6). Two additional rings (Nos. 13, 14) have cores made from these baser metals but with silver applied over the cores in two different techniques. These 14 rings present four basic subtypes: I.3.a. Flat oval-ovoid bezel decorated with linear/central devices, bronze or silvered bronze cast as one unit (Nos. 11–14); I.3.b. Sealing rings with a wide oval bezel cut and decorated with low sunken devices; and rings with similar plain ovoid or rectangular bezels, one, iron cast as one unit and one, iron covered with a silver layer (Nos. 15–20); I.3.c. Snake-shaped, bronze and cast (Nos. 21–23); I.3.d. Loop-ring, bronze and cast (No. 24). Type I.3.a. Bronze Rings These rings come from Areas R (n = 1), S (n = 2) and T (n = 1). The context of most of the specimens from Areas R and S suggests that these rings may have been owned by the Jewish inhabitants of Gamla. Context does not help in dating the silvered bronze ring from Area T (No. 14), since finds deriving from all periods were excavated there. Typologically, this ring is Roman; it could have belonged to a Jewish person or to a Roman soldier. No. 11. 1.3.a. Bronze Ring Context: Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 7723; IAA 19905059. Dimensions: Hoop OD 2.4, ID 1.8 × 2.2, W/Th 0.2; bezel L 1.2, W 1.1, Th 0.2–0.3, H 0.5–0.8. Ring: Nearly round hoop with flat section and towering bezel of ‘semi-architectonic’ shape; very good condition. Bezel shape: Appears from the outer wide sides as two thin lines/columns flanking a larger column-like shape; bezel top appears as two zigzag rims with flat, inward-

Cat. No. 11.

No. 12. 1.3.a. Bronze Ring Context: Area S; L2012; Reg. No. 3393; IAA 19903145. Dimensions: Hoop OD 2.0 × 2.1, ID 1.8, W/Th 0.2; bezel L 1.7, W 1.2, H 0.3–0.4. Ring: Nearly round hoop with flat section; oval bezel with flat top and underside growing directly from thin tapering hoop. Broken on hoop side. Bezel top device: X-like motif with dot in each field. Technique: Device engraved with thin drill. Date: First century CE. Discussion: An Early Roman subtype of Boardman’s ring Type XVI (Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217). Similar to Nos. 3, 9 but without gems. The bezel motif is either geometric or a simplified four-petal flower.

Cat No. 12.

104

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

No. 13. 1.3.a. Silvered Bronze Ring Context: Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6499. Dimensions: Overall H 2.0; hoop: OD 2.0, ID 1.4 × 1.5, W 0.2, Th/H 0.2; bezel D 1.4, H 0.2. Ring: Hoop with semi-lozenge-shaped section reaching bezel’s narrow sides. Round bezel with flat base and top. Bezel top device: Flower or star(?) with central dot and narrow rays within raised rim. Technique: Cast bronze ring, device hammered or engraved in low relief before silver plating. Date: First century BCE. Discussion: Subtype of Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217, Type XV, with all-metal lower bezel (cf. Muhly and Muhly 1989:283, Figs. 25.10:175 for device and 176 for ring type, Tel Michal). By the Early Roman period, various silver (and gold) fusion plating techniques of copper jewels became more common (Ogden 1982:80– 81). The bezel device is plausibly a stylized star (TJC 27, coin of Alexander Jannaeus).

base and sides over a thin layer of almalgam, by heat and pressure. Date: First century CE. Discussion: Shape is close to iron ring Nos. 16, 17, below; the dual metal technique is less common. Iron rings covered in silver sheet or silver/gold plate are well known in Hellenistic times, but less so in Roman times (Ogden 1982:81).

Cat. No. 14.

Type I.3.b. Iron Sealing Rings These rings come from Areas B (n = 2), G (n = 2) and T (n = 2). It is unclear who owned these iron sealing rings, all similar. The provenance of the two specimens (Nos. 17, 19) from Area B suggests that this type was in use locally already during the Hellenistic period. Since much Roman material was found in Areas G and T, it is possible that the rings from these areas belonged to Roman soldiers. The figurative motif on the bezel of No. 15 suggests that it most likely belonged to pagans.

Cat. No. 13.

No. 14. I.3.a. Iron Ring Covered on Underside and Sides with Silver Sheet Outer Layer Context: Area T; L4037; Reg. No. 1145. Dimensions: Overall H 2; hoop OD 2, ID 1.6, W 0.2– 0.6, Th 0.1–0.15. Ring: Round hoop with low hemispheroid section slightly widening at top to bezel. Low, wide oval bezel with flat top. Inflamed and corroded iron bezel top, broken hoop base. Corrosion opened the seam of silver sheet over the hoop. Bezel top device: Plain or obliterated by corrosion. Technique: Cast iron ring, thin silver sheet hammered and cut, then applied to iron ring hoop and to iron bezel

No. 15. 1.3.b. Iron Sealing Ring Context: Area T; L4036; Reg. No. 2051. Dimensions: Overall H 1.8; hoop OD 2, ID 1.2 × 1.0, W 0.3–0.8, Th 0.05–0.15; sunken bezel area L 1.1, W 0.8, H 0.4, DE 0.3. Ring: Hoop with low hemispheroid section widening at top and slightly tapering directly to wide plate-like bezel with semi-ovoid sunken sealing area. Inflamed iron. Bezel top device: Bust of Artemis/Diana(?) in low relief within the semi-ovoid bezel’s sunken area. Bust facing left, with short hair and quiver emerging from shoulder. Technique: Ring and bezel device made in one unit. Device cut on mold with rounded and straight mediumsized drills with few detailing or more likely produced by chasing.

105

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Date: Late second–first centuries BCE. Discussion: For the possible chasing technique of the bezel device cf. Ogden 1982:44. A bust of Artemis depicted on an intaglio occurs at Masada (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007:219, No. 3, with lists).

0

Ring: Round hoop with low hemispheroid section widening slightly at top in nearly straight line directly to bezel. Wide oval bezel with flat top. Inflamed iron slightly chipped on hoop. Bezel top device: Unidentifiable, plain or in low relief. Technique: As Nos. 15, 16, above. Date: Late second–first centuries BCE–early first century CE. Discussion: see No. 15, above.

0.5

Cat. No. 15.

No. 16. 1.3.b. Iron Sealing(?) Ring Context: Area G; L1507; Reg. No. 6735. Dimensions: Overall H 2.2; hoop OD 2.1, ID 1.5 × 1.7, W 0.4–0.6, Th 0.1–0.2; bezel L 1.7, W 1.3, H 0.3. Ring: Round hoop with low flat section, widening at top in straight line directly to bezel. Wide oval bezel with flat top. Inflamed and corroded iron slightly chipped on loop side. Bezel top device: Unidentifiable, plain or in low relief. Technique: Bezel with obliterated device made in similar technique to No. 15, above. Date: First half of first century CE. Discussion: Typical Early Roman subtype of Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217, XVII but with narrowing loop below top; close to Spier 1992:97, No. 227.

Cat. No. 17.

No. 18. 1.3.b. Iron Ring Context: Area T; L4187; Reg. No. 1132; IAA 2007-3412. Dimensions: Overall H 1.4; hoop OD 1.5 × 1.0, W 0.2– 0.5; bezel L 1.3, W 1.0, Th 0.3. Ring: Appears to have thin hoop widening to plain, ovoid bezel. Highly corroded, obscuring details; broken, crushed hoop. Date: First century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: Uncertain ring type, perhaps Boardman 1970:213, Fig. 217, Type XIII or a similar Early Roman type. The same basic type as No. 19, below. No. 19. 1.3.b. Iron Ring Context: Area B; L1291; Reg. No. 2644; IAA 2007-3401. Dimensions: Overall H 2; hoop OD 1.8, W 0.1–0.4, H 0.2, Th 0.2; bezel L 0.9, W 0.6, H 0.1. Ring: Thin hoop with flat section, slightly widening to plain, low flat rectangular bezel. Hoop crushed. Date: First century BCE. Discussion: Similar to No. 18 but with rectangular bezel.

Cat. No. 16.

No. 17. 1.3.b. Iron Sealing(?) Ring Context: Area B; L1267 (Level III); Reg. No. 1537. Dimensions: Overall H 2.3; hoop OD 2.0, ID 1.5 × 1.6, W 0.3–0.5, Th 0.1–0.2; bezel L 1.5, W 1.0, H 0.4.

Cat. No. 19.

106

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

No. 20. 1.3.b. Iron Ring Context: Area G; L1501; Reg. No. 1036; IAA 2007-3404. Dimensions: Overall H 1; hoop OD 1 × 2; bezel L 1.5, W 1, H 0.15. Ring: Appears to be with a thin hoop slightly tapering and widening to plain, ovoid or rectangular bezel. Highly corroded, obscuring details; broken, crushed hoop. Date: First century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: Uncertain ring type, possibly of same basic type as Nos. 18, 19, above.

upper edge near head and on hoop’s base. Broken snake-tail end. Date: First century CE.

Cat. No. 21.

Cat. No. 20.

No. 22. I.3.c. Bronze Snake-Shaped Ring Context: Area G; L1506; Reg. No. 6586; IAA 20073402. Dimensions: OD 2.5, W 0.4–0.6, H 0.1. Ring: Similar to No. 21 but hoop plain and with flat section. Broken snake head and tail end. Date: First century CE.

Type I.3.c. Snake-Shaped Rings Three snake-shaped rings are from Areas G (n = 2) and T (n = 1). Snake-shaped rings were widespread throughout the Persian/Hellenistic–Early Roman periods. Local Persian/Hellenistic (up to the first century BCE) simplified snake-shaped rings are commonly made from wire or metal sheet; they have circular sections and are usually grave finds (Muhly and Muhly 1989:283–284, Nos. 168, 172; Tel Michal). Roman snake-shaped rings are usually cast (Ogden 1982:74). Roman stylized, simplified, cast snake-shaped rings may have retained the original amuletic meaning of earlier, more naturalistic snake-shaped rings. The discovery of three similar snake-shaped cast bronze rings suggests that they were popular in Early Roman times, and probably belonged to Roman soldiers.

No. 23. I.3.c. Bronze Snake-Shaped Ring Context: Area T; Sqs UA:1–2; Reg. No. 1660; IAA 2007-3407. Dimensions: OD 2.0, W 0.2, H 0.1. Ring: Similar to No. 22 but hoop with round section. Broken snake head and tail end. Date: First century CE.

No. 21. I.3.c. Bronze Snake-Shaped Ring Context: Area G; L1503; Reg. No. 6394; IAA 20071990. Dimensions: OD 0.7 × 0.9, W 0.4–0.7, H 0.15–0.40; bezel 1.5, W 1.0, H 0.15. Ring: Ovoid hoop ring, shaped as a stylized coiled snake with its head over tail. Hoop with low, ridged ovoid section, rugged linear decoration on hoop’s

Cat. No. 23.

Cat. No. 22.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Type I.3.d.Hoop Ring One hoop ring was documented. No. 24. I.3.d. Bronze Hoop Ring Context: Area R; L5053; Reg. No. 6753/1; IAA 20073400. Dimensions: OD 2.2, W 0.7, H 0.7, Th 0.05. Ring: Thin, high round hoop with flat section. Hoop decorated on top with three circular plain grooves forming a central wide band and two thin strips; high quality. Technique: Cut and hammered thin bronze sheet, grooved on top, then soldered to loop shape. Date: Second century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: See similarly shaped and decorated bronze earring from Gamla (Chapter 13: No. 1). Similar plain or decorated hoop rings apparently occur during all periods (Patrich and Rafael 2008:421, Nos. 1–7).

Cat. No. 24.

Summary The number of rings originally embedded with stone or glass intaglios or cabochons (n = 10) is approximately two-thirds of the presumably less expensive all-metal rings (n = 14). These ten rings present the metal variation and inner division between gems embedded in bronze (n = 7; Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9) and iron (n = 2; Nos. 2, 4) rings, most typical of the Hellenistic-Roman period. The appearance of a lead ring (No. 7) set with a cabochon is less common. The rings range from the late second century BCE to the first century CE (up to 67 CE). It is difficult to ascertain ownership of the all-metal rings. Some of them, for example the three snake-like bronze rings, may have belonged to Roman soldiers, as might some of the iron rings. Because bronze rings set with gems were an expensive commodity, their comparatively

107

large number among this group of rings plausibly points to the existence of a middle-income socioeconomic class.

Type II. Gems: Intaglios (n = 9) The nine intaglios found, from Areas B (n = 1), R (n = 6), S (n = 1) and T (n = 1), were probably set in rings. The recovery of the majority in the Western Quarter (Areas R, S, 7) shows a preference for rings set with intaglios during the Early Roman period as opposed to the Hellenistic period. Most of the intaglios are of hard stone (n = 6; 3 of cornelian, 1 of garnet, 1 of jasper and 1 of agate) while three additional unset intaglios are of glass. The devices on the intaglios are as follows: two are figurative, three are figurative with animals, two are zoomorphic and two, vegetal. Together with the intaglios set in rings, the overall number of intaglios is twelve (or thirteen, if No. 5 is with a device). Thus, the total ratio between stone (7) and glass (5 or 6) intaglios is nearly equal. Typologically, most unset intaglios are ring-stones of subtypes with flat (F) cut tops of Types F1, F2, F5 and F7 (5 specimens); slightly fewer present subtypes with curved-shaped (C) tops of Types C3A and C3B (4 specimens) (see Fig. 12.1). The shapes of the engraved surfaces of these intaglios (of Types F or C) vary from small round, medium-sized round or ovoid to elongated ovoid. Their dimensions range from L 0.5 × W 0.4 × H 0.15 to L 1.7 × W 1.0 × H 0.33 cm. Stone gems are lapidary-cut and their engraving technique in each case is mentioned. The glass gems were cast from a mold unless stated otherwise. No. 25. II. Eros/Cupid Context: Area T; L4026; Reg. No. 1881. Dimensions: L 0.8, W 1.0, H 0.2. Stone: Cornelian; red covered in white layer. Type C3A ring-stone. Upright oval with low curved top and flat base. Broken, about two-thirds remain. Device: Winged Eros walking to left, nude, hands to front and back. Holding a linear attribute (stick/bow?) in outstretched right hand. Head broken off. Small ground line. Technique: Modeling with rounded wheel drills, little detailing with thin wheel drill. Date: First century CE. Discussion: The white/off-white layer over the cornelian is formed of calcium carbonate applied by

108

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

controlled heating. The application of white layers such as this to cornelian intaglios, a common Roman practice, was probably used to emphasize the engraved device on the gem (Rosenfeld, Dvorachek and AmoraiStark 2003:227, 237; Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007:218). Cut intaglios of all C subtypes are not very common throughout the Roman Empire. Types C3A–C are typical primarily in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, between the first century BCE and the first century CE (Amorai-Stark 1999:87). The finding of four C3A and C3B intaglios at Gamla (Nos. 25, 31– 33) out of a total of twelve intaglios (one-fourth of the total) is high even for our region. For comparison, at Masada, two C3 intaglios were found out of a total of fifteen intaglios (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007: Nos. 11, 12) and in Caesarea, only one specimen out of twenty-four Roman intaglios (Amorai-Stark 1999:87, CMG 69.4). These pieces are further evidence of the primarily Eastern origin of C3 ring-stone type intaglios, in circulation up to the later part of the first century CE. Eros is a common motif. Occasionally, he is depicted holding a stick, usually imitating a human action or labor (see, for example, Spier 1992: Nos. 319, 320; Kypraiou 1997:145, No. 142, top right).

0

Technique: Modeling with thick, large, round wheel drill, parallel detailing with thin, sharp wheel drill. Fairly coarse detailing. Date: First century CE. Discussion: Found in the same locus as the glass intaglio imbedded in ring No. 4. Busts are common motifs on late Hellenistic and Early Roman intaglios. Veiled female busts are frequently identified as JulioClaudian empresses (Henig 1990:31, Nos. 65, 66; Spier 1992:156, No. 432) or commonly as the goddess Demeter (Herrmann 2000:70). Although the motif is pagan it might have been used during the Second Temple period by Jewish people (Rahmani 1980:49– 54, intaglio with Harpocrates bust; Sussman 2000:226– 230, intaglio with bust of Apollo, from Jewish burials in Jerusalem; Amorai-Stark and Hershkovitz 2011). The Type F2 ring-stone, which occurs in another intaglio embedded in a ring (No. 3, above), is a fairly widespread ring-stone type throughout the Roman Empire. It is one of the most common intaglio cuts in our region. For example, Type F2 intaglios occur among the Masada intaglios (Hershkovitz and AmoraiStark 2007: Nos. 1, 5), and in Caesarea, Type F2 intaglios are the second-most common ring-stone type (Amorai-Stark 1999:87). For garnet cabochons, see Type III.1.a.

0.5

0

0.5

Cat. No. 25.

Cat. No. 26.

No. 26. II. Bust of Demeter Context: Area R; L5108; Reg. No. 5007; item missing. Dimensions: L 1.5, W 1.1, H 0.2. Stone: Translucent deep red stone, probably garnet. Type F2 ring-stone. Upright oval with flat top and base, and diagonal sides toward top. Immaculate condition. Device: Bust of Demeter. Head facing left. Hair arranged as wide band above high forehead resembling a diadem; back of head veiled. Lighted torch emerging from bust to field.

No. 27. II. Female Sphinx Sitting Context: Area R; L5110; Reg. No. 4858; IAA 19974251. Dimensions: L 1.1, W 1.0, H 0.3. Stone: Cornelian. Orange, with white layer covering top, base and sides. Type F1 ring-stone. Flat top and base, with diagonal sides. Horizontal oval. Remains of iron on back and sides from setting gem in iron ring. Device: Sphinx to left. Round head in profile, attribute (calathos or polos?) above head. Breasts on lower

109

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

body, Upright front legs, sitting hind legs, tail curled behind body reaching ground line. Wings raised with inward curled tip. Large sistrum(?) in front field. Technique: Modeling with round and sharp mediumsized drills, few detailing with sharp drill. Fairly coarse workmanship. Date: First century CE. Discussion: During the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the winged sphinx was a widespread motif in both the Phoenician and Greek worlds. For ceramic examples from Israel, see Stern 2010:21–22, Fig. 26.4. The motif of a sphinx is a common Greco-Hellenistic jewel motif, which continues to be an intaglio device mainly up to the late first century CE. This device occasionally appears on first century BCE–first century CE intaglios from our region (Henig and Whiting 1987: Nos. 391, 392—from Gadara, northern Jordan, located fairly close to Gamla, to the south). The Type F1 ring-stone occurs on four intaglios (Nos. 2, 4 above and No. 28 below). Additional Type F1 cabochons are set in rings, e.g., Nos. 6, 7). Type F1 is the most widespread ring-stone type, as well as the most common local late Hellenistic and Roman ringstone type (cf. Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007: Nos. 2, 3, from Masada; Amorai-Stark 1999:87–88, from Caesarea).

0

0.5

Cat. No. 27.

No. 28. II. Frontal Figure Context: Area R; L5107; Reg. No. 5089; IAA 19974250. Dimensions: L 1.2, W 1.0, H 0.1. Stone: Yellow glass. Type F1 ring-stone, horizontal oval. Device: Schematic frontal figure with large head and round eyes. Both hands raised above head (left hand perhaps holding a stick or club), on side a short attribute (dagger?), two short legs facing opposite sides. Perhaps riding an animal(?). Technique: Modeling with wide rounded drill and medium-sized drill. Unclear details.

Date: Late first century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: The identification of this squat figure is uncertain (Heracles or Bes?). Plausibly of local or regional manufacture. For intaglios with figurative motifs found in Jewish contexts, see No. 26, above.

0

0.5

Cat. No. 28.

No. 29. II. Combination (‘Grylloi’) Context: Area R; L5107; Reg. No. 8959. Dimensions: L 1.1, W 0.95, H 0.1. Stone: Yellow, translucent glass. Type F5 ring-stone. Flat top and base, with straight sides. Device: Combination of frontal mask, large bird (cock?) facing right, and horse head. Technique: Wide, round medium-sized drill with no detailing. Date: First century CE. Discussion: Various combinations are fairly common Hellenistic–Early Roman gem motifs. The horse and cock occur frequently as major elements in different combination subtypes (Lapatin 2011: Pls. 4, 8, 9, 11, 22, 26, 32, cock: Pls. 24, 25, 31b, 34:xii, 35:vii, cock and horse: Pl. 31a). Combinations are also common motifs on gems from Israel (Hamburger 1968:19, Nos. 126, 127; Amorai-Stark 1993:141–142, PBI Nos. 21–25, 1999:113, Fig. 5; Peleg 2003:62: Fig. 10). Type F5 ring-stone intaglios are also found among the Masada and Caesarea gems (Amorai-Stark 1999:87; Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007: Nos. 4, 10). No. 30. II. Capricorn or Goat Context: Area B; Sq D19; Reg. No. 1136; IAA 19974253. Dimensions: L 1.0, W 0.8, H 0.3. Stone: Dark red jasper. Type F7 ring-stone. Flat top and base with curved, fairly high sides, horizontal(?) oval. Broken, left part remains. Device: Capricorn or goat, two frontal legs to left, in swimming or running posture.

110

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Technique: Modeling and detailing with medium-sized rounded drills. Date: Late first century BCE–early first century CE. Discussion: Leg posture is common to running/ swimming Capricorns or running goats (for Capricorns cf. Hamburger 1968:20, No. 132; Henig and Whiting 1987:32, Nos. 325, 326; Amorai-Stark 1993:160–161, PBI Nos. 64, 65). While the Type F7 ring-stone is uncommon, a single example is encountered among the Masada intaglios (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007: No. 13). For a jasper cabochon see Type III.1.d, below. The context hints at a late Hellenistic date.

0

No. 32. II. Three Corn-Sheaves Context: Area R; L5057; Reg. No. 3122; IAA 1997-4254. Dimensions: L 0.7, W 0.6, H 0.2. Stone: Dark yellow-brownish glass, Type C3A ringstone. Flat base and low curved top. Upright oval. Device: Three symmetrically arranged upright corn sheaves, each surmounted with corn ear, within plain border. Technique: Modeling with medium-sized round drill, few detailing with thin, sharp drill. Date: First half of first century CE. Discussion: Single corn-ears or corn-ears with other symbols are common, favored late Hellenistic–Roman gem devices (Hamburger 1968:19, No. 130). The three upright corn-ears device also appears on coins of King Agrippa I (42 CE) (TJC 96, Pl. 52:120). Therefore, this motif was probably popular among the Jewish population.

0.5

Cat. No. 30.

No. 31. II. Butterfly Context: Area R; L5102; Reg. No. 4458; IAA 1997-4252. Dimensions: L 1.1, W 1.0, H 0.2. Stone: Orange-yellow cornelian. Type C3A ring-stone. Flat base and low curved top. Remains of iron or lead at back and on rim. Device: Butterfly flying to right above twig (acting as ground line). Technique: Delicate modeling with small-size drill and detailing with very thin, sharp wheel drill. Goodquality workmanship. Date: Late first century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: The butterfly represents Psyche. Psyche or Eros with a butterfly is a fairly common intaglio motif (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007:220, No. 6; Eros with butterfly, cornelian, from Masada). As a single motif engraved on an intaglio, the butterfly is a less frequent gem device (Amorai-Stark 1993:94, SBF No. 122, cornelian).

0

0.5

Cat. No. 31.

Cat. No. 32.

No. 33. II. Vine with Two Grape Clusters Context: Area S; L2014; Reg. No. 3583; IAA 19905050; missing. Dimensions: L 1.7, W 1.0, H 0.33. Stone: Orange and white banded agate. Type C3B ring-stone. Fairly high curved top, flat base, elongated upright oval. In very good condition. Device: Upright vine with two grape clusters and one leaf on right, two leaves on left and three tendrils above. The main branch thickens at base and curls to right. Technique: Modeling with thin drill and bouterolls (globular drill) and little detailing with thin, sharp drill. Beautifully cut, precise layout. Date: Late first century BCE–early first century CE. Discussion: This device’s engraving style with its globular drills is close to Italic or Late Republican intaglio carving styles (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978). By the mid-first century CE the high-quality engraving style exhibited in this gem had disappeared.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

The precise combination and layout of the Gamla vine device is a rare gem motif. Vines do occur in the Roman gem repertoire. For example, an individual grape leaf, which is an occasional gem device, is found among the Caesarea gems (Hamburger 1968:21, No. 143; first century CE); a single grape bunch occurs on an intaglio from Turkey (Konuk and Arslan 2000:171, No. 147; second century CE); a vine with four grape clusters, leafs and tendrils is depicted on a banded agate of a similar shape to ours (Boardman and Scarisbrick 1977:40, No. 79; Roman, first century BCE–first century CE). The vine motif of grape cluster/s and leaf/leaves is a very popular theme in Jewish art and architecture (Avigad 1971:191, Pl. 38a; Avi-Yonah 1981:70–73, 141, Fig. 24, Pls. 12:1, 5, 16:2, 17:1). According to Avi-Yonah, the cluster of grapes “with a central bunch flanked by two smaller ones” (1981:70) depicted in our specimen is the preferred grape-cluster form in Jewish art from Israel, e.g., grape clusters painted on pottery bowls from Masada that date from the same period as this intaglio (Hershkovitz 2003b:32; Bar Nathan 2006:266, Pl. 45:19); a single grape leaf with a tendril appears on coins from Year 2 of the Jewish War (67/8 CE) (TJC Pl. 62:196–201).

0

0.5

Cat. No. 33.

Summary Most intaglios appear to belong to Gamlaʼs Jewish inhabitants in the late Hellenistic, but mainly Early Roman, periods. Numbers 32 and 33 (the three corn sheaves and the vine) belong to the repertoire of Jewish art symbols. Some intaglios probably fit in with the practices of Roman soldiers (Nos. 25–29). Ownership of the intaglios with animal or bird motifs (Nos. 2–4, 30, 31) is questionable. In one case (No. 2),

111

context allows for the possibility that it might have belonged to Roman soldiers, but in most other cases, context suggests that these intaglios belonged to the Jewish inhabitants (Nos. 3, 4, 30, 31). Second Templeperiod artifacts from the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem have shown that representations of birds, fish and certain animals were accepted by the Jewish people, as private possessions within their homes (Hershkovitz 2003a:300).

Type III. Insets: Cabochons, Inlays and Cones (n = 182) Cabochons (plain gems and small inlays) set in jewelry, accessories and other objects comprise the second largest group of generic finds. Finds in this section are discussed according to materials and shapes: Type III.1. Stone (n = 13); Type III.2. Glass and Faience (n = 166); Type III.3. Ceramic (n = 1); and Type III.4. Cones (n = 2). One hundred and eighty insets were found (without the cones). Together with the two cabochons embedded in rings (Type I) and one cabochon in the gold pendant (Type IV), the overall number of plain insets is 183. Most of the unattached insets and cones come from Areas R (n = 82) and S (n = 35), 117 in all; a considerable number originate in Area B (n = 51); a few derive from Areas D (n = 1) and M (n = 1); and a further 12 lack excavation data. The majority is cabochons, which were set in rings. Others were inlaid in other jewelry items such as earrings and pendants, while still others were probably set in accessories such as broaches, belts and buckles, or possibly, even in vessels (see ʽIntroductionʼ). Shapes (see Fig. 12.1). Most insets are carved with Type C top areas (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978:69), a typical formal feature of cabochons. They differ in their cut base shapes (round, oval, tear-drop and pearshaped), base sizes (from D 0.5 cm to L 2.0 × W 2.8 cm) and heights (H 0.1–0.9 cm). The most frequent shape among the Gamla insets is the Type C3 form, with very low A or low B heights (only four specimens are of the higher C3C height). Even fewer pieces present two other curved subtypes: four are of Type C7, with a curved convex top and base, of A and B heights, from Areas B (2) and R (2) and two are of Type C8, with a flat base and angled sides leading to a wider, curved top, of B and C heights (one each from Areas R and S).

112

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

A much smaller number (7 pieces) belong to four subtypes of the flat top (F) type: Type F1 or F2—two from Area R; Type F4B—one, with a flat top and base with sides angled to the sides’ center, from Area B; and Type F7A close to F6, with a short flat base, curved sides and longer flat top—four from Areas R (n = 1) and S (n = 3). Type III.1. Stone Cabochons and Inlays (n = 13) The stone cabochons and inlays come from Areas B (n = 3), D (n = 1) and R (n = 7); two lack excavation data. They represent slightly more than 8% of the 181 plain gems (together with the stone in the gold pendant). This ratio is much lower than the ratio of stone cabochons found at Masada (17%, 7 stone pieces out of 39 pieces; Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007:223–224). The Gamla stone cabochons and inlays are of garnet, citrine, aquamarine, jasper and limestone. Type III.1.a. Garnet Cabochons (n = 8) Garnet is the most frequent material encountered among the stone cabochons (8 free pieces and 1 fixed in a gold pendant [Type IV, below; No. 216], 9 garnet cabochons altogether, or eleven, together with the garnet intaglio and bead). These eight cabochons are miniature to small in size with curved (C) tops (Subtypes C3, C7) and present three forms of cut base shapes: (1) tear-drop (n = 2), Area R (Subtype C3A, one set in a pendant), Early Roman; (2) oval (n = 3), Areas B (2, Subtypes C3A and C7B) and R (1, Subtypes C3A), Hellenistic and Early Roman; and (3) round (n = 3), Area R (1, Subtype C3B) and missing data (2, Subtype C3A), Hellenistic or Early Roman. Garnet is a transparent crystallized silicate and ranges in color from dark red to the less common dark red-orange, and sometimes, purple. To the best of our knowledge, garnet does not occur among Early Bronze Age jewel finds from other sites in Israel. In the Greco-Roman world, garnet was considered a precious stone. This stone was particularly fashionable in the Hellenistic period; during that period, it was occasionally used as gem material (Kypraiou 1997:140– 143, Nos. 137, finger ring, 139, necklace; Bingol 1999:21; Konuk and Arslan 2000:6). In Hellenistic–Early Roman Near Eastern jewelry, garnet was especially popular for cabochons set in metal (primarily of gold, as is the case of the single surviving Gamla garnet set in a pendant

[Type IV.1; Tait 1986:84–85, Figs. 186–188; Andrews 1994:41, Pl. 48c]). The comparative abundance of garnet cabochons at Gamla reflects the attractiveness and status of this stone in Hellenistic–Early Roman jewels. The popularity of plain garnet gems during the Hellenistic and Roman periods may be largely attributed to the deep red color of many garnet varieties (Bingol 1999:23–24). Garnet’s hardness (7.5) is frequently slightly superior to that of quartz (hardness of 7) and therefore, it was somewhat more difficult to carve or to drill. As a result, in comparison to quartz intaglios, only few Hellenistic–Roman intaglios and beads were made from garnets. Therefore, the recovery at Gamla of only one garnet intaglio (Type I, No. 26) and one garnet bead (Type V.B.V.1.h), is compatible with Hellenistic–Early Roman working and fashion trends. Of the eight unset garnet cabochons, the two teardrop Early Roman pieces were probably set in pendants, earrings or brooches, while the oval and round Hellenistic–Early Roman specimens were most likely set in rings, or other jewelry and accessories. No. 34. III.a. Garnet Cabochon Context: Area B; L1251; Reg. No. 3182. Dimensions: L 0.8, W 0.7, H 0.4, Th 0.1–0.2. Stone: Red-dark red garnet. Type C7B gemstone, short oval, nearly round; broken, missing one end lengthwise. Date: Hellenistic–Early Roman. No. 35. III.a. Garnet Cabochon Context: Area B; L1292; Reg. No. 2432. Dimensions: D 0.8, H 0.2. Stone: Deep red garnet. Type C3A ring-stone, oval, flat underside and low convex top; cracked and chipped. Date: Hellenistic. No. 36. III.a. Garnet Cabochon Context: Area R; L5033; Reg. No. 320. Dimensions: D 0.7, H 0.2. Stone: Deep red garnet. Type C3A ring-stone, oval with flat underside and low convex top. Date: Early Roman. No. 37. III.a. Garnet Cabochon Context: Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 7994. Dimensions: D 0.7, H 0.6. Stone: Dark red, nearly black garnet. Type C3B gemstone, miniature round with flat underside with shallow cavity and high convex top.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Date: Early Roman. Discussion: Base cavity either a chip or intentional; if intentional, the cavity is perhaps the location of a wire end attached to this piece (as pinhead or earring-end decoration?). No. 38. III.a. Garnet Tear-Drop Shaped Cabochon Context: Area R; L5110; Reg. No. 4937/1. Dimensions: L 1.0, W 0.3–0.6, H 0.3. Stone: Translucent dark red. Close to Type C3A ringstone, with flat underside and convex top. Slightly cracked. Date: Early Roman.

0

0.5

Cat. No. 38.

No. 39. III.1.a. Garnet Tear-Drop Shaped Cabochon Context: Area R; L5110, Reg. No. 4937/2. Dimensions: L 1.0, W 0.5 0–0.7, H 0.4. Stone: Translucent deep red garnet. Close to Type C3A ring-stone, with flat underside and convex top; chipped base. Date: Early Roman. No. 40. III.1.a. Garnet Cabochon Context: IAA 1990-5041/1. Dimensions: D 1.0, H 0.3. Stone: Red garnet. Type C3A ring-stone, round with flat underside, convex top. Date: Hellenistic–Early Roman. No. 41. III.1.a. Garnet Cabochon Context: IAA 1990-5041/2. Dimensions: D 1.1, H 0.3. Stone: Dark red, translucent red-brownish. Type C3A ring-stone, round with flat underside, convex top. Date: Hellenistic–Early Roman.

113

Type III.1.b. Citrine Cabochon (Transparent Yellow Quartz) (n = 1) The single item, from Area R, is an elongated oval of F8C subtype, faceted on its top and base. Its faceted cutting is highly uncommon for late Hellenistic– Early Roman gems. Its faceting enhances the citrine’s optical effect and gives it various shades of yellow when looked upon from different angles under light. In antiquity, as well as today, citrine is frequently confused with yellow topaz because the two resemble each other. However, citrine is more durable, slightly softer (hardness of 7) than topaz (hardness of 8) and has less brilliance than topaz (a mineral consisting of a silicate of aluminium and fluorine). Thus, the faceted cutting of the Gamla citrine cabochon might have been made to enhance the stone’s brilliance, and to bring its appearance closer to topaz. There are no direct references to citrine in preHellenistic items (Ogden 1982:106). Citrine is found only rarely as gem material in the Hellenistic–Roman periods (Spier 1992:5, 105, 118, Nos. 258, 259, 306, Color Pl. 4, first century CE intaglios; Ogden 1982:82– 83, Color Pl. 16, pendant set with yellow citrine cabochon, c. 300 CE). The citrine cabochon here is an infrequent Early Roman find. Its size is appropriate to that of cabochons embedded in a ring bezel. Yet, because its shades are most powerfully experienced when set in a frame without a backing it might have been embedded in an open-base bezel ring, or in a pendant frame. No. 42. III.1.b. Citrine Cabochon Context: Area R; L5035; Reg. No. 123. Dimensions: L 1.5, W 1.0, H 0.8. Stone: Translucent yellow citrine. Type F8C or C8b ring-stone with flat, lozenge-shaped (faceted) underside, high-faceted sides and low, convex, oval base. High-quality workmanship, valuable material. Date: First half of first century CE (Early Roman). Discussion: For Hellenistic (second–first centuries BCE) two-faceted garnet cabochons of same type and size as No. 42 and two smaller faceted citrine cabochons (or high quality shiny yellow glass) set in a large high quality gold snake-shaped finger ring from Greece, cf. Kypraiou 1997:140, No. 137, found at Vathia, Euboea. For Early Roman citrine gems, cf. Spier 1992:5, Nos. 258, 259, 306.

114

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No. 42.

Type III.1.c. Aquamarine Cabochon (Beryl of the Pale Blue-Green Variety) One cabochon of this type was recovered, from Area D—an elongated, narrow oval of Type C3A, of a pale blue-green shade, appearing nearly colorless. Beryl is encountered in jewelry only from Hellenistic times on (Aldred 1971:17) and is found mainly in Western Europe, the Urals and Sri Lanka. The most likely ancient source for the aquamarine variety of beryl is India. This distribution might help to explain its rarity in Hellenistic times (Ogden 1982:93). Aquamarines first occur in jewelry in the third century BCE but are not very common at least until the first century BCE as intaglio, cabochon and bead material, and even in Roman times there are only a few aquamarine beads (Ogden 1982:82–83, 106, Color Pl. 16; Bingol 1999:21; Nenner-Soriano 2006:311, Nos. 1–3, the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem). This large aquamarine cabochon (2.1 × 1.2 × 0.2 cm) is an exceptional find. The only other stone gem of similar elongated shape is the agate intaglio (1.7 × 1.0 × 0.33 cm; Type II, No. 33), which is a ring-stone. The aquamarine is probably likewise a ring-stone, or alternatively, was embedded in a fine brooch or necklace frame. The context suggests it is an Early Roman exquisite jewel. Its unearthing in the house in Area D strengthens the conclusion that this building belonged to a wealthy or prominent person (Goren 2010:117). In Hellenistic– Early Roman times, citrine and aquamarine are found only rarely as gem material. The preciousness and high esteem allocated to the transparent yellow citrine and pale blue-green to nearly colorless aquamarine Gamla cabochons is indicated also by their exquisite polish, large, elongated size and by the citrine’s faceted cutting. They were undoubtedly set in high-quality, expensive jewelry. To the best of our knowledge, these two pieces from Gamla are the only published examples of Early Roman citrine and aquamarine cabochons (or intaglios) from excavations in Israel.

No. 43. III.1.c. Aquamarine Quartz Cabochon Context: Area D; L3003; Reg. No. 4092; IAA 19905038. Dimensions: L 2.1, W 1.2, H 0.2. Stone: Transparent, pale blue-green quartz. Type C3A ring-stone. Elongated oval, with flat underside and low convex top. Date: Late Hellenistic–Early Roman. Cat. No. 43. Type III.1.d. Jasper Cabochon Type 111.1.d, No. 44; the single jasper piece is a C8A cabochon subtype fashioned from the black variety of jasper. Together with the jasper intaglio and bead, three jasper pieces were found at Gamla (Type II, No. 30; Type V.A.V.2k, No. 321). Jasper is an opaque form of quartz that varies in color. Quartz is the most common mineral on the earth’s surface and is found worldwide, although well formed crystals are less common. The range of quartz varieties is large. The different quartz varieties are divided into two main groups: macrocrystalline quartzes and microcrystalline quartzes, depending on the size and structure of their crystals; each group includes different quartz varieties. These differ from each other by various factors such as specific gravity, refractory index number and so forth (Swersky 1996:271). Certain types of quartz have a wide range of colors, for example jasper; other varieties are limited to a specific color or to one color with additional hues, for example rock crystal. Some quartz varieties occur in many regions throughout the world, others are less widespread. Jasper is a fairly common Hellenistic–Early Roman plain gem and intaglio material. For example, two jasper cabochons/blanks were found at Masada (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007:223); a few plain F and C ring stone type jasper cabochons originate from Caesarea Maritima; some resemble our piece of the black variety. Jasper is the second most common intaglio material among the Caesarea intaglios (Amorai-Stark 1999:88, 99). The red and yellow varieties of jasper became very fashionable for Roman gems in the second and third centuries CE (Lapatin 2011:88–89, Pls. 2, 3, 6, 7). Yet, at Gamla, only a single red jasper intaglio was found (Type II, No. 30). The black variety of jasper was less common in all periods. However, it was in occasional use especially up to the first century CE. Its popularity

115

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

dwindled in the second–third centuries CE in comparison to the earlier Roman period (Konuk and Arslan 2000:5; Lapatin 2011:89, Pls. 9, 10). This fine cabochon is an Early Roman specimen. No. 44. III.1.d. Jasper Cabochon Context: Area R; L5057; Reg. No. 3122/1. Dimensions: L 1.7, W 1.5, H 0.4. Stone: Black jasper. Type C4A or F8A gemstone. Flat, oval underside, tapering sides and convex top. Beautifully polished. Broken, approximately half remains. Date: Early Roman. Type III.1.e. Limestone Inlays Two soft stone pieces belonging to this category of insets were recovered. Both have an irregular oval C3 (A and C) shape. The Area B specimen, a treated pebble, is also the only piece whose irregular semi-ovoid C3C type shape is grooved and has encircled dots near one end. This gives it a schematic zoomorphic appearance when seen from its narrow side. For Early Bronze Age pendants of zoomorphic appearance cf. discussion in the section on Type IV.2.1.c(a). Calcite occurs in a large variety of attractive colors, frequently with veins. Calcite stones (mainly limestone and marble) and different varieties of hydrated magnesium silicate (mainly serpentine and steatite) of various dark to light colors are the most common materials from which Neolithic to early historic inlays, pendants and seals were made in the Near East, Western Asia and Egypt. The hydrated magnesium silicate stones were usually baked in early periods to harden them. A form of black, brown and other dark color serpentine/‘steatite’ was used in Syria and elsewhere for beads and seals, but overall shades of white or gray are the most common (Ogden 1982:93, 110; Spier 1992:6; Andrews 1994:103; Amorai-Stark 1997:191–198). These soft stones are soft enough to allow for ready shaping even with primitive tools (Swersky 1996:272) and were therefore used widely, especially in the early periods. The extreme softness of these stones means that they were seldom used in Greco-Roman jewelry (Ogden 1982:93; Konuk and Arslan 2000:4); for example, no soft stone gems are encountered at Masada (cf. Amorai-Stark 1999: Fig. 24a, b). At Gamla as well, limestone (calcite/hydrated magnesium silicate) is the most widespread Early Bronze Age pendant and bead

material (50 pieces, see Types IV, V). In comparison, the number of limestone inlays (2) is small. The two limestone ‘cabochons’ probably functioned as small inlays in objects or jewels and date from the Early Bronze Age. They were probably prepared from a pebble and a local rock and are apparently the productions of a local workshop. No. 45. III.1.e. Limestone Cabochon Context: Area B; L1302; Reg. No. 57. Dimensions: L 1.0, W 0.3–0.8, H 0.5. Stone: Dark brown surface and lighter brown grooves, limestone semi-cabochon inlay (zoomorphic?). High, curved semi-ovoid with flat underside, shallow grooves and encircled dot (or dots) near one narrow end; treated pebble. Date: Early Bronze.

Cat. No. 45.

No. 46. III.1.e. Limestone Cabochon Context: Area R; L5033; Reg. No. 339. Dimensions: L 1.5, W 1.0, H 0.4. Stone: Light brown marble. Type C3A gemstone. Flat, oval underside and low convex top; chipped. Date: Early Bronze. Summary The majority of stone cabochons are Hellenistic– Roman pieces. Most are made from precious hard stones that were imported to Gamla, probably already as cut stone gems. Garnet and jasper are fairly common gemstones during these times; citrine and aquamarine are rare. Their occurrence at Gamla is an indication of the wealth of at least some of the city’s populace, particularly during the Early Roman phase. Type III.2. Glass and Faience Cabochons and Inlays (n = 166) Glass Most of the cabochons are made of glass (163 and 2 glass cabochons embedded in rings ([see Type I, above] = 165) and three more are of faience. Hence, the overall number of plain insets fashioned from manmade materials is 168.

116

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

The glass pieces derive from Areas B (n = 47), M (n = 1), R (n = 73), S (n = 35) and missing excavation data (n = 10). The three faience specimens were found in Areas R (n = 2) and S (n = 1). Parallels to these glass insets can be found in the Hellenistic and/or Roman periods. Such items were found in diverse numbers at various sites in Israel. For example, several hundred pieces were discovered in the early excavations of Samaria (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924 I:380, Nos. 244, 245, 381, No. 242, 382, No. 247), and smaller numbers at Marisa (c. 30; Jackson-Tal 2008:82, Fig. 14:12–14); in Jerusalem, in the City of David (14; Ariel 1990:157–158, Fig. 31:G36–G40) and in the Jewish Quarter (Israeli and Katsenlson 2006:419, Pl. 21.11:GL103–GL110; NennerSoriano 2006:310, Pl. 15.1:8–14). Some scholars have suggested that these plain glass objects functioned not only as insets embedded in rings, pendants and other jewels and accessories but also as gaming pieces (game tokens) (Brewer 1986:155–156, Fig. 49C:21–24; Ariel 1990:157 with lists; Spaer 2001:233; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:419). Since the majority of these Gamla plain glass pieces are small to medium-sized and of very low to low heights, we prefer to identify them as cabochons, mainly inlayed in jewelry. The overall number of cabochons (n = 166) represents over 93% of the total of 180 pieces for insets (see Type III and Type III.1). This ratio is higher than the ratio of glass to stone cabochons found at Masada (32 glass pieces out of 39, no faience specimens)—nearly 81% (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007:223–224). The majority of glass insets are mold-made in open molds (Jackson-Tal 2008:82). Frequently, they were shaped from small glass or faience pieces or glass leftovers, fashioned with care and polished (no seams remain); infrequently, perhaps, they are simple molten glass drops. The four trail-decorated glass cabochons were rod-formed and wound (Areas B [2], R [2]; Nos. 54, 89, 103, 104). Faience The small number of faience (or perhaps frit) cabochons are opaque off white or white turned cream color. There are no apparent remains of glaze on these pieces. This may result from disintegration of the glaze, which is typical to faience, or the white core was covered with white glaze that now appears as gray weathering. Scholars still debate the difference between faience and frit. The term frit can refer to different vitreous materials from which it is made, such as glass and silicon

materials (Spaer 2001:309). Faience is an artificial material, made of ground quartz, usually glazed, always shaped while cold and only subsequently heated (Spaer 2001:308–309). Use of faience goes back to PreDynastic Egypt (Aldred 1970:35) and perhaps even earlier to fifth millennium Mesopotamia (Zuckerman 1996:277). Faience jewels and amulet items covered in white glaze were particularly widespread in Egypt during the Old Kingdom as well as later. The color of faience glazes in Pre-Dynastic Egypt is only green and black; black, white and purple glazes were used sporadically from the Old Kingdom onward (Andrews 1994:100–101). During Hellenistic–Roman times, faience insets and beads are glazed by definition, but white glazed faience pieces are rare. Therefore, if the white glaze of these three insets has disappeared, they most likely date to the Early Bronze Age. The other more likely possibility is that these three insets—whose shape is the same as that of some glass finds—were not glazed, a typical practice, especially for frit beads in all periods. Since the date of unglazed frit insets is less certain, at Gamla, they can be either Early Bronze Age or Hellenistic–Early Roman. As glazed faience insets whose non-white, presumably greenish-bluish glaze color, have disappeared, they most likely date to the Hellenistic-Roman periods. Shape, Condition and Color Shape. Most glass and faience cabochons are shaped in C3 ring-stone form. Nearly all the heights of C3 insets are A and B heights, including the three faience specimens. Only three are of C3C height, from Areas B (2) and S (1). Eight glass insets are Flat (F) subtypes, from Areas B (1), R (3) and S (4). Most C3 specimens are medium-sized; some are miniature pieces (e.g., D 0.5 × H 0.2 cm); and a few are large oval glass pieces (e.g., L 2.0 × W 2.8 × H 0.7 cm). Miniature and large cabochons were found only in Areas R and S. It can be deduced that during the Hellenistic–Early Roman periods, the majority of glass insets were of roughly the same size and shape. In the Early Roman period, the size range of glass insets grew. The glass and faience cabochons present five basic shapes (a–e): three—Subtypes C top cutting, F1 (or F2) and F7. a. Tear-drop (n = 5). Area B (1 of Type C3B); Area R (4 of Subtype C3A).

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

b. Pear-shaped (n = 11: 9 glass + 2 faience). Areas B (4 wide and elongated of Subtypes C3A and C3B); R (4 wide of Subtype C3A); S (3:2 wide of Subtype C3A, near ‘heart-shape’ close in shape to Subtype F7A and 1 faience). c. Oval (n = 76: 75 glass + 1 faience). Area B (22 ovals and irregular ovals of Subtypes C3A and B, 1 of Subtype C7B and 1 of Subtype F4B); Area R (38 glass ovals, irregular ovals, semi-oval, elongate oval, the majority of Subtypes C3A and B, 1 of Subtype F7A irregular oval, 1 of faience); Area S (13 of Subtypes C3A and B, 1 of Subtype C3C, 2 of Subtype F7A); and missing excavation data (3 of Subtypes C3 and C38). d. Round (n = 72). Area B (20 round and irregular round, of Subtypes C3A and B); Area M (1, nearly round, irregular); Area R (27 round and irregular round glass, the majority of Subtypes C3A and B, 1 of Subtype C7B, 2 of irregular round Subtype F1, and 1 of faience); Area S (17 round and irregular, nearly round, the majority of Subtypes C3A and B, 1 of Subtype C3C); and missing excavation data (7, Subtypes C3 and C3A). e. Irregular rectangular (n = 2). Area S (Subtype C3A). Thus, insets in Subtypes a.–d. belong for the most part to the Early Roman period. The high percentage (more than 89%) of round and oval glass cabochons (148 out of 166) reflects the overall popularity of glass Subtypes c. and d. in the Hellenistic–Roman periods. For example, the more than 100 small glass Roman cabochons, chiefly from the first–second centuries CE, found by Kenyon at Samaria, are divided nearly equally between round and oval pieces (Crowfoot 1957:392). At Masada, of the 19 glass cabochons, most are likewise of Subtypes c. and d. and 3 pieces are of the wide pear-shaped Subtype b. (Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007: Nos. 21–39, Pl. VI). Condition and Color. The majority of plain glass insets are monochrome. Many are covered or partially covered with silver and silvery iridescence with tinges of bluishsilver, brownish-silver and so forth, and are covered by light gray to dark gray-black weathering or weathering of other hues, including white. In some cases, the thick weathering obscures the color of the glass. Some appear to have been burnt. Some have no iridescence or weathering; quite a few of these appear to have been cleaned by the excavators or museum curators.

117

The finding of merely four trail-decorated cabochons at Gamla suits the overall scarcity of these decorated insets in comparison to the popularity of monochrome cabochons in Hellenistic–Roman regional finds. For example, in the City of David excavations only one such piece was found (Ariel 1990), while at Marisa, Samaria and Masada—none (Crowfoot 1957; Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007; Jackson-Tal 2008:82). The color range of the glass can be divided into five basic groups: a. Various hues of deep to pale blue, bluish-greenish, blue-green, green, including green-yellowish (opaque, translucent and colorless with color tinge); b. Various hues of deep to pale brown, brownish, brown-yellow, yellow, bright yellow and yellowreddish (few opaque, most translucent or colorless with color tinge); c. Various hues of deep red-brown, purple, light lilac and red (very few opaque, most translucent or colorless with color tinge); d. Colorless; e. Black or dark colors appearing black (opaque and translucent). Few black, most are of unidentifiable dark colors, apparently blue, green and brown. In general, this color range reflects the range of glass hue production in the relevant periods at Gamla. However, in comparison to Hellenistic-period Marisa, where the range comprises only the same color range glass insets as our Subtype a. and one from our Subtype b. (yellowish-brown), the color range at Gamla is much wider. These glass colors also testify to fashions and trends in jewelry. It appears that in some cases, the glass colors of insets imitate more precious and expensive gem and bead stones. For example, the deep and dark opaque blue specimens might imitate lapis lazuli stones, the few translucent bright yellow glass cabochons—citrine or topaz, the colorless pieces with a tinge of purple or lilac—amethyst, the few colorless pieces— probably rock crystal, and the single translucent dark red glass color inset from Area R—garnet. Red cabochons and beads of this red glass color are rare during the Hellenistic–Early Roman periods. The glass and faience cabochons and inlays are presented below in table form. Illustrations appear within the table.

118

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

47

III.2.a

B

3102

903

Glass; C3B gemstone; tear-drop shape with flat underside and convex top; pitted, little weathering; broken

0.8 × 0.3–0.8

Hell.

48

III.2.a

R

5003

4539

Glass; C3A gemstone; nearly round with convex top and flat underside; mold-made; translucent, colorless, silvery iridescence

1.3 × 0.3–0.7, H 0.3

ER

49

III.2.a

R

5004

4639

Glass; C3A gemstone; tear-drop shape with low flattened convex top and flat underside; translucent yellow (gold) color

1.1 × 0.6, H 0.2

ER

50

III.2.a

R

5010

6507

Glass; C3A gemstone, wide pear-shape with convex top and flat underside; translucent, colorless with pale bluish-greenish tinge; silvery-bluish iridescence and opaque graywhite weathering; chipped

1.4 × 1.1, H 0.5

ER

51

III.2.a

R

5105

4586

Glass; C3B gemstone; miniature tear-drop shape with convex top and flat underside; yellowish-greenish; chipped

0.7 × 0.1–0.6, H 0.25

ER

52

III.2.b

B

1255

714

Glass; cabochon or pendant inlay; C3A gemstone; pear-shaped with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with yellowish tinge, yellow-silvery iridescence

1.0 × 0.2–0.8, H 0.3

Hell.

53

III.2.b

B

1258

261

Glass; C3B gemstone; wide, pear-shaped, with flat underside and low, convex top; colorless with yellowish tinge; yellowsilvery iridescence

0.8 × 0.2–0.7, H 0.4

Hell.

54

III.2.b

B

1258

403

Glass trail-decorated; C3B gemstone, elongated pear-shape (close to wide tear-drop shape) with flat underside and convex top; colorless with pinkish tinge; spiral opaque white(?) trails; silvery-dark gray iridescence; missing some white trails

2.8 × 0.3–1.3, H 0.5

Hell.

55

III.2.b

B

1282

3329

Glass; C3A gemstone; wide pear-shape with flat underside and convex top; opaque dark green Cf. Ariel 1990:157, GL41

1.2 × 0.5–1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

56

III.2.b

R

5003

4507

Glass; C3A gemstone; pear-shaped with flat underside and convex top; mold-made; translucent green; silvery iridescence and white-gray weathering

1.1 × 0.4–0.8, H 0.4

ER

57

III.2.b

R

5054

3134

Glass; C3A gemstone; pear-shaped close to oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; translucent blue; silvery-bluish iridescence and opaque dark gray weathering

0.9 × 0.3–0.8, H 0.4

ER

58

III.2.b

R

5105

4783/2

Glass; C3A gemstone; pear-shaped with flat underside and convex top; colorless with yellowish tinge, silvery-white iridescence

1.1 × 0.3–0.9, H 0.5

ER

59

III.2.b

R

5108

4757/3

Glass; C3 gemstone; wide pear-shaped with flat underside and convex top; colorless with green–blue tinge; silvery and gray weathering; glass color perhaps imitating rock crystal

1.0 ×.0.4–0.1

ER

Figure*

119

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

60

III.2.b

R

1913

7058

Glass; C3A (close to F7A) gemstone; wide pear-shaped with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; colorless; silvery-white iridescence; chipped on narrow end

1.1 × 0.3–1.0, H 0.3

ER

61

III.2.b

R

2002

3291

Faience (frit?) cabochon; C3A gemstone; pear-shaped with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; opaque white and gray weathering

1.1 × 0.2 × 0.8, H 0.3

ER

62

III.2.b

R

2014

3690

Glass; C3A, close to F7A gemstone; wide pear-shaped (nearly heart-shaped) with flat underside and very low convex top (nearly flat) and angled, curved sides; translucent yellow; silvery iridescence; chipped on one end For circular glass cabochon of same glass color, cf. Ariel 1990:157, GL38

1.4 × 1.2, H 0.3

ER

63

III.2.c

B

1260

765

Glass; C3A gemstone; irregular oval, flat underside and low convex top; colorless with light yellow tinge; opaque silvery weathering

1.3 × 1.0, H 0.3

Hell.

64

III.2.c

B

1263

474

Glass; C3B gemstone; oval with flat base and convex top; light green; formed by heating a glass chip? Weathered, pitted, with silvery iridescence Cf. Ariel 1990:157, GL39; Spaer 2001:233, 236, No. 548 (103 pieces, many of same color as ours)

1.8 × 1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

65

III.2.c

B

1263

1055

Glass; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; light green; greenish-silvery iridescence; burnt?

1.5 ×1.3, H 0.6

Hell.

66

III.2.c

B

1270

661/1

Glass; close to F4B or C8B gemstone; large oval with angled sides, flat underside and convex top; light yellowish-greenish; silvery iridescence

1.6 × 1.2, H 0.7

Hell.

67

III.2.c

B

1270

661/2

Glass; C3B gemstone; irregular oval close to pear-shaped with flat underside and convex top; light brown with brown weathering

1.0 × 0.3–0.8, H 0.6

Hell.

68

III.2.c

B

1278

3029/2

Glass; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; yellow; goldensilvery iridescence

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.4

Hell.

69

III.2.c

B

1280

1926

Glass; C3C gemstone; semi-oval, nearly round; dark (green, purple or blue), covered in whitish, silvery and gray iridescence; chipped, one end missing

1.4 × 1.2, H 0.8

Hell.

70

III.2.c

B

1281

637

Glass; C3B gemstone; irregular oval (close to irregular rectangular with rounded corners) with flat underside and convex top; translucent light blue-green; chipped on flat underside

1.8 × 0.2–1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

71

III.2.c

B

1281

2384

Glass; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; colorless with slight greenish tinge; chipped

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.6

Hell.

Figure*

120

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

72

III.2.c

B

1282

3215/1

Glass; C3B gemstone; short oval nearly round with flat underside and convex top; translucent deep blue with blue-silvery iridescence Cf. Crowfoot 1957:392, No. 87

1.1 × 0.9, H 0.6

Hell.

73

III.2.c

B

1284

808

Glass; irregular C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; dark brown and some yellow-silvery iridescence

0.8 × 0.6, H 0.4

Hell.

74

III.2.c

B

1288

2308

Glass; C3A gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and low convex top; opaque brown and remains of silvery iridescence; chipped, many air bubbles

1.5 × 0.8, H 0.3

Hell.

75

III.2.c

B

1291

2603

Glass; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; translucent, colorless with greenish tinge; silvery iridescence

0.9 × 0.8, H 0.4

Hell.

76

III.2.c

B

1295

269/1

Glass; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with greenish tinge

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.5

Hell.

77

III.2.c

B

1295

269/2

Glass; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with greenish tinge; silvery iridescence

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.5

Hell.

78

III.2.c

B

1295

291

Glass; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; dark, appears black with opaque white weathering; chipped; Nos. 76–78 may be from same jewel/accessory

1.3 × 1.0, H 0.6

Hell.

79

III.2.c

B

1295

2956

Glass; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; opaque brown with cream color weathering

1.3 × 1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

80

III.2.c

B

Sq B18

1738

Glass; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; yellow

1.2 × 0.9, H 0.4

Hell.

81

III.2.c

B

Sq C17

2036/1

Glass, C3A gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with greenish tinge

1.4 × 1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

82

III.2.c

B

Sq C/ D18

n/a 19905082/A

Glass; C3A gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and low convex top; translucent yellowish-brown

1.5 × 1.0, H 0.5

Hell.

83

III.2.c

B

Sq C/D18

1950 5082/B 19905082/B

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; translucent greenish-yellowish with dark marks; Nos. 82, 83, 89 may be from same jewel/ accessory

1.2 × 0.9, H 0.4

Hell.

84

III.2.c

B

Sq D18

1865/2

Glass cabochon; close to C3A and C7A gemstone; oval with flat underside and slightly concave underside center; flattened low convex top; light brown with gold colorsilvery iridescence and thick brown-gray weathering; chipped

1.1 × 0.9, H 0.4

Hell.

85

III.2.c

R

5002

541

Faience (frit?) cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; opaque cream covered in gray-green weathering

1.9 × 1.2, H 0.6

ER

Figure*

121

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

86

III.2.c

R

5003

750

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; elongated oval, convex with flat base; mold-made; translucent green; gray weathering and silvery iridescence

1.9 × 0.8, H 0.5

ER

87

III.2.c

R

5003

766

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval convex with flat base; mold-made; dark blue; bluishsilvery iridescence

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.4

ER

88

III.2.c

R

5006

6012

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low flattened convex top; translucent, colorless with yellow tinge; gray weathering; remains of metal on underside and sides; rough surface

0.9 × 0.8, H 0.3

ER

89

III.2.c

R

5006

7143/2

Glass, trail-decorated cabochon; C3A ringstone; semi-oval with flat underside and low convex top; brown with thin white trails on curved top

0.8 × 0.5, H 0.3

ER

90

III.2.c

R

5010

6283

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent, colorless with yellowishgreenish tinge; silvery-bluish iridescence

1.0 × 0.6–0.9, H 0.4

ER

91

III.2.c

R

5011

6098

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent, brown; chipped; many air bubbles on underside

1.2 × 1.1, H 0.4

ER

92

III.2.c

R

5017

6611

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent, yellowish and few remains of silvery iridescence

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.4

ER

93

III.2.c

R

5018

7094

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with semi-flat base and convex top; colorless, with light blue tinge; whitish-silvery iridescence

1.0 × 0.8, H 0.5

ER

94

III.2.c

R

5018

7354/1

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; translucent, colorless with pale bluishgreenish tinge; silvery iridescence

0.9 × 0.7, H 0.4

ER

95

III.2.c

R

5018

7354/2

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and low, convex top; translucent, yellowish-greenish

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.4

ER

96

III.2.c

R

5018

7857

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; dark color (brown?); silvery blue-gray iridescence and blue-brown weathering

1.3 × 1.1

ER

97

III.2.c

R

5019

1013

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent, yellowish-greenish with few remains of pale blue-gray iridescence

1.4 × 1.2, H 0.4

ER

98

III.2.c

R

5021

7812

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and low, convex top; translucent, yellowish-greenish; silvery iridescence

1.1 × 0.9, H 0.6

ER

Figure*

122

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

99

III.2.c

R

5022

7443

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval nearly round with flat underside and flattened convex top; translucent, colorless with greenish tinge; opaque dark gray-black weathering; burnt?

1.2 × 1.1, H 0.4

ER

100

III.2.c

R

5024

7730

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; colorless covered in opaque dark gray weathering; burnt?

1.2 × 1.1, H 0.6

ER

101

III.2.c

5033

319

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone, oval with flat underside and convex top; translucent yellowish-greenish; silvery-bluish iridescence.

1.1 × 0.9, H 0.5

ER

102

III.2.c

R

5035

122

Glass cabochon; C3B ring-stone; oval flat underside and convex top; gray-brown

0.9 × 0.8, H 0.4

ER

103

III.2.c

R

5035

146

Glass (trail-decorated?) cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; on top appears as marble-like decoration and on base covered with thick dark gray weathering; uncertain technique and colors: opaque white with gray or grayreddish trails(?); burnt

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.6

ER

104

III.2.c

R

5052

6388/2

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; translucent bluegreen; silvery bluish-whitish iridescence

1.4 × 1.2

ER

105

III.2.c

R

5053

8000/1

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; irregular oval, nearly round with flat underside and convex top; colorless with pale yellowish tinge

1.1 × 0.1, H 0.5

ER

106

III.2.c

R

5054

3050

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent blue, appears blue-purple; silvery-bluish-purplish iridescence

1.4 × 1.2, H 0.4

ER

107

III.2.c

R

5054

3380

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; colorless with pale yellowish tinge; silvery-white iridescence and opaque white weathering

1.3 × 1.1, H 0.6

ER

108

III.2.c

R

5054

6853

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; translucent blue; silvery-bluish iridescence

1.3 × 1.1, H 0.6

ER

109

III.2.c

R

5054

6873/2 19905048A

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; irregular oval (close to wide pear-shaped) with flat underside and convex top; colorless; gray weathering

0.8 × 0.9

ER

Figure*

123

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

110

III.2.c

R

5054

8043

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with rough semi-flat base and convex top; mold made; translucent light yellow; broken and chipped on base and sides

1.3 × 1.0, H 0.4

ER

111

III.2.c

R

5055

6895

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; colorless with pale bluish-greenish tinge; silvery iridescence

1.3 × 1, H 0.6

ER

112

III.2.c

R

5055

6927

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and very low flattened convex top; opaque dark color (green?); silvery-dark gray iridescence; broken and chipped

1.0 × 0.8, H 0.3

ER

113

III.2.c

R

5102

4221/1

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; two layered blanc: upper, thicker layer of translucent dark brown and thinner lower layer translucent yellow; cream color light gray weathering; broken

1.2 × 0.9, H 0.7

ER

114

III.2.c

R

5102

4221/2

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; colorless with yellowish-greenish tinge

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.6

ER

115

III.2.c

R

5102

4221/3

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless; light gray weathering; Nos. 103–105 may be from same jewel/accessory

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.4

ER

116

III.2.c

R

5103

4238

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval flat base and low convex top; mold-made; colorless with yellow tinge; covered with silvery iridescence; pitted

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.3

ER

117

III.2.c

R

5103

4475

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; ovoid with irregular flat underside and convex top; mold-made; light blue; silvery iridescence Cf. Crowfoot 1957:392, No. 86

1.0 × 0.8, H 0.4

ER

118

III.2.c

R

5105

4503

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; colorless with yellowish-greenish tinge; remains of silvery iridescence; chipped on base

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.4

ER

119

III.2.c

R

5106

4654

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; colorless with brownish tinge; silverygray iridescence and weathering

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.4

ER

120

III.2.c

R

5107

4690

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; miniature oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless, imitates rock crystal Cf. Crowfoot 1957:398, No. 88

0.65 × 0.5, H 0.3

ER

121

III.2.c

R

5108

4888

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; translucent light green; silvery iridescence

1.5 × 1.2, H 0.3

ER

122

III.2.c

R

5201

653

Glass cabochon; close to F7A gemstone; irregular oval (close to wide pear-shaped) with flat top and underside and curved sides; colorless with pale yellowish tinge; silvery iridescence and opaque silver-gray weathering; chipped, rough sides

1.0 × 0.6–1.3, H 0.4

ER

Figure*

124

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

123

III.2.c

S

1909

6913/2

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; large oval with flat underside and flattened low convex top; dark blue-purple and light blue iridescence; size suggests it was inset in a pendant or an accessory

2.0 × 2.8, H 0.7

ER

124

III.2.c

S

1911

7010/2

Glass cabochon; C8B gemstone; oval with flat base and convex top; colorless with very light yellowish tinge; greenish-yellowish weathering; broken, chipped and pitted; twothirds remains

1.0 × 1.18, H 0.5

ER

125

III.2.c

S

1922

7889

Glass cabochon; F7A gemstone; oval with flat top and underside and curved sides; colorless; broken on one narrow end

1.3 × 1.1, H 0.3

ER

126

III.2.c

S

1924

7854

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; wide oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; translucent light greenish-brown; thick gray weathering and silvery-bluish iridescence; burnt?

1.6 × 1.4, H 0.7

ER

127

III.2.c

S

1924 (Level II)

7934

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; unclear dark color (blue or green?); covered in thick silvery-dark gray-blue iridescence; burnt?

1.2 × 0.9, H 0.4

ER

128

III.2.c

S

1924 (Level II)

8000

Glass cabochon/intaglio(?); F1or F2 gemstone; irregular oval with flat top and underside and angled sides; dark purple, appears black with remains of green oxidation (from metal frame?); chipped on underside

1.4 × 1.1, H 0.2–0.4

ER

129

III.2.c

S

2002

3213

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; blue-gray weathering

1.0 × 0.7

ER

130

III.2.c

S

2011

3312

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and low, convex top; colorless with pale yellowish tinge; silvery iridescence

0.8 × 0.7, H 0.3

ER

131

III.2.c

S

2012

3957 1990-5019

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; colorless with pale purple/lilac tinge

0.7 × 0.5

ER

Figure*

125

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

132

III.2.c

S

2019

n/a

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and convex top; translucent brown-yellow; gray weathering

1.2 × 1.0

ER

133

III.2.c

S

2024

3781/2 1990-5018

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; irregular oval with flat underside and flattened convex top; translucent blue-green with greenishsilvery iridescence

1.2 × 1.0, H 0.5

ER

134

III.2.c

S

2051

3916/1 1990-5028

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; translucent, colorless with light greenish tinge; silverywhitish iridescence

D 0.6 × 0.8, H 0.5

ER

135

III.2.c

S

Surface

6153

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; oval with flat underside and convex top; translucent yellow; covered in white weathering; broken and chipped on top

1.3 × 1.2, H 0.1–0.4

ER

136

III.2.c

No data

19905025B

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with blue-green tinge; blue-gray weathering

1.1 × 0.6

Hell.– ER

137

III.2.c

No data

1990-5040

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; irregular oval with flat underside and low convex top; deep blue with slight blue iridescence

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.6

Hell.– ER

138

III.2.c

No data

19905048B

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; yellowishbrown; silvery iridescence

D 0.8

Hell.– ER

139

III.2.d

B

1253

613

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; irregular, round, flat underside and convex top; colorless with greenish tinge

0.8 × 0.7, H 0.4

Hell.

140

III.2.d

B

1263

1090

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; large, nearly round with flat underside and convex top; colorless with yellowish tinge; silvery iridescence

1.8 × 1.7, H 0.7

Hell.

141

III.2.d

B

1263

1091

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; deep bluegreen; silvery iridescence

D 1.0, H 0.7

Hell.

142

III.2.d

B

1267

1239

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and convex top; yellowish; gray weathering

D 1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

143

III.2.d

B

1267

1561

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; colorless; silvery iridescence

D 1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

144

III.2.d

B

1272

1472

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; brown; yellowish-gray iridescence

D 1.0, H 0.4

Hell.

Figure*

126

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

145

III.2.d

B

1278

1920

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and convex top; opaque brown

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.5

Hell.

146

III.2.d

B

1278

3029/1

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and convex top; opaque brown; silvery iridescence and gray weathering

1.4 × 1.3, H 0.5

Hell.

147

III.2.d

B

1282

3215/2

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; opaque dark color (blue or green)

D 1.0, H 0.4

Hell.

148

III.2.d

B

1283

2249

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with yellowish tinge and light yellow-silvery iridescence

D 0.8, H 0.4

Hell.

149

III.2.d

B

1288

2204

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; brown and some silvery iridescence; chipped

D 0.8, H 0.4

Hell.

150

III.2.d

B

1291

2646

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; opaque brown-green

D 1.0, H 0.4

Hell.

151

III.2.d

B

1295

2611

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low convex top; opaque dark, appears brown with remains of gold-brown iridescence; chipped

D 1.2, H 0.4

Hell.

152

III.2.d

B

1295

2797/1

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with greenish tinge; opaque weathering

D 0.8, H 0.4

Hell.

153

III.2.d

B

1295

2797/2

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; opaque brown; perhaps from same jewel/accessory as No. 148

D 0.8, H 0.4

Hell.

154

III.2.d

B

1304

257

Glass, trail-decorated cabochon; C3B gemstone; flat round base; uncertain color (green or brown) with single(?) central trail; strongly pitted on base; thick, dull opaque white-cream weathering

D 0.8, H 0.4.

Hell.

155

III.2.d

B

3106

302

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; light green

D 0.9, H 0.4

Hell.

156

III.2.d

B

Sq C1

845

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low convex top; dark green

D 1.3, H 0.4

Hell.

157

III.2.d

B

Sq C17

2036/2

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; yellow(?); silvery-gray iridescence

D1

Hell.

158

III.2.d

B

Sq D18

1865/2

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low convex top; light green

D 1.2, H 0.5

Hell.

Figure*

127

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

159

III.2.d

M

Sqs A15/16

2287

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and convex top; translucent yellow-brown; silvery and gold color iridescence

1.3 × 1.2, H 0.4

Hell.– ER

160

III.2.d

M

5003

715

Glass cabochon; C7B gemstone; round convex with concave base; round; dark green (or purple); opaque whitish weathering; chipped

D 1.1, H 0.5, Th 0.3–0.5

ER

161

III.2.d

R

5003

4656

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and convex top; translucent colorless; silvery iridescence

D 0.8, H 0.4

ER

162

III.2.d

R

5007

932

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; round with flat base and convex top; translucent brownish-yellow; gold iridescence and weathering

1.4 × 1.3, H 0.6

ER

163

III.2.d

R

5008

4691

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; miniature round with flat underside and convex top; translucent; colorless with greenish tinge; silvery-white iridescence

D 0.6, H 0.4

ER

164

III.2.d

R

5018

7009

Glass cabochon; F1 gemstone; thin irregular round with flat top and underside and faceted rims/edges; translucent; light yellow-brown; silvery iridescence

1.5 × 1.4, H 0.1–0.2

ER

165

III.2.d

R

5021

7171

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low, convex top; translucent, yellowish-greenish; thick gray-silvery iridescence and weathering

D 0.9, H 0.3

ER

166

III.2.d

R

5024

7610/2

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; colorless (with light lilac tinge?); some silvery-gray weathering

D 0.7

ER

167

III.2.d

R

5034

527/1

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; round with flat base and convex top; translucent yellowish-greenish; covered with silvery and greenish iridescence Cf. Spaer 2001:236, No. 548

D 1.3, H 0.5

ER

168

III.2.d

R

5038

604

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and flattened convex top; translucent brown; appears black covered in gray and black weathering

D 1.3, H 0.6

ER

169

III.2.d

R

5051

6359

Glass cabochon; F1or F2 gemstone; irregular round with flat top and underside and tapering sides; translucent brown; silveryyellowish iridescence and gray weathering

D 1.3, H 0.5

ER

170

III.2.d

R

5054

6915

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low convex top; translucent green; silvery iridescence and opaque white-silvery weathering; chipped on top and underside

1.2 × 1.1, H 0.4

ER

Figure*

128

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

171

III.2.d

R

5054

7610

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless; silvery iridescence; chipped

D1

ER

172

III.2.d

R

5101

4323

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; miniature round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with pale purple (lilac) tinge; glass color imitates amethyst

D 0.6, H 0.3

ER

173

III.2.d

R

5105

4783/1

Faience (frit?) cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and flattened convex top; opaque white; white and gray weathering; chipped

D 1.4, H 0.4

ER

174

III.2.d

R

5106

4596

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and flattened convex top; colorless with pale bluish tinge; silvery-bluish iridescence.

D 1.0, H 0.4

ER

175

III.2.d

R

5107

4952

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; colorless with pale lemon yellow tinge; silvery iridescence and weathering

D 1.5, H 0.5

ER

176

III.2.d

R

5108

4930

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with pale bluish-greenish tinge; silvery iridescence

D 1.2, H 0.4

ER

177

III.2.d

R

5108

4965

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with pale bluish-greenish tinges; silvery iridescence; Nos. 355, 356 plausibly from same jewel/accessory

D 1.2, H 0.4

ER

178

III.2.d

R

5108

5044

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; blue; opaque black-dark blue weathering; chipped on base

D 1, H 0.4

ER

179

III.2.d

R

5110

4975

Glass cabochon(?); C3A gemstone; irregular round with low flattened convex top; two parallel grooves on flat underside; colorless with yellowish tinge; silvery and bluishpurplish iridescence; weathering

D 1.5, H 0.3

ER

180

III.2.d

R

5152

5279

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless, covered in thick opaque black and dark gray weathering; burnt

D 1.0, H 0.3

ER

181

III.2.d

R

5152

5784

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless, appears black—covered in thick opaque black weathering; burnt

1.2 × 1.1, H 0.5

ER

182

III.2.d

R

5153

5258

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; miniature round with flat underside and low flattened convex top; colorless (or colorless with pale greenish tinge)

D 0.5, H 0.2

ER

Figure*

129

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

183

III.2.d

R

5153

5381

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round (or oval) with flat underside and low convex top; uncertain color (colorless with yellow-brown tinge?), appears black—covered in thick opaque black and dark gray weathering; large broken fragment (c. two-thirds of piece plus several smaller fragments); burnt

1.1 × 0.9, H 0.5

ER

184

III.2.d

R

5153

5388

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless, appears black—covered in thick opaque black and dark gray weathering over opaque white weathering; burnt

D 1.0, H 0.5

ER

185

III.2.d

R

5161

5905

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless, appears black—covered in thick opaque black and dark gray weathering over opaque white weathering

D 1.0, H 0.5

ER

186

III.2.d

R

5165

5760

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round (or oval) with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with pale greenish-bluish tinge; opaque white weathering; broken, c. threequarters remains

1.0 × 0.8, H 0.4

ER

187

III.2.d

S

1913

7057

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; small round with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent deep blue; opaque black-blue weathering

D 0.8, H 0.4

ER

188

III.2.d

S

1916

7882

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; large round with flat underside and flattened convex top; unclear dark color (blue?); covered in thick black weathering

D 1.7, H 0.7

ER

189

III.2.d

S

1916

8096

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; unclear dark color (blue?); covered in thick black weathering and silvery-dark gray iridescence

D 0.9, H 0.3

ER

190

III.2.d

S

1920

n/a

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat underside and low convex top; uncertain color, appears gray-brown; may have been in fire

D 1.5, H 0.5

ER

191

III.2.d

S

1922

8032

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; round with flat top and underside; colorless with pale greenish tinge; remains of silvery iridescence

D 1.0, H 0.4

ER

192

III.2.d

S

2001

3045

Glass trail-decorated cabochon; C3C gemstone; round with flat underside and high convex top; uncertain dark core color, appears black or deep blue with white trails Cf. Israeli and Katsnelson 2006: Pl. 21.11:90

1.3 × 1.4, H 1.0

ER

Figure*

130

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

193

III.2.d

S

2002

3234

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and convex top; yellow-brown; green weathering and silvery iridescence

0.8 × 0.7

ER

194

III.2.d

S

2005

3188/2

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; colorless with yellowish tinge; greenish and gray weathering

D 1.0

ER

195

III.2.d

S

2008

3514

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low, convex top; uncertain dark color (blue?); silverygray-bluish iridescence

D 0.9, H 0.4

ER

196

III.2.d

S

2012

3294

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; colorless with greenish tinge; green and gray weathering

D 1.0

ER

197

III.2.d

S

2014

3671

Glass cabochon; C3B gemstone; nearly round with flat base and convex top; bluegreen; dull green-gray weathering

1.0 × 0.9, H 0.4

ER

198

III.2.d

S

2019

3798

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; colorless or with lilac-tinge; silvery-gray iridescence and weathering

D 1.1

ER

199

III.2.d

S

2019

3906

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; miniature round with flat underside and low, convex top; colorless

D 0.6, H 0.3

ER

200

III.2.d

S

2025

3890 19905025A

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; translucent yellow-greenish; silvery iridescence

D 1.0

ER

201

III.2.d

S

2051

3915 1990-5026

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; round with flat underside and convex top; translucent green; silvery iridescence

D 0.8

ER

Figure*

131

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

202

III.2.d

S

2051

3916/4 1990-5028

Glass cabochon; C3 gemstone; nearly round with flat underside and convex top; translucent greenish-yellowish; silvery iridescence

1.0 × 0.9

ER

203

III.2.d

S

Surface

n/a

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular round with flat underside and low, flattened convex top; translucent light green; covered in gray weathering and silvery-greenishyellowish iridescence

1.4 × 1.3, H 0.5

ER

204

III.2.d

No data

1990-5033

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with greenish-yellowish tinge; silvery iridescence

D 1.0

Hell.– ER

205

III.2.d

No data

1990-3035

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; round with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with light green tinge; silvery iridescence

D 0.8

Hell.– ER

206

III.2.d

No data

1990-5037

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; round with flat underside and low convex top; uncertain opaque dark color (blue, black), appears black; dark silvery-gray iridescence and weathering

D 1.0

Hell.– ER

207

III.2.d

No data

1990-5039

Glass cabochon; C3A ring-stone; round with flat underside and low convex top; translucent yellowish-brown

D 1.3, H 0.3

Hell.– ER

208

III.2.d

No data

19905043A

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; translucent yellow-green; some silvery iridescence

D 0.7

Hell.– ER

209

III.2.d

No data

19905043B

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; irregular oval with flat underside and low convex top; translucent green; some gray weathering

1.1 × 0.8

Hell.– ER

Figure*

132

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

210

III.2.d

No data

211

III.2.e

S

212

III.2.e

S

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Measurements (cm)

Date

1997-4533

Glass cabochon; C3 ring-stone; oval with flat underside and low convex top; colorless with pale bluish-greenish tinge; bluish-gray weathering

D 0.7

Hell.– ER

1922

7908

Glass cabochon; F7A gemstone; irregular rectangular with angled narrow ends, flat top and underside and curved sides; colorless with yellowish tinge; broken and chipped on one narrow end

1.7 × 1.0, H 0.4

ER

1952

603

Glass cabochon; C3A gemstone; irregular rectangular with curved corners, flat underside and low, flattened convex top of uneven height; colorless with pale greenish tinge

1.2, × 0.8, H 0.2–0.5

ER

Figure*

* Color photographs are all scaled 2:1

Summary These glass and faience cabochons were probably manufactured in regional or local glass workshops. Of note are the slight differences between the glass cabochons, mainly from Hellenistic Area B and from predominantly Early Roman Areas R and S. The cabochons appear to reflect small shifts in taste between these two close and culturally somewhat overlapping periods. Type III.3. Ceramic Inset (n = 1) The shape, measurements and groove above the base of this comparatively high Type C3C piece resemble those of small pre-Early Bronze Age and Early Bronze Age perforated soft stone and ceramic seal-beads. Some of these small to medium-sized soft stone pieces, dating mainly from the fourth millennium BCE or slightly later, have an identical groove above their base (Amorai-Stark 1997:79–80, Nos. 200, 280, 301, 305, 307). This is probably an Early Bronze Age specimen (or earlier), whose precise function is unclear. No. 213. III.3. Ceramic Inset Context: Area B; L1258, Reg. No. 282. Dimensions: L/W 1.2, H 0.7. Stone: Type C3C gemstone. Round flat base and high convex top. Parallel linear grooves on base. Dark brown-black. May have been in fire. Date: Early Bronze?

Type III.4. Cones (n = 2) Type III.4.a. Glass Cone (n = 1) No. 214. III.4.a. Glass Cone Context: Area R, L5109, Reg. No. 5050. Dimensions: D 1.2, H 1.3. Stone: Glass, gaming piece. Perfect cone with a flat circular base and pointed top, shaped by tooling. Monochrome light green-blue. Partly with greenishsilvery weathering. Date: Early Roman. Discussion: This is a rather uncommon Early Roman find. Cf. Spaer 2001:231, No. 544.

0

0.5

Cat. No. 214.

Type III.4.b. Limestone Cone (n = 1) No. 215. III.4.b. Limestone Cone Context: Area R, L5106, Reg. No. 4788. Dimensions: H 1.8, L 1.1, W 0.6–1.0.

133

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Stone: Limestone (marble) irregular truncated cone; dark brown; highly polished. Date: Early Bronze. Both cones appear to be ornamental elements, but their precise function is unclear. The glass cone might be an inlay in an object other than a jewel, while the limestone piece may be an inset or gaming piece. Summary of Type III Few inlays and cones date from the Early Bronze Age or earlier (three of limestone, one ceramic inlay), all of local manufacture. The majority of insets date to late Hellenistic– Early Roman times. The expensive stone cabochons, particularly the citrine and aquamarine pieces, point to wealthy individuals within the population who probably imported these stone insets complete with the jewels in which they were set. Some of the quartz pieces might have been bought as raw material or blanks in nearby regional centers and set locally or in these centers. Most glass cabochons were probably made locally or in nearby glass workshops. Although most of these simple glass pieces were mass produced, they were probably beyond the financial abilities of the very poor. They imply that a large segment of the inhabitants were middle class to well-to-do.

Type IV. Pendants (n = 21) The gold pendant is discussed in detail; the non-metal pendants (stone, shell and glass), according to materials and shapes. Type IV.1. Gold Pendant No. 216. IV.1. Gold Pendant (or part of an earring) Inset with Garnet Context: Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7563, IAA 19975077, missing (description from color photograph). Dimensions: Pendant L 0.8, W 0.55; garnet L 0.5, W 0.35. Shape: Tear-dropped, with four curved, open spirallike protrusions symmetrically arranged on the contour and round suspension loop on wide top. Tear-drop shaped garnet embedded in center. Metal: Gold. Stone: Deep red garnet.

Technique: Two gold foils hammered and cut to shape; upper sheet cut in center, heated (glued?) after setting of gem. Three gold ribbons attached to top sheet edges and to protrusions, another gold ribbon bent to shape as suspension loop. Date: Second century BCE–first century CE. Discussion: Locus 5026 is located at the eastern end of the row of shops in Area R (L5018, L5027, etc.). The pendant was found in collapsed debris that fell from the upper stories. Three similarly shaped garnet cabochons were found in Area R (cf. Type III.1.a). The shape and technique of this piece are typical of exquisite Hellenistic–Early Roman jewels (Tait 1986:84, Pl. 188). In this period, gold jewels of teardrop shapes set with garnets were created with different embellishments. Such pieces functioned particularly as necklace pendants, earring parts and brooches (Marshall 1969:280–281, Nos. 2370–2371, first–second centuries CE, tomb at Tortosa, Syria; Kypriaou 1997:143, No. 139, second– first centuries BCE, gold necklace with many gold pendants, some set with cabochons of diverse shapes, including two pendants of identical type to our No. 216, from Vathia, Euboea, Greece; Bingol 1999: No. 127, Hellenistic, Karga Olan, Turkey; Fortin 2002: No. 340, first century CE, Hama, Syria). The more expensive and elaborate Vathia necklace and Hama brooch present the same basic two-gold-leaf technique with spiral-like ribbons and protrusions, inlayed with teardrop garnet cabochons as in the Gamla piece. The type, shape and technique of this piece suggest a Hellenistic date. The context suggests an Early Roman date. If the latter is the case, No. 216 might be part of an heirloom. It is most likely of Greek or Syrian workmanship.

0

0.5

Cat. No. 216.

134

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Type IV.2. Stone, Shell and Glass Pendants (n = 20) The majority of non-metal pendants comes from Areas B (n = 9) and R (n = 8), and a few from Areas S (n = 2) and T (n = 1). Materials and Shapes. The pendants present a small variety of materials (soft stones, quartz, shell and glass), and a larger variety of forms based on a small number of basic shapes. Some materials and shapes are typical of the Early Bronze Age (and/or earlier eras), while other materials and shapes are more consistent with Hellenistic–Roman-period pendant types. During the Early Bronze Age, the use of medium- to large-sized bead-spacers per necklace was frequently greater than that of pendants or pendant-beads (Mazar, Amiran and Hess 1973: Fig. 8, Pl.35; Amiran 1978: Pls. 68:1, 6–8, 69:1–4, 15). In that time, as well as in earlier periods, simple geometric or semi-geometric pierced items, occasionally of simplified zoomorphic forms, usually had symbolic meanings. In Hellenistic and Roman times, many varieties of jewels were frequently composed of a single pendant or more, made from hard stones or glass. They were commonly set in metal frames of gold, silver or copper alloy. Frequently, pendants had a simplified floral or vegetal shape, but geometric-shaped pendants also occur. Type IV.2.1. Stone Pendants (n = 13) Of the 13 stone pendants, 8 are formed of soft stones and 5 are of quartz. Type IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendants Seven pieces, from Areas B (n = 4) and R (n = 3), were recovered. Most are lapidary cut by grinding the stones, and are pierced with stone or metal implements (see Type III.1.e) and then polished. Some stones of Subtypes b and c below are probably bored-through pebbles, a common practice in early times (Khalaily 2004:152). Five are fashioned from the black to dark gray varieties of limestone, an extremely common material for pre-Early Bronze Age and Early Bronze Age seals, pendant-seals and pendants (Dubin 1995:29, Fig. 29; Amorai-Stark 1997:191, Nos. 445–448). The other two are made from the cream to light brown or light gray to darker gray limestone varieties. Both varieties are found locally or in the greater region. The majority of the pieces present typical Early Bronze Age ‘biconical’ perforations (large opening

areas ranging in diameter from 0.5 to 0.8 cm, and smaller diameters of 0.1 to 0.2 cm). These perforations were bored from both ends. A few have larger perforation holes on one side and smaller holes on the other side (one each from Areas B and R). These were bored from only one side using a sharp implement. This too is an Early Bronze Age or an earlier Chalcolithic perforation type (see ʽIntroductionʼ, Type V). The shapes of these seven pendants vary and can be grouped into three basic formal types: a. Rectangular-or lozenge(?)-shaped pendant, pendant-seal(?): one, from Area B. Broken, now of semi-triangular shape with a low, raised back, four deep cavities not bored through and one hole, each surrounded by a notched circular groove. Because of its break it is unclear whether this is a broken seal or a proper pendant (Von Wickede 1990: Nos. 103, 119, 128, 129; Amorai-Stark 1997:154–159, Nos. 317– 319). This piece could well be a Chalcolithic-era seal, pendant-seal or pendant, fortifying the meager, but important Chalcolithic finds from Gamla, but it might also be an Early Bronze Age (I?) pendant-seal. This object is discussed by Getzov in Chapter 18 (Fig. 18.2). b. Wide pendant-beads (or pendant-bead-spacers) of semi-ovoid or semi-triangular shape with rounded corners: two from Area B. Centrally bored pendants and pendant-beads on a short axis are very close in shape to oblate beads (see Type V.A.V.6) and pendant-seals of the fifth–fourth millennia BCE, which continued to be made over long time spans (Von Wickede 1990: Nos. 101, 116, 262; Amorai-Stark 1993: Nos. 65, 84, 96, 141, 142, 445; Zuckerman 1996:288–289, Fig. 45:6). One specimen with an Early Bronze Age-type perforation is dated to that period. c. Elongated pendants with rounded corners of semi-tear-drop, semi-ovoid, and semi-triangular (or cone-like) shapes: four pieces, from Areas B (1) and R (3), one with grooves on its body. Various pendant shapes and pendant-seals with the same or similar profiles made from these materials are known from the sixth millennium BCE (Temizsoy 2007:24, Pl. 19, pendants); they were particularly common in the fifth millennium (especially in northern Syria, northern Iraq, southeastern Anatolia; Von Wickede 1990: Nos. 95–97, 108, 127, 131–136, 148, 149; Amorai-Stark 1993:34, Nos. 64, 66–68, 71–77, 80–82, 86–88, 90–93, 100). By the fourth millennium, the numbers dwindle. At least two of our pendants have the typical Early Bronze Age perforation: they might be late examples

135

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

of this earlier tradition. Some of these four pieces date from the Chalcolithic period, most come from Gamlaʼs large Early Bronze Age settlement. It is feasible that both the dark and light colored stone pendants had symbolic (amuletic?) meanings alongside their decorative and fashion significance, and perhaps an economic significance. No. 217. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area B, L1266, Reg. No. 1685. Dimensions: 2.5 × 0.2–1.4, Th 0.1–0.5. Stone: Limestone (serpentine) pendant or seal, triangular, with single intact edge. Flat base with four deep cavities and one hole, each surrounded by a circular groove and short line grooves between cavities. Flat back slightly raised at broken center edge. Shiny black. Broken. Date: Early Bronze or Chalcolithic (fifth millennium BCE?). Discussion: Cf. Getzov, below, Chapter 18, No. 2. No. 218. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1442. Dimensions: 1.0 × 1.0, H/Th 0.7, P 0.10–0.15. Stone: Limestone low ovoid- or oblateshaped pendant-spacer-bead fragment. Central perforation on short axis. Openings tapering to hole; thin semi-ring ridge at center of perforation tunnel. Gray to dark gray. Broken, approximately half remains. Date: Early Bronze. Cat. No. 218.

No. 220. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area B, L1291, Reg. No. 2643, IAA No. 1997-4594. Dimensions: L1.8, W 0.7–0.8, Th 0.2–0.5, P 0.15–0.50. Stone: Limestone, semi tear-drop-shaped pendantbead. Thin top, uneven, thick body—partially flat and partially curved; curved ‘base’. Perforated on short axis on wider sides below top. Round perforation tapering to small hole. Monochrome cream-light brown, polished. Date: Early Bronze.

Cat. No. 220.

No. 221. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area R, L5008, Reg. No. 4692/1. Dimensions: L1.0, W 0.6, H /Th 0.5–0.8; cavities, two D 1.0, one D 1:4, and one D 0.2 × 0.4. Stone: Limestone (serpentine), irregular spherical/ ovoid pendant. Black. Three drilled cavities of different sizes, three perfectly round and one ovoid. Broken below missing perforation. Date: Early Bronze.

Cat. No. 221.

No. 219. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area B, L1280, Reg. No. 2041. Dimensions: L 1.8, W/H 1.4, Th 0.1–0.3, P 0.1–0.5. Stone: Limestone, semi-triangular pendant/spacer-bead with rounded ends. Perforation below center of longest and narrowest edge on short axis. Large perforation top areas reaching small hole. Cream color. Polished on one side and on edges. Similar to No. 223, below (Area R). Date: Early Bronze.

No. 222. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area R, L5052, Reg. No. 6386. Dimensions: L 2.7, W 0.6–1.6, Th 0.6–0.8, P 0.4–0.8. Stone: Limestone, pendant-bead/seal. Elongated, narrow truncated cone with rounded and fairly sharp corners. Perforation on short axis on wide sides. Small, shallow grooves on all sides. Black-dark gray. Date: Early Bronze (or earlier?).

Cat. No. 219.

Cat. No. 222.

136

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

No. 223. IV.2.1a. Limestone Pendant Context: Area R, L5055, Reg. No. 6928. Dimensions: L 2, W/H 0.2–1.5, Th 0.2–0.3, P 0.4 × 0.5, and 0.2. Stone: Limestone (serpentine), semi-ovoid pendant. Unevenly flattened wide sides. Perforation on center below one wide side and narrowest edge, on short axis. One side with large opening narrowing to smaller hole on other side. Dark gray-black. Similar to No. 219, above. Date: Early Bronze.

Cat. No. 223.

Type IV.2.1b. Chalk Pendant (n = 1) No. 224. IV.2.1b. Chalk Pendant Context: Area S, Sq J9, Reg. No. 3020. Dimensions: 1.4 × 1.2, Th 0.2–0.5; base: 1.1 × 0.6, P 0.2–0.3. Stone: Chalk, elongated semi-ovoid pendant, thin with a flat, cut narrow oval base and an off-center perforation on short axis; narrow ring in tunnel. White covered in gray. Date: Chalcolithic or Early Bronze (indicated by the material and perforation). Discussion: Basic shape is similar to the limestone pieces of Subtype IV.2.1a. The small ring at the center of the perforation tunnel indicates that the pendant was bored from both ends. Chalk is a typical Chalcolithic bead and seal material, as is bone (Amorai-Stark 1993:219). In contrast, the use of chalk as a pendant, bead or seal material is far less common during the Early Bronze Age. Chalk pendants and beads are virtually absent from the Hellenistic–Early Roman jewel repertoire. Type IV.2.1c. Quartz Pendants (n = 5) All the quartz varieties exhibited by these pendants occur in the Early Bronze Age as pendant, pendant-seal or bead material (see Type V.A). Type IV.2.1.c(a) Cornelian (n = 2) Cornelian is a type of microcrystalline quartz, frequently considered a subtype of chalcedony. Cornelian and sard, its brown variety, are some of the

most common quartzes in nature. Cornelian and sard were widely used for jewelry and seals from very early times on throughout the ancient Near East and were commonly used as raw material for small objects and jewels, as evidenced also by other Early Bronze Age assemblages in Israel. The raw material may have been sourced from nearby places, e.g., the Sinai or Egypt, where it is found also as pebbles, or from Syria, Asia Minor or Mesopotamia. Both stones occur on rare occasions in the Negev (Zuckerman 2003). Viewed from its narrow elongated side, the cornelian pendant from Area R (No. 226) appears similar to the elongated ovoid pendants (IV.2.1a, Subtype c, No. 227), with a wider grooved base and a small perforation on the short axis near the rounded narrow top. However, from its wider side it has a stylized zoomorphic look; perhaps it is a metonymic ‘fish’, with the perforation acting as its eye. Such pendants were particularly common during the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age (mainly in the fourth and early third millennia [see Mallowan 1947: Pl. XIV:25; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: Figs. 252–254; Goff 1963: No. 637; Erlenmeyer 1989: Nos. 268, 270; Von Wickede 1990: No. 173; Doumet 1992: No. 15; Amorai-Stark 1993: Nos. 120, 190, 381, 446–450]). It is an Early Bronze Age pendant. The date of the ‘semi-toggle’-shaped cornelian pendant from Area B (No. 225) is less clear. Similar, but more slightly squat mushroom-shaped pendantseals and studs occur from the later Chalcolithic era into the early third millennium in the northern Middle East (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: Figs. 192:1–3, 255:2, 381; Buchanan 1981: Nos. 85, 86; Von Wickede 1990: Nos. 535, 536; Bingol 1999: No. 103, four small Early Bronze Age cornelian pendants, two of odd shapes, Corum, Anatolia; Zimmermann 2006: Fig. 5, Early Bronze Age cornelian pendants, Kalınkaya, Anatolia). Because a variety of miniature to small oddshaped grooved pendants and pendant-beads do occur occasionally in the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age, this item most likely dates to one or the other period. No. 225. IV.2.1c(a) Cornelian Pendant Context: Area B, L1285, Reg. No. 2219/1. Dimensions: 1.2 × 0.4–1.0, P 0.1. Stone: Cornelian ‘semi-toggle’-shaped pendant, perforated on the short axis below the top cone, dark orange. Date: Early Bronze or earlier?

137

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

what may well be part of a perforation, indicates this piece is most likely a pendant. Its shape is basically that of a thick, elongated ovoid—a variation of Subtype c limestone pendants (Type IV.2.1a, above). It most likely dates to the Early Bronze Age.

Cat. No. 225.

No. 226. IV.2.1c(a) Cornelian Pendant Context: Area R, L5028, Reg. No. 3349. Dimensions: 1.8 × 0.8, 0.4–0.7, P 0.5–0.1. Stone: Cornelian pendant-bead, elongated semi-oval with flat underside and lower vertical end; groove on two high sides of oval body; perforation on narrow top on short axis. Light orange-orange-red. Date: Early Bronze.

Cat. No. 226.

Type IV.2.1.c.(b) Chalcedony (n = 1) This pendant is of the translucent light brown-cream variety of chalcedony or low-quality cornelian. This interchangeability of terms is particularly common when dealing with the light brown, cream and very light orange varieties of chalcedony. The term chalcedony is usually restricted to the colorless, white gray and light blue varieties of microcrystalline quartz (Swersky 1996:272; Konuk and Arslan 2000:4–5). However, the very light hue of this piece and its translucency indicate it may be chalcedony rather than cornelian (see Type IV.2.1.c.[a]). Ancient sources of chalcedony are widely distributed throughout the ancient world, but are particularly widespread in the northern and northeastern regions of the Near East and in Sinai. The break on top, above

No. 227. IV.2.1.c(b) Chalcedony Pendant Context: Area R, L5013, Reg. No. 6165. Dimensions: L 1.8, D 0.3–1.3. Stone: Chalcedony (cornelian?) pendant (or inlay?). Large, elongated-oval, rounded on all sides, perforation(?) on short axis. Semi-translucent light browncream. Broken and chipped below perforation(?); polished. Date: Early Bronze. Type IV.2.1.c(c) Rock Crystal Pendant (n = 1) Rock crystal is a type of macrocrystalline quartz. Ancient sources of rock crystal were widely distributed, and include Spain, Hungary, Turkey, Cyprus, Sinai, Egypt, North Syria and India (Ogden 1982:106; Andrews 1994:103). Rock crystal quartz was used for pendants and beads at least from the Chalcolithic period and throughout the Bronze Age. Use continued in diverse quantities and frequencies in later periods as well. It was considered an expensive stone. The shape of this rock crystal pendant is basically the same as that of Subtype c limestone pendants (Type IV.2.1a, above). It dates to the Chalcolithic period or to the Early Bronze Age. No. 228. IV.2.1c(c) Rock Crystal Pendant Context: Area R, L5104, Reg. No. 4071/3. Dimensions: H/L1.5 W0.2–0.7 Th 0.1–0.6 P 0.1. Stone: Rock crystal, elongated semi-triangular pendant with sharp, rounded contours, perforated on short axis below narrow ‘top’. Single vertical groove on the wider side; highly polished, chipped with inner cracks. Similar to No. 220. Date: Early Bronze or earlier.

Cat. No. 228.

138

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Type IV.2.1.c(d) Banded Agate Pendant (n = 1) Agate is another type of microcrystalline quartz. Agate pebbles and layers are widely distributed and plentiful in Western Asia, Egypt, Arabia, Northern Iran, Iraq, India and Sicily. They are also found in southern Israel and Jordan. In Western Asia, Anatolia and Mesopotamia, banded agates were among the earliest quartzes used for pendants, beads and the like. In Egypt, use of banded agates is known from the PreDynastic period onward (Ogden 1982:109). Although pendants and pendant-seals similar in shape to No. 229 occur occasionally in northern Syria already in Amuq F and G (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: Figs. 191:4, 253:3, 4), these long sub-pyramidal pendants and pendant-seals are especially common Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age shapes (Von Wickede 1990: Table 3; Amorai-Stark 1993: Nos. 374, 377). In Egypt, agate amulets (perforated and without piercing) are first produced during the Old Kingdom (Andrews 1994:104). A similarly shaped sandstone pendant (pendant-bead) was found in ʽArad (Amiran 1978: Pl. 68:6). This pendant dates to the Early Bronze Age. No. 229. IV.2.1c(d). Banded Agate Pendant Context: Area T, L4052, Reg. No. 2164/2. Dimensions: L 1.6, H 1.6, W 0.6–1.2, Th 0.2–0.3, P 0.1. Stone: Banded agate, semi-column-shaped pendant. Elongated sub-pyramidal triangular shape with sharp, rounded corners and a narrow flat cut top with curved perforated sides and a rectangular-like, slightly rough base. Perforation below top on horizontal axis. Black with straight gray and brown bands. Broken on broader lower edge and at perforation. Beautifully shaped and polished. Date: Early Bronze.

0

Cat. No. 229.

0.5

Type IV.2.2. Shell Pendants (n = 2) Both pendants, from Area B, preserve the shiny inner layers of the shell (mother-of-pearl). During prehistoric times, shells, especially mother-of-pearl species cut with the shiny side exposed to enhance the pieces’ attractiveness, were commonly used; use of mother-ofpearl for adornments and for inlay was more frequent in the Roman period than in any earlier historic period. The elongated shell pendant (No. 230), reminiscent in shape, perhaps, to a fish, is another variant on the basic subtype represented by Type IV.2.1.c.a, above (and see the discussion on cornelian, there). It is most likely cut from the Chambardia rubens species, whose origin is the Nile River. Its shape also has some affinity with larger and similarly sized Early Bronze Age mother-of-pearl shell pendants, with one or two perforations, identified as coming from the Red Sea (Amiran 1978:55, Pls. 69:1–4, 14, ʽArad). The pendant dates to the Early Bronze Age or earlier. The smaller pendant (No. 231) is most likely cut from Pinctada margaritifera spieces, whose origin is in the Red Sea. This piece is another subtype of the basic Type IV.2.1c.a above, in its basic shape. A large variety of small grooved stone pendants of diverse shapes with cut tops, small projections perforated similarly to our shell pendant on the short axis near the top, is found among the later fourth–early third millennia pendant repertoire (Amorai-Stark 1997: Nos. 452, 453). Since shell pendants and beads of various shapes are fairly common in the Early Bronze Age in our region, and the use of mother-of-pearl and other shells for pendants (and beads) is rare in the Hellenistic era, this pendant might also date from the Early Bronze Age or slightly later (Aldred 1971: Nos. 7, 8, 54, 57; Andrews 1994: No. 64d, j). No. 230. IV.2.2. Mother-of-Pearl Shell Pendant Context: Area B, L1256, Reg. No. 3240. Dimensions: L 2.2, W 0.1, Th 0.05–0.2, P 0.15. Material: Shell (mother-of-pearl), fish-shaped pendant. Thin, elongated semi-ovoid (leaf-shaped) with cut, angled thicker end, perforated below narrow end on short axis; tooled. Date: Early Bronze (or earlier). Discussion: Cf. similar fourth–early third millennia stone pendants in Amorai-Stark 1999: Nos. 445–450.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

139

glass imitations are typical of the late Hellenistic–Early Roman bead repertoire.

Cat. No. 230.

No. 231. IV.2.2. Mother-of-Pearl Shell Pendant Context: Area B, L1288, Reg. No. 2382. Dimensions: L 1.3, W 0.1–1.5, P 0.1. Material: Elongated shell (mother-of-pearl) pendant with three grooves, cut top and small rounded ball-like lower end. One wide side is rounded, the other, flat, rounded and slightly cut; narrow sides. Tooled. Date: Early Bronze or slighly later.

Cat. No. 231.

Type IV.2.3. Glass Pendants (n = 5) In comparison to glass items from other generic groups—mainly beads and cabochons—the number of Hellenistic–Roman glass pendants is small, comprising 27% of the total. Most are perforated ovoid shapes, resembling Type C3 cabochons and of the same monochrome colorless glass with light tinges in the yellowish, greenish and bluish-greenish range. The minute piece with a broken suspension loop from Area R (No. 235) was most likely strung by a thin wire to an earring. The three other ovoid pieces are either Hellenistic–Early Roman necklaces or earring pendants. The multi-layered triangular pendant from Area S (No. 236) presents high-quality glass workmanship found also in triangular beads dated from the Hellenistic–Early Roman periods (cf. Dubin 1995: Chart Nos. 349a–c; Spaer 2001: Pl. 12:157—central bead). Its context, shape, size and workmanship identify it as an Early Roman necklace pendant-bead that imitates similar banded agate pendent-beads. Such

No. 232. IV.2.3. Glass Pendant Context: Area B, L1262, Reg. No. 1009. Dimensions: L 1.0, W 0.7, P 0.2(?). Material: Glass, pendant fragment. Oblate with flat underside and convex top; grooved on convex top; molded or tooled. Translucent and colorless with light green-blue color tinge. Partially weathered with silvery iridescence. Broken at both ends. Date: Hellenistic. No. 233. IV.2.3. Glass Pendant/Inlay Context: Area B, L1279, Reg. No. 715. Dimensions: L 1.0, W,0.7, P 0.2(?). Material: Glass, pendant/inlay fragment. Ovoid with flat underside and convex top; molded or tooled; small perforation. Translucent colorless with yellowish tinge; silvery and yellowish iridescence. Date: Hellenistic. Discussion: Shape resembles a C3B cabochon. Similar to No. 234, below. No. 234. IV.2.3. Glass Pendant Context: Area R, L5102, Reg. No. 4459. Dimensions: L 1.0, W 0.7, P 0.2(?). Material: Glass, pendant/inlay fragment. Ovoid with flat underside and convex top; small projection. Molded or tooled. Translucent and colorless with greenish tinge. Broken. Date: Early Roman. Discussion: Shape resembles a C3B cabochon. Similar to No. 223, above. No. 235. IV.2.3. Glass Pendant Context: Area R, L5102, Reg. No. 7459. Dimensions: H 0.8, L 0.8, W 0.2–0.6, Th 0.2–0.35; cavity D 0.3, DE 0.25. Material: Glass, flat, oval pendant with broken suspension loop. Colorless with greenish-yellowish tinge. Broken suspension loop below perforation; cavity on the wider side. Date: Early Roman. Discussion: Pendant Nos. 234, 235, as well as cornelian/sard bead Nos. 248, 331, plausibly derive from the same necklace.

140

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

No. 236. IV.2.3. Glass Pendant Context: Area S, L1919, Reg. No. 7829; IAA No. 1997-6479. Dimensions: H 1.3, L1.3, W 0.2–0.8, Th 0.3–0.4, P 0.25. Material: Glass, multi-colored pendant; flat and triangular with rounded corners. Minute perforation below top on short axis. Formed from pre-manufactured vertical and curved strips of multi-colored glass in blue, orange, brown and white. Date: Early Roman. Discussion: Cf. Dubin 1995: Chart Nos. 348a–c.

0

0.5

Cat. No. 236,

Summary The majority of non-metal pendants date from Gamla’s Early Bronze Age settlement (or earlier). The range of materials probably indicates use of local stones and pebbles as well as of raw materials (or already cut pendants) acquired in areas fairly close by, such as Jordan, western Syria, Lebanon, southern Israel, the Sinai and Egypt. These items show that the early inhabitants of Gamla were much a part of the jewelry fashions, trends and symbolism of their periods and were influenced by current trends and notions current primarily in the northern part of Israel, southern Lebanon and Syria. A smaller number of pendants are of Hellenistic– Early Roman date. Most are of glass, and presumably belonged to middle class inhabitants. The high-quality multi-layered glass and gold pendants (Nos. 216, 236) are most likely imports, perhaps from Antiochos or Caesarea Maritima, or further afield Eastern Meditteranean jewel centers. They reveal the existence

of a prosperous social stratum at Gamla, whose women were well acquainted with up-to-date high-class current jewel fashions.

Type V. Beads (n = 298) Beads present the largest generic jewel group: 56% of a total of 536 items. The range of basic shape types is large, comprising 21 basic forms (Types V.1–21, below and see Fig. 12.2), extending across all the periods of habitation at Gamla. Therefore, the discussion will be primarily chronological, arranged in three parts: the Early Bronze Age and earlier (n = 135); the Hellenistic– Early Roman periods (n = 159); and beads of uncertain date (n = 4). The beads are discussed within each era under their typological categories. Explanations are provided as to why certain beads within the Early Bronze Age assemblage might be earlier specimens and why certain beads dating from the later eras are attributed to either the Hellenistic or the Early Roman period. In the discussion on beads of uncertain date, the most likely date ascribed to each bead is explained. Beads were found in most areas. Areas that yielded large numbers of beads were, as in the case of most other types of jewels, Areas B (103); R (95), S (46) and T (23). Smaller, but still meaningful numbers of beads came from Areas D (3), G (6) and L (3), and single beads were found in Areas E (1) and M (1). Seventeen beads are missing excavation data. The number of beads in the Western Quarter (139; Areas R and S) is greater than the number found in the Hasmonean Quarter (103; Area B). For the various production processes of stone beads, see Zuckerman 1996:278; for glass beads, see Israeli and Katsenlson 2006. The beads come in a wide range of materials and include the majority of materials encountered in the other generic groups, i.e., chalk, limestone, cornelian or sard, chalcedony, jasper, agate, rock crystal, garnet, glass, faience, shell and ceramic. Alabaster, amethyst, turquoise, bone, and amber or similar resin, occur only as beads.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

The 21 basic typological bead-shape categories comprise beads of 7 diverse materials. The number of glass beads is the largest in Types V.1 and V.4–6; Types V.12 and V.18–21 comprise only glass beads. No glass beads occur within Types V.2, 8, 9, 11, 13–17. Many scholars date the initial invention of proper hot-glass, and the subsequent industrial use of glass, to around the mid-second millennium (Andrews 1994:100–101; Spaer 2001:24–25). Although a handful of Iron Age finds were retrieved at Gamla (see Chapter 1), no glass bead was of a type dating exclusively to that period (or to the Middle or Late

Bronze Age). Therefore, all the glass beads from Gamla are of Hellenistic–Early Roman date. When a basic bead shape category with a significant number of beads, such as Type V.2, does not include glass beads, this in itself raises the likelihood that the beads within that category are from the Early Bronze Age. In the list below, the counts in parentheses following the shape provide the total number of beads found in each formal category. The materials appear as lower case letters after each bead category. Not all materials appear in all periods or in all shapes.

Bead (Type V) Shape Typology and Material Shape (see Fig. 12.2) V.1. Spherical (n = 113) V.2. Annular/ring and flat disc (n = 62) V.3. Ellipsoid/barrel (n = 38) V.4. Cylindrical and tubular (n = 22) V.5. Biconical (n = 24) V.6. Low oblate (n = 5) V.7. Round convex (rhomboid) (n = 4) V.8. Long convex cone (n = 3) V.9. Truncated cone/semi-cone (n = 3) V.10. Single collar (n = 3) V.11. Faceted (cornerless) (n = 2) V.12. Wide ovoid/oval (n = 2) V.13. Natural shells (n = 2) V.14. Semi-trapezoid bead-spacers (n = 2) V.15. Irregular rectangular (n = 1) V.16. Elongated plano-convex (n = 1) V.17. Scaraboid (n = 1) V.18. Segmented (n = 1) V.19. Granular (n = 1) V.20. Concave cylinder ‘spool/reel’ (n = 1) V.21. Low pyramidal (n = 1) V.22. Unrecognizable shapes (n = 2)

141

Material a. Limestone b. Chalk c. Cornelian d. Ceramic e. Faience f. Agate or banded agate g. Bone h. Rock crystal i. Shell j. Turquoise k. Jasper l. Smoky quartz m. Chalcedony n. Glass o. Garnet p. Amethyst q. Resin/amber

142

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

V.1. Spherical Beads

Sphere

Spherical

Compressed Spherical

Low Compressed Spherical

Irregular Spherical

Semi Cylindrical/ Semi Spherical

Spherical Seed

Ribbed and Deep Ribbed Spherical

V.2. Annural/Ring and Flat Disc Beads

Annular/Ring

Low Annular/Ring or Flat Disc

High Annular

Annular with Typical EB Perforation

Faceted Flat Disc

Irregular Annular/ Semi-Faceted Close to Flat Faceted Disc

V.3. Ellipsoid/Barrel Beads

Ellipsoid

Elongated Ellipsoid

Elongated Narrow Ellipsoid

Ellipsoid Seed

Barrel

Short Ellipsoid/ Barrel

V.4. Cylindrical and Tubular Beads

Tubular/Cylinder Seed Cylinder/ Cylindrical

Even Perforation throughout Tunnel

Typical EB Perforation

Long Tube

Short Tube

Elongated Very Narrow Cylinder

Square Cylinder

V.5. Biconical Beads: Convex and Truncated

Short Convex Bicone

Short Convex Bicone-Ribbed

Convex Bicone Seed

Truncated Bicone

Truncated Convex Bicone

Fig. 12.2. Bead typology (after Dubin [1995:342–343] and Spaer [2001]).

Elongated Bicone

V.6. Low Oblate Beads/Pendant Beads

Wide Side

Top with Regular Perforation

Top with Typical EB Perforation

143

Wide Side Cut: EB or Earlier Perforation in Ring within Tunnel

Wide Side Cut: Typical EB Perforation

Oblate Seed

V.7. Round Convex (Rhomboid) Beads

Rounded Convex Rhomboid with Lenticular Cross Section

Rounded Convex Rhomboid with Rounded Cross Section

V.8. Convex Cone Beads

Convex Cone

Short Convex Cone

Long Convex Cone

Cone

Elongated Cone Close to Pear-Shaped/Teardrop Shape Cone

V.9. Truncated Cone

Square Truncated Cone

V.11. Cornerless and Faceted Hexagonal Beads

Cornerless Cube

Cornerless Sphere/ Faceted Hexagonal Sphere

Faceted Hexagonal Cylinder

Fig. 12.2. (cont.)

Faceted Hexagonal Bicone

Faceted Octagonal Truncated Bicone

144

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Type V.A. Early Bronze Age and Earlier— Chalcolithic(?) Beads (n = 135) The majority of the beads is from the Early Bronze Age; a few might be earlier, i.e., Chalcolithic (Khalaily 2004:154–160). Among the closest significant groups of parallels to Gamla’s Early Bronze Age stone, faience, shell, bone and ceramic beads from sites in Israel are the EB I–II beads from a tomb near Bet Yerah, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, west of Gamla (Mazar et al. 1973); from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age site at Ashqelon (Khalaily 2004:152, Fig. 23:6–8) and from ʽArad (Amiran 1978). Most of Gamla’s Early Bronze Age beads exhibit perforation top areas tapering to smaller holes. Biconical perforations such as these show that these beads were pierced from both ends, thereby reducing the stress on the bead, shortening the length of the hole, and lowering the possibility that the stone would crack. Frequently, piercing from both sides is clearly seen by the narrowing of the perforation tunnel at the bead’s center, forming a thin ring at the center of the tunnel. This, too, is a typical Early Bronze Age piercing formation (Dubin 1995:31, upper row right), which appears also among Chalcolithic beads and the like. The most difficult beads to date to the Early Bronze Age by their perforation type are those with a consistant perforation diameter throughout the tunnel. Although few Early Bronze Age and Chalcolithic beads, as well as other stone items have this type of perforation (see above, Type III; Mazar et al. 1973; Fig. 9:10, 12;2 Amiran 1978: Pl. 69:9–12, 16–17; Khalaily 2004:152, Fig. 23:9), it is much more typical of Hellenistic– Roman bead perforation.

Areas B (2) and R (2) (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:13). The three irregular spherical beads (one each from Areas B, R and T) with nearly the same or the same diameter perforation tunnel are of uncertain early date. They might belong to the Chalcolithic period or Early Bronze Age, since, as mentioned above, beads with this perforation type occur already in these early periods. Type V.A.V.1c. Cornelian Spherical Beads (n = 5). Areas B (2), D (1), G (1), R (1); Nos. 244–248. Cornelian beads occur over very large time spans, from prehistoric times onward (Zukerman 1996:282– 283, Fig. 42:6–9). Most exhibit typical EB biconical perforations (Amiran 1978: Pl.69:6). The bead from Area G is a semi-spherical bead close to a short bicone with a ridge on its broadest body circumference. A thick annular cornelian bead from Bet Yerah exhibits a similar transitional shape, close to a compressed spherical and short bicone (Mazar et al. 1971: Fig. 9:7; Gonen 1997:11, Fig.1, fifth–late fourth millennium, Kabri).

Type V.A.V.1 Spherical Beads (n = 24) Although spherical beads occur in all the periods relevant to Gamla and about a third of all the beads found are spherical (n = 114), only a comparatively small, but still impressive, group dates from the Early Bronze Age.

Type V.A.V.1d. Ceramic Spherical and Semi-Spherical Beads (n = 5). Areas G (1), R (2), T (2); Nos. 249–253. Ceramic beads are particularly hard to date when found on their own without a clean context and other datable finds. During ancient times, expensive, highly valued metal, stone, and later, glass beads were imitated in ceramic particularly by the less affluent segments of society (Amiran 1978: Pl. 68:5, 16). Imitation of stone beads in ceramic is also documented from Hellenistic times, when a few types of stone and metal beads, including spherical ones, were occasionally copied in ceramic (Marshall 1969: Nos. 2190–2191). It is far less common in Early Roman jewelry. Due to their irregular spherical shapes and perhaps also due to their large perforation holes the ceramic beads from Areas R and T are most likely Early Bronze Age (or earlier) specimens. The other bead from Area R, of nearly perfect spherical form and small, even perforation holes, is also most likely from the Early Bronze Age because no Hellenistic material was found in the locus of this ceramic bead.

Type V.A.V.1a. Limestone Spherical Beads (n = 7). Areas B (3), R (3), T (1); Nos. 237–243. These are irregular spherical, semi-spherical and compressed beads of various sizes. Of these seven beads, four represent the typical Early Bronze Age type, with perforations tapering to a smaller hole, e.g.,

Type V.A.V.1e. Faience Plain Spherical Small and Medium-Sized Beads (n = 2). Areas B, R; Nos. 254, 255. Both are made from light cream color faience. Faience was introduced in Egypt as bead material in the Pre-Dynastic period in small quantities in the

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

fifth millennium and became widespread during the Early Dynastic period (Aldred 1971:17, 30; Dubin 1995: Chart No. 424). Faience beads of various forms including spherical specimens were highly popular during the Early Bronze Age and later in our region. They include plain unglazed spherical beads, frequently of light color faience (Mazar et al. 1973:19:1–2, Figs. 9:16–20; Amiran 1978: Pl. 69:9, 10, 16–19; Zuckerman 1996:286–287, Fig. 44:5). In the Hellenistic–Early Roman periods, the plain spherical faience bead is far less widespread. Type V.A.V.1f. Agate Spherical Beads (n = 2). Area R (1), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 256, 257. The dating of agate spherical beads is not straightforward. Agate has been used as a material for beads, pendants and seals before the historical periods, and, in the Near East and Western Asia, throughout most historical periods (for the use of agate in the early periods, see above, Type IV.2.1.c.d). For early agate beads including spherical and compressed spherical agates mainly with Early Bronze Age type perforations, see Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:9, 11; Amorai-Stark 1993: Nos. 246, 272; Zuckerman 1996:282–283: Fig. 42:10– 13. In the Persian period and later Iranian cultures, as well as during the late Hellenistic–Roman periods, the diverse color bands of the agate are clearly circling the beads’ sphere or spheroid form and thus enhance the bead form and the agate bands (see V.B.V.1f, below). These beads appear to be from the Early Bronze Age because of their less than perfect spherical shapes and the lack of emphasis of their bands. Type V.A.V.1h. Rock Crystal Spherical Bead (n = 1). Area S; No. 258. Rock crystal was used from extremely early times for beads and the like. Beads were commonly fashioned from it in sixth millennium Mesopotamia and other regions of Western Asia and the Near East, including local Early Bronze Age sites during the fourth–third millennia BCE, as well as in the classical lands during the late third millennium (Mazar et al. 1973:190–191, Fig. 9:8; Andrews 1994:103–104; Amorai-Stark 1997: No. 431; Fortin 2002:213, Nos. 208, 209). Its form, a semi-spherical shape with faceted rim, hints that this bead is most likely an Early Bronze Age (or earlier) specimen.

145

Type V.A.V.1j. Turquoise Irregular Spherical Bead (n = 1). Area S; No. 259. Turquoise beads are not very common in Northern Israel in the eras relevant to Gamla. In Hellenistic– Early Roman times turquoise is rarely (if at all) used as bead material, though occasionally it is used for insets. Turquoise comes from Sinai (Andrews 1994:102– 103), Iran and Afghanistan. Turquoise was embedded as small inlay ornaments already in prehistoric times and during early historic periods (Aldred 1971:113, Pl. 3, Giza; Fortin 2002:190, No. 147, Tell Bouqras, Syria, 7000 BCE). Turquoise beads including the irregular spherical and spherical forms were highly valued and appreciated in Egypt, especially during prehistoric and Early Dynastic periods and in Syria and Iran, particularly during the Bronze Age (Fortin 2002:213, No. 209—Jeziera, Syria). Type V.A.V.1m. Chalcedony Compressed Spherical Bead (n = 1). Area S; No. 260. Ancient sources for chalcedony of the translucent bluish-white variety or of this bead’s brownish-grayish variety were found in a number of locations in Sinai, Syria–Iraq and Egypt (Andrews 1994:104). Various subtypes of chalcedony were used as bead and pendant material during the fifth–early third millennia, including those of similar colors to the present bead. Chalcedony beads occur in Egypt from Pre-Dynastic to Roman times. In Western Asia, primarily Mesopotamia and Anatolia and the northern Near East, much the same is true, particularly from the third millennium BCE (Ogden 1982:107; AmoraiStark 1993:89). Type V.A.2. Annular/Ring and Flat Disc Beads (n = 62) Annular and flat disc beads of all sizes and different stone varieties were highly popular during the Early Bronze Age (Qatna 2008: beads from rich shaft grave) and far less so during the Hellenistic–Early Roman periods. However, absence of annular/ring or low disc glass beads from Gamla is interesting because this category of glass beads does occur elsewhere in the Roman-period bead repertoire (first–third centuries CE) including in Israel (Brewer 1986:147; Katsnelson 2002:329, Fig. 2:6; Israeli and Katsenlson 2006: Pl. 21.11: GL96–102).

146

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Type V.A.V.2a. Limestone Beads (n = 25) Areas B (10), G (1), R (4), S (3), T (7); Nos. 261–285. This category includes two subtypes: (1) Annular Limestone Beads (n = 22). The majority are low annular beads; four are very thin annular beads; two are of uneven low or irregular height; three are high or thick annular beads. The greater part displays the typical EB biconical piercing (Zuckerman 1996:286–287, Fig. 44:11). The four very thin beads have tiny holes. Due to their thinness and the softness of the stone, they could have been bored even in early periods only from one end by a harder stone or metal implement with a sharp, pointed end. (2) Flat, Thin Disc/Spacer Limestone Beads with Faceted Rims (n = 3). These flat discs, like the four V.2a-type very thin annular beads, have tiny holes. Type V.A.V.2c. Cornelian Beads (n = 23). Areas B (14), R (3), S (2), T (1), missing excavation data (3); Nos. 286–308. (1) Annular Cornelian Beads (n = 22). All have the EB type biconical perforation; the majority is low annular beads, three are thick or high annular beads. Annular carnelian beads were highly popular in the PreDynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptian bead repertoire (Dubin 1995:36, Fig. 17, 1, 3–5; Tait 1986:29, No. 21) and are common at local Early Bronze Age sites (Mazar et al. 1973:190–191, Fig. 9:8–9; Amiran 1978: Pls. 68:4, 69:6; Zuckerman 1996:282–283, Fig. 42:1). Type V.A.V.2d. Ceramic, Small Annular Bead (n = 1). Area B; No. 309. Based on form, size and material, this is an early bead. Type V.A.V.2g. Bone Beads (n = 6). Areas B (3), S (2), T (1); Nos. 310–315. These are thin, low annular (3), high annular (2) and one flat disc, beads. Bone was used as jewel material (for beads, pendants and rings) since very early times, as well as in Roman times. It is particularly difficult to date bone beads of simple shapes because they occur over long time spans. However, because small, thin annular bone beads occur at least since the Neolithic period (Temizsoy 2007:24, Pl. 19, sixth millennium); because in all materials annular/ring and disc shaped beads of same and similar sizes are also typically Early Bronze Age beads; since some bone beads from other local Early Bronze Age sites are of the same and similar

shapes to our bone beads (Amiran 1978: Pl.68:8–11, Pl. 69:19) and also because bone beads of this shape are rare in Hellenistic–Roman times, these six bone beads are most likely Early Bronze Age, or perhaps, even Chalcolithic period beads. Type V.A.V.2h. Rock Crystal Faceted Flat Disc Beads with Inner Cracks (n = 2). Area B; Nos. 316, 317. Early rock crystal beads of diverse forms are found at other EB sites in our region (Mazar et al. 1973:190– 191, Fig. 9:8; Amiran 1978: Pl. 69:5), as well as at other Western Asian and Near Eastern sites. Rock crystal small discs of the same shape as the present beads occur in Western Asia, for example at Turkish sites (Temizsoy 2007:44–45, Pl. 63). Rock crystals of this shape do not appear in the Hellenistic–Roman bead repertoire. Type V.A.V.2i. Shell, Thin Flat Disc Beads (n = 2). Area B; Nos. 318, 319. These thin discs have in common a central perforation but each is cut from a different species of shell: the larger disc is fashioned from a Pinctada margarita shell whose origin is from the Red Sea; the smaller ovoid— most likely from the Chambardia rubens species, which comes from the Nile River. Cut shell is a common pre- and Early Bronze Age bead and pendant material in our region and elsewhere (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:14, 15; Amiran 1978: Pl. 69:1–4, 11–14, 20–21 for material, 69:15 for shape; von Wickede 1990: Tab. 3; Amorai-Stark 1997: No. 445). Cut shell annular, disc and sub-disc beads of various sizes and thickness/heights and thin discs/sub-discs and annular shell bead forms such as our specimens appear also among the shell beads from ʽArad (Amiran 1978: Pl. 69:12, 13, 21). Type V.A.V.2j. Turquoise, Thin Miniature Annular Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 320. Miniature to small turquoise annular and flat discshaped beads were highly popular during the PreDynastic and Early Dynastic periods in Egypt (Tait 1986:29, No. 20; Dubin 1995:36, Fig. 17). As seen above, thus shaped beads made from various other stones were highly popular at Gamla and other regional Early Bronze Age sites. Turquoise beads of this shape are virtually absent from the late Hellenistic–Early Roman bead repertoire.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Type V.A.V.2k. Jasper, Faceted Flat Disc Bead (n = 1). Missing excavation data; No. 321. Jasper, particularly of the red, red-brown and other dark varieties, but seldom of this bead’s jet black variety was used as material for variously shaped beads, including beads of same form and size as this bead, pendant-beads and pendant-seals in the northern Near East, especially since the middle fourth–early third millennia BCE, and at the same time also for Egyptian beads and amulets (Mazar et al. 1973:190–191, Fig. 9:10; Ogden 1982:108; Dubin 1995:36:4; Tait 1986:26; Zuckerman 1996:284– 285, Fig. 43:2, uncertain date). Beads fashioned from jet black jasper are exceptional in all periods. Jasper (of all colors) is rarely used as bead material in Hellenistic– Roman times. Type V.A.V.2l. Smoky Quartz, Semi-Disc, Unevenly Flattened Ovoid Bead (n = 1). Area T; No. 322. Early Bronze Age (or Chalcolithic) bead. The smoky quartz variety of chalcedony was used infrequently as bead and pendant bead material during Chalcolithic (Amorai-Stark 1993:42, No. 94) and Early Bronze Age times. An example made from the same translucent smoky quartz dark gray to nearly black variety as the present bead is reported from Tall-e-Bakun (c. 3250 BCE; Ogden 1982:107). Smoky quartz beads of different shapes than the present bead are fairly frequent in Roman times (Ogden 1982:107), yet smoky quartz beads fashioned in this bead’s shape or in similar shapes are extremely rare in Hellenistic–Roman times. Type V.A.V.3. Ellipsoid/Barrel Beads (n = 22) Ellipsoid and barrel beads have a long history ranging at least from the Early Bronze Age onward and have many different subtypes. Some subtypes occur in all periods; others are more representative of the Early Bronze Age. Still others are more typical to the Hellenistic–Roman periods. Type V.A.V.3a. Limestone Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 323 (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:6). Type V.A.V.3c. Cornelian Beads (n = 15). Areas B (6), M (1), R (3), S (2), T (1), missing excavation data (2); Nos. 324–338. These beads are short ellipsoids or barrels with small, drilled perforations of the same diameter throughout tunnel and openings. Such small, short and medium to larger cornelian and other quartz beads with the

147

typical Early Bronze Age perforation types occur at local Early Bronze Age sites (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:4, 6, Pl. 35). Cornelian beads of these forms with same diameter perforation tunnel throughout are less common in Hellenistic times (Bingol 1999:117, No. 118) and exceptional in Roman times. The irregular ellipsoid beads from Areas R, T and one from Area S are surely Early Bronze Age beads. Thus, the other twelve specimens are most likely also from the Early Bronze Age, though a few might be later (perhaps even Hellenistic). Type V.A.V.3d. Ceramic Beads (n = 3). Areas S (1), T (2); Nos. 339–341. One Area T bead is a plain ellipsoid; the Area S and the other Area T specimens are irregular ceramic ellipsoids. The irregular Area T ellipsoid bead has three grooves below its hole. A similar cylindrical ceramic bead with slightly curved ends resembling an ellipsoid bead was found at Bet Yerah (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:22). Type V.A.V.3f. Agate Beads (n = 2). Area B; Nos. 342, 343. Both beads are elongated ellipsoids with encircled grooved rims and their cuts do not enhance the agate bands. One has the typical tapering-to-hole EB-type perforation; the other is of a shape close to a truncated biconical bead with its perforation placed off the narrow end of the bead. Agate ellipsoid beads with slightly truncated ends began to appear in the second half of the fourth millennium, and close to regularly shaped agate ellipsoids became more common during EB II. Other small and elongated quartz ellipsoids and cylindrical beads, including agate, faience and shell, are common Early Bronze Age bead types; occasionally they are truncated (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:6, 11 [agate], 12, 14–16, 18, 20; Amiran 1978: Pl. 69:11, 16, 17; AmoraiStark 1999: No. 96). Type V.A.V.3m. Chalcedony Bead (n = 1). Area B; No. 344. See Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:4, identified as quartz ellipsoid, plausibly a chalcedony bead. These limestone and chalcedony beads have the characteristic Early Bronze Age biconical perforations. Type V.A.V.4. Cylindrical/Tubular Beads (n = 4) Cylindrical and tubular beads (tubular: usually short cylindrical beads) occur at Gamla in all periods. Hard and soft stone cylindrical or tubular beads of various small to large sizes are the most common bead

148

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

types found at Kinneret’s EB II burial (Mazar et al. 1973:190–191, Figs. 9:1–3, 10–12). Type V.A.V.4a. Limestone Beads (n = 2). Areas T (1), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 345, 346. Early Bronze Age (or Chalcolithic) beads. Cylindrical and tubular beads of limestone and other soft stones, of diverse colors and sizes, are typical to Western Asia and Egypt, and the pre-Early Bronze Age and Early Bronze Age bead repertoire (Dubin 1995:36, Fig. 17, Nos. 1–5, Chart, Nos. 252, 254, 257, 427; Tait 1986:26; Mazar et al. 1973:190–191, Fig. 9:2, 12). These are two tube beads, one an irregular tube with angled ends, and both with off-center perforations, bored from their two ends, and a very thin ring at the center of the tunnel showing the perforation technique (Dubin 1995:30; Mazar et al. 1973:190–191, Fig. 9:13). Type V.A.V.4b. Chalk Tubular Seed Beads (n = 2). Area T (same locus and close baskets); Nos. 347, 348. Early Bronze Age or Chalcolithic beads. Especially during the Chalcolithic period, but also during the Early Bronze Age, chalk (and bone) beads are frequently fashioned in the same shape and size as these two chalk specimens and the four slightly larger annular bone beads (see V.A.V.2g, above) (Gonen 1997:19, assortment of Chalcolithic beads, 5000–3300 BCE; Dubin 1995: Chart 426–427, Early Dynastic period, 3100–2686 BCE). Type V.A.V.5. Biconical Beads (n = 10) All beads in this category belong to the convex biconical bead form, one of the basic major biconical bead subtypes. It is encountered in the Early Bronze Age as well as in Hellenistic–Roman times. The convex biconical stone bead form is one of the most typical fourth–early third millennium BCE and later bead forms. Various quartz convex and truncated biconical bead forms then occur in different subtypes and sizes (Tait 1986:28, Fig. 19, c. 3000 BCE, Ur; Dubin 1995: Chart, Nos. 226a, 229, 230, 281c; Von Wickede 1990:258, Table 3, Nos. 540–542; AmoraiStark 1993: No. 247). Type V.A.V.5a. Limestone Short Convex Biconical Beads (n = 3). Areas G (1), L (1), R (1); Nos. 349– 351. All have the typical Early Bronze Age biconical perforation. The Area L specimen also has an encircled grooved perforation rim (see V.3m, above).

Type V.A.5c. Cornelian Beads (n = 5). Areas B (2), L (1), R (2); Nos. 352–356. They present two subtypes of the convex biconical bead form: (1) Short Convex Biconical Beads (n = 2). Areas B (1), R (1). They have the typical Early Bronze Age biconical perforation (Zuckerman 1996:282–283, Fig. 42:3–5). (2) Very Short Convex Biconical Beads (n = 3). Areas B (1), R (1), L (1). The bead from Area L has the typical Early Bronze Age biconical perforation; the shape of the Area R bead is very close to annular. Thus shaped very low cornelian beads are typically Early Bronze Age (Zuckerman 1996:282–283, Fig. 42:2), and rare in the Hellenistic– Early Roman bead repertoire. Type V.A.V.5h. Rock Crystal, Convex Biconical Beads (n = 2). Areas T (1), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 357, 358. (1) Very Low, Thin Convex Biconical with Faceted Rims Bead. Missing excavation data. (2) Short Convex Biconical Bead (n = 1). Area T. Both subtypes have the typical biconical Early Bronze Age perforation. These secured-date Early Bronze Age rock crystal beads are further examples for the comparatively high usage of this quartz during the Early Bronze Age at Gamla. They were most probably imported from abroad, presumably from Egypt, Cyprus or Turkey (Ogden 1982:106). Type V.A.V.6. Low Oblate Beads (n = 2) In its shape the low oblate bead resembles the ellipsoid bead. These two basic bead forms differ in position of their perforation: on oblate beads the holes are located on the beads’ bulging center; ellipsoid beads are bored on their length at their narrow ends. Oblate beads are infrequent in all periods relevant to Gamla. In stone, the low oblate bead form in same or similar sizes to our specimens is uncommon in all periods. Yet, in the early periods, it does occur occasionally, especially in Anatolia, c. 2700 BCE (Dubin 1995: Chart, No. 260; Zuckerman 1996:286– 287, Fig. 44:12, uncertain early date). Oblate stone beads rarely occur, if at all, in the Hellenistic–Early Roman bead repertoire. Type V.A.V.6a. Limestone Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 359. Low concave top areas around openings; slightly tapering to hole.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Type V.A.V.6c. Cornelian (or Sard) Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 360. Top areas are similar to the limestone bead above. Type V.A.V.7. Rhomboid Beads (n = 4) Rhomboids are a distinctive prehistoric and Early Bronze Age basic bead form, pendant-bead and seal shape. Beads in this category are only of quartz. The rhomboid bead form is divided into different beads subtypes by its cross section (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: Figs. 160:17, 166:11; Buchanan and Moorey 1984: No. 80; Von Wickede 1990:258, Table 3, Nos. 217, 218, 220, 499, 503, 544, 548; AmoraiStark 1999: Nos. 243–245, 250, 255, 259). Throughout these early periods the various rhomboid bead subtypes occur in a range of medium to large sizes. In the earliest periods, rhomboid beads are chiefly made from gypsum and soft stones. From around the second half of the fifth millennium, but especially during the later fourth–early third millennia, different subtypes of the finer rhomboid beads were also infrequently made from quartz, principally cornelian and agate, and simpler pieces, from ceramic (Dubin 1995:44, Fig. 28, Chart, Nos. 223, 224, 279; Tait 1986: Fig. 19, central bead). A characteristic feature of prehistoric and Early Bronze Age rhomboid beads is their uneven angled perforation openings, which occur also in our four beads. They present two subtypes: Type V.A.V.7c. Cornelian Bead (n = 3). Area B (2), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 361–363. (1) Rhomboid with Lenticular Cross Section (n = 2). Area B, missing excavation data. (2) Rhomboid with Rounded Cross Section (n = 1). Area B. Type V.A.V.7h. Rock Crystal Bead (n = 1). Rhomboid with Rounded Cross Section. Area S; No. 364. Same subtype as cornelian Type V.A.V.7c(2), above. The four fine quartz Early Bronze Age beads above most likely date from the latter fourth millennium, probably c. 3000 BCE. Type V.A.V.9. Truncated Semi-Cone Shaped Bead (n = 1) Beads of this shape are infrequent during all periods. Irregular truncated cone beads and the like fashioned from very soft or soft stone, shells or bone are shapes

149

typical of the fourth millennium Near East, primarily dating from end of the Chalcolithic era but this shape in these materials occurs also in the Early Bronze Age locally and in nearby regions (Holmes-Fredericq 1970: Figs. 56, 406; Von Wickede 1990: Table 3, Abb. 43.1, No. 22; Amorai-Stark 1993: Nos. 368– 733; Dubin 1995: Chart, No. 280; Amiran 1978: Fig. 69:20). Type V.A.V.9b. Chalk, Short, Semi-Truncated ConeShaped Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 365. Chalk beads in this shape are to the best of our knowledge absent from local late Hellenistic–Early Roman bead repertoires. Its very soft material, irregular shape, rounded corners, and tapering perforation imply an Early Bronze Age (or earlier) date. Type V.A.13i. Conus Beads of the Same Small Species (n = 2). Areas B, G; Nos. 366, 367. Both specimens are Conus shells. Their outer body surfaces are highly worn, a natural phenomenon which indicates that they were collected from the sea after death of the animals at sea, but does not allow absolute identification of their Conus subtype. Yet, size and shape most likely identify them as belonging to the Conus mediterraneus species. Both appear to have had their holes enlarged and treated, but due to their high natural corrosion, this is uncertain. Shells of diverse types, with their wider tops filed down and pierced or whole, occur also in prehistoric and early historic periods in diverse Near East regions, including the Early Bronze Age in our area (Amiran 1978:155, Pl. 68:19 and a similar one not drawn; Andrews 1994:9, 102, Fig. 3a). In these periods, shells kept in their natural forms or slightly altered to beads or pendants present the notions, beliefs and preferences of the leading segments of society. During various ancient periods and at some locations, shells were also an important article of trade and were a food supplement (Bar-Yosef Meir 1999:47–49). Natural shell beads are often found at even the most inland of sites. Small natural shells, only slightly altered or untouched, of the type found at Gamla, appear to belong in the Early Bronze Age bead repertoire and seem to be absent from the Hellenistic–Roman leading societies’ jewelry repertoires (Ogden 1982:121, Fig. 6:8, a rare Roman gold mounted cowrie pendant).

150

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

The shapes of the beads in Types V.A.V.14–V.16 are prehistoric and Early Bronze Age bead forms. They are absent from Hellenistic–Early Roman bead repertoires. Beads in these categories are of soft stone. All beads are Early Bronze Age unless otherwise stated. Type V.A.V.14. Semi-Trapezoid Alabaster-Gypsum Bead-Spacers with Curved and Cut Sides (n = 2). Areas B, S; Nos. 368, 369. Early Bronze Age (or earlier) bead-spacers. Smaller alabaster beads and pendant-beads appear occasionally in the second half of the fifth millennium in northern Iraq (Amorai-Stark 1993:108). Alabaster beads occur in Egypt in the Pre-Dynastic, Badarian (c. 4000 BCE) and Nagadah periods (c.3500–3200 BCE), occasionally in local Early Bronze Age finds (Amiran 1978: Pl. 68:17) and in a greater variety of shapes and sizes particularly in Syria, Iraq and Iran, c. 2600–2550 BCE (Tait 1986:26; Dubin 1995: Chart, Nos. 415, 418, 421, 282a–c, 283a–l).

Cat. No.

Type

Type V.A.15a. Irregular Rectangular, Partially Faceted Limestone Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 370. Small, rectangular-tabloid like, irregular and subrectangular soft stone beads and seal-beads of similar sizes to this bead begin to appear in the Near East mainly in the fifth millennium BCE. They are popular chiefly during the second half of the fourth–first half of the third millennia in Anatolia, Iran and northern Syria (Dubin 1995: Chart Nos. 252, 254, 257, 261, c. 3200– 2600 BCE; Mallowan 1947: Pls. XVIII:10–13, 15–19, XX:31–33; Von Wickede 1990:257, Table 3, No. 234; Amorai-Stark 1993: Nos. 241, 261, 268, 404–407). Type V.A.V.16a. Elongated Plano-Convex Limestone Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 371. The shape of this bead has affinities with the V.A.7 and V.A.14 bead types above. Its form differs from that of Type V.A.8 by its flat underside and from V.A.14 by its semigabled rounded top. Similarly shaped soft stone beads and bead-seals cut from limestone and of close dimensions to this bead are characteristic Near Eastern and Iranian late fourth–first half of third millennium forms (Von Wickede 1990: Table 3; Amorai-Stark 1999: Nos. 428–430).

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Type V.A.V.1. 237

V.A.V.1a

B

1295

2843

Spherical; opaque grayish-cream and black; EB or earlier

Limestone

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.1 and 0.2

238

V.A.V.1a

B

1310

418/1

Semi-spherical; partial ridge at broadest circumference (reflecting tooling from perforation ends to body center); one opening area cut and wide reaching smaller hole; light to dark gray; chipped

Limestone

D 1.1, H 0.5, P 0.2–0.4 and 0.3

239

V.A.V.1a

B

1310

418/2

Semi-spherical; low ridge at broadest circumference (reflecting tooling from perforation ends to body center); one opening area cut and wide reaching small hole; light to dark gray

Limestone

D 0.6, H 0.4, P 0.1–0.4 and 0.2

240

V.A.V.1a

R

5054

3135

Irregular short spherical; flattened perforation area; one has shallow groove reaching hole; opaque white and light to dark gray; broken, chipped, worn, one half remains; EB or earlier

Limestone (marble)

D 1.0, H 0.5, P 0.1–0.5

241

V.A.V.1a

R

5103

4105

Spherical; brown; gray weathering

Limestone

D and H 0.6, P 0.1 and 0.2

Figure

151

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

242

V.A.V.1a

R

5108

5000/1

Compressed spherical; flattened perforation areas; perforated at angle, off center; opaque light brown, white; EB or earlier

Limestone

D 0.7, H 0.5, P 0.1 and 0.2

243

V.A.V.1a

T

4054

1154

Spherical; black with minute spots; highly polished; EB or earlier

Limestone

D 0.9, H 0.8, P 0.1

244

V.A.V.1c

B

1299

2915

Spherical; one perforation, tapering from top to smaller tunnel; orange; signs of wear on openings’ tops

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.7, P 0.2–0.3

245

V.A.V.1c

B

Sq A19

1330/1

Spherical; perforation areas taper to hole; dark orange; signs of wear near perforations

Cornelian

D 1.0, H 0.4, P 0.1–0.5

246

V.A.V.1c

G

1781

6338

Low, semi-spherical (close to short convex biconical); large, flat perforations on top tapering to smaller hole; shaped from perforations on sides to body center, leaving a thin ridge in body center

Cornelian

D 1.2, H 0.3, P 0.2–0.4

247

V.A.V.1c

D

3011

595

Irregular spherical; sphere slightly irregular and one perforation area slightly tapering to hole; light to darker orange with darker veins; worn perforation and surface

Cornelian

D 1.0, H 0.7–0.8, P 0.2–0.3

248

V.A.V.1c

R

5102

4460/1

Irregular spherical; one flattened opening area

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.4–0.5, P 0.1 and 0.2

249

V.A.V.1d

G

1506

6661

Irregular spherical (resembling short convex biconical); flattened ‘base’ and ‘top’ around openings; light cream; cavity (intentional?) on body (D 0.05–0.4)

Ceramic

D 1.5–1.0, H 0.9–1.3, P 0.4 and 0.5

250

V.A.V.1d

R

5010

4733

High, irregular spherical; opaque ocher-orange; dull gray weathering

Ceramic

D 1.3, L 1.3, P 0.4 and 0.5

251

V.A.V.1d

R

5010

6432

Spherical; brown

Ceramic

D 0.8, H 0.7, P 0.1 × 0.2 and 0.2 × 0.3

252

V.A.V.1d

T

4003

1216

Irregular semi-spherical (close to wide tear-drop shape); yellow-brownish

Ceramic

D 1.0, L 0.8, P 0.2 and 0.3

253

V.A.V.1d

T

4052

2164/1

Irregular spherical (resembling short convex biconical)

Ceramic

D 0.5–1.0, H 1.0, P 0.2

254

V.A.V.1e

B

1253

680

Spherical; uncertain color (white or off white) with opaque dull white and dark gray weathering

Faience

D 1.1, H 0.7, P 0.2 × 0.3

255

V.A.V.1e

R

5107

4901/3

Spherical; off-white core with green outer glaze; broken, chipped, c. one-third remains

Faience

D 1.0, H 0.9, P c. 0.4

Figure

152

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

256

V.A.V.1f

R

5104

4189

Irregular compressed spherical; light brown, brown and cream

Agate

D 0.5, H 0.5, P 0.15 and 0.25

257

V.A.V.1f

No data

Banded agate, spherical; one perforation area tapering to smaller hole; translucent, dark brown and orange; slightly chipped on surface

Agate

D 0.8, H 0.5, P 0.1 and 0.2

258

V.A.V.1h

S

2051

3916/3

Semi-spherical (resembling faceted spherical); transparent, colorless

Rock crystal

D 0.8, H 0.8, P 0.1 and 0.3

259

V.A.V.1j

S

1912

7176

Irregular spherical; flattened opening areas, one short rim; opaque, light bluish-greenish; poor quality turquoise

Turquoise

D 1.2, H 0.5, P 0.3 and 0.2–0.5

260

V.A.V.1m

S

2005

3188/1 19905020

Compressed spherical; cream and gray with dark to light orange

Chalcedony

D 1.3, H 0.6, Th 0.6, P 0.3

Type V.A.V.2. 261

V.A.V.2a

B

1295

2702

Irregular annular; uneven height; perforations top areas tapering to smaller hole; light to dark gray

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.25– 0.3, P 0.2–0.5

262

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

1305

345/1

Annular; perforation top areas tapering to smaller hole; light to dark gray

Limestone

D 0.9, H 0.2, P 0.2–0.5

263

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

1312

249

Thin, annular; large opening areas to smaller hole; cream-gray

Limestone

D 1 × 0.9, H 0.3, P 0.2–0.4

264

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3100

112

Annular; perforations on top areas tapering to smaller hole; light to dark gray; chipped

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.3, P 0.3–0.5

265

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3102

913/1

Thin, annular; dark brown-brown

Limestone

D 0.9, H 0.1, P 0.15

266

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3102

913/2

Thin, annular; unclear color appears dark grayblack; chipped; color changed by fire

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.15– 0.2, P 0.1

267

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3102

913/3

Thin, annular; cream; Nos. 265–267 may be from same necklace

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.15– 0.20, P 0.1

268

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3105

965/1

Thin, annular; opaque white-cream

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.10– 0.15, P 0.2

269

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3105

965/2

Thin, annular; light cream

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.15– 0.2, P 0.1

270

V.A.V.2a(1)

B

3105

965/3

Thin, annular; unclear color appears dark grayblack; chipped; color changed by fire. Nos. 268–270 from same necklace

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.15–0.20, P 0.1

271

V.A.V.2a(1)

G

1501

6712

Thick, ovoid annular with semi-faceted edges; one perforation top area with larger perforation and smaller hole; brown with white-cream veins and spots; broken, missing c. one-third; probably six-faceted annular bead

Limestone

D 0.7 × 0.8, H 0.4–0.5, P 0.15–0.30

272

V.A.V.2a(1)

R

5034

527/2

Annular bead; perforation areas sharply tapering to small hole; dark brown

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.3, P 0.1–0.7 and 0.1–0.3

Figure

153

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

273

V.A.V.2a(2)

R

5107

4901/1

Flat, irregular disc with faceted rim; rim has three straight faceted sides interchanged with three rounded sides; central perforation on short axis; dark brown with gray patches; slightly chipped

Limestone

D 1.3, H 0.2, Th 0.2, P 0.25; L of straight facets 0.5 and 0.7

274

V.A.V.2a(1)

R

5107

4901/2

Low, annular; central perforation on short axis; opaque white

Limestone

D 0.6, H 0.1–0.2, Th 0.1–0.2, P 0.2

275

V.A.V.2a(1)

R

5108

4757/1

Annular; large opening areas tapering to smaller hole; light to dark gray

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.25–0.30, Th 0.25–0.30, P 0.2–0.5

276

V.A.V.2a(1)

S

1906

6864

Thick, ovoid annular; slightly curved-in edges to one flat opening area; other opening area concave, tapering from rims to smaller hole; gray-bluish; chipped

Limestone (serpentine)

D 1.2 × 1.5, H 0.4–0.6, P 0.4 and 0.5–1.0

277

V.A.V.2a(1)

S

1916

8328

Annular; large perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; opaque white-gray

Limestone

D 0.9, H 0.3, Th 0.3, P 0.2–0.6

278

V.A.V.2a(2)

S

2053

4068

Thin disc (with faceted edges?); opening narrowing to smaller hole; dark cream

Limestone

D 0.9, H 0.2, Th 0.2, P 0.2–0.4

279

V.A.V.2a(1)

T

4017

1468

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; opaque white

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.4, P 0.15–0.30

280

V.A.V.2a(1)

T

4017

1469/1

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; opaque white, light–dark gray; polished

Limestone

D 1.0, H 0.4, P 0.3–0.5

281

V.A.V.2a(1)

T

4017

1469/2

Thin, annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; opaque white to cream color; polished

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.1, P 0.3

282

V.A.V.2a(1)

T

4017

1469/3

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; cream-light brown; Nos. 280–282 probably from same jewel

Limestone

D 0.8 × 0.9, H 0.4, P 0.2 and 0.3

283

V.A.V.2a(2)

T

4181

1124

Flat, ovoid disc; jet-black

Limestone

L 0.8, W 0.7, H 0.15, P 0.2–0.3

284

V.A.V.2a(1)

T

4186

1108

Annular; opening areas slightly concave from rims to perforations; light gray with white veins; slightly chipped

Limestone (marble)

D 1.1, H 0.4, Th 0.4, P 0.3

285

V.A.V.2a(1)

T

Sq H13

2158

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; opaque cream–light orange

Limestone

D 0.7, H 0.2–0.4, Th 0.2–0.4, P 0.15–0.40

286

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1256 west, Level II

822

Low, annular; large opening areas tapering to smaller hole; light brown; chipped

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.3, Th 0.3, P 0.2–0.5

Figure

154

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

287

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1263

1131

Annular; large perforation; top areas tapering to hole; orange; chipped

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.4, Th 0.4, P 0.2–0.5

288

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1282

726/1

Thick, annular; nearly spherical; large perforation top areas with smaller tunnel; red-brown; chipped

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.5, Th 0.5, P 0.25–0.60

289

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1283

1966/2

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; brown; chipped

Cornelian

D 1.2, H 0.5–0.7, P 0.3–0.5

290

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1295

547/1 19974520

Thick, annular; perforation on top areas tapering to smaller hole; orange

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.3, P 0.2–0.4

291

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1297

2666

Annular; perforation areas tapering from top to smaller hole; orange

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.3– 0.5, P 0.2–0.5

292

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1297

2987/1

Low, annular; large perforation areas tapering to hole; orange; signs of wear; chipped

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.20–0.25, P 0.20–0.35

293

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1297

2987/2

Low, annular; large perforation areas tapering to hole; orange; Nos. 291–293 may belong to same necklace

Cornelian

D 0.5, H 0.20–0.25, P 0.2–0.3

294

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1304

256

Annular; opening areas strongly tapering to smaller holes

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.5, Th 0.5, P 0.2–04

295

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1309

416

Low, annular; perforation areas larger than hole; orange-brown; chipped

Cornelian

D 0.6, H 0.2–0.3, Th 0.2–0.3, P 0.2–0.4

296

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

1316

41

Low, annular; perforations on top and base areas tapering to smaller opening; orange

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.2– 0.3, P 0.3–0.4

297

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

Sq A19

1330/2

Annular; perforation areas tapering to hole; orange; broken, half remains

Cornelian

D 1.0, H 0.4, P 0.1–0.5

298

V.A.V.2(1)

B

Sq C17

2315

Annular; opening areas tapering to smaller hole; orange

Cornelian

D 0.3–06, H 0.7, P 0.15 and 0.1–0.5

299

V.A.V.2c(1)

B

Sq C17

3313

Annular; perforation areas tapering sharply to smaller hole; orange; Nos. 298, 299 may belong to same necklace

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.3, P 0.2–0.5

300

V.A.V.2c(1)

R

5008

4692/2 19974517

Annular; perforation top areas tapering to smaller holes; orange

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.3, P 0.2–0.4

Figure

155

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

301

V.A.V.2c(1)

R

5018

7307/2

Annular; perforation areas tapering to hole

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 03– 0.4, P 0.1–0.3

302

V.A.V.2c(1)

R

5033

338

Annular; orange and white

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.2– 0.3, P 0.2

303

V.A.V.2c(1)

S

2005

3187/1 19905008

Annular; dark orange-brown; signs of wear (from metal wire?) near holes

Cornelian

H 0.2–0.3, D 0.8, P 0.2 and 0.3

304

V.A.V.2c(1)

S

2024

3781/1 19905018

High, annular; perforation areas tapering to holes; dark orange; chipped

Cornelian

D 1.2, H 0.7–0.8, Th 0.7–0.8, P 0.5–0.7

305

V.A.V.2c(1)

T

Sq H13

2159

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; brown

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.3, Th 0.3, P 0.2–0.5

306

V.A.V.2c(1)

No data

Annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; orange

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.4, P 0.1–0.4

307

V.A.V.2c(1)

No data

Annular bead; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; orange; signs of wear near perforation areas

Cornelian

D 0.6, H 0.3, P 0.15–0.30

308

V.A.V.2c(1)

No data

Annular; perforation areas tapering to hole; orange

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.4, P 0.1–0.4

309

V.A.V.2d

B

1282

2305

Small annular; cream

Ceramic

D 0.6, H 0.1, Th 0.1, P 0.3

310

V.A.V.2g

B

1267

2680

Thin, annular; light cream color; signs of wear on perforation; EB or earlier

Bone

D 0.8, Th 0.1, P 0.3

311

V.A.V.2g

B

1283

658

Low, annular with off center perforation; cream; worn perforation; EB or earlier

Bone

D 1.2, Th 0.2, P 0.4

312

V.A.V.2g

B

(West) surface

Thin, annular; light cream-light brown color; broken, two-thirds of circumference remains; EB or earlier

Bone

D 1.2, Th 0.1, P 0.4

313

V.A.V.2g

S

1920

8186

Disc; brown; chipped; EB or earlier

Bone

D 0.8, H 0.3, P 0.1

314

V.A.V.2g

S

2019

3797

High, annular; oval-shaped openings; light to dark cream; broken, c. two-thirds remains; EB or earlier

Bone

D 1.1, H 0.7–0.8, P 0.4 × 0.5

315

V.A.V.2g

T

4016

1430/2

Thin, annular; light cream color; broken, twothirds remains; signs of wear on perforation; EB or earlier

Bone

D 1.1, Th 0.10–0.15, P 0.3

Figure

156

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

316

V.A.V.2h

B

1258

983/1

Rose crystal; thin, flat disc bead/spacer with octagonal rims; large perforations on top areas with small opening; partially polished and with some striation tool marks lines; colorless, with pink tinge; few half circle edges chipped; inner cracks

Rock crystal

D 1.0, H 0.2–0.3, Th 0.2–0.3, P 0.1–0.4

317

V.A.V.2h

B

1280

1925

Thin, flat disc bead/spacer with six-sided rims; half circle angled cuts from each rim edge reaching flat top; large perforations on top areas with small opening; colorless; partly with striation tool mark lines

Rock crystal

D 0.7, H 0.15, Th 0.15, P 0.1–0.3

318

V.A.V.2i

B

1261

1530

Mother-of-pearl disc bead-spacer; thin, flat irregular ovoid; one straight wide rim; central perforation on short axis For shape cf. Amorai-Stark 1997: No. 446

Shell

L 1.3, W 0.1, Th 0.05–0.10, P 0.15

319

V.A.V.2i

B

1302

58

Mother-of-pearl thin round or ovoid-disc shaped bead-spacer; flat on both sides; perforated in center on short axis; part of rim broken; brittle For shape cf. Wickede 1990: Table 3; AmoraiStark 1997: No. 445

Shell

L 2.0, W 0.18, P 0.2

320

V.A.V.2j

R

5014

6344/1 19905049

Thin, annular; opaque light green-blue; poor quality turquoise

Turquoise

D 0.6–0.7, H 0.1, Th 0.1, P 0.1

321

V.A.V.2k

No data

Low, flat, disc-bead; faceted hexagonal; opaque jet-black

Jasper

D 0.7, H 0.1, P 2.0

322

V.A.V.2l

T

4018

1720

Smoky quartz, semi-disc nearly low ovoidshaped with flat underside and very low uneven top bead-spacer; one side flat, the other side partially gabled; perforated in center on short axis; large perforations on top areas with smaller hole; translucent dark gray; EB or earlier

Quartz

L 1.3, W 1.0, H 0.1–0.3, P 0.2–0.4

Type V.A.V.3. 323

V.A.V.3a

R

5054

6873/1

Marble, ellipsoid; cream with thin gray veins

Limestone

L 0.8, D 0.3– 0.6, P 0.2

324

V.A.V.3c

B

1258

956/2

Orange, ellipsoid; one end slightly narrower than the other; most likely EB

Cornelian

L 0.8, D 0.3– 06, P 0.15

325

V.A.V.3c

B

1282

726/2

Ellipsoid; one end slightly wider than the other; orange brown; chipped

Cornelian

L 0.9, D 0.3– 0.7, P 0.2

326

V.A.V.3c

B

1293

2791/1

Ellipsoid; orange

Cornelian

L 0.6, D 0.25– 0.50, P 0.2

327

V.A.V.3c

B

1295

2658

Ellipsoid; grooved on side on flattened opening area; orange

Cornelian

L 0.7, D 0.3–06, P 0.15 and 0.10

328

V.A.V.3c

B

1305

345/2

Short, ellipsoid; grooves on flattened opening areas reaching holes; orange with brown veins; grooves possibly because of metal wire

Cornelian

L 0.7, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.15 and 0.10

Figure

157

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

329

V.A.V.3c

B

1317

33

Ellipsoid; cut flattened opening; orange

Cornelian

L 0.9, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.15 and 0.20

330

V.A.V.3c

M

4151

2469

Short, ellipsoid; one end slightly narrower than the other; opaque orange, red-brown band and brown veins; two straight grooves on sides of opening (from metal wire?) and signs of wear on openings

Cornelian

L 0.5, D 0.3–0.5, P 0.15 and 0.10

331

V.A.V.3c

R

5102

4460/2

Barrel shape; one flattened opening area with grooves reaching hole; Nos. 248, 331 may be from same jewel

Cornelian

L 0.6, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.2

332

V.A.V.3c

R

5103

4474

Irregular, ellipsoid; orange; signs of wear on openings

Cornelian

L 0.7, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.2

333

V.A.V.3c

R

5160

5583

Ellipsoid; large perforations tapering to minute tunnel hole

Cornelian

L 0.6, W 0.4–0.6, P 0.10–0.35

334

V.A.V.3c

S

2025

3888 19905006

Ellipsoid; translucent orange; signs of wear; highly polished

Cornelian

H 1.0, D 0.3–0.8, P 0.2

335

V.A.V.3c

S

2026

3959 19905007

Ellipsoid (close to truncated biconical); orange; highly polished

Cornelian

H 1.0, D 0.4–0.8, P 0.3 and 0.4

336

V.A.V.3c

T

4016

1679

Ellipsoid; one end slightly narrower than the other; orange with few red-brown spots; signs of wear on openings

Cornelian

L 0.8, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.15

337

V.A.V.3c

No data

Short, ellipsoid; orange

Cornelian

L 0.5, D 0.3–0.5, P 0.1

338

V.A.V.3c

No data

Ellipsoid; dark orange

Cornelian

L 1.4, D 0.4–0.8, P 0.2

339

V.A.V.3d

S

Sq J9

3007

Semi-ellipsoid; round central bulges; tapering opening areas perforated on long axis; two tapering grooves on body; whitish-gray

Ceramic

L 1.8, D 0.6–0.9, P 0.2

340

V.A.V.3d

T

4186

1141

Ellipsoid; light brown

Ceramic

L 0.6, D 0.4–0.5, P 0.2–0.3

341

V.A.V.3d

T

Sq C18

1165

Elongated ellipsoid; three circling grooves near openings; brown at chip and light brown

Ceramic

L 1.8, D 0.5–0.8, P 0.3

342

V.A.V.3f

B

1253

636

Ellipsoid; grooves on both opening areas reaching holes; translucent light and dark brown bands; signs of wear on openings

Banded agate

L 0.8, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.02

Figure

158

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

343

V.A.V.3f

B

Sq A16

2072

Elongated, truncated ellipsoid; flat, cut perforation area off center; groove circling opening forms flattened rim round hole; translucent orange with smoky gray and brown; broken, around half of length, part of opening missing; smaller hole in center suggests that bead was perforated from both sides; encircled grooved hole rim similar to No. 350

Agate

L 1.0, D 0.5–0.9, P 0.05 and 0.20

344

V.A.V.3m

B

1285

2148

Ellipsoid; white with cream veins; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole

Chalcedony

H 0.8, D 0.4–0.6, P 0.15

4027

1901

Irregular tube; tops cut at slight angle and perforation slightly off center; brown with light gray veins and patches Cf. Dubin 1995: Chart, Nos. 252, 263b

Limestone (marble)

L 1.3, D 0.8, P 0.3

Tube; perforation off center; opaque dark reddish-brown; chipped

Limestone

D 0.8, H 0.4, P 0.1

Type V.A.V.4. 345

V.A.V.4a

T

346

V.A.V.4a

No data

347

V.A.V.4b

T

4186

1122

Tubular ‘seed’; perforation off center; opaque dark reddish-brown; chipped; EB or earlier

Chalk

D 0.8, H 0.4, P 0.1

348

V.A.V.4b

T

4186

1123

Miniature tubular ‘seed’; opaque white; same as above; Nos. 347, 348 maybe from same necklace

Chalk

D 0.35, H 0.3, P 0.2

Type V.A.V.5. 349

V.A.V.5a

G

1781

6331

Short, convex biconical; perforation top areas concave and tapering from rims to smaller hole; opaque white with light-dark gray veins

Limestone

D 1.8, H 0.3–0.4, P 0.3–0.5

350

V.A.V.5a

L

Sq A19

5463

Short convex biconical; large, concave perforations; top areas slightly tapering to smaller hole; hole with encircled by groove forming flattened hole rim; bead shaped from holes’ sides to body center; opaque dark gray with brownish veins; encircled grooved hole rim similar to No. 343.

Limestone (marble)

D 1.0, H 0.6–0.7, P 0.3

351

V.A.V.5a

R

5054

3007

Short convex biconical; flattened perforation areas; opaque white; highly polished but much worn

Limestone (marble)

D 1.0, H 0.5, P 0.1–0.5

352

V.A.V.5c(2)

B

1258

983/2

Very short convex biconical; opaque light orange, orange-red-brown with red-brown veins

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.4, Th 0.4, P 0.15–0.20

353

V.A.V.5c(1)

B

Sq C17

2009

Short nearly convex biconical; of uneven height at broadest circumference; large opening slightly angled to smaller hole; light to darker orange; one opening broken, the other chipped

Cornelian

L 1.2, D 0.4–06, P 0.15

354

V.A.V.5c(2)

L

Sq A19

5451

Low biconical, close to annular; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; brown

Cornelian

D 0.6, H 0.3, Th 0.3, P 0.1–0.3

355

V.A.V.5c(1)

R

5003

767

Short convex biconical; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; orange

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.7, P 0.05

356

V.A.V.5c(2)

R

5023

7364/2 19905030

Very short convex biconical; orange

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.4, Th 0.4, P 0.1

Figure

159

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

357

V.A.V.5h(2)

T

4016

1549

Short convex biconical; perforation areas tapering to smaller hole; translucent and slightly opaque white; chipped

Rock crystal

D 0.9, H 0.55, P 0.1–0.4

358

V.A.V.5h(1)

No data

Thin, short convex biconical; hexagonal faceted rims of close shape to faceted disc. Very low large perforations tapering to smaller hole; translucent, colorless

Rock crystal

D 1.0, H 0.2–0.3, Th 0.2–0.3, P 0.2–0.4

Type V.A.V.6. 359

V.A.V.6a

R

5052

6388/1

Low oblate; perforated on short axis; perforation top area slightly tapering to hole forming low concave area around hole; off-white cream color

Limestone

L 1.0, W 0.8, H/Th 0.2 and 0.3

360

V.A.V.6c

R

5110

4937/1

Low oblate; low concave top areas around openings slightly tapering to hole; dark brown; signs of wear on one opening

Cornelian (or Sard)

D 07, H 0.5, P 0.15 and 0.20

Type V.A.V.7. 361

V.A.V.7c(1)

B

1285

2219/2

Rounded low convex rhomboid; lenticular cross section; dark orange

Cornelian

L 1.8, W 0.5–1.0, P 0.2 and 0.3–0.4

362

V.A.V.c(2)

B

1312

248

Low convex rhomboid; rounded cross section (close to ellipsoid); cut flattened and angled opening; long perforation; dark orange; signs of wear near openings and on body; Nos. 362 and 363 may belong to same necklace

Cornelian

L 0.6, D 0.25–0.50, P 0.2

363

V.A.V.7c(1)

B

Rounded low convex rhomboid; lenticular cross section bead; dark orange

Cornelian

L 1.8, W 0.5–1.0, P 0.2 and 0.3–0.4

364

V.A.V.7h

S

2020

3587 19905076

Large rhomboid; rounded cross section and low triangular wide sides; perforated on long axis; translucent, whitish to pinkish color; broken, c. half remains and chipped

Rock crystal (rose quartz)

L 3.1, W 0.6–2.5 (original central width c. 3 cm), H/Th 0.1–0.6, P 0.3–0.5

R

5104

4071/1

Short semi-truncated cone; rounded body, perforated on long axis; narrow end perforation area highly slanted; broader end flat with slight slant; opaque off-white; EB or earlier

Chalk

L 0.8–1.4, D 0.5–0.8, P 0.3–04

Type V.A.V.9. 365

V.A.V.9b

Figure

160 Cat. No.

Type

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No/ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Type V.A.V.13. 366

V.A.V.13

B

1315

844/1

Shell’s natural shape resembles a drop bead or long convex cone bead; natural longitudinal opening reaches center of shell body; hole perforated on shell’s broad base and area around hole flattened; opaque white-light cream; probably EB; same as No. 367

Shell

L 1.0, W/D 0.5–1.0, P 0.3

367

V.A.V.13

G

1506

6419

Natural longitudinal opening reaches center of shell body; hole perforated on shell’s broad base and flattened on area around hole; light cream; broken on narrow end; beautifully polished; probably EB; same as No. 366

Shell

L 1.0, W/D 0.5–1.0, P 0.3

Type V.A.V.14. 368

V.A.V.14

B

1253

612

Semi-trapezoid bead-spacer; curved ‘base’ and ‘top’ edges and inward cut narrow perforated sides; ovoid-shaped perforation openings, off center on vertical axis; translucent and opaque cream and white wide veins; highly polished

Alabaster

L 2.5, W 1.2–1.5, H 1.5, Th 1.5–2.2, P 0.4 × 0.7

369

V.A.V.14

S

2017

3398

Semi-trapezoid bead-spacer; curved ‘base’ and ‘top’; angled sides; opening off center on flattened sides; fairly larger opening tapering to smaller hole and minute perforation opening in other side; opaque cream and brownish/light gray stains; highly worn, chipped and rough surface, broken on one side; signs of wear on one perforation area; faint signs of low circles near rims on both flattened sides, apparently from cutting implement and polishing, but perhaps also of decorative value

Gypsum (or limestone)

L 2, W 1.8, Th 0.7–1.4, P 0.15 and 0.2–0.4

R

5017

6621

Irregular rectangular, partially faceted; perforated in wider flat center with small grooves near larger opening; opaque white and orange

Limestone (marble)

L 0.9, W 0.7–0.8, H 0.5, P 0.2

R

5054

6872

Elongated and wide plano-convex; semi-oval with convex top, flat underside and rounded and straight edges; perforated on long axis, cut ends; opaque white with light gray veins; highly polished; chipped on one edge and opening

Limestone (marble)

L 1.7, W 1.0–1.2, H 0.5, P 0.3 and 0.4

Type V.A.V.15. 370

V.A.V.15(a)

Type V.A.V.16. 371

V.A.V.16(a)

Figure

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Summary The considerable body of Early Bronze Age beads found at Gamla, presenting a large, significant, variety of bead types and materials, was not expected. Our study of the Early Bronze Age beads has led us to conclude that there is a certain degree of uniformity in the manufacture and use of beads (and pendants) in that period. The majority of Early Bronze Age beads (and pendants) is made from different varieties of limestone, cornelian and chalcedony. The limestone beads, of diverse forms, were mostly made from nearby stones (or pebbles), most probably cut and bored locally or at a nearby regional center. This might also apply to the annular cornelian beads (and pendants), chalk, bone and natural shell beads. The meaningful number of rock crystal, bone, shell and ceramic beads (and pendants) at Gamla is also reflected at other local Early Bronze Age sites—from the north to the south of Israel. The occurrence of beads (and pendants) made from less frequent materials, such as turquoise, black jasper and smoky quartz, as well as the rock crystal beads, suggests import, at least of the raw materials. These, as well as the large alabaster bead-spacer and perhaps also the fine cornelian rhomboid beads, may point to the existence of a prosperous segment of the population at the Early Bronze Age settlement. A few beads (and pendants) might perhaps date from the Chalcolithic period. The number of necklaces and other cord jewel categories, such as bracelets and bejeweled belts represented in this collection is indeterminable. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age necklaces and other stringed jewels were usually made up from a wide variety of beads of different shapes, sizes and colors and frequently included a few pendants. A small number of groups of very similar beads and other varieties, especially from Area B, found mainly close together, may have belonged to the same necklaces (for example, in Area B—Nos. 238, 239; 265–267; 291– 293; 298, 299; 362, 363). This assemblage appears to show a preference for necklaces composed primarily of annular/ring and disc beads, most likely mingled with other varieties of bead forms, and pendants. Type V.B. Hellenistic–Early Roman Beads (n = 159) Deciding whether a bead dates from the late Hellenistic or the Early Roman period is frequently based on context and on comparable parallels. During this time,

161

many kinds of hard-stone beads were in fashion, in a variety of forms. Glass techniques improved—mainly during the first century BCE–early first century CE—and as a result, glass products, including beads, flourished and new bead techniques appeared or became more widespread. For example, various types of ‘gold’, trail-decorated and mosaic glass beads became fashionable. Some of these beads were fairly expensive. At the same time, mass production grew of small glass artifacts, together with monochrome glass beads (and insets), made in other glass techniques, such as simpler, mold-made techniques. Different types of hard-stone beads were frequently imitated in glass during the Hellenistic period. In the late Hellenistic–Early Roman periods, the imitations became even more common. Imitation in glass of hard-stone beads (and metal—mainly gold, silver and bronze) was by then perfected to such a high degree that it is frequently difficult to ascertain whether an intact bead found without the typical glass iridescence is made of glass or stone without inspecting it under a microscope. Thus, all such worn beads were inspected. Type V.B.V.1. Spherical Beads (n = 89) Type V.B.V.1c. Cornelian Spherical Beads (n = 8). Areas B (4), R (1), S (2), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 372–379; late Hell. and ER. These well cut, regular sphere or spherical cornelian beads are even in the diameter of the perforation tunnel. During Greco–Hellenistic times, cornelian was not a fashionable bead material, but in the Roman Imperial period, cornelian became a fairly common bead material in the eastern part of the Empire (Crowfoot 1957: Fig. 92:60, 62; Dubin 1995: Chart, 361a, d; Swersky 1996:274, Pl. 24:5–8) and the Roman bead repertoire in particular included spherical cornelian beads (Katsnelson 2002:327). The discovery of four such specimens in Area B, which was basically abandoned after the very early years of the first century CE, suggests that regular sphere/spherical cornelian beads were in use at least as early as the first century BCE. Type V.B.V.1e. Faience ‘Ribbed Spherical’ and Spherical Beads (n = 5). These are medium-sized to large spheres. Areas R (1), S (4); Nos. 380–384; ER. During the late Hellenistic–Early Roman periods, the ribbed spherical faience bead is the most frequent faience

162

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

bead. It is usually glazed, mainly in blue-green hues, but other colors occur as well. The core colors of our pieces range from cream to very light green-blue and their glaze colors are typically hues of blue-green (3) and greenish (1). Overall, these beads represent the most widespread faience bead form in our region (Zuckerman 1996:286–287, Fig. 44:2, 3; NennerSoriano 2006:310, Pl. 15.1:8). Type V.B.V.1f. Agate Spherical Beads (n = 1). This is a spherical and compressed bead. Area B; No. 385. Agate beads of various shapes that enhanced the agate layers (for example banded agate), including spherical beads, were especially popular during the Parthian, Hellenistic and Early Roman cultures (Dubin 1995:52–53, Pl. 42: first row, top 2, 3). Chiefly in the Early Roman period, the great popularity of banded agate beads is mirrored by the many glass beads that perfectly imitate stone agate beads (Dubin 1995: Pl. 42, second row, top 2, 3). The high quality of the bead—the form of the sphere, minute perforation and highly polished surface emphasizing the different-colored bands of the agate layers—indicates that it is most likely of Hellenistic– Early Roman date. Type V.B.V.1h. Rock Crystal Spherical Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 386. Although rock crystal was used from extremely early times for beads and the like, it continued to be a popular, valuable material for use in beads and pendants in later periods as well. Yet, while in the Hellenistic period rock crystal is usually confined to pendants, beads cut from this crystal are extremely rare. Rock crystal beads from the Roman period are usually spherical (Ogden 1982:106; Dubin 1995: Chart, No. 361b; Zuckerman 1996:284–285, Fig. 43:2). Its perfect spherical form and the very clear, unblemished, polished crystal as well as the stratigraphy seem to indicate that this is an Early Roman bead. Type V.B.V.1n. Glass Spherical Beads (n = 73) These beads consist of five different major subtypes: (1) Monochrome Medium-Sized Beads (n = 33). Areas B (8), R (18), S (4), missing excavation data (3); Nos. 387–419. These include spherical, but mainly, compressed spherical beads and one irregular spherical bead (Area B). Various hues of opaque, translucent light blue, blue, deep blue,

green-blue and green glass colors and colorless with these tinges predominate (24 beads). Fewer fall within the yellow, yellow-brown and brown-red glass range (5). One bead is a spherical ‘gold’ glass bead. (2) Trail Decorated Beads (n = 15). Areas B (5); R (4) S (6); Nos. 420–434. These are mainly spherical and compressed spherical beads. Trails are commonly located at the beads’ widest circumference, either as a central band/single trail, or as central thin spiral trails; the number of trails per bead range from one to seven. Most core colors are blue (light to dark hues) and the majority of the trails is white. Some beads are of uncertain dark colors—perhaps black (one from Area R) or blue (one from Area R) with white trails. A single bead of uncertain dark core color, perhaps dark blue (from Area B), is decorated with blue and red trails. Fewer beads have a light yellow core (two from Area B—light yellow and white trails), or uncertain warm core colors (one from Area R—brown, with red, white, yellow and green trails; and one from Area B—red-brown or dark purple, with white trails). Trails of a single bead of dark blue-gray core depict a delicate branch design in a lighter gold-like color (Area R). (3) ‘Eye Beads’ (n = 14). Areas B (8), R (5), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 435–448. Glass ‘eye beads’ occur only as compressed spherical beads. They are made in trail-decorated (or mosaic) techniques (for the ‘eye’ shapes, number of trails and techniques, cf. Table 12.1). All the eye-beads, beside their decorative function, probably had apotropaic, protective meanings (Spaer 2001:77). There are four basic ‘eye-bead’ subtypes:3 A. ‘Three-eyes’ beads (n = 7). Area B (1); R (5), missing excavation data (1). Most are of blue or bluegreen core colors with dark blue and white eyes; one is from Area R, with additional white trails between the eyes and two are of brown-red, or brown core colors with blue and white eyes and one is brown-red and light blue protruding eyes (Area R [2], missing excavation data [1]). B. ‘Four-eyes’/paired-eye beads (n = 4). Area B, of two different color ranges: yellow-brown core color with brown, blue, white eyes (2); and light blue/blue-green eyes (2). C. ‘Three+four eyes’ bead, that is, seven eyes (n = 2). One each from Areas B and R, of light blue core color with blue and white eyes.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

D. ‘Multi-eyes/compound eye’ large bead (n = 1). Area B, of dark(?) blue core color, and 14(?) black, dark blue and white eyes. This highly decorative bead emphasizes the need and appeal for a powerful protective amulet. Eye-beads from Area B, a predominantly Hellenisticperiod area, show a tendency to diverse eye-bead subtypes (Subtypes A (1), B (4), C (1), D (1). These beads imply a fondness for blue core color eye-beads of small to medium sizes and a clear preference for Subtype B eye-beads in two basic color ranges. Their comparative high occurrence in Gamla’s Hellenistic period is compatible with the widespread appearance of Subtype B eye-beads throughout the first millennium BCE (Spaer 2001:83–84) and shows the continuation of this subtype well into the later part of this millennium. The Area R and the missing excavation data eyebeads show a smaller diversity of subtypes: A (6) and C (1). These beads seem to show that during the Early Roman period, the range of eye-bead subtypes declined, that the most popular eye-bead in Early Roman Gamla is Subtype A (the three-eye subtype) of two basic color ranges, and that Subtype C (the ‘three+four’ subtype), appearing in a late Hellenistic context, perhaps continued to be fashionable in the Early Roman period, though now its core color is commonly of a darker blue hue than before. The discovery in Area B of a Subtype D specimen—a large bead with multiple eyes of rather higher perfection and more elaborate workmanship than the other subtypes—presumably points to a well-to-do patron. The majority of glass eye beads show that during the late Hellenistic–Early Roman periods a fair amount of the settlement’s population could afford mainly smallmedium-sized eye-beads. The discovery of 14 eyebeads is probably evidence that the Jewish inhabitants of Gamla acquired them above all for their apotropaic/ protective properties. Thus, these eye-beads indicate that they were part of the general, cross-religious use of eye-beads. (4) Small–Miniature Monochrome Seed Beads (n = 8). Areas B (2), L (1), R (2), S (3); Nos. 449–456. All are blue, blue-green, green of opaque deep hues to transparent lighter shades (Brewer 1986:147, Fig. 48:51–59). These small size beads were strung mainly on wire chain necklaces or on necklaces composed of various bead sizes and shapes, as well as in earrings.

163

(5) Ribbed Spherical Glass Beads (n = 3). Areas B (1); R (2); Nos. 457–459. Colors: dark gray; translucent deep blue and dark blue. This bead type is characteristic of late Hellenistic–Early Roman times, but in our region, is less common than ribbed faience beads (see V.1.e, above; Brewer 1986:151, Fig. 49A; Katsnelson 2002:323). Type V.B.V.1o. Garnet, Spherical Bead (n = 1). Area R; No. 460. The only garnet bead found. In Hellenistic–Early Roman jewels, garnet was highly popular, particularly for inlays (see Type III). However, use of garnet as bead material in Hellenistic times is scarce. In Roman times (mainly since the first century CE), use of garnet for beads is confined chiefly to gold earrings (Marshal 1969: Nos. 2324–2325, 2331, 2370–2371, 2714; Tait 1986:87–88) and less frequently to necklaces. Gold necklaces composed of garnet beads of various forms, virtually unknown from Hellenistic–Early Roman times, became fashionable in the second–third centuries CE (Marshall 1969: Nos. 2700, 2714). Context indicates an Early Roman date for this bead, which perhaps parted from a golden earring. Type V.B.V.3. Ellipsoid/Barrel Beads (n = 16) V.B.V.3f. Banded Agate Bead (n = 1). Area B; No. 461. This is a short ellipsoid, with very minute, clean central drilled openings whose cuts boost the agate layers on its surface. Thus-shaped banded agate beads of perfect ellipsoid form are uncommon during the Early Bronze Age, and no quartz specimens presenting these precise features were recovered from other local Early Bronze Age sites. Conversely, banded agate short ellipsoids with these features were much appreciated and typical of the Parthian and Hellenistic–Roman bead repertoire (Dubin 1995:52, Pl. 42, first row: 4, and closed shapes: 8, 12). The stratigraphy suggests it be dated to the Hellenistic period. Type V.B.V.3n. Glass, Elongated Ellipsoids and Barrel Beads (n = 15). Areas B (5), D (2), G (1), R (6), S (1); Nos. 462–476. These are elongated ellipsoids of two widths: narrow (7) and fairly bulky, frequently termed barrel beads (8). They present two glass varieties: (1) Monochrome Translucent Glass (n = 5). Areas B (1), D (1), R (3), three translucent beads of deep blue,

164

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

light blue-green colors and two beads of light brownyellow. (2) Trail-decorated glass beads (n = 10). Areas B (4), D (1), G (1), R (3), S (1). Trails are central and of diverse widths. Opaque or translucent dark brown, red-brown core colors dominate, most of them decorated with a single white trail; the trails of one bead from Area R appear to be of light blue color. Trails of the three translucent dark green, dark blue and light blue core color beads are white (Zuckerman 1996:286–287, Fig. 44:7). V.B.V.4. Cylindrical/Tubular Beads (n = 18) V.B.V.4n. Glass Beads (n = 18). Areas B (3), R (6), S (6), T (2), missing excavation data (1); Nos. 477–494. The majority comprise monochrome glass beads while three are trail-decorated. They consist of five subformal shapes: (1) Cylindrical and Tubular Monochrome Seed Beads (n = 10). Areas B (3), R (2), S (3), T (2). Most (6) are of opaque or translucent blue, blue-green glass; three (Areas R, S, T) are translucent and colorless with a yellow tinge and one (Area S) is light yellow and brown. The warm-color specimens are mainly Early Roman, while those in the blue to green color range are either Hellenistic or Early Roman. (2) Elongated Cylindrical Monochrome and TrailDecorated Beads (n = 4). Areas R (1), S (2), missing excavation data (1). Widths range from very narrow to medium. Most trails are single, plain, circular central trails—opaque and translucent blue or green (2) and colorless (1). A few are white with either spiral trails (Area R) or vertical trails (Area S). These are Early Roman beads (Zuckerman 1996:286–287, Fig. 44:10). (3) Short Monochrome and Trail-Decorated Tube Beads (n = 2). Area R. These are translucent, in the blue to green glass color range (one green with a horizontal light green trail; one colorless with a light blue tinge); Early Roman. (4) Low Cylinder (close to annular) Monochrome Bead (n = 1). Area R. Dark blue-black; Early Roman. (5) Square Cylinder Monochrome Bead (n = 1). Area S. This bead is translucent light emerald-green; Early Roman. Type V.B.V.5. Biconical Beads (n = 14) The convex biconical bead form is one of the most typical Hellenistic–Roman bead forms. Glass beads and some quartz subtypes occur in Hellenistic, but especially in Roman jewel repertoires.

Type V.B.5c. Cornelian Multifaceted Short Convex Bead (n = 1). Area B; No. 495. This is very close in shape to the faceted cornerless sphere-shaped beads, V.B.11, and to V.5h(1), below. This subtype of the convex biconical bead form is not encountered in cornelian in the Early Bronze Age (V.A: V.5c, above); late Hellenistic. Type V.B.V.5h. Rock Crystal Convex Biconical Beads (n = 2). Areas B, R; Nos. 496, 497. There are two sizes: (1) Short Convex Biconical Bead (n = 1). Area B. Small, with minute perforation and close in shape to a cornerless spherical bead; most likely Hellenistic. (2) High Convex Biconical Bead (n = 1). Area R; large, most likely Early Roman. Type V.B.V.5n. Glass Beads (n = 7). Areas B (2), R (5); Nos. 498–504. They present two subforms: (1) Short Convex Biconical Monochrome Beads (n = 4). Areas B (2), R (2). These beads are translucent, mainly in bright glass colors. Two are colorless with a purple tinge (Areas B, S); one is yellow ‘gold’ in color (Area B); two are light blue (Area R); and one is translucent dark blue (Area R). Dating small glass beads of this shape to the late Hellenistic or Early Roman period is usually difficult without a clear-cut context. Beads of this sort are uncommon in Greek–Hellenistic jewelry before the late second–first centuries BCE. By the late second century BCE, when this bead form reoccurs in jewels, it is primarily made from agate, glass imitations of agates, or other quartz stones and their imitations in glass. During the first–second centuries CE, monochrome short convex biconical glass beads become more widespread than before (Brewer 1986:150, Fig. 48:62–65). However, in this time span, they are chiefly fashioned from darker glass colors than the mainly bright glass colors of our beads. The translucent dark blue glass bead from Area R is of Early Roman date, while context shows that the two colorless glass beads with a purple tinge are late Hellenistic and Early Roman. These two beads appear to illustrate that short, convex biconical glass beads that imitate the similar, more expensive, amethyst beads (cf. Type V.B.V.5p, below) were fashionable in both periods. They present an example of the continuation of certain glass-bead types from late Hellenistic to Early Roman times.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

(2) Elongated Narrow Convex Biconical Beads (n = 3). Area R. These are monochrome, translucent light yellow ‘gold’ color beads and trail-decorated beads with a translucent blue core color, light blue (or white) central trail and trails near the opening ends. They have close formal and technical affinities with the elongated glass cylindrical beads (Type V.B.V.4n[2], above); Early Roman. Type V.B.V.5p. Amethyst, Short and High Convex Biconical Beads (n = 4). Areas B (1), R (2), S (1); Nos. 505–508. They come in two sizes: (1) Short Convex Biconical Beads (n = 3). Areas B (1), R (2)—small. (2) High Convex Biconical Bead (n = 1). Area S—large. Ancient sources of amethyst were widespread and encompassed Egypt, Ceylon, the Urals and possibly Cyprus, Thasos, and Eastern and Western Europe (Ogden 1982:103), during Hellenistic–Roman times as well. Amethyst, a type of quartz with a transparent purple to light purple-lilac tinge, was used throughout antiquity for beads and the like (Aldred 1971:17, 113, Pl. 1, third row; Ogden 1982:105; Bingol 1999:21). However, its popularity as a material for beads fluctuated during ancient times. While amethyst is encountered in the early periods, the proper short and especially high convex biconical forms of the beads here are exceptional. Biconical amethyst beads were common in Egypt and elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. Use of amethyst beads of diverse forms, especially the short biconical ones, is less frequent in Roman times (Marshall 1969: Nos. 2583, 2584, 2717, 2749; Ogden 1982:106); Hellenistic, Early Roman. Type V.B.V.6. Low Oblate Beads (n = 3) Type V.B.V.6n. Glass Beads. Areas R (2), S (1); Nos. 509–511. Glass oblate beads are rare in all ancient periods (Zuckerman 1996:286–287, Fig. 44:8, uncertain date). The beads here consist of one fairly large, colorless oblate, probably imitating rock crystal; one translucent blue ‘seed’ oblate; and one irregular low oblate, perhaps dark green. Their context and color identify them as Early Roman. Type V.B.V.8. Long Convex Cone Beads (Teardrop and/or Pear-Shaped) (n = 3) Areas B (2), R (1); Nos. 512, 513. Beads of this shape in quartz and glass are absent from the Early Bronze Age bead repertoire.

165

Type V.B.V.8h. Rock Crystal, Long Convex Teardrop and Pear-Shaped Cones (n = 2). Areas B, R. These two subtypes, very close in shape, have slightly different proportions and sizes. Long convex beads of similar size made from quartz are encountered from the early Hellenistic period to the second century CE. Yet, the majority of the beads of this shape are of banded agate (Dubin 1995: Chart, Nos. 324, 348a–c.). Concerning late Hellenistic and particularly Early Roman beads, the raw rock crystal material might have been imported from India (Ogden 1982:106). Both specimens are made from fine quality, unflawed clear rock crystal without magnesium (hair-like rutile) or inner cracks. Their contexts date the bead from Area B as Hellenistic and the bead from Area R as Early Roman. Type V.B.V.8n. Glass, Trail-Decorated Long Convex Teardrop Shaped Cone Bead (n = 1). Area B; No. 514. Core color is opaque green and yellow with a central white trail-band. Trail-decorated glass beads of this type and in these colors appear during the Hellenistic period, chiefly in Egypt, and continue to be manufactured in various glass techniques during Roman times, mainly up to the second century CE (Dubin 1995: Chart, No. 471; Spaer 2001: Nos. 160a–c, 161). Beads identical to No. 514 are uncommon finds at Hellenistic–Early Roman sites in Israel. This bead may have been an import; Hellenistic. Type V.B.V.9. Truncated Cone and Semi-Cone Shaped Beads (n = 2) Type V.B.V.9n. Glass Beads (n = 2). Areas B, S; Nos. 515, 516. The colors of these examples are monochrome of an uncertain dark color, appearing black (Area S) and dark green or brown core trail-decorated with yellow-red and white trails (Area B). Glass beads of this shape are infrequent in all periods. Similar monochrome glass specimens, mainly larger than our pieces and with slightly rounded bases, were found in a Hasmoneanperiod context in a glass workshop in the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:411, 419, Pl. 21.11:GL88–GL90). Finding such a specimen decorated with trails is exceptional. Number 515 is late Hellenistic and No. 516 is Early Roman.

166

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Type V.B.V.10. Single Collar Beads (n = 3) Area R; Nos. 517–519. Two basic bead subshapes of the single collar bead form are represented, spherical and short convex biconical: Type V.B.V.10a. Limestone Single Collar Biconical Bead (n = 1). Type V.B.V.10g. Bone Single Collar Spherical Beads (n = 2). Single collar beads made of stone and bone are, to the best of our knowledge, absent from the Early Bronze Age bead repertoire. Beads of this shape and pendantbeads have a long history in the Near East, including our region, from around the later second millennium onward, when they appear in many subforms using various materials (Dubin 1995: Chart, No. 457; Gonen 1997: Nos. 17, 19). The single collar bead form occurs during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods as well, chiefly in glass, but infrequently, in other materials. Though a pre-Hellenistic date for the limestone bead has its logic, attributing it to after the time spanning the Early Bronze Age and Hellenistic period is problematic bcause of a lack of secure stratigraphy at Gamla during these periods (for the few items found at Gamla dating between the Early Bronze Age and the Hellenistic period, see Chapters 1 and 20). The context indicates an Early Roman date. Type V.B.V.11. Cornelian Faceted, ‘Cornerless’ Beads (n = 2) Areas B, R; Nos. 520, 521. Multifaceted beads are among the most typical Early and Late Roman bead shapes. They include ‘cornerless’ subtypes and diverse subforms of faceted hexagonal beads (Marshall 1969: Nos. 2646–2648, 2674; Katsnelson 2002: Figs. 1:14a–b, 2:6, 9). Our beads present two subtypes of the popular Roman short ‘cornerless’ bead: Type V.B.V.11c(1). ‘Cornerless’ Sphere Bead. Area R. A very common Roman bead subtype (Ogden 1982:108; Dubin 1995: Chart, No. 356); ER. Type V.B.V.11c(2). Cornerless Tube/Cube Bead. Area B. This subtype, which is occasionally also called ‘cut cornered cube bead’, is the most common subtype among Roman faceted beads. Examples from hard stones and glass have been found in local excavations (Spaer 2001:

Nos. 48, 49). In cornelian, this bead is one of the most widespread Roman bead forms (Brewer 1986:154, Fig. 50:11; Bingol 1999:129, 131, Nos. 126, 139). Its context indicates a first-century BCE date. As such, this bead is an early instance of its type in this material. Type V.B.V.12. Glass Wide Ovoid/Oval Beads (n = 2) Area R; Nos. 522, 523. Large glass beads of this shape are uncommon during Early Roman times. Wide ovoid or oval beads come in diverse subtypes and have a long history. In stone and faience, they occur occasionally already in the Early Bronze Age bead repertoire. The forms of the two glass beads here echo preHellenistic types, but especially Hellenistic, mainly third century BCE beads, and Iranian beads of these basic shapes made mainly in stone and faience, when such beads forms were particularly popular (Dubin 1995:37, Pl. 47, central bead bottom third row, Chart, Nos. 324, 325). The monochrome translucent greenblue glass color of our specimens, on the other hand, is typically late Hellenistic–Early Roman. These impressive beads were probably components of elaborate chain and bead necklaces. The context hints at an Early Roman date. Type V.B.V.17. Limestone Scaraboid Bead (n = 1) Area R; No. 524. This marble scaraboid has the long axis perforation that is very common in first millennium BCE scaraboids. We dated the faience scaraboid-bead attached to its wire ring to the first century BCE as a bezel by its short axis perforation (see Type I, No. 1). This scaraboid, with its plain convex top and few short grooves on one side, is a more schematic specimen. Because there are no clear indications of post-Early Bronze Age to presecond-century BCE settlement activity at Gamla, and since Area R has only few remains dating to the first century BCE, the date of this simplified scaraboid is unclear. It may be a pre-first-century BCE heirloom, or, alternatively, another example of a first-century BCE scaraboid. It too probably functioned as a ring bezel or perhaps as a necklace bead. It appears to be of local or regional manufacture; Hellenistic, Early Roman (or earlier).

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Type V.B.V.18. Segmented ‘Gold’ Glass Bead (n = 1) Area R; No. 525. The segmented glass bead is a fairly common Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine glass bead form. It occurs in diverse combinations of two, three or more segmented units (Brewer 1986:148, Figs. 48:11, 49:22). Examples of this basic bead type are rather widespread finds in local and regional sites. Such beads were found, for example, at ‘En Gedi, late Hellenistic period; Masada and Moa, Early Roman period; and Qastra and Khirbet el-Shubeika, Roman–Byzantine periods (Spaer 2001:132–135, Fig. 58; Katsnelson 2002:324–325, Fig. 1:8). This Early Roman bead is an example of the three-unit subtype, imitating in glass similarly-shaped gold beads. Type V.B.V.19. Granular Glass Bead (short cylinder decorated with granules) (n = 1)

167

before and during the Early Bronze Age, mainly c. 4000–2000 BCE; Dubin 1995:29, Color Pl., Chart, No. 256). In stone and metal, diverse subtypes of the small ‘spool/reel’ bead are found chiefly during the early Hellenistic period (Ogden 1982: Fig. 20), but occur occasionally in Roman times (Brewer 1986:154–155, No. 13, bone). In glass, this type of small bead is less widespread during the late Hellenistic period and is even less so in Roman times. This yellow glass ‘spool/reel’ bead decorated with yellow-brown trail presumably imitates gold or stone beads of it size that were fashionable already in the early Hellenistic period. It is an uncommon Hellenistic necklace or earring bead. Type V.B.V.21. Low Pyramidal Glass Bead with Single Perforation (n = 1)

Missing excavation data; No. 526. Granular glass beads are known from the Late Bronze Age onward. There are several types, among them one that is granular-only in composition and some composed from various basic bead shapes decorated with differing numbers of granules. Though rare in the Late Bronze Age, granular beads have been excavated at sites in Israel, such as Megiddo, and at sites in the region, in Syria and Cyprus (Spaer 2001:68). This bead belongs to the second type. Granular glass beads of this basic subtype and technique with differing number of granules are usually dated to the Roman period (Spaer 2001: No. 47), but are rare locally; probably Early Roman.

Area E; No. 528. Low pyramidal monochrome glass beads with a flat square base and a single perforation are uncommon in our region in late Hellenistic–Early Roman times. In our region, sporadic monochrome glass beads of this shape were found in Persian strata (Ariel 1990:158– 159, Fig. 31: GL46; for mosaic ‘face’ and floral beads of this form mainly dating to the first century BCE– first century CE, see Dubin 1995:60–61, Pls. 50, 51; Spaer 2001:120, Nos. 205, 206; for Mid-Roman–early Byzantine monochrome beads of this basic type with double perforations, see Spaer 2001:64–65, Figs. 36, 37:53—Gush Halav); Early Roman (or earlier), bead or bead-spacer.

Type V.B.V.20. Concave Cylinder ‘Spool/Reel’ TrailDecorated Glass Bead (n = 1)

Type V.B.V.22. Glass Bead Fragments of Unrecognizable Shapes (n = 2)

Area B; No. 527. Beads of this shape are uncommon in all periods (in soft stones, the ‘spool/reel bead’ form occurs occasionally

Areas B (1), S (1); Nos. 529, 530 (Table 1:95, 391). The fragments suggest elongated, spherical, elliptical or cylindrical bead forms.

168

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

372

V.B.V.1c

B

1262

1051

Irregular spherical (close to barrelshaped); orange

Cornelian

D 0.6, H/Th 0.4, P 0.2

Hell.

373

V.B.V.1c

B

1281

2195

Spherical; orange-brown; chipped and signs of wear near opening

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.7, P 0.1

Hell.

374

V.B.V.1c

B

1291

2693

Spherical; brown-orange, chipped

Cornelian

D/H 0.7, P0.1 and 0.2

Hell.

375

V.B.V.1c

B

1295

3053

Spherical; orange; chipped near openings

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.8, P 0.2

Hell.

376

V.B.V.1c

R

5054

3071

Spherical; brown; signs of wear near opening; one cavity (chip?) on body

Cornelian

D 0.8, H 0.6, P 0.5 and 0.4

Hell.– ER

377

V.B.V.1c

S

1909

6964

Spherical; orange

Cornelian

D/H 0.6, P 0.1 and 0.2

ER

378

V.B.V.1c

S

1911

6972

Spherical; brown; signs of wear near openings

Cornelian

D/H 0.7, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

379

V.B.V.1c

No data

Spherical; orange; scratched and slightly chipped.

Cornelian

D 1.1, H 0.7–0.8, P 0.2 and 0.3

Hell.– ER

380

V.B.V.1e

R

5017

6650

Large ribbed spherical; greenish-cream core and vivid blue-green outer glazing in rib depressions; broken, half remains For technique, cf. Spaer 2001:308–309; Nenner-Soriano 2006: Pl. 15:1:8

Faience

D 1.8, H 1.8–2.1, P 0.7

ER

381

V.B.V.1e

S

1901

6694

Ribbed spherical; cream core, greenblue glaze; broken, half remains

Faience

D 1.6, H 1.5, P 0.6

ER

382

V.B.V.1e

S

2011

3311/1 19905004

Ribbed spherical; opaque blue-green glaze (over cream core?); deep ribs; intact

Faience

D 1.5, H 1.0–1.2, P 0.6 and 0.7

ER

Figure

169

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

383

V.B.V.1e

S

2011

3311/2

Ribbed spherical; cream core with greenish glaze; well proportioned; intact Nos. 382, 383 probably originate from same necklace

Faience

D 1.3, H 1.0–1.2, P 0.6 and 0.8

ER

384

V.B.V.1e

S

2019

3845

Ribbed spherical; cream core; bluegreen glaze; gray weathering; broken, worn, a third remains

Faience

D 1.3, H 1.5, P c. 0.7

ER

385

V.B.V.1f

B

Sq D16

2275/1

Spherical; bluish-gray and brown with darker brown veins; high quality; one opening chipped

Banded Agate

D/H 0.8, P 0.1

Hell.– ER?

386

V.B.V.1h

R

5108

4757/2 19974594

Spherical; transparent, colorless; chipped

Rock crystal

H 0.6, D 0.9, P 0.1 and 0.2

ER?

387

V.B.V.1n(1)

B

1252

518

Monochrome short spherical bead; translucent dark yellow-brown; silvery-gold color iridescence; worn on openings

Glass

L 0.5, D 0.5, P 0.2 and 0.4

Hell.

388

V.B.V.1n

B

1293

2447

Monochrome compressed spherical; dark blue, appears opaque blue; worn on perforation

Glass

D 1.0, H 0.8, P 0.4

Hell.

389

V.B.V.1n

B

1295

547/2

Monochrome compressed spherical; rod-formed; translucent, colorless with blue-tinge(?); appears dull gray with large areas of shiny light blue-silvery iridescent surface; extremely light; pitted and worn Cf. Spaer 2001:39, Nos. 40, 41

Glass

D 1.2, H 1.3, P 0.5–0.6

Hell.

390

V.B.V.1n

B

1296

3117

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, wound; blue; silvery-light green-blue iridescence

Glass

D 0.5–0.6, H 0.4, P 0.3

Hell.

391

V.B.V.1n

B

1296

3149/1

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, wound; light(?) green-blue; iridescence; silvery light green-blue weathering; Nos. 390, 391 may be parts of same necklace

Glass

D/H 0.6, P 0.4

Hell.

392

V.B.V.1n

B

1299

2973

Monochrome low irregular spherical; one opening top flat, the other curved; rod-formed, wound; deep dark blue; weathering and some silvery-blue iridescence; chipped near one opening; pitted

Glass

D 0.7, H 0.4, P 0.1 and 0.3

Hell.

393

V.B.V.1n

B

Sq C17

2069/1

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed(?); opaque deep(?) blue-green; strongly pitted surface; very light, possibly burnt

Glass

D 0.8–1.2, H/L 0.5–0.9, P 0.5

Hell.

394

V.B.V.1n

B

Sq D16

2275/4

Monochrome spherical; blue with light blue iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.4, P 0.2

Hell.

Figure

170

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

395

V.B.V.1n

R

5002

552

Monochrome spherical ‘gold’(?); uncertain precise technique (rodformed, wound; rod-pierced gold color cane sections; gold foil); colorless with yellow tinge; whitish-yellowish silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.6, P 0.2

ER

396

V.B.V.1n

R

5003

826

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, mechanically finished(?); translucent yellow-brown; iridescent weathering; well proportioned and beautifully polished

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.2

ER

397

V.B.V.1n

R

5003

4588

Monochrome spherical (close to seed) bead; yellow; gray weathering; openings enlarged by use

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.3, P 0.2–0.3

ER

398

V.B.V.1n

R

5005

157

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, mechanically finished(?); blue; weathered

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.2

ER

399

V.B.V.1n

R

5006

6607

Mosaic(?) spherical; grayish-blue core with yellow (golden color) band of delicate branch pattern in center; beautiful—for plausible technique, cf. Spaer 2001:123, No. 203

Glass

D 0.6–0.8, H 0.8, P 0.3

ER?

Figure

0

400

V.B.V.1n

R

5006

7143/2

Monochrome spherical; uncertain dark color, appears shiny black

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.6, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

401

V.B.V.1n

R

5011

4759

Monochrome spherical; opaque greenblue

Glass

D/H 0.6, P 0.15 and 0.25

ER

402

V.B.V.1n

R

5011

6602

Monochrome compressed spherical; unclear dark color appears black

Glass

D 0.7, H 0.5, P 0.1

ER

403

V.B.V.1n

R

5017

6620

Monochrome low spherical; rodformed, wound, tooled (longitudinal striation marks); translucent blue; bluish weathering

Glass

D 0.7, H 0.3– 0.4, P 0.3

ER

404

V.B.V.1n

R

5019

3833

Monochrome spherical; green, greenishsilvery iridescence Cf. similar yellowish-green glass bead, from the City of David, Jerusalem (Ariel 1990: Fig. 31:GL53), Hell.

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.4, P 0.2

ER

405

V.B.V.1n

R

5019

6742

Monochrome spherical; translucent, blue-green; pitted; Nos. 404, 405 and 503 may be parts of same necklace

Glass

D/H 0.5, P, 0.2

ER

406

V.B.V.1n

R

5054

7907

Monochrome spherical; translucent deep blue

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.4, P 0.3

ER

0.5

171

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

407

V.B.V.1n

R

5103

4280

Monochrome spherical; dark blue; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D/H 0.6, P 0.2

ER

408

V.B.V.1n

R

5104

5093/2

Monochrome spherical; opaque green

Glass

D/H 0.6, P 0.15 and 0.20

ER

409

V.B.V.1n

R

5106

4554

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, mechanically finished(?); translucent deep blue; opaque light blue weathering

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.3

ER

410

V.B.V.1n

R

5107

4952

Monochrome spherical; translucent, light green-blue; greenish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.4, P 0.2

ER

411

V.B.V.1n

R

5151

5464

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed or folded; yellowish-brown; opaque gray weathering; signs of wear on openings

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.4

ER

412

V.B.V.1n

R

5165

5823

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, mechanically finished(?); dark blue; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.3–0.6, P 0.4

ER

413

V.B.V.1n

S

1907

6819

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, wound; opaque green

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.7, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

414

V.B.V.1n

S

2014

3666/1

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, wound; translucent blue; gray weathering

Glass

D 1.4, H 0.8, P 0.30 and 0.35

ER

415

V.B.V.1n

S

2019

3833

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, wound; light green; greenish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D/H 0.4, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

416

V.B.V.1n

S

2055

4063

Monochrome spherical; translucent yellow; light gray-yellowish weathering

Glass

D/H 0.5, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

417

V.B.V.1n

No data

Compressed monochrome spherical; uncertain color (brown-red?)

Glass

D 0.9, H 0.6–0.7, P 0.1 and 0.2

Hell.– ER

418

V.B.V.1n

No data

Monochrome spherical; translucent, deep green-blue

Glass

D/H 0.7, P 0.2 and 0.3

Hell.– ER

419

V.B.V.1n

No data

Monochrome spherical; rod-formed, tooled(?) deep blue; light-blue iridescence

Glass

D 0.8, L/H 0.8, P 0.2

Hell.– ER

420

V.B.V.1n (2)

B

1260

727/1

Trail-decorated low, irregular spherical; rod formed, wound; red-brown (or dark purple?), appears dark gray, with seven spirally applied white trails partially turned to yellow; gray weathering; missing some trails (not drawn); for similar beads cf. Brewer 1986:149, Fig. 48:17, 18

Glass

D 1.2, H 0.5– 0.7, P 0.5

Hell.

421

V.B.V.1n (2)

B

1260

727/2

Trail-decorated low, irregular spherical; rod formed, wound; dark color (green?) and white trails; gray weathering; missing some trails; Nos. 420 and 421 may be parts of the same necklace

Glass

D 1.2, H 0.5–0.7, P 0.5

Hell.

Figure

172

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

422

V.B.V.1n (2)

B

1265

1285

Trail-decorated irregular spherical (close to biconical); rod formed, wound; light yellow with two white spiral trails; cream-white weathering; Nos. 422–424 probably originate from same jewel.

Glass

D 1.0, H 0.5, P 0.4 and 0.5

Hell.

423

V.B.V.1n(2)

B

1265

3181/1

Trail-decorated decorated irregular spherical (close to biconical) bead; rodformed, wound; light yellow with two white spiral trails; cream weathering

Glass

D 1.0, H 0.5, P 0.4 and 0.5

Hell.

424

V.B.V.1n(2)

B

1265

3181/2

Trail-decorated compressed spherical; rod-formed, wound; core blue; spirally applied wide band trails—blue trail flanked by red (or red–brown) trails and thin blue and red (or red-brown) trails on opaque white trails (partially turned yellowish) near openings; light blue, yellow and white weathering bands; part of blue trail missing; from balk section For type, cf. Ariel 1990:159, Fig. 31: GL50; Katsnelson 2002:323, Fig. 1:19

Glass

D 1.0, H 0.5–0.6, P 0.4 and 0.5

Hell.

425

V.B.V.1n(2)

R

5017

6538

Trail-decorated compressed spherical; rod-formed, wound (or drawn); uncertain color, appears black; thin spiral white(?) trails; weathered

Glass

D 0.9, H 0.6, P 0.4

ER

426

V.B.1.V.n(2)

R

5108

5000/2

Trail-decorated spherical; rod-formed or folded; uncertain color (blue?) and single white trail; light blue-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.4

427

V.B.1.V.n(2)

R

5152

5785

Trail-decorated spherical; rod-formed, wound or folded; dark color, appears black; spirally applied white trails; weathered; signs of wear on openings

Glass

D 0.5, H 0.5, P 0.3

ER

428

V.B.1.V.n(2)

R

5153

5311

Trail-decorated compressed spherical; translucent, color uncertain (brownred?) with (white, yellow-gold color and green?) spiral trails; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.5–0.7, P 0.3

ER

429

V.B.1.V.n(2)

S

1909

7103

Trail-decorated compressed spherical; rod-formed, wound; blue with central white trail; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 1.3, H 0.8, P 0.4

ER

430

V.B.1.V.n(2)

S

2019

3796/1 19905005

Trail-decorated spherical; rod-formed, wound; opaque dark blue with spiral white trails, appears cream; pitted; Nos. 430–434 are similar, probably five beads from same necklace

Glass

D 1.2, H 0.8, P 0.3 and 0.4

ER

431

V.B.1.V.n(2)

S

2019

3796/2

Trail-decorated compressed spherical; rod-formed (exact technique uncertain); opaque blue with spiral white trails, appears cream

Glass

D 1.0, H 0.6, P 0.4

ER

432

V.B. 1.V.n(2) S

2019

3796/3

Trail-decorated compressed spherical; rod-formed (exact technique uncertain); opaque blue with spiral white trails, appears yellow

Glass

1.0 × 1.2, H 0.8, P 0.4 and 0.5

ER

433

V.B.1.V.n(2)

2019

3796/4

Trail-decorated irregular spherical; rod-formed (exact technique uncertain); opaque blue appears black-brown with one white spiral central trail

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.30.4, P 0.3

ER

S

Figure

173

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

434

V.B.1.V.n(2)

S

2019

3796/5

Trail-decorated spherical; rod-formed, wound; light blue with spiral trail in opaque white

Glass

D 1.2, H 0.9, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

435

V.B.1.n(3)

B

1253

624

‘Three-eye’, compressed, uneven low spherical; rod-formed, wound; blue core, eyes (four?) of four layers, dark blue spot on white, blue and outer white ring; pitted and worn, missing two(?) eyes

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.4– 0.5, P 0.3

Hell.

436

V.B.1V.n(3)

R

1258

397/1

‘Paired eye’ irregular low spherical; rod-formed, wound; uncertain color (yellowish, light brown?); three (or two) cane eyes with dark brown spot and one or two rings in white (appears yellowish) and a dark blue ring; weathered with opaque white iridescence; broken, half bead; only parts of two eyes remain

Glass

D 1.2, L/ H 0.4–0.5, P 0.5

Hell.

437

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

1258

397/2

‘Paired eye’; irregular, low, spherical; rod-formed, wound; uncertain color (yellowish, light brown?); three (or two) cane eyes with dark brown spot and one or two rings in white (appears yellowish) and a dark blue ring; weathered with opaque white iridescence; broken, half bead, two eyes remain; Nos. 436, 437 may be parts of same necklace

Glass

D 1.2, L/H 0.3–0.5, P 0.5

Hell.

438

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

1267

1348

‘Three-eye’(?) spherical; rod-formed(?); various gray to black colors whose shapes resemble rings; large irregular white band and spot near perforation; very light; was in fire; condition precludes identification as eye bead or monochrome bead

Glass

D 1.2, L 0.9, P 0.4

Hell.

439

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

1267

1452

‘Three-plus-four eye’ spherical; two pairs of two eyes placed longitudinally on bead axis and three eyes placed together; rod-formed, wound; color uncertain (dark blue?), appears black; three cane eyes with small dark (blue?) spot and two rings in white (turned yellowish) and dark color ring; Nos. 438, 439 may be parts of same necklace Cf. Spaer 2001:95, No. 114

Glass

D 0.9, L 0.8, P 0.3

Hell. (or slightly later)

440

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

1279

716

ʽPaired eye’ spherical; rod-formed, wound; bluish-green or light blue; three cane eyes with small dark (blue?) spot, two rings in white and one in dark blue; silvery light-darker blue iridescence, broken, half with two eyes remains

Glass

D 1.2, L 0.98, P 0.4

Hell.

Figure

174

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

441

V.B.1.V.n(3)

B

1295

3059

‘Multi-eyes’, large compressed spherical; rod-formed, wound; basic color uncertain (dark deep blue?), appears black; concentrically patterned eyes(14?) arranged in three layers; eyes with black or dark blue central spot, white, dark blue(?) and yellow (or white turned yellow) rings; covered in dull black weathering; pitted and worn Cf. similar multi-eye beads from Marisa, later 2nd c. BCE (Jackson-Tal 2008: Fig. 14:6, 7); similar large eyebead from the City of David, Jerusalem, Early Roman up to 70 CE (Ariel 1990: Fig. 31: GL56)

Glass

D 2.5, H 1.6–1.9, P 0.5

Hell.

442

V.B.1.V.n(3)

B

Sq C19

1234

‘Three-eye’ bead with additional trails, irregular spherical; rod-formed, wound; blue (dark?); three (or two) cane eyes with blue spot and one or two rings in white and blue ring (eyes not drawn); at least one trail on matrix between eyes; highly weathered; pitted, missing trails and eyes’ tops leave semi-grooves on surface; burnt

Glass

D 0.9, H 0.4–0.7, P 0.5

Hell.

443

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

5003

4538

‘Three-eye’ spherical; rod-formed, wound; color uncertain, appears brown; three eyes of five layers with blue (dark blue?) spot and two rings in white (partially turned yellowish) and large blue (dark blue?) ring; opaque redbrown weathering and bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.9, L 0.8, P 0.3

Hell.– ER

444

V.B.1.V.n(1)

R

5007

933

‘Three+four eyes’, irregular spherical; rod formed, wound; uncertain dark color (dark blue?), appears gray; three trailed eyes with dark blue spot and one or two rings in white and a dark blue ring; weathered; in poor condition—pitted, worn and chipped, five cavities missing eye trails; two eye trails obscured by pitting and weathering; burnt?

Glass

D 1.2, L/H 1.2, P 0.4

ER

445

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

5011

7518 19774522

‘Three eye’ spherical; rod-formed, wound; opaque brown-red; round, slightly protruding three eyes with large opaque dark blue spot and two white rings; opaque white in perforation tunnel and white weathering; pitted surface; missing one eye

Glass

D 0.7, H 0.5–0.7, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

446

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

5151

5641

‘Three+four eyes’ compressed spherical; rod-formed, wound; dark blue; trailed eyes with dark blue spot(?), one or two rings in white(?); dark opaque weathering with some opaque yellowish weathering; three cavities missing eye trails

Glass

D 1.2, H 0.8, P 0.4

ER

Figure

175

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

447

V.B.1.V.n(3)

R

5160

5660

‘Three-eye’ irregular compressed spherical; rod-formed, wound; dark blue; three or two trailed eyes with large dark blue spot and one or two rings in white (appears dark yellow) and a dark blue ring; opaque light blue weathering and copper-gold color iridescence; one intact eye; one or two eyes missing trails; perforation openings show signs of wear

Glass

D 1.2, H 0.8, P 0.4

ER

448

V.B.1.V.n(3)

No data

‘Three-eye’ spherical; rod-formed, wound; light blue, three ovoid-shaped brown-red eyes, evenly spaced around central eyes with white centers; pitted, worn surface

Glass

D 1.0, H 0.5–0.7, P 0.2 × 0.3

Hell.– ER (2nd– 1st c. BCE?)

449

V.B.1.V.n(4)

B

3110

422/2

Small spherical (seed); rod-formed; monochrome, appears black-dark blue (blue-green or purple) with weathered shiny light blue-green, copper color iridescent surface; signs of wear in perforation

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.4, P 0.3–0.5

Hell.

450

V.B.1.V.n(4)

B

Sq C18

2830

Small spheroid (seed); rod-formed; blue

Glass

D 0.4–0.5, H 0.4, P 0.2

Hell.

451

V.B.1.V.n(4)

L

Sq A19

5469

Small spherical (seed) monochrome; rod-formed, wound; translucent deep blue-green; silvery-light greenish blue iridescence

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.4, P 0.2

ER

452

V.B.V.1n (4)

R

5014

6410

Monochrome spherical (seed); rodformed; colorless with light yellowish tinge (‘gold’ color); gold silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.3, H 0.2, P 0.2

ER

453

V.B.V.1n (4)

R

5019

3834

Monochrome spherical (seed); deep blue; bluish-silvery iridescence; broken, half remains

Glass

D 0.3, H 0.2, P 0.1

ER

454

V.B.V.1n (4)

S

1912

7052

Monochrome small spherical (seed); rod-formed, wound; translucent, deep blue-green; greenish-blue silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.5, H 0.3, P 0.2

ER

455

V.B.V.1n (4)

S

2012

3449

Monochrome spherical (seed); deep blue-green; broken, c. one-third remains

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.5, P 0.2 or 0.3

ER

456

V.B.V.1n (4)

S

2051

3960

Monochrome small spherical (seed); deep green; dark iridescence; broken, c. half remains

Glass

D 0.3, H 0.3, P 0.2

ER

457

V.B.V.1n (5)

B

1258

900

Ribbed irregular spherical, with six low ribs and diagonally cut perforated ends; rod-formed; appears dark gray in recessed areas and tunnel; opaque white weathering and white; iridescence white; very light

Glass

L 1.2, D 1.9, P 0.3

Hell.

458

V.B.V.1n (5)

R

5014

6345

Ribbed irregular spherical; rod-formed; translucent deep blue tooled ribs; blue-silvery iridescence; broken, threequarters remains (5 remaining ribs out of 8?)

Glass

D 1.1–1.2, H 1.0, P 0.35 and 0.50

ER

Figure

176

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

459

V.B.V.1n (5)

R

5032

542

Ribbed spherical; dark blue, appears blue-black

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.8, P 0.4

ER

460

V.B.V.1o

R

5110

4859/1 19974519

Spherical; semi-translucent dark purple

Garnet

D 0.8, H 0.7, P 0.1

ER

461

V.B.V.3f

B

3102

904

Short ellipsoid/barrel banded agate; translucent orange with darker veins

Agate

L 0.6, D 0.25– 0.60, P 0.2

Hell.

462

V.B.V.3n (2)

B

1258

396

Long ellipsoid/barrel trail decorated; rod-formed, wound; orange or red brown, appears shining black and spirally applied white trails at bulging center; broken, missing c. one-third at both ends For similar, later bead, cf. Katsnelson 2002:328–329, Fig. 2:18

Glass

L 1.8, 0.3–04, D 0.3–1.4, P 0.3 and 0.4

Hell.

463

V.B.V.3n (2)

B

1268

1915

Ellipsoid/barrel, trail-decorated; dark green, appears black with one central white trail; broken, c. one-half remains

Glass

D 0.6–1.0, H 1.8, P 0.4

Hell.

464

V.B.V.3n (2)

B

1286

2153

Ellipsoid/barrel, trail-decorated rodformed, wound; dark color (dark brown?), appears opaque brown-black; opaque white, two central spiral trails; chipped on ends

Glass

L 1.7, D 0.4–0.9, P 0.1 and 0.2

Hell.

465

V.B.V.3n (2)

B

1296

3149/2

Elongated, ellipsoid/barrel, traildecorated; rod-formed (wound?); dark color uncertain (black, brown?), appears black with wide central white trail (turned dull light brown-yellow); shiny and dull weathering; chipped on ends

Glass

L 1.8, D 0.4–0.8, P 0.2 and 0.3

Hell.

466

V.B.V.3n (1)

B

1315

15

Ellipsoid/barrel, rod-formed, folded(?); translucent deep blue; bluish-silvery and whitish- silvery iridescence; dull grayblue and white weathering

Glass

L 1.4, D 0.2–0.5, P 0.1

Hell.

467

V.B.V.3n (1)

D

3003

5

Ellipsoid/barrel; rod-formed, wound; perforated on long axis; translucent light brown-yellow resembling gold-color; silvery-white iridescence on body and opaque white in perforation tunnel; broken near perforation tunnel

Glass

L 1.2, D 0.4–0.7, P 0.2

Figure

177

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

468

V.B.V.3n (2)

D

3004

435

Ellipsoid/barrel trail-decorated; rodformed, wound; dark brown with two thin silvery white trails in center, circling bead 4–5 times, forming semibroad trail; brownish-gray weathering; broken at one end

Glass

L 1.9, D 0.3–0.6, P 0.1 and 0.2

Late Hell.– ER

469

V.B.V.3n (2)

G

1506

6585

Ellipsoid/barrel trail-decorated; rodformed, wound; ends finished by grinding(?); blue core color; wide yellow trails applied near openings; four delicate spirally applied white trails dragged to form a feather pattern For technique and similar Hell.–ER. beads, cf. Spaer 2001:109, Nos. 153–155

Glass

D 1.2, H 1.6, P 0.4–0.5

L Hell.– ER

470

V.B.V.3n (2)

R

5006

7143/3

Ellipsoid/barrel trail-decorated; rod-formed, folded from two premanufactured trails half fused to single bead(?); uncertain dark color (brown?) appears black with three thin central light blue trails; golden brown iridescence; broken, c. one-half remains; missing some white trails

Glass

D 2.0, H 1.4, P 0.7

ER

471

V.B.V.3n (2)

R

5011

7670

Ellipsoid/barrel trail-decorated; rod formed, wound; translucent(?) brown, appears black; wide white central trail appears gray with thin yellow(?) borders, spiraling to one opening; broken, one-half remains

Glass

L1.3, D 0.4– 0.8, P 0.2

ER

472

V.B.V.3n (1)

R

5014

6181/2

Ellipsoid/barrel; translucent blue-green; pitted

Glass

D 0.2–0.4, H 0.4, P 0.1 and 0.2

ER

473

V.B.V.3n (1)

R

5017

6537

Narrow, elongated ellipsoid/barrel; angled perforation openings; rodformed, folded and tooled (tooling striation marks); translucent, green; greenish-silvery iridescence

Glass

L 1.0, D 0.30–0.45, P 0.2

ER

474

V.B.V.3n (2)

R

5018

7252

Ellipsoid/barrel trail-decorated; rodformed, wound; dark blue with wide central white band

Glass

L 0.8, D 0.4, P 0.1 × 0.2 and 0.2

ER

475

V.B.V.3n (2)

R

5104

5093/2

Narrow, elongated ellipsoid/barrel; angled perforation openings; rodformed, folded and tooled (tooling striation marks); translucent blue; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

L 1.4, D 0.30–0.45, P 0.15

ER

476

V.B.V.3n (2)

S

Sq C17

2067

Narrow, elongated, ellipsoid/barrel trail-decorated; rod-formed, folded and tooled (tooling striation marks); angled perforation openings; translucent light blue-green and spiral white(?) trail; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

L 1.8, D 0.2–0.4, P 0.15–0.20

ER

Figure

178

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

477

V.B.V.4n (1)

B

1250

706/1

Cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; rod-formed, wound; shining blue-green; tunnel core appears white; Nos. 477, 478 probably from same jewel For similar beads cf. Brewer 1986:149, Fig. 48:70–72

Glass

D 0.3, H/L 0.35, P 0.2

Hell.

478

V.B.V.4n (1)

B

1250

706/2

Cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; rod-formed, wound; shining blue-green; tunnel core appears white

Glass

D 0.3, H/L 0.35, P 0.2

Hell.

479

V.B.V.4n (1)

B

Sq L18

2830

Cylindrical tubular monochrome; rodformed, wound; opaque blue, appears dark gray and blue; weathered, pitted, silvery-blue iridescence

Glass

D 0.4, H/L 0.3, P 0.15

Hell.

480

V.B.V.4n (1)

R

5016

3375

Cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; colorless with light yellow tinge, yellowish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.1, P 0.3

ER

481

V.B.V.4n (3)

R

5005

213

Short, cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’?; rod-formed, mechanically finished(?); colorless with light blue tinge; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.4 and 0.5

ER

482

V.B.V.4n (3)

R

5017

6591

Short, cylindrical tubular monochrome trail-decorated ‘seed’; rod-formed, wound; translucent green with one horizontal light green trail; broken, about one-half remains

Glass

L 0.5, D 0.6, P 0.3

ER

483

V.B.V.4n (2)

R

5021

7364/1 19974591

Elongated cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; opaque green; weathered; pitted and chipped on one end; technique obliterated by signs of fire(?)

Glass

D 0.7, H 2.0, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

484

V.B.V.4n (4)

R

5024

7859

Low cylindrical tubular monochrome (close to annular); dark blue-black; broken, c. one-half remains

Glass

D 0.9, H 0.4–0.5, P 0.4

ER

485

V.B.V.4n (1)

R

5053

6753/2

Short, cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; translucent blue-green; bluishgreenish silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.3, H 0.1, P 0.1

ER

486

V.B.V.4n (1)

S

1909

6912

Miniature cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; rod-formed, wound; opaque dark blue; blue weathering; chipped

Glass

L 0.4, D 0.3, P 0.2

ER

487

V.B.V.4n (2)

S

1911

7010/1

Narrow, elongated cylindrical tubular trail-decorated ‘seed’; rod-formed, folded and tooled; angled perforation openings; blue with white spiral trails (trails not drawn); white weathering

Glass

L 1.1, D 0.2–0.4, P 0.15–0.20

ER

488

V.B.V.4n (5)

S

2014

3661/2 19905046

Square cylinder monochrome; rodformed and mechanical finish (or moldformed and drilled); perforated on long axis; translucent, light ‘emerald green’ color

Glass

L 1.2, W 0.8, H 0.6, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

Figure

179

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

489

V.B.V.4n (1)

S

2016

3375

Small cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; colorless with yellowish tinge; yellowish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.2, P 0.2

ER

490

V.B.V.4n (2)

S

2019

3832

Cylindrical tubular trail-decorated ‘seed’; rod-formed, wound; blue with wide vertical white trail; bluish-silvery iridescence; chipped

Glass

L 1.0, D 0.2–0.4, P 0.1 and 0.2

ER

491

V.B.V.4n (1)

S

2026

3991

Small cylindrical tubular monochrome ‘seed’; translucent brown

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.2– 0.3, P 0.2

ER

492

V.B.V.4n (1)

T

4026

1910

Miniature cylindrical tubular ‘seed’; translucent yellow

Glass

D 0.3, H 0.4, P 0.1 and 0.2

Hell.– ER

493

V.B.V.4n (1)

T

4031

2011

Thin, short cylindrical tubular ‘seed’; probably rotated; opaque blue-green; some dull whitish-yellowish weathering and few spots of iridescence Cf. Spaer 2001:74, No. 43 (60 pieces)

Glass

D 0.4, H 0.1, P 0.2

Hell.– ER (2nd– 1st c. BCE)

494

V.B.V.4n (2)

No data

Narrow, elongated cylindrical; rodformed, wound; colorless; silvery-white iridescence; chipped on ends

Glass

L 1.6, D 0.2– 0.4, P 0.2

Hell.– ER

495

V.B.V.5c

B

1263

475/2

Multifaceted short biconical (five facets); orange

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.6, P 0.1

Hell.

496

V.B.V.5h

B

3110

422/1

Short convex biconical; translucent colorless and white; chipped with inner cracks

Rock crystal

H 0.6, D 0.8, P 0.1 and 0.2

Hell.

497

V.B.V.5h

R

5105

4739

High convex (irregular) biconical; flattened, cut opening areas; perforated from one side; perforation narrowing from small to minute hole on other end; colorless; small chip; central circumference shows remains of metal impurities?

Rock crystal

H 1.1, D 0.4–1.3, P 0.05 and 0.10

ER

498

V.B.V.5n (1)

B

1293

2791/2

Short convex biconical monochrome; rod-formed, tooled; yellow (gold color), appears dull light gray-gold color; gold colored silvery whitish iridescence; one perforation opening broken Cf. Spaer 2001:74, 157, Nos. 45, 46, 237

Glass

L 0.5, D 0.7, P 0.3

Hell.

499

V.B.V.5n (1)

B

Sq D16

2275/3

Short convex biconical monochrome; drawn, mechanically shaped; colorless with light purple tinge; probably imitation of amethyst

Glass

D 0.8, H/L 0.4, P 0.2

Hell.

500

V.B.V.5n (1)

R

5055

7298

Short convex biconical(?); perforation off center(?); translucent dark blue; silvery-bluish iridescence; broken and cracked; break obscures bead’s precise shape

Glass

D 0.8, H 0.7, P 0.2 and 0.3

ER

501

V.B.V.5n (1)

R

5107

4901/4

Short convex biconical; translucent, blue; bluish iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.2

ER

Figure

180

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

502

V.B.V.5n (2)

R

5011

6324

Elongated, narrow biconical traildecorated; rod-formed, folded and tooled; angled perforation openings; blue, with central and near ends white (or light blue) trails; bluish-silvery iridescence; one opening chipped Cf. Spaer 2001:100, Fig. 45

Glass

L 1.4, D 0.2–0.5, P 0.2

ER

503

V.B.V.5n (2)

R

5019

3832

Elongated, narrow biconical traildecorated; rod-formed, folded and tooled (tooling striation marks); angled perforation openings; bluegreen with white (or light blue), light green(?), copper and yellowish-gold colored longitudinal trails; gray-bluish weathering and bluish-greenish-silvery iridescence

Glass

L 1.1, D 0.3–0.4, P 0.2

ER

504

V.B.V.5n (2)

R

5107

4901/6

Narrow, elongated biconical monochrome; rod-formed, wound; perforated on long axis; translucent, yellow with opaque white in tunnel, giving bead a gold color; slvery-white iridescence; broken, about one quarter missing; glass color imitates metal gold-bead

Glass

L 1.0, D 0.2–0.4, P 0.15

ER

505

V.B.V.5p (1)

B

Sq D16

2275/2

Short convex biconical; translucent light purple

Amethyst

D 0.7, H 0.4, P 0.1

UnD

506

V.B.V.5p (1)

R

5101

4419

Short convex biconical; flat perforation areas; translucent light purple; well proportioned, highly polished

Amethyst

D 0.8, H 0.5, P 0.1

ER

507

V.B.V.5p (1)

R

5105

4523

Short convex biconical; flat perforation areas; translucent light purple; broken, one-half remains; perforated using round tool with pointed end

Amethyst

D 0.8, H 0.6, P 0.1 and 0.2

ER

508

V.B.V.5p (2)

S

1911

6938

High, large convex (irregular) biconical; cut opening areas, one perforation tapering to smaller of the holes, other hole cut in center of flattened end; translucent purple

Amethyst

D 1.8–1.9, H 1.0–1.1, P 0.1 and 0.3

ER

509

V.B.V.6n

R

5005

273

Irregular low oblate; rod-formed, wound(?); uncertain dark color (dark green?), appears black; weathered

Glass

D 0.4–0.5, H 0.4, P 0.2

ER

510

V.B.V.6n

R

5053

6796

Low oblate ‘seed’; translucent blue; blue-gray weathering

Glass

D 0.3–0.5, H 0.1, P 0.2–0.3

ER

Figure

181

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

511

V.B.V.6n

S

1909

6877

Low oblate; colorless; whitish-silvery iridescence

Glass

D 0.6, H 0.5, P 0.1 and 0.2

ER

512

V.B.V.8h

B

1258

956/1

Long convex tear-drop/pear-shaped cone; broken and chipped on narrow top end; signs of wear on lower, wider opening; perforated on long axis; polished; translucent, colorless; similar to No. 513.

Rock crystal

L 0.9, D 0.3–0.8, P 0.1

Hell.

513

V.B.V.8h

R

5024

7610/1 19974595

Long convex tear-drop/pear-shaped cone; perforation on long axis; cut top perforation area; transparent, colorless; high quality material; beautifully polished; similar to No. 512

Rock crystal

H/L 1.3, D 0.4–0.8, P 0.1–0.2

ER

514

V.B.V.8n

B

1314

762

Long, convex pear-shaped traildecorated; rod-formed, folded; part an opaque dark color (green?), part opaque yellow with a central white band (turned yellow); weathered; broken lengthwise and chipped on broad end; For similar bead and technique, cf. Spaer 2001:111, Nos. 16a–c

Glass

L 1.8, D 0.4–0.8, P 0.2 and 0.3

Hell.

515

V.B.V.9n.

B

1261

1633

Truncated cone trail-decorated; central perforation on long axis; uncertain dark color (green, brown?) with trails in yellow-red and white; black, dark brown weathering and yellow-gold color; bright red iridescence; burnt; same type as No. 516

Glass

H 0.7, D 0.4– 0.7, P 0.2 and 0.3

Late Hell.

516

V.B.V.9n.

S

2002

3162

Truncated cone; perforation on long axis; uncertain dark color, appears black; weathered Cf. Israeli and Katsnelson 2006: Pl. 21.11:90

Glass

H 0.8, D 0.4 and 0.8, P 0.2

ER

517

V.B.V.10g

R

5006

7087 19974524

Single collar spherical; perforated on long axis; cream; similar to No. 518

Bone

D 0.19, H 0.18, P 0.15 and 0.20

Hell.– ER?

518

V.B.V.10g

R

5107

4655

Single collar spherical; perforated on long axis; light brown; broken, chipped, about one-half remains; similar to No. 517

Bone

D 1.0, H 1.0, P 0.2

ER

519

V.B.V.10a

R

5054

6874

Single collar biconical; perforation on long axis and cut ends; dark to light gray; well proportioned

Limestone

D 0.4–0.8, H 1.2, P 0.3

Hell.– ER

Figure

182

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

520

V.B.V.11c (1)

R

5014

6181/1 19974534

‘Cornerless’ sphere; orange with dark orange, white and brown veins; signs of wear near perforation areas; similar to No. 521

Cornelian

D/W 0.8, H/Th 0.6, P 0.15–0.20

Hell.– ER

521

V.B.V.11c (2)

B

1263

475/1

‘Cornerless’ cube; orange; signs of wear on opening; similar to No. 520 For shape cf. Brewer 1986:147, Fig. 48:67–69; Dubin 1995: Chart No. 352; Spaer 2001:74, 338, Nos. 48–49

Cornelian

D/L/W 0.8, H/Th 0.4, P 0.15–0.20

Hell.– ER

522

V.B.V.12n

R

5014

6344/2 19905049A

Wide ovoid; flat underside, low curved top, perforated on long axis; rod-formed and tooled; translucent dark green-blue

Glass

L 1.1, W 0.9–1.4, P 0.2–0.3

ER

523

V.B.V.12n

R

5151

5490

Wide ovoid/oval low; perforated on long axis; two-layered blanks; translucent green-blue; opaque whitegreen weathering and greenish-silvery iridescence; beautiful; chipped, signs of wear on one opening from metal(?) wire; rare shape For technique, design and colors cf. Spaer 2001:224, No. 530

Glass

L 1.9, W 1.4, H 0.4, P 0.3

ER

524

V.B.V.17a

R

5104

4071/1

Scaraboid; extremely simplified low ovoid with tapering sides and flat base; perforated on long axis, holes reach top; few short strokes on one broader top edge; opaque cream and light brown

Limestone (marble)

L 1.1, W 0.8, H 0.3, P 0.15 and 0.2

Up to 2nd– early 1st c. BCE

525

V.B.V.18n

R

5108

4929

Segmented ‘gold’ bead composed of three joined semi-spherical beads; lengthwise striations; perforated on long joined axis; colorless, two drawn layers deeply pinched with central gold foil For type cf. Dubin 1995: Chart; Spaer 2001:131, 138, Nos. 238–239

Glass

Overall L 1.0, H 0.2–0.4, P 0.1, D/H of each segment 0.4

ER

526

V.B.V.19n

No data

Granular; granules on center of a basic cylindrical shape; five granules evenly sized and spaced; rod-formed, wound(?); colorless with bluish tinge; bluish-silvery iridescence

Glass

L 0.6, D 0.5–0.7 (with granules), P 0.3 and 0.4

ER

Figure

0

0.5

183

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

527

V.B.V.20n

B

1295

573

Small concave cylinder (spool/reelbead) with thick outer edges, traildecorated(?); rod-formed; translucent yellow or translucent yellow core with light brown trail collars; shiny yellowish-white iridescence ends; weathered; uncommon shape; Nos. 389, 527 and 529 from same necklace?

Glass

L 0.5, D 0.35–0.50, P 0.3

Late Hell.

528

V.B.V.21n

E

Sq A10

5768

Low pyramidal; roughly shaped in mold, rod-pierced and ground to final shape(?); square, flat base, low pyramidal-shaped top; single perforation near base; translucent deep blue-green For suggested technique, cf. Spaer 2001:64.

Glass

L/W 1.3, H 0.7, P 0.2

ER

529

V.B.V.22n

B

1295

567

Unrecognizable shape, trail decorated; rod-formed spiral-decoration made from trailed pre-fused cane sections applied spirally around rod and drawn; light brown core with opaque dark brown and opaque white-yellowish diagonal trails; shining silvery-white iridescent surface; fragment, broken on both ends Cf. Spaer 2001:109–110, Nos. 156, 157

Glass

D 1.3, H 0.1–0.6, P 0.3

Hell.

530

V.B.V.22n

S

1909

6913/1

Bead fragment; blue; broken

Glass

L 0.5

ER

Summary This good-sized body of Hellenistic–Early Roman beads from Gamla presents the largest assemblage of dated beads found so far in excavations in Israel. A few are of uncommon form—both in our region and throughout the Hellenistic–Early Roman world. The appearance of the same Hellenistic–Romanperiod bead types in Area B, which dates mainly to the Hasmonean period, and Areas R and S, populated predominantly during the Early Roman period, in the first century CE, points to a continuation of certain bead types in our region during these two close periods. This is especially apparent in the case of glass beads, but in the case of some quartz beads as well, as provided by the example of two high-quality rock crystal tear-drop shaped beads (Type V.B.V.8h, Nos. 152, 153). Trail-decorated glass beads occur only in certain bead categories (Type V.B.V.1, 3, 4, 7) and eye

Figure

beads, only in Type V.B.V.1. These beads, as well as the large glass wide ovoid beads (Type V.B.V.6), the single trail-decorated glass cone bead (Type V.B.V.9), and the segmented gold glass and granular beads (Type V.B.V.18, 19), point to the existence of a substantial well-to-do group among Gamla’s inhabitants, a group that was well aware of the current bead fashions during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The majority of beads are made of glass. It is feasible that most of the glass beads found, as well as glass insets and, perhaps, the few glass pendants, were produced in closeby regional or even local glass workshops (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:430–431). The smaller body of early Hellenistic–Early Roman stone beads, mainly of a variety of quartz types, is meaningful. Some of them, as well as a few stone intaglios, might have been cut in local workshops. A smaller, yet significant number of stone beads (as with

184

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

insets and a larger number of intaglios) presuppose import from distant regional workshops or bead centers abroad. For example, the four amethyst and four rockcrystal beads (Types V.B.V.5h, p; V.B.V.8h), highquality examples rarely found in such quantities in late Hellenistic–Early Roman sites in Israel, were either imported as complete beads, plausibly from one of the late Hellenistic–Early Roman bead centers (Alexandria, Antiochia?) or were fashioned from imported raw material during this time span in one of the major city centers in Israel (Caesaria Maritima?). They appear to provide witness that expensive rock crystal and amethyst beads, as well as their glass imitations (see Type V.B.V.5n), were fashionable and highly appreciated at Gamla throughout these culturally close periods. Some beads of identical and similar forms and/or of other varieties found close together may have belonged to the same necklaces or earrings (for example, in Area B, Nos. 390, 391; 420, 421; 423, 424; 436, 437; 477–478; Area R, Nos. 404, 405; 453, 503; Area S, Nos. 382, 383; 430–434). However, it is impossible to resolve the the number and subtypes of necklaces and earrings represented by this large collection of Hellenistic–Early Roman beads. The beads seem to show that there was a preference for necklaces and earrings fashioned from beads of various shapes, sizes and colors or combinations of beads in stone, glass and faience. Only a small number of jewels were apparently made of only quartz or faience. Type V.C. Beads of Uncertain Date (n = 4) These beads are fashioned from resin, agate and cornelian. Type V.C.V.2. Annular/Ring and Flat Disc Bead (n = 1) Type V.C.V.2q. Resin (Amber?) Flat Faceted Disc. Area R; No. 531. This is the sole resin bead and small jewel item found at Gamla. The precise resin from which this minute bead is fashioned is unclear.4 Amber, a yellowish to reddish brown fossil resin, has been used for jewels and ornaments from Neolithic times onward (Ogden 1982:116). True amber was used as bead material particularly in Europe since early times and in the Near East, perhaps only from the late second millennium BCE (Ogden 1982:117; Tait 1986:14, 40, 48, 74, 113–114; Fortin 2002:212,

Pl. 207; Ras Shamra, 1300 BCE). From pre-Roman to Roman times, true amber was used in the Near East in small quantities and only for beads. A resinous substance that is similar in appearance and hardness to real amber,5 but originated in Lebanon, was used by Syrian and Iranian craftsmen at least from the early second millennium or even earlier (Ogden 1982:117; Fortin 2002:212). To the best of our knowledge, in Israel, resin beads of diverse shapes appear, perhaps, in late Hellenistic times, but are known chiefly from the Imperial Roman period (Katsnelson 2002:323, 326, Figs. 1:27a–g, 2:21a–g). During these periods, annular and disc resinous beads are usually non-faceted specimens and are frequently of larger proportions than our thin, flat disc bead. If this bead is indeed made from true amber, its raw material, and perhaps the bead itself, were most likely imported from Egypt or Europe. If this bead is made of another resin substance, its raw material might derive from Lebanon. If it is an Early Bronze Age bead, it is a very early rare, resinous bead from a site in Israel; if it is Roman, it is plausibly one of the earliest examples of Roman amber beads from Israel. Type V.C.V.4. Cylindrical and Tubular Bead (n = 1) Type V.C.V.4f. Agate Cylindrical Beads. Area B; Cat. No. 532. The unclear date of this item is due to the fact that short cylindrical agate beads of this type occur in both eras relevant to Gamla. One of Kinneret’s EB II burial beads is a short cylindrical agate of the same height as our bead but with the typical Early Bronze Age biconical perforation (Mazar et al. 1973: Fig. 9:11). Although this Early Bronze Age perforation type is absent from the Gamla bead, its dating to the Early Bronze Age period cannot be ruled out. In Parthian–Hellenistic–Roman cultures, cylindrical and tubular agate beads, including short cylindrical agate beads, were among the most valued bead subtypes (Dubin 1995:52, first row 5, 6, 11). If this bead belongs to a late horizon, the context suggests a Hellenistic (late second–first centuries BCE) date. Type V.C.V.5. Biconical Beads (n = 2) Type V.C.V.5c. Cornelian Short Convex Biconical Beads (n = 2). Areas S (1), T (1); Nos. 533, 534.

185

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Cat. No.

Type

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No./ IAA No.

Description

Material

Measurements (cm)

Date

531

V.C.V.2q

R

5055

7173/1

Flat faceted disc; perforated on short axis; dark gray-reddish-brown; broken, chipped, c. one-eighth missing; burnt— precluded detection of precise, resin from which it was made

Resin

D 1.2, H 0.3–0.4, P 0.1

UnD

532

V.C.V.4f

B

1315

844/2 19974531

Cylindrical; translucent light orange with light brown veins and opaque cream

Agate (banded)

H 0.8, D 0.6, P 0.2

UnD

533

V.C.V.5c

S

2051

3916/2 19905030

Short biconical convex; orange; well proportioned, highly polished

Cornelian

D 0.9, H 0.4, P 0.1

UnD

534

V.C.V.5c

T

4189

1215

Short convex biconical; orange; well proportioned and beautifully polished

Cornelian

D 0.7, H 0.5, P 0.2

UnD

These are highly polished, well cut beads with small to medium-sized well bored holes of uneven convex biconical shape with many striations from wear near perforation holes. Their unclear date is because, on the one hand, most other cornelian items from this category and subtype are Early Bronze Age beads (Type V.A.V.5c[1], above) and on the other hand, their uneven shape is close to that of the most common form of Roman cornelian beads—the cutcornered cube or multifaceted, cornerless sphere beads (Type V.B.V.11, above). Since, in Hellenistic– Roman times, short convex cornelian beads are uncommon and no cornelian bead with this precise shape was found in Area B, if they are not Early Bronze Age in date, they may be from the Early Roman period.

Type VI. Tesserae (n = 2) No. 535. Lead Tessera Context: Area S; L1911; Reg. No. 7168. Dimensions: L 1.5, W 1.0, Th/h 0.2–0.3. Material: Lead. Device: Athena/Roma(?) bust facing right. Near round, with flat top and plain flat underside. Date: Early Roman. No. 536. Lead Tessera Context: Area S; L1918; Reg. No. 8370; IAA No. 2007-2025 Dimensions: L 1.9, W 1.2, Th/H 0.2. Material: Lead Device: Athena/Roma bust facing right.

Figure

Date: Early Roman. Discussion: Device is identical to No. 535. The item was found in Building 1900 (the large mansion). Tesserae may be defined as small, rounded, angular or irregularly formed pieces of bone or metal supplied with a design on one or both sides. In Rome, tesserae are believed to have been introduced under Augustus, or perhaps somewhat earlier (Hamburger 1986:187). Roman-period tesserae are frequently minted or cast in lead and therefore details of their devices are often erased, making difficult a precise identification of the motifs. The context and device of these two pieces date them to the Early Roman period. They are very similar in shape, size, and devices, and may have been cast in the same mold. Devices of deities, including their heads or busts, and emperors and military symbols usually belong to public and/or military distribution tesserae (Hamburger 1986: Nos. 4, 37, 112–114, 122). In our region, devices of Athena’s or Roma’s head/bust, frequently helmeted, are generally more familiar motifs on gems, mainly from the first–second centuries CE. Furthermore, the goddesses appear on the reverse of Roman coins. It is frequently debated and hard to ascertain whether helmeted female heads on tesserae and gems depict Minerva/Athena or Roma. Both motifs are primarily military and usually indicate the presence of legionaries (Hamburger 1968:8, Nos. 41–42; Liebowitz 1976:250–253, Pl. 8:7; Henig and Whiting 1987:2, Nos. 158, 161–164; Hershkovitz and Amorai-Stark 2007: No. 1).

186

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

The military aspect of these tesserae lead us to assume that they belonged to Roman soldiers. However, since there is no evidence of Roman military activity in Area S, they might have been brought to Gamla before the siege.

Conclusions The large body of Early Bronze Age finds underscores the vitality of Early Bronze Age settlement at Gamla. Taken as individual items, this collection of Early Bronze Age finds mainly contains less than spectacular insets, pendants and beads; yet as an assemblage, this is a significant collection of finds. The Gamla Early Bronze Age jewels include uncommon forms and materials known from Early Bronze Age sites in Israel. Indeed, this assemblage is one of the largest collections of Early Bronze Age finds discovered in this country. Furthermore, since no Early Bronze Age tombs were excavated at Gamla, it appears that the majority of these jewels reflect the fashions of daily life in an Early Bronze Age (and to a lesser degree a Chalcolithic) settlement in northern Israel. The inhabitants sought their stones primarily in nearby areas and they were cut to their required shapes locally or in close by centers. The diverse source range of raw materials—from fairly close but also from far-away places—reveals that Gamla’s populace dealt in trade, best exemplified by the shell pendants and beads that derive from shells living in the salty Mediterranean and Red Sea waters, as well as from the sweet waters of the Egyptian Nile River. The unequivocal date of the final abandonment of this site in 67 CE means that all the non-Early Bronze Age material dates to the late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. This collection of jewels and ornaments is of great significance: until now, our knowledge of Hellenistic–Roman jewels was mainly based on tomb finds, whereas this assemblage reflects above all the daily life and material culture of a Jewish late Hellenistic–Early Roman town in the Golan. This assemblage probably represents an accumulation of casual losses, as well as items that were hidden,

abandoned and broken (and looted?), especially during Gamla’s siege. For example, the large quantity of beads provides evidence of the Gamla women’s acquaintaince with fashion, and perhaps, even a trend toward coquettishness. These finds reveal that Gamla’s population comprised diverse social and economic strata. Most of Gamla’s gems were plain (cabochons), conforming to the sensitivities of the Jewish inhabitants, and some of the intaglios also conform to Jewish artistic sympathies of the times (Type I, Nos. 32 [three corn sheaves] and 33 [vine cluster]). The identity of the owners of the intaglios with animal devices is uncertain: the two gems with animal motifs uncovered in Areas G and T (Type I, No. 2 [lion devouring gazelle]; Type I, No. 5 [unidentified animal]) might have belonged to pagans or Jews. The majority that derives from Areas B, R and S depicts animals as well as mythological pagan motifs (Type I, Nos. 3 [animal], 4 [reclining animal]; Type II, Nos. 27, 29–31 [sphinx, combination, Capricorn, butterfly respectively), suggesting that the Jewish inhabitants of Gamla used gems with animals and combined motifs of general origin. The intaglio with a figurative device from Area T (Type II, No. 25 [Eros]) probably belonged to a Roman soldier. The identity of the owners of the intaglios with human figures from Area R (Type II, Nos. 26, 28 [bust of Demeter, frontal figure]), as well as of the all-metal ring from Area T (Type I, No. 15 [bust of Artemis]), is uncertain. In comparison to the large body of plain Hellenistic– Roman insets/cabochons (181), the number of engraved intaglios (12) found at Gamla is small. Might this discrepancy between the number of cabochons and intaglios indicate that the majority of Gamla’s Jews preferred to embed their jewels and accessories with plain gems (cabochons) rather than engraved gems (intaglios)? If so, this disparity might reveal that the Jews of Gamla adhered on the whole to the Jewish ban in the Second Commandment (Exodus 20.4–5; Deuteronomy, 5.8–9). It would seem that they were stricter in their use of jewels with human figurative motifs than they were in the use of depictions of animals, plants and eyemotifs (mainly on intaglios and beads).

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

187

Notes We wish to express our gratitude to Danny Syon, who entrusted us with the study and presentation of the material and thank him for his help and advice throughout our research. We convey our gratitude to the late ageologist Amnon Rosenfeld, for his help in the material identification of some of the stone finds; to Daniella Bar-Yosef, for her identification of all the shell items; to Maud Spaer, for our fruitful exchange of ideas with her; and to Ruth Jackson-Tal for allowing us to use the material from Marisa (in preparation for publication). The photographs are by Danny Syon and Clara Amit, and the drawings, by Hagit Tahan-Rosen, Tina Waghorn and Alex Kranz. Lastly, our thanks to Lori Lender, for her meticulous editing, and to Ann Abuhav, for the exacting, aesthetic graphics. Thanks as well to Ira Perova, for assisting us in bringing forth the true colors of the gemstones. 1

Mazar et al. (1973) do not identify the materials of the non-quartz bead stones, but merely state their colors. The majority is soft stones of the types we term limestone (cf. Type III). 3 The terms of the diverse eye-bead subtypes are based on Spaer (2001:77–98). 4 We thank Amnon Rosenfeld for identifying this bead as a resinous piece. 5 In Egypt, various types of resins were used for beads from Pre-Dynastic times onward. The Pre-Dynastic, Armant resin beads include the so-called amber beads, which, due to their features, such as succinic acid content, are usually considered real amber. The precise substance of the unpublished ‘amber’ beads from Gezer is as yet unclear. We thank Maud Spaer for this information. 2

R eferences Aldred C. 1971. Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewellery of the Dynastic Period. London. Amiran R. 1978. Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City I: First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Amorai-Stark S. 1993. Engraved Gems and Seals from Two Collections in Jerusalem: The Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Museum Gem Collection and the Pontifical Institute Museum Gem Collection (SBF Museum 11). Jerusalem. Amorai-Stark S. 1997. Wolfe Family Collection of NearEastern Prehistoric Stamp Seals (OBO.SA 16). Fribourg– Gottingen. Amorai-Stark S. 1999. Gems, Cameos and Seals. In R. Gersht ed. The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima. Tel Aviv. Pp. 87–114 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 12*–13*). Amorai-Stark S. and Hershkovitz M. 2011. Selected Antique Gems from Israel: Excavated Glyptics from Roman–Byzantine Tombs. In C. Entwistle and N. Adams eds. ‘Gems of Heaven’: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity c. AD 200–600. London. Pp. 105–113.. Andrews C. 1994. Amulets of Ancient Egypt. London. Ariel D.T. 1990. Excavations of the City of David 1978– 1985, Directed by Yigal Shilo, City of David Final Report II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Avigad N. 1971. The Burial Vault of a Nazirite Family on Mount Scopus. IEJ 21:185–200. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies. Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan R. 2006. The Pottery of Masada. In Masada VII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Report; The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef Meyer D. 1999. Shells from Archaeological Contexts in Israel. Qadmoniot 32 (117):45–51 (Hebrew). Berlin A. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem. Bingöl F.R.I. 1999. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations: Ancient Jewellery. Ankara. Boardman J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. London. Boardman J. and Scarisbrick D. 1977. The Ralph Harari Collection of Finger Rings. London. Braidwood R.J. and Braidwood L.S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A–J (OIP 61). Chicago. Brewer R.J. 1986. The Beads and Glass Counters. In D. Zienkiewicz ed. The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon II: The Finds. Cardiff. Pp. 146–156. Buchanan B. 1981. Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven–London. Buchanan B. 1984. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum II: The Prehistoric Stamp Seals. Oxford. Crowfoot G.M. 1957. Faience, Amulets and Beads. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon eds. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 389–402. Doumet C. 1992. Sceaux et cylindres orientaux: La collection Chiha (OBO.SA 9). Fribourg–Göttingen. Dubin L.S. 1995. The History of Beads from 30,000 B.C. to the Present. London. Erlenmeyer S. 1989. The Erlenmeyer Collection of Near Eastern Stamp Seals and Amulets. Christie’s, London. Fortin M. 2002. Syria, Land of Civilizations (Catalogue, Musée de la Civilisation). Quebec.

188

SHUA AMORAI-STARK AND MALKA HERSHKOVITZ

Getzov N. 2005. Finds of the Early Bronze Age from Area G, pp. 45–46 in D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot 50:45–46. Goff B.L. 1963. Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia. New Haven–London. Gonen R. 1997. Jewelry through the Ages at the Israel Museum. Jerusalem. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 113–152. Hamburger A. 1968. Gems from Caesarea Maritima (‘Atiqot 8 [ES]. Jerusalem. Hamburger A. 1986. Surface-Finds from Caesarea Maritima—Tesserae. In L.I. Levine and E. Netzer eds. Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979; Final Report (Qedem 21). Pp. 187–204. Henig M. 1990. The Content Family Collection of Ancient Cameos. Oxford–Houlton. Henig M. and Whiting M. 1987. Engraved Gems from Gadara in Jordan: The Sa‘d Collection of Intaglios and Cameos (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 6). Oxford. Herrmann J.J. Jr. 2000. Demeter-Isis or the Egyptian Demeter? A Graeco-Roman Sculpture from an Egyptian Workshop in Boston. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 114:65–123. Hershkovitz M. 2003a. Gemstones. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 296–301. Hershkovitz M. 2003b. Jerusalemite Painted Pottery from the Late Second Temple Period. In R. Rosental-Heginbottom ed. The Nabateans in the Negev. Haifa. Pp. 31*–34*. Hershkovitz M. and Amorai-Stark S. 2007. The Gems from Masada. In J. Aviram, G. Foerster, E. Netzer, G.D. Stiebel and A. Paris eds. Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 217–232. Homès-Fredricq D. 1970. Les cachets Mésopotamiens Protohistoriques. Leiden. Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area A and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 411–460. Jackson-Tal R. 2008. The Hellenistic Glass Finds in the Land of Israel in Light of Excavations at Marisa and Dor. M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Katsnelson N. 2002. Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika 1991, 1993: The Glass Ornaments. In Z. Gal ed. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galiean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 322–331 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 186*–187*).

Khalaily H. 2004. An Early Bronze Site at Ashqelon, Afridar—Area F. ‘Atiqot 45:121–159. Konuk K. and Arslan M. 2000. Ancient Gems and Finger Rings from Asia Minor: The Yüksel Erimtan Collection. Ankara. Kypraiou E. 1997. Greek Jewellery: 6000 Years of Tradition. Athens. Lapatin K. 2011. ‘Grylloi’. In C. Entwistle and N. Adams eds. ‘Gems of Heaven’: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity c. AD 200–600. London. Pp. 88–98. Liebowitz H.A. 1976. Selected Small Finds. In E.M. Meyers, A.T. Kraabel and J.F. Strange eds. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema‘, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970–1972 (AASOR 42). Durham, N.C. Pp. 250–253. Lowry J.D. and Lowry T.P. 2010. Turquoise: The World Story of a Fascinating Gemstone. Layton, Utah. Maaskant-Kleibrink M. 1978. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague: The Greek, Etruscan and Roman Collections. The Hague. Mallowan M.E.L. 1947. Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar (Iraq 9). London. Marshall F.H. 1969. Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum. London. Mazar B., Amiran R. and Hess N. 1973. An Early Bronze Age II Tomb at Bet Yerah (Kinneret). Eretz-Israel 11:176–193 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 28*). Muhly J.D. and Muhly P. 1989. Metal Artifacts. In Z. Herzog, G. Rapp. Jr. and O. Negbi eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 8). Minneapolis–Tel Aviv. Pp. 267–295. Nenner-Soriano R. 2006. Miscellaneous Finds. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area A and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 310–314. Ogden J. 1982. Jewellery of the Ancient World. London. Patrich J. and Rafael K. 2008. The Jewelry. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN: Final Report I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 421–431. Peleg O. 2003. Roman Intaglio Gemstones from Aelia Capitolina. PEQ 135:54–69. Qatna 2008: http://www.qatna.org/foto/album-en/ slides/06-07.html (accessed March 4, 2009). Rahmani L.Y. 1980. Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs on Mount Scopus. ‘Atiqot 14:49–54. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria (1908–1910) I. Cambridge, Mass. Rosenfeld A., Dvorachek M. and Amorai-Stark S. 2003. Roman Wheel-Cut Engraving, Dyeing and Painting Microquartz Gemstones. JAS 30:227–238. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects (Israel Museum Catalogue 447). Jerusalem. Spier J. 1992. Ancient Gems and Finger Rings: Catalogue of the Collections; The J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu.

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Stern E. 2010. Excavations at Dor: Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets; 1980–2000 Seasons. Jerusalem. Sussman V. 2000. A Jewish Burial Cave on Mount Scopus. In H. Geva ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (reprinted and expanded ed.). Jerusalem. Pp. 226–230. Swersky A. 1996. Gemstones. In D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Pp. 268–275. Syon D. Coins. In Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989; Finds and Studies, Part 1 (IAA Reports 56). Jerusalem. Pp. 109–231. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2010. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Tait H. ed. 1986. Seven Thousand Years of Jewellery. London. Temizsoy I. 2007. The Anatolian Civilization Museum. Ankara.

189

TJC: Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem–Nyack, N.Y. 2001. Wickede A. von. 1990. Prähistorische stempelglyptic in Vorderasien. Munich. Zimmermann T. 2006. Kalınkaya—A Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Northern Central Anatolia. First Preliminary Report: The Burial Evidence. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 2005 Yıllığı:271–311. Zuckerman S. 1996. Beads and Pendants. In D.T. Ariel and A. de Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Pp. 276–289. Zuckerman S. 2003. A Bead. In A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil and S. Zuckerman eds. Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the Archeological Excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem. P. 177.

Chapter 13

Miscellaneous Small Finds: Metal and Glass Ruth E. Jackson-Tal

Introduction

The Finds

Described here is a selection of the small finds of metal and glass. They comprise jewelry, ornaments and cosmetic applicators—earrings, bracelets, chains, fibulae, rods and spoons—altogether 74 of the best preserved specimens in their category discovered at the site, the majority from Areas R and S in the Western Quarter.1 The finds were divided according to function, material and form. Parallels were given mainly to similar Early Roman contexts in northern Israel when possible, although the chronological and geographical distribution of these finds is much wider than the picture presented here. All the finds are discussed in detail and described in the catalogue. A metallurgical analysis was conducted by Matthew Ponting (see Chapter 21) on several items, and this is indicated below within the catalogue.

Earrings (Fig. 13.1) Six bronze and two gold earrings were found at Gamla. The bronze earrings consist of a ribbed hoop, closed by bending the ends toward each other and ending with two small pins; a rounded hoop, widening in the center into a small pendant, closed by bending; and four hookshaped earrings, one bent and twisted and three with applied decoration. The two gold earrings are made of two soldered crescent-shaped sheets of gold, one with a plain, bent hook and the other with a flat disc and small circle with a pin to place in the ear. Bronze earrings have not been widely published from excavations in Israel when found usually in contexts later than the Early Roman period. Two plain

1

2

5

3

6

4

8

7 0

2

Fig. 13.1. Earrings.

192

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

bronze earrings closed by bending (similar to No. 1, below) were found at Meiron in a Late Roman context (Meyers, Strange and Meyers 1981:150, Pl. 9.7:16, 18) and in a tomb at Moza ‘Illit, dated to the late first–late fourth centuries CE (Gudovitch 1996b:68*). Similar bent earrings were found in a Herodian context at Jericho (Nenner-Soriano 2013:271–271, Pl. 11.1:6–9) and bronze earrings made of hookshaped twisted bronze wires were found in contexts dated to the Byzantine period at ‘En Gedi (Chernov 2007:517, Pl. 5:2, 3, Fig. 43). Gold earrings of various types are well known from excavations conducted in the country—from the Iron Age–Persian period to the Late Roman period. No exact parallel was found for the gold earrings from Gamla, but similar gold earrings were uncovered in Tombs 12, 21b and 23b at ‘Atlit, dated to the Persian period (Johns 1933:64–67, 76–82, 89–94; Pls. 16:369, 370; 25:637–638; 30:834); in Tomb 29 at Palmahim, dated to the late Iron Age–early Persian period (SingerAvitz and Levy 1994:6*, Fig. 4:16); and in Burials 1005 and 1007 at Gesher Ha-Ziv, dated from the first to the early third centuries CE (Mazar 1994:78–80, Figs. 5, 8). Similar gold earrings were found in Late Roman tombs in the Galilee at Hanita (Barag 1978:42–43, Fig. 18:99, 101), Yehiʻam (Tzaferis 1969:73, Pl. 17:8) and H. Kenes (Porat 1997:85, Fig. 3:3). Undecorated Bronze Earrings Hoop-Shaped Undecorated Bronze Earrings 1. Bronze Earring (Fig. 13.1:1) Area R; L5031; Reg. No. 821; IAA 2007-3408. Intact. Rounded hoop made of a rectangular band, with a semicircular flattened section, horizontal ribbing and two small pins on connecting sides. Closed by bending. 2. Bronze Earring (Fig. 13.1:2) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6733; IAA 2007-1876. Intact. Rounded hoop with semicircular section. Closed by bending (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 66). Decorated Bronze Earrings Hoop-Shaped Decorated Bronze Earrings 3. Bronze Earring (Fig. 13.1:3) Area S; L2002; Reg. No. 3287.

Intact. Thin, rounded hoop widening into a small, protruding, pointed pendant-shape. Closed by bending. Hook-Shaped Decorated Bronze Earrings 4. Bronze Earring (Fig. 13.1:4) Area S; L1916; Reg. No. 7881; IAA 1990-5058. Intact. Rounded, down-curving hook with pointed end, bent into a half-circle loop with a thin, twisted wire connecting the circle to the hook. Now lost, a small green bead was found on the thin wire; perhaps there were originally several such beads strung on the wire. 5. Bronze Earring (Fig. 13.1:5) Area S; L2026; Reg. No. 3990; IAA 1990-3146. Intact. Rounded curving hook with pointed end, closed with a hoop with a bell-shaped pendant. 6. Bronze Earring (Fig. 13.1:6) Area S; L5021; Reg. No. 7811; IAA 2007-3450. Intact. Straight-angled hook, closed with a loop with a circular small ball made of two halves, below a flat, rounded disc. Gold Earrings 7. Gold Earring (Fig. 13.1:7) Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 7679. Intact. Two deformed soldered sheets of gold shaped into a hollow crescent, with a bent hook. 8. Gold Earring (Fig. 13.1:8) Area S; L5007; Reg. No. 4684; IAA 1990-5078. Fragment. The earring is made of three separate parts—two deformed soldered sheets of gold shaped into a hollow crescent, a rounded disc with a central perforation and a small rounded disc with a pin. The three parts combined to enable the securing of the earring firmly in the earlobe.

Bracelets Two zoomorphic bracelets made of bronze were found at the site. They are small in diameter and decorated with a detailed, small, horned animal’s head. According to Stern (1982:151, Fig. 254), silver bracelets with ends terminating in highly decorated heads of rams or ibexes are very common at Persian-period sites throughout the Near East. Similar bracelets decorated with zoomorphic

193

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

terminals were found in Israel in contexts dated to the Persian and late Hellenistic periods at Hazor (Yadin et al. 1961: Pl. 365:6), Tel Anafa (Merker 2012:250, Pl. 33: M155, M155a), Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal) (Muhly and Muhly 1989:288, Fig. 25.12:233–235) and Gezer (Stern 1982:151, Fig. 254). Other, very similar bracelets have been found in cemeteries at Deve Hüyük, near Carchemish, Turkey, dated to the fifth century BCE (Moorey 1980:74, 77–78, Figs. 11:265–280; 12:282–285). Peter R.S. Moorey claims this type of bronze bracelet imitates highly decorated silver bracelets typical of Achaemenid silver work (Moorey 1980:78), but the bracelets found at Gamla belong to a more schematic and simpler type, inspired by Achaemenid art and in an attempt to copy it (Moorey 1980:78). This type may have developed in later periods into a schematic and stylized depiction of serpent heads. Finely shaped serpent heads are a common motif in bracelets from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (Higgins 1961:187), and the serpent design continued to adorn bracelet ends in a different design in later periods. Silver and bronze bracelets with stylized serpent’s heads are well known in Late Roman tombs in Western Galilee (Abu-Uqsa 2002:136*, Fig. 2:3–8; Stern and Getzov 2006:97–99, 105, 108, Figs. 7:19; 15:46–49 with parallel to Kisra) and at ‘En Gedi (Chernov 2007:513, Pl. 3:5–11), in Byzantine and Mamluk contexts.

9. Bronze Bracelet (Fig. 13.2:9) Area A; L1092; Reg. No. 5851; IAA 2007-3411. Fragment. Rounded rod terminating in an incised animal’s head with a pointed rounded muzzle, slanting eyes and flattened back-elongated horns. The rod is decorated with alternating ribs and net designs. D 5 cm. 10. Bronze Bracelet (Fig. 13.2:10) Area G; L1503; Reg. No. 6366. Fragment. Rounded rod terminating in an incised animal’s head with a pointed rounded muzzle, slanting eyes and flattened back-elongated horns. The rod is decorated with alternating ribs and net designs. D 5.8 cm.

Necklaces/Chains These ring chains are made of bronze loops twisted and folded in an eight-shape, attached to folded hooks, with the exception of one lead item (No. 14). They may have been used as necklaces or, more probably, as delicate chains serving various functions. Few parallels are known from Early Roman contexts. Similar ring chains made of ʽ8ʼ-shaped and rounded rings, several separated by rings, were found in tombs in Western Galilee: in Tomb 2 near Horbat Sugar, dated to the fourth to sixth centuries CE (ʽ8ʼ-shaped with rounded

9

10

12

11 0

2

Fig. 13.2. Bracelets and chains.

13

14

15

194

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

separating-rings; Aviam and Stern 1997:99, Fig. 6:7); in a Byzantine context near Horbat Sokho (eight-shaped; Gudovitch 1996a:21*, Fig. 3); in a Late Roman context at Meiron (eight-shaped and rounded; Meyers et al. 1981:149, Pls. 9.3:2–4, 9.7:15); and in Catacomb 20 at Bet She‘arim (eight-shaped with rounded separatingrings; Avigad 1971:165, Fig. 101:2). An additional chain was found in a tomb at Moza ‘Illit, dated to the late first–late fourth centuries CE (eight-shaped, not illustrated; Gudovitch 1996b:68*). 11. Bronze Chain (Fig. 13.2:11) Area R; L5018; Reg. No. 7764; IAA 2007–2016. Small part of a chain made of folded and twisted eightshaped loops attached to a folded hook. 12. Bronze Chain (Fig. 13.2:12) Area E, L1504, Reg. No. 5044; IAA 1990-3199. Small part of a chain made of folded and twisted eightshaped loops attached to a folded hook. 13. Bronze Chain (Fig. 13.2:13) Area B, L1253, Reg. No. 661. Small part of a chain made of folded and twisted wires. 14. Lead Chain (Fig. 13.2:14) Area B, L1304, Reg. No. 231. Small part of twisted loops set in a lead chain. 15. Bronze Chain (Fig. 13.2:15) Area G, L1506, Reg. No. 6653 IAA 2007–1991. Small part of a chain made of eight-shaped and twisted loops.

Fibulae (Figs. 13.3, 13.4) Metal fibulae are known since the Iron Age, but mainly during the Persian and Roman periods, when they were an important functional accessory, used to secure the garment. Fourteen fibulae were found at Gamla: six bent (knee or elbow types), with plain or decorated ribbed bows; seven of the aucissa type; and a single late La Tène-type. Fibulae are made of two separate parts—a semicircular bow with a clasp and a straight pin with a spring. The main production methods were hammering and casting (Cociş 2004:24). According to Brandl, the bow of Persian-period fibulae was mold-cast and the clasp flexed and hammered, and the pin with the spring was cast and

twisted (Brandl 2000:198). Roman fibulae (first–third centuries CE) were mainly produced by casting, in the ‘lost wax’ technique or by the ‘casting upon archetype’ technique (Cociş 2004:24–26). At Gamla, the bow was usually better preserved than the pin. Decorated Bent (Knee or Elbow) Bow Fibulae Fibula Nos. 16–20 are made of bent bows, rounded or semicircular in section, and decorated with ribbing, with one end folded and the other bearing a protruding pin. This type is known mainly in the Iron Age and the Persian period (Stronach 1959:185–204) but is found in the country in later contexts in smaller numbers. Stern believes they are Greek in style and origin (Stern 1982:153, Fig. 257), though similar fibulae also occur in later, Early Roman, contexts. Several similar decorated and plain fibulae were found at Samaria, in contexts dated from the Iron Age to the Roman period (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:356–357, Fig. 228: plain with folded ends 3a, 4a, 6a, 10a; similar incised with shallow ribs 11h and j; Kenyon 1957:441–443, Figs. 102, 103). Comparable plain fibulae were found in Iron Age strata at Hazor (Garfinkel and Greenberg 1997:282, Fig. III.49:4; Photograph III.81; see also Yadin et al. 1961: Pls. 191:18, 364:17 plain with folded end) and at Tel Anafa, in contexts dated to the Persian– Hellenistic periods (Merker 2012:252–254, Pls. 34: M166–M168a, 35: M170, M171, 36: M173). Other fibulae, similarly decorated with ribbed bows, were found in contexts dated to the Persian period at Tel Nahariyya (Ovadiah 1993:22*, Fig. 6:7–9); Tombs 24 and 35 at ‘Atlit (Johns 1933:76–82, 94–104, Pls. 24:613, 632, 34:865, 36:994); Tell Keisan (Nodet 1980:324, Pl. 100:1–10); H. ‘Aqav, Ramat Ha-Nadiv (Brandl 2000:198–199, Fig. 13 with references; Kol-Yaakov 2000:497, 499, Pl. 12:1–6); in Stratum B at Shiqmona, dated to the late Persian/early Hellenistic period (Elgavish 1968:47–54, Fig. 114 LXIV:176–177); and at Tel Mikhal (Shalev and Sari 2006:97, Fig. 10). Ribbed-bow fibulae were found at Tel Ya‘oz, dated to the Persian period (Fischer, Roll and Tal 2008:137, Fig. 15:2; Segal, Kletter and Ziffer 2006:18*, Fig. 15:1). Several similar fibulae were found in a late fourth–early third-century BCE farmstead at Holot Rishon Le-Ziyyon (south) (Tal 2014:45–47, Fig. 16:1–5). Various similar and plain ribbed fibulae were found at Gezer (Macalister 1912:

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

195

17

16

18

19

20

22

21 0

2

Fig. 13.3. Fibulae.

Pl. CXXXIV:1–27) and four similar rib-decorated and plain bent bronze fibulae were found in a farm at Qalandiya dated until 70 CE (Magen 2004:95, Fig. 129, Pl. 14:7–10). Two bent bronze fibulae were found in a settlement at Horbat Hermas, dated from the Persian to the Early Islamic periods (Sion and Parnus 2006:29*, Fig. 10:4, 5) and two very

similar semicircular crossbow ribbed fibulae were found at Meiron in a Late Roman context (Meyers et al. 1981:150, Pl. 9.7:12, 14). Ribbed fibulae with the pin protruding are known also in fifth-century BCE tombs at Deve Hüyük, near Carchemish, Turkey (Moorey 1980:90, Fig. 14:343–344), and in Kourion, Cyprus (Giesen 2001:215, Pl. 62:1).

196

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

23

24

26

25

28

27

31

29

0

2

Fig. 13.4. Fibulae (cont.).

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

16. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:16) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6543/2. Fragment. Uneven semicircular bent bow with protruding pin on one end, folded on the other. Decorated with incised corroded ribs (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 2). 17. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:17) Area S; L2101; Reg. No. 1015; IAA 2007–2022. Fragment. Semicircular bent bow with protruding pin on one end. Decorated with incised corroded beads. 18. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:18) Area S; L1919; Reg. No. 7945. Fragment. Semicircular bent bow. Decorated with incised corroded beads (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 1). 19. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:19) Area R; L5018; Reg. No. 7048/1; IAA 2007-1949. Fragment. Folded end of bent bow. Decorated with incised corroded beads (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 55). 20. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:20) Area R; L5102; Reg. No. 4493; IAA 2007-1949. Fragment. Uneven semicircular bent bow with protruding pin on one end. Decorated with incised corroded ribs (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 3). Aucissa Fibulae Fibula Nos. 21–30 are identified as aucissa fibulae based on their typical shape—a rounded semicircular bow with one end widened and folded to hold the spring, and the other end folded to hold the pin, with a rounded knob. This type is dated to the first half of the first century CE. It was usually inscribed with the Celtic name Aucissa above the spring and was probably initially only made in Gaul (Cociş 2004:77– 83). The vast distribution of this type is consistent with a military presence, and therefore, it is assumed these fibulae were brought to the country by Roman soldiers (Vitto 2000:91–92) and were perhaps copied locally for civilian use (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2008:99*). Several examples from Gamla underwent chemical analysis by Ponting and most were found to be made of brass (Chapter 21). Furthermore, a comparison of this fibula type from Gamla and Masada (Ponting and Segal 1998) shows that the compositions of the fibulae from both sites are sufficiently similar to suggest a common

197

origin, with a statistically significant similarity of trace components. The major element components of these fibulae are also very similar to those of aucissa fibulae from Britain, and the amounts of iron and manganese in them indicates that the brass was produced by the direct heating of smithsonite ore, a scarce commodity in the Near East. Therefore, Ponting (Chapter 21) suggests that these fibulae were produced in European workshops and shipped out to the troops. Several of the fibulae from Gamla were published by Gutmann in a preliminary manner (1994:140, 147). Similar aucissa fibulae were found in Early Roman contexts at Tel Anafa (Merker 2012:253–254, Pl. 36: M175, M175a), in a Herodian tomb near Tell Abu Shusha (Israeli 1988:231–232, Fig. 145); at Tel Dor (RosenthalHeginbottom 2008:99*, Fig. 83); at Samaria (Reisner et al. 1924:357, Fig. 228:13c; Kenyon 1957:443, Fig. 103:4); in an unpublished tomb at the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem with a coin from the year 67/8 CE (Israeli 1988:232); in Tomb 1 on Mount Scopus, dated to the first half of the first century BCE–mid-first century CE (Vitto 2000:91–92, Fig. 50:3); in Stratum 4 in Area E, the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem, dated to the mid-first century BCE (slightly different in shape and decoration: Gutfeld and Nenner-Soriano 2006:274, Pl. 12.1:M8); at Cypros—unstratified (Stiebel 2013:295, Pl. 13.2:15); at the Nabatean way station at Tel Dafit (RosenthalHeginbottom 2003:28*); at Qumran, in a context dated to the first century CE (Magen and Peleg 2006:71, Fig. 3.19 with reference to de Vaux 1956:564, who mentions two fibulae, one decorated, without any description or illustration); and at Masada (Yadin 1966:150). 21. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:21) Area T; L4181; Reg. No. 1040; IAA 1992-1012. Intact. Semicircular bent bow with protruding pin on one end, folded on the other. Decorated with incised corroded beads. L 5.2 cm. 22. Fibula (Fig. 13.3:22) Area S; L2014; Reg. No. 3643; IAA 1990-3192. Intact. Semicircular rounded bow quite even in size, with central ridge/rib. One end above the spring is folded and decorated with two incised small circles; the other end is folded with a rounded knob. The pin has an upper loop and is thinner toward the fold, where it is placed. L 5 cm.

198

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

23. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:23) Excavation data missing; IAA 1990-3196. Fragmentary, missing pin. Semicircular flat bow fragment, wide above the spring side, narrower at the other end. Decorated with geometric designs: a straight rib with incised small circles across the bow and incised double circles near the spring side three. The other end is folded with a rounded knob. L 5.7 cm.

spring is folded; the other end is folded with a rounded knob.

24. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:24) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3850; IAA 1997-4258. Intact. Semicircular rounded bow, quite even in size, with central ridge/rib. One end above the spring is folded and decorated with two incised small circles, the other end is folded with a rounded knob. The pin has an upper loop and thins toward the fold, where it is placed. L 5 cm.

30. Fibula (not illustrated) Excavation data missing. Intact. Semicircular flat bow widening at one end above the spring and narrowing at the other. Decorated with geometric designs: a straight line with small circles across the bow, three double circles near the spring side. The foot side is folded to hold the pin with a rounded knob. Similar to No. 25 in decoration. L 6.2 cm.

25. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:25) Area M; Sq A17/18; Reg. No. 2215; IAA 2008-1304. Intact. Semicircular rounded bow, with central ridge/ rib. One end above the spring is folded; the other end is folded with a rounded knob. The pin has an upper loop and thins toward the fold, where it is placed (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 12). L 4.6 cm. 26. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:26) Area R; L5107; Reg. No. 4875; IAA 2008-1302. Fragmentary, missing pin. Semicircular rounded bow quite even in size, with central ridge/rib. One end above the spring is folded; the other end is folded with a rounded knob (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 15). L 5.2 cm. 27. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:27) Area S; L1901; Reg. No. 6683; IAA 2008-1301. Fragmentary, missing pin. Semicircular uneven bow with central ridge/rib. One end above the spring is folded; the other end is folded with a rounded knob (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 10). 28. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:28) Area R; L5012; Reg. No. 6043; IAA 2008-1303. Fragmentary, missing pin and spring. Semicircular uneven bow with central ridge/rib. One end above the

29. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:29) Surface find; Reg. No. 1997/3. Fragmentary, missing pin. Semicircular triangularsectioned flat bow shape. One end above the spring widened and folded; the other end, folded with a rounded knob.

Late La Tène-Type Fibula(?) Fibula No. 31 has no exact parallels, but can be identified as similar to Type 3 of the Late La Tène-type fibulae in Cociş’s study (2004:39–40). It is characterized by a bilateral wound spring, semicircular bow widening into a rectangular folded foot/catch-plate with an upper knob. This type is known in the Western provinces, mainly in contexts related to a military presence in the first– beginning of the second centuries CE, but is known also from the first century BCE (Cociş 2004:39–40 and pers. comm.). This fibula is from Area B, well dated to the first century BCE. A similar fibula was found at Jericho in Hasmonean contexts (NennerSoriano 2013:272–273, Pl. 11.1:11) and in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in a context dated to the first century BCE (Gutfeld and Nenner-Soriano 2006: Pl. 12.1: M9). 31. Fibula (Fig. 13.4:31) Area B; L1257; Reg. No. 922; IAA 1992-1024. Intact. Semicircular flat bow with bilateral wound spring widening into a rectangular folded end with an upper knob and incised circle. L 6 cm.

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

Glass and Metal Cosmetic Utensils (Figs.

or even dispersing cosmetic or medicinal liquids, ointments and powders. Another function may have been as probes for physical examination. Similar rods, made of metal, bone and glass, are known from excavations in Israel, but have not been widely studied.

13.5–13.10)

Glass and metal rods, spatulae and spoons were probably used for daily cosmetic, pharmaceutical or medicinal purposes—for sampling, stirring, applying

32

34

33

36

35

37

38 0

199

2

Fig. 13.5. Glass objects.

39

200

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Cosmetic applicators are interpreted as civilian accessories, while medical instruments can be related to the presence of the Roman army, who employed in its ranks qualified physicians (Rimon 1996:62*–71*; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2008:99*–100*). However, according to Ponting (see Chapter 21), there is a clear difference in the chemical composition of the artifacts identified as military metalwork (the aucissa fibulae and other objects) and the civilian metalwork (bent [knee or elbow] fibulae, spatulae and spoons), indicating that the bent knee fibulae, spatulae and spoons were probably locally produced cosmetic implements. In addition, the inconsistency in their spatial distribution throughout the different areas also suggests civilian daily use. No complete tool kit of instruments was found together to indicate a mutual function as is the case in the finds from Masada (Hershkovitz 1996:351–355) or from military hospitals and physicians’ tombs (Rimon 1996:62*). The only exceptions to the inconsistent spatial distribution are rod Nos. 46, 47 and 56, found together with spoon No. 68, in a basement. Even so, it is very difficult to identify them as belonging to a physician, as they might have been used for other everyday functions. Glass Rods Eight cylindrical glass rods were found at Gamla. Four are plain and delicate, with one rounded end preserved—the missing end may have been rounded or pointed—and made of strongly colored cobalt blue, turquoise and colorless glass; one is thicker and twisted, made of colorless glass; two are extremely delicate, with pointed ends, made of colorless glass; and a very small example was part of a rod with a small needle hole, made of yellow-brown glass. They were produced by drawing and tooling (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:417–418). These objects are known from the Hellenistic period, but become more common in Roman times (Spaer 2001:262). The plain rounded and pointed rods, delicate and narrow, may have been delicate applicators or hair ornaments (Spaer 2001:262). The twisted rods are usually thicker and according to complete examples, usually have an upper rounded loop or other decoration, probably used for stirring (Spaer 2001:262). Compare to a single find from Iron Age Tomb ZR II at Akhziv, which was re-used during the Roman

period (Dayagi-Mendels 2002:37, Fig. 4.1:33); a large number of glass rods discovered in the glass workshop in the Jewish quarter, Jerusalem, dated to the mid-first century BCE (rounded, twisted and pointed, Israeli 2005:54–55, Fig. 2; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006:417– 419, Pls. 21.7:GL 59–60; 21.8:GL 61–62; 21.9:GL 63– 67), and in the City of David, Jerusalem, in a fill from Stratum 6 dated until 70 CE (rounded, Ariel 1990:159, Fig. 31:GL60). Similar glass rods were found at Gezer (twisted with rounded loop; Macalister 1912: Pl. 98, Tomb 117:7) and Samaria (rounded; Crowfoot 1957:420). No parallel for the glass needle was found from excavations in Israel. Two similar complete examples with pointed ends are in the collection of the Israel Museum (Spaer 2001:262, 265, Nos. 639–640, Pl. 49:640). Plain Glass Rods 32. Rod (Fig. 13.5:32) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3049. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with a preserved, rounded end. Bluish-green glass, turquoise, with iridescence. D 0.6 cm. 33. Rod (Fig. 13.5:33) Area R; L5056; Reg. No. 7532. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with a preserved, rounded end. Cobalt blue, silver weathering and iridescence. D 0.6 cm. 34. Rod (Fig. 13.5:34) Area R; L5011/T (miqveh); Reg. No. 7599. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with a preserved flattened end. Cobalt blue, silver weathering and iridescence. D 0.6 cm. 35. Rod (Fig. 13.5:35) Area T; Sqs B–C/25–26; Reg. No. 1014. Fragment. Thick, rounded end of a cylindrical rod. Colorless, with silver weathering. D 1 cm. Twisted Glass Rod 36. Rod (Fig. 13.5:36) Area S; L2052; Reg. No. 3926. Two connecting fragments of a cylindrical twisted rod. Colorless, with little silver weathering. D 1 cm at widest point.

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

Pointed Glass Rods 37. Rod (Fig. 13.5:37) Area S; L2001; Reg. No. 3044. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with a preserved pointed end. Colorless with silver weathering. D 0.2 cm. 38. Rod (Fig. 13.5:38) Area S; L1914; Reg. No. 7558. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with a preserved pointed end. Colorless with silver weathering. D 0.2 cm. Needle 39. Needle (Fig. 13.5:39) Area S; L2017; Reg. No. 3354. Fragment of a twisted cylindrical rod with a hollow needle eye. Yellow-brown, with silver weathering and iridescence. Bronze Spatulae Around 50 bronze spatulae were found at Gamla, the 27 best preserved specimens presented here. They can be divided into several typological groups, but their function was similar, be it as cosmetic applicators or as medical instruments. Several have one or two rounded ends preserved, and others, one end rounded and thickened and the other end flattened and shaped like a pointed arrow/leaf, or widening into a flat oarshaped applicator. Most are straight, but two examples are bent. Similar finds were discovered in Tomb 21 at Berit Ahim, dated to the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (rounded and oar-shaped; Edelstein 2002:81*, Fig. 31:1, 2), at Tel Anafa, in contexts dated to the Persian– Hellenistic and Roman periods (oar-shaped; Merker 2012:234–235, Pl. 14: M64–M67) and in tombs dated to the Early Roman period at ‘En Gedi (rounded and oar-shaped; Hadas 1994:51, 54, Figs. 15:26, 23:24, 25, 50:28, 62:31; Color Pls. 4, 8; Hadas 2005:65*, Fig. 20:7, 8, 10). Bronze spatulae and a spoon discovered in two casemate rooms at Masada were identified as belonging to a first-century CE Roman infirmary (rounded, oval and spoon; Hershkovitz 1996:351–355, Figs. 2:b–c, 6:b–d). At Gamla, no such assemblage of finds was discovered together archaeologically and therefore, the Gamla finds cannot be reconstructed in the same manner.

201

Three spatulae were found in a burial cave at ‘En Tamar, dated to the first–third centuries CE, one (leafshaped and rounded; Hirschfeld 2006:181–182, Fig. 13.29:1–3) within a wooden box containing a blue cosmetic powder. A single spatula with an oar-shaped applicator was discovered in Cave VII/1, on the eastern escarpment of Jebel Quruntul (Abels 2002:109, 1:130, Fig. 5:4) and another was found in Tomb D12 at Jericho, dated to the first century CE (Hachlili 1999:139, Fig. III.82). Several similar finds were discovered in tombs in Jerusalem, dated to the first century CE until 70 CE, e.g., on Mount Scopus (leaf applicator; Kloner 1980:160–161, Pl. 30:1 and see therein for further parallels); in East Talpiyot (leaf shaped; Kloner and Gat 1982: Pl. 23:8); and in the Valley of the Cross (oarshaped, Sussman 1982:69, Pl. 22:1). Two bronze rods were documented at ‘Ein ezZeituna in a single-period mansion dated to the end of the first and second centuries CE (plain and with leaf applicator; Glick 2006:60, Fig. 14:7, 8); a single bronze rod, in a tomb at Shoham, dated from the first century BCE to the second half of the second century CE (rounded, Torge and Badhi 2005:33*, Fig. 3:10); in a farm at Qalandiya dated until 70 CE (oar-shaped and pointed; Magen 2004:95, Fig. 128, Pl. 14:1–4); and in a cemetery dated to the second–third centuries CE at Karm al-Shaikh, Jerusalem (rounded, pointed and spoon; Baramki 1932: Pl. 9:9). Other bronze rods, spatulae and spoons were found in undated contexts in Samaria (various shapes; Reisner et al. 1924:358–360, Fig. 231; Kenyon 1957:446, Fig. 104:3–12), and at Gezer (rounded and oar-shaped; Macalister 1912:116–118, Fig. 291). Round-Ended Bronze Spatulae 40. Spatula (Fig. 13.6:40) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6737. Intact cylindrical rod with two rounded ends. L 11.1 cm. 41. Spatula (Fig. 13.6:41) Area B; L1273; Reg. No. 1599/1. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 42). 42. Spatula (Fig. 13.6:42) Area R; L5002; Reg. No. 490; IAA 2007-1946. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end.

202

40

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

41

43

42 0

2

Fig. 13.6. Bronze spatulae.

43. Spatula (Fig. 13.6:43) Area B; L3113; Reg. No. 634. Fragment of a bent cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end. 44. Spatula (Fig. 13.7:44) Area B; L1258; Reg. No. 391. Fragment of a bent cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end. 45. Spatula (Fig. 13.7:45) Area B; L1296; Reg. No. 535. Fragment of a thick cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end. 46. Spatula (Fig. 13.7:46) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5627; IAA 2007-1954, 20071955.

Two fragments of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end. 47. Spatula (Fig. 13.6:47) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5678. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end. 48. Spatula (Fig. 13.7:48) Area S; L2021; Reg. No. 3685; IAA 2007-1870. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end (see Chapter 21, Sample No. 58). 49. Spatula (Fig. 13.7:49) Area G; L1706; Reg. No. 6773; IAA 2007-1887. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end.

203

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

44

46

45 0

47

48

49

50

2

Fig. 13.7. Bronze spatulae (cont.).

50. Spatula (Fig. 13.7:50) Area S; L1914; Reg. No. 7511; IAA 2007-1885. Fragment of a cylindrical rod with one rounded end, missing other end. Slightly bent on one side. Oar-Shaped Spatulae 51. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:51) Area A; L1000 (synagogue); Reg. No. 71; IAA 19903165. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, rounded end widening into an oar-shaped applicator, missing at end. 52. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:52) Area B; L1304; Reg. No. 602/1.

Fragmentary cylindrical rod, rounded end widening into an oar-shaped applicator, missing at end. 53. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:53) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 268. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, rounded end widening into an oar-shaped applicator, missing at end. 54. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:54) Area R; L5014; Reg. No. 6183; IAA 2007-2014. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, rounded end bending and widening into an oar shaped applicator, missing at the end.

204

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

55

51

52

54

53

0

57

58

59

60

Fig. 13.8. Spatulae and applicators.

56

2

61

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

55. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:55) Area S; L1925; Reg. No. 8297. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, rounded end widening into a small oar-shaped applicator, missing at end. 56. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:56) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5678/2. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, rounded end widening into a small oar shaped applicator, missing at the end. 57. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:57) Area R; L5025; Reg. No. 3233; IAA 2007-1944. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, one end missing and the other widening into an oar-shaped applicator with thick rounded bulges below the applicator and an incised hole near its end. 58. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:58) Area B; L1273; Reg. No. 1599/2; IAA 1990-3166. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, widening into an oarshaped applicator. Incisions spiral above the applicator in circles. 59. Spatula (Fig. 13.8:59) Area T; Sq T9/10; Reg. No. 1000. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, widening into an oarshaped applicator. Incisions alternate with rounded bulges, both spiraling above the applicator in circles. 60. Applicator (Fig. 13.8:60) Area B; L1288; Reg. No. 2227/1. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, widening into an oarshaped applicator. Incisions spiral above the applicator in circles. 61. Applicator (Fig. 13.8:61) Area G; L1501; Reg. No. 6768; IAA 2007-1941. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, widening into an oarshaped applicator. Incisions alternate with rounded

205

bulges, both spiraling above the applicator in circles. Pointed Applicator 62. Applicator (Fig. 13.9:62) Area T; L4031; Reg. No. 1970/1; IAA 1997-4289. Intact cylindrical rod, one end rounded and thickened, the other flattened and arrow-shaped. D of ‘arrow’ 0.6 cm, L of ‘arrow’ 12.5 cm. 63. Applicator (Fig. 13.9:63) Area R; L5024; Reg. No. 7685; IAA 2007-1871. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, one end rounded, the other widening into a broad point below a rounded bulge (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 40). 64. Applicator (Fig. 13.9:64) Area R; L5028; Reg. No. 3348; IAA 2007-1886. Intact cylindrical rod, decorated with incised dense circles above the rounded end, the other widening into a small point. 65. Applicator (Fig. 13.9:65) Excavation data missing; IAA 1990-3167. Fragmentary cylindrical rod, widening pointed end. 66. Applicator (Fig. 13.9:66) Excavation data missing; IAA 1990-3168. Intact, bent cylindrical rod, one end rounded and thickened, the other a flattened arrow shape. D of ‘arrow’ 0.5 cm; L 13 cm. 67. Applicator (Fig. 13.9:67) Area G; L1704; Reg. No. 6253; IAA 1990-3170. Intact bent cylindrical rod, one end rounded and thickened, the other a flattened arrow shape. D of ‘arrow’ 0.6 cm; L 12.5 cm.

206

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

62

63

65

64 0

66

67

2

Fig. 13.9. Applicators.

Bronze Spoons Six bronze spoons were found at Gamla. They were probably used for applying and preparing various cosmetic ointments or medicines. Two (Nos. 72, 73) have perforated holes on the circular spoons; their function is unknown, but may be related to dispersing powders evenly in small amounts. Bronze spoons of various shapes are usually found in burials. No exact parallels to the Gamla spoons

were found in excavations in Israel. A bronze spoon was found at Kh. el-Shubeika in an undated context (Tatcher 2002:250, Fig. 35:19); two bronze cosmetic spoons were found in a tomb at Moza ‘Illit, dated to the late first–late fourth centuries CE (Gudovitch 1996b:68*, not illustrated); a single bronze spoon was found at H. Hermas, in an undated context (Sion and Parnus 2006:27*, 29*, Fig. 10:3); and in Cave VIII/28 in the Judean Desert (Ladizhinskaya 2002:152, Fig. 4:2). A bronze spoon was discovered with spatulae

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

70

68

71

69

0

2

Fig. 13.10. Spoons.

207

208

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

72

73

74 0

2

Fig. 13.10. Spoons (cont.).

in two casemate rooms at Masada, mentioned above (Hershkovitz 1996:351–355, Fig. 2:c). Other bronze rods, spatulae and spoons were found in undated contexts at Samaria (various shapes; Reisner et al. 1924:358–360, Fig. 231; Kenyon 1957:446, Fig. 104:3–12). 68. Spoon (Fig. 13.10:68) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5649; IAA 2007-1868. Intact, cylindrical rod with rounded end and bent, widening, flat leaf-shaped spoon below a circular bulge (see Chapter 21, Sample No. 41). L 18.2 cm; D of spoon 0.9 cm. 69. Spoon (Fig. 13.10:69) Area B; L1304; Reg. No. 602/2. Intact, cylindrical rod, slightly thickened, with horizontal incisions near the end, widening into a small, bent, rounded spoon. L 15.9 cm; D of spoon 0.6 cm. 70. Spoon (Fig. 13.10:70) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3550; IAA 2007-1890.

Intact, slightly bent cylindrical rod with rounded end, widening into a large, round, flat spoon. L 12.3 cm; D of spoon 2.5 cm. 71. Spoon (Fig. 13.10:71) IAA 1990-3190; excavation data missing. Two separate parts, handle and spoon bowl. Flat handle, widening toward the sides. Flat rod, widening and narrowing above a small rounded spoon. D of spoon 1.6 cm. 72. Spoon (Fig. 13.10:72) Area R, L5054; Reg. No. 3133. Fragmentary flat handle widening on two projecting sides above a small rounded spoon with a central hole. D of spoon 1.6 cm. 73. Spoon (Fig. 13.10:73) Area R; L5102; Reg. No. 4301; IAA 2007-2037. Fragmentary lower part of spoon with flat handle, widening toward the spoon bowl. Spoon bowl is small and rounded with four holes. D of spoon 2 cm.

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

Miscellaneous Handles

209

not settled. This phenomenon could indicate that some of these objects were kept as heirlooms or used for long periods. It is significant that chemical analysis of objects from Gamla reveals a clear difference between the composition of the military metalwork (the aucissa fibulae and other objects) and the civilian metalwork (bent [knee or elbow] fibulae, rods and spoons). The main difference between the two is the lack of brass in the civilian metal objects that were analyzed and, more importantly, the low amounts of zinc (not more than 1%), which Ponting suggests may be due to the use of recycled alloys (see Chapter 21). According to Ponting, the ‘local’ metalwork has significantly higher levels of arsenic and cobalt, indicating the use of copper ores with characteristics that mark the ‘local’ copper-based alloys as fundamentally different from the Roman military copper-based alloys. Furthermore, he associates this choice of material to a conscious effort of the Jewish population to avoid the use of a clear symbol of Greco-Roman, and, therefore, pagan culture. The small finds include a variety of personal adornments that were found in all quarters of Gamla and thus reflect a mixed socioeconomic population, as is evidenced from the variety of styles, techniques and ornamentations of the jewelry. Not only the jewelry, but the cosmetic glass and bronze rods and spoons, received special care, and are decorative as well as functional. Concerning this aspect, however, it is noteworthy that most of the valuable small finds (gold earrings, glass hair ornaments, etc.) come from the Western Quarter (Areas R and S), which the excavators consider to have been Gamla’s affluent quarter. Thus, the small finds from Gamla, in their contexts and variety, greatly enrich our knowledge of daily life in the Early Roman period in the Roman province of Judea.

This handle could belong to a spoon or a ladle; however, no exact parallels were found in the country. 74. Spoon or ladle (Fig. 13.10:74) Area R; L5014; Reg. No. 6179. Fragmentary handle with rounded bulging end above flattened rod, widening and narrowing, with horizontal incisions.

Conclusions The small finds presented here shed light on everyday life in Gamla during the first century BCE up to the city’s destruction in 67 CE. They reflect the local style and preferences of the town’s inhabitants and may provide a glimpse into trading patterns or local production developments. The Roman army’s presence also seems to be evident as shown through a few specific finds such as the aucissa fibulae. The exact date of the destruction layer and the complete abandonment of Gamla in 67 CE provide us with a terminus ante quem for dating the period of use of these finds. This datum is unique, as usually, small finds such as these are dated to a wide time span because of a continuity in traditional styles and production methods. The largest concentrations of small finds of similar type generally derive from tombs, a fact that emphasizes their function as personal accessories having emotive value in addition to their functional use, side by side with their ornamental appearance. It is interesting that some of the objects have parallels in contexts dated to the Persian period, throughout Israel, while others have parallels in Late Roman tombs, mostly in the Galilee—two periods when Gamla was

Note I wish to thank Danny Syon, for the opportunity to study these fascinating artifacts. I extend my thanks to Oren Tal, for his valuable comments, and to Sorin Cociş, for his help 1

with the La Tène fibula. Drawings are by Hagit Tahan-Rosen, Tina Waghorn and Alex Kranz and photographs, by Danny Syon and Clara Amit (both of the IAA).

210

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

R eferences Abeles T. 2002. Survey and Excavations of Caves along the Eastern Escarpment of Jebel Quruntul. ‘Atiqot 41/2:109– 115. Abu Uqsa H. 2002. Two Burial Caves at Hurfeish. In Z. Gal ed. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 134*–139*. Ariel D.T. 1990. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bones and Ivory (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Aviam M. and Stern E.J. 1997. Burial Caves near H. Sugar. ‘Atiqot 33:89–102 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 16*). Avigad N. 1971. Beth She‘arim III: Report on the Archaeological Excavations during 1953–1958; Catacombs 12–23. Jerusalem. Barag D. 1978. Hanita, Tomb XV: A Tomb of the Third and Early Fourth Century CE (‘Atiqot [ES] 13). Jerusalem. Baramki D.C. 1932. Note on a Cemetery at Karm Al-Shaikh, Jerusalem. QDAP 1:3–5. Brandl B. 2000. Various Finds from Iron Age II and the Persian Period (Eighth–Fourth Centuries BCE). In Y. Hirschfeld. Ramat Ha-Nadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 187–210. Chernov H. 2007. Metal Objects and Small Finds from ‘EnGedi. In Y. Hirschfeld. En-Gedi Excavations II: Final Report (1996–2002). Jerusalem. Pp. 507–543. Cociş S. 2004. The Brooches from Roman Dacia. ClujNapoca. Crowfoot G.M. 1957. Glass. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 403–422. Dayagi-Mendels M. 2002. The Akhziv Cemeteries: The BenDor Excavations, 1941–1944 (IAA Reports 15). Jerusalem. Edelstein G. 2002. A Section of the Hellenistic-Roman Cemetery at Berit Ahim, North of ‘Akko (Acre). ‘Atiqot 43:75*–98* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 257–258). Elgavish J. 1968. Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona, Field Report 1; The Levels of the Persian Period, Seasons 1963–1965. Haifa (Hebrew). Fischer M., Roll I. and Tal O. 2008. Persian and Hellenistic Remains at Tel Ya‘oz. Tel Aviv 35:123–163. Garfinkel Y. and Greenberg R. 1997. Area L. In A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil, Y. Garfinkel, R. Greenberg, A.M. Maeir and A. Mazar. Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968. Jerusalem. Pp. 177–294. Giesen K. 2001. Zyprische Fibeln, Typologie und Chronologie. Jonsered. Glick D. 2006. A Salvage Excavation at ‘Ein ez-Zeituna in Nahal ‘Iron. ‘Atiqot 51:31–69. Gudovitch S. 1996a. A Byzantine Building at the Foot of Horbat Sokho. ‘Atiqot 28:18*–23* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 197). Gudovitch S. 1996b. A Late Roman Burial Cave at Moza ‘Illit. ‘Atiqot 29:63*–70* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 111–112).

Gutfeld O. and Nenner-Soriano R. 2006. Metal Artifacts. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 272–282. Gutman S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Hachlili R. 1999. Miscellaneous Objects. In R. Hachlili and A.E. Killebrew. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7). Jerusalem. Pp. 136–141. Hadas G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ‘En Gedi (‘Atiqot 24). Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–8*). Hadas G. 2005. Excavations at the Village of ‘En Gedi, 1993– 1995. ‘Atiqot 49:41*–71* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 136–137). Hershkovitz M. 1996. Roman Medical Instruments on Masada: Possible Evidence of a Roman Infirmary. Eretz Israel 25:351–355 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 101*– 102*). Higgins R.A. 1961. Greek and Roman Jewellery. London. Hirschfeld Y. 2006. The Nabataean Presence South of the Dead Sea: New Evidence. In P. Bienkowski and K. Galor eds. Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah (Levant Supplementary Series 3). Oxford. Pp. 167–190. Israeli Y. 1988. Glassware and Other Vessels from a Tomb in Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq. In B. Mazar ed. Geva; Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq. Jerusalem. Pp. 226–232 (Hebrew). Israeli Y. 2005. What did Jerusalem’s First-Century BCE Glass Workshop Produce? Annales de l’AIHV 16:54–57. Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. In H. Geva ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 411–460. Johns C.N. 1933. Excavations at ‘Atlit (1930–1): The SouthEastern Cemetery. QDAP 2:41–104. Kenyon K.M. 1957. Miscellaneous Objects in Metal, Bone and Stone. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon eds. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 439–468. Kloner A. 1980. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. IV– XIX). Kloner A. and Gat Y. 1982. Burial Caves in East Talpiyot. ‘Atiqot (HS) 8:74–76 (English summary, p. 9*). Kol-Yaakov S. 2000. Various Objects from the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods. In Y. Hirschfeld. Ramat HaNadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 473–503.

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

Ladizhinskaya V. 2002. Jewelry and Metal Artifacts of Middle Bronze Age II and the Early Roman Period from Cave VIII/28. ‘Atiqot 41/2:147–155. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer 1902– 1905 and 1907–1909 I–III. London. Magen Y. 2004. Qalandiya: A Second Temple Period Viticulture and Wine-Manufacturing Agricultural Settlement. In Y. Magen, D.T. Ariel, G. Bijovsky, Y. Tzionit and O. Sirkis. The Land of Benjamin (JSP 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 29–144. Magen Y. and Peleg Y. 2006. Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavation and Research, 1993–2004. In K. Galor, J-B. Humbert and J. Zangenberg eds. Qumran, The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates; Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University, November 17–19 2002 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 57). Leiden–Boston. Pp. 55–113. Mazar E. 1994. A Burial Ground of the Roman Period at Gesher Haziv. ‘Atiqot 25:77–93. Merker G.S. 2012. The Objects of Metal. In A.M. Berlin and S.C. Herbert eds. Tel Anafa II, ii: Glass Vessels, Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels. Ann Arbor, Mich.–Columbia, Mo. Pp. 217– 280. Meyers E.M., Strange J.F. and Meyers C.L. 1981. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977 (Meiron Excavation Project III). Cambridge, Mass. Moorey P.R.S. 1980. Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük, near Carchemish, Salvaged by T.E. Lawrence and C.L. Woolley in 1913 (With a Catalogue Raisonné of the Objects in Berlin, Cambridge, Liverpool, London and Oxford) (BAR Int. S. 87). Oxford. Muhly J.D. and Muhly P. 1989. Metal Artifacts. In Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 8). Minneapolis–Tel Aviv. Pp. 267–295. Nenner-Soriano R. 2013. The Metal Artifacts from the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho and Cypros. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973– 1987 Excavations 5: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 270–284. Nodet É. 1980. Objets en metal. In J. Briend and J-B. Humbert eds. Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée (OBO.SA 1). Fribourg. Pp. 323–326. Ovadiah R. 1993. Finds from the O. Yogev Excavations at Tel Nahariya, 1982. ‘Atiqot 22:21*–28* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 153). Ponting M.J. and Segal I. 1998. Inductively Coupled PlasmaAtomic Emission Spectroscopy Analysis of Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artefacts from the Excavations at Masada, Israel. Archaeometry 40:109–122. Porat L. 1997. Quarry and Burial Caves at H. Kenes (Karmiel). ‘Atiqot 33:81–88 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 15*).

211

Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910 I–II. Cambridge, Mass. Rimon O. 1996. Medical Instruments from the Roman Period. In Illness and Healing in Ancient Times (Hecht Museum Catalogue 13). Haifa. Pp. 62*–71*. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2003. Artists and Artisans: Reflections on Nabatean Minor Art—Clay, Metal and Stone. In R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom ed. The Nabateans in the Negev. Haifa. Pp. 23*–29*. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2008. The Material Culture of the Roman Army. In The Great Revolt in the Galilee (Hecht Museum Catalogue 28). Haifa. Pp. 91*–107*. Segal O., Kletter R. and Ziffer I. 2006. A Persian-Period Building from Tel Ya‘oz (Tell Ghaza). ‘Atiqot 52:1*–24* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 203). Shalev S. and Sari K. 2006. Persian-Period Metal Finds from Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal). ‘Atiqot 52:93–107. Singer-Avitz L. and Levy Y. 1994. Two Late Iron Age–Early Persian Period Tombs at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot 25:1*–9* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 187). Sion O. and Parnus G. 2006. Horbat Hermas. ‘Atiqot 51:19*– 31* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 235–236). Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects (Israel Museum Catalogue 447). Jerusalem. Stern E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538–332 BCE. Warminster–Jerusalem. Stern E. and Getzov N. 2006. Aspects of Phoenician Burial Customs in the Roman Period in Light of an Excavation near el-Kabri (Kabri). ‘Atiqot 51:91–123. Stiebel G.D. 2013. The Military Equipment from the Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho and Cypros. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973– 1987 Excavations V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 290–298. Stronach D. 1959. The Development of the Fibula in the Near East. Iraq 21:181–206. Sussman V. 1982. A Burial Cave in Valley of the Cross. ‘Atiqot (HS) 8:69 (English summary, p. 8*). Tal O. 2014. A Late Fourth/Early Third Century BCE Farmstead at Ḥolot Rishon Le-Zion (South), Israel: Evidence for an Unrecorded Military Clash in the Southern Levant? Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014/2:37–57. Tatcher A. 2002. Catalogue of Miscellaneous Finds from Khirbet el-Shubeika. In Z. Gal ed. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 247–251 (Hebrew). Torge H. and Badhi R. 2005. A Burial Cave from the Roman Period at Shoham (East). ‘Atiqot 49:31*–39* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 135–136). Tzaferis V. 1969. Tombs in Western Galilee. ‘Atiqot (HS) 5:72–79 (English summary, p. 9*). Vaux R. de. 1956. Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân: Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e et 5e campagnes. RB 63:533–577.

212

RUTH E. JACKSON-TAL

Vitto F. 2000. Burial Caves from the Second Temple Period in Jerusalem (Mount Scopus, Giv‘at Hamivtar, Neveh Ya‘aqov. ‘Atiqot 40:65–121. Yadin Y. 1966. Masada, Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. New York.

Yadin Y., Aharoni Y., Amiran R., Dothan T., Dothan M., Dunayevsky I. and Perrot J. 1961. The James A. de Rothschild Expedition at Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958. Plates. Jerusalem.

Chapter 14

Metal Weights and Similar Artifacts Orna Nagar-Hillman

Introduction Finds from the excavations at Gamla (see Syon and Yavor 2010; this volume)1 contribute much to the dating and typology of metal weights and other objects found in Israel. Among the finds were 18 weights or weightlike metal objects that date from the first century BCE until 67 CE, the year of Gamla’s destruction. The majority of the objects were found in Areas B, S and R, while two objects were retrieved from Areas A and G (Tables 14.1, 2).2 Area B is dated to the late Hellenistic period (first century BCE) and Areas S and R, to the Early Roman period (first century CE), while Areas A and G were occupied continuously (for stratigraphy and dating, see Yavor 2010). The weights were dated primarily by their archaeological context, as most of the metal objects described here have no identifying marks that could provide a precise attribution. Inscribed and decorated weights are, as a rule, published soon after their discovery. Less attention is paid to unmarked weights and similar objects such as ours, though in fact, such weights were used by merchants on a day-to-day basis. Our knowledge of undecorated weights found in excavations in Israel is based mainly on the typological, chronological and metrological research carried out

on about 60 weights and similar objects from the excavations at Dor (Nagar-Hillman 2004). These objects belong to various weight systems that were in use at Dor during the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods. Of these 60 objects, 19 have marks of some kind. Two are from the Persian/intermediate PersianHellenistic period (one cubical and one square), ten are from the Hellenistic period (six square, two elongated pyramids, one flat triangle and one round with an unusual handle), six are from the Roman period (square) and one is of undetermined date (square). The Gamla assemblage is presented in catalogue format (Figs. 14.1–14.3). Most of the known weights from the Hellenistic and Roman periods are flat, round, rectangular or square tablets. Other irregularly shaped items (e.g., elongated pyramids and seashell-shaped pieces; Nos. 11–14) may have been used as weights. Pyramidal objects have been found in underwater excavations, and are considered by some researchers to be fishing weights or sinkers (Galili, Rosen and Sharvit 2010:88–94). The catalogue is arranged chronologically, and by metal and function (i.e., weight or weight-like object). Abbreviations used are as follows: D = diameter, L = length, Th = thickness. The obverse of the flat weights was determined by the presence of frames and/or symbols and decorations, if present.

Table 14.1. Quantity and Distribution of the Gamla Weights Area

Characteristics of Area

Period

B

Domestic area; oil press and miqveh

Hasmonean (1st c. BCE)

5

28

R+S

Domestic area with oil press, mill and shops; large public building

Early Roman (1st c. CE)

11

61

A+G

Synagogue and large domestic building

Early Roman (mainly 1st c. CE)

2

11

18

100

Total

Number

Percent

Comments All weights are rectangular

214

ORNA NAGAR-HILLMAN

Table 14.2. The Gamla Weights: Area and Mass Area

Cat. No.

Locus/ Square

Shape

Mass (g)

Material

A

13

1415

Elongated pyramidal

99.4

Lead

B

5

Sq A18

Rectangular

36.8

Lead

B

4

1258

Square

26.8

Lead

B

3

1304

Square

10.9

Lead

B

2

1271

Square

7.1

Lead

B

1

1312

Square

6.3

Lead

G

10

1506

Round

353.0

Lead

R

14

5003

Trapezoid

80.7

Lead

R

9

5151

Square

70.9

Lead

R

12

5003

Shell-shaped

49.7

Lead

R

15

5038

Round

12.5

Lead

R

18

5018

Square

6.6

Bronze

R

17

5102

Square

3.7

Bronze

R

16

5025

Rectangular

3.6

Bronze

S

11

2019

Shell-shaped

54.0

Lead

S

8

Sq J9

Square

12.9

Lead

S

7

1907

Square

6.1

Lead

S

6

2012

Square

3.3

Lead

Late Hellenistic Period (First Century BCE): Area B Five weights (Nos. 1–5) were found in Area B, located in the eastern part of the site; all were rectangular or square. Area B was a residential area, and included a large miqveh and an olive-oil press. The area was abandoned around the turn of the era (Goren 2010). The objects are Hellenistic in style, and all are dated by archaeological context to the Hasmonean period. The weights are plain, and in some cases, it is difficult to differentiate obverse from reverse. Two have calibration marks. 1. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:1) Area B; L1312; Reg. No. 943; surface. 15 × 15 mm; Th 3.5 mm; 6.3 g. Small, square weight with somewhat rounded corners. A hole was punched or drilled through the center of the obverse side, emerging off-center. Molten lead was poured into the hole and flattened in order to attain the desired mass. Obv.: Clear indications of calibration marks3 (adjustment) in center, and of a frame—now almost completely eroded.

Rev.: Scratches, probably the result of extensive use; off-center calibration mark. Parallels: No. 2, below; Dor: Nos. 11 (4 × 15 × 15 mm, 11.3 g, lead) and 12 (3 × 15 × 18 mm, 5.8 g, lead). 2. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:2) Area B; L1271; Reg. No. 1729; mixed accumulations locus. 15.5 × 15.5 mm; Th 2 mm; 7.1 g. Small, square thin weight. Some scratches and a clear indication of calibration on both faces (see above, No. 1). Parallels: No. 1; Dor: Nos. 11 and 12, see above. Comments: Weights 11 and 12 from Dor are both of lead, and were dated to the Hellenistic period based on typology (shape and material). The present weight provides verification for the dates assigned to the Dor weights. 3. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:3) Area B; L1304; Reg. No. 258; undefined context. 20 × 24 mm; Th 2.5 mm; 10.9 g. Rectangular, thin, flat tablet. Poorly preserved. Obv.: Multiple dents that caused the weight to bend out of shape. No traces of a frame. Possible traces of a lug and of a decoration or symbol. Rev.: Multiple dents and strikes. 4. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:4) Area B; L1258; Reg. No. 1626; found alongside a spear. 25 × 26 mm; Th 5 mm; 26.8 g. Nearly square tablet with slightly rounded corners. Obv.: Small, shallow depression. Some scratches and dents, seemingly made by a sharp object. Rev.: Scratches and dents. Comments: The scratches on both faces may have been made deliberately, possibly to indicate a value, to identify the owner or to prevent reduction of the mass by filing. 5. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:5) Area B; Sq A18; Reg. No. 1709; surface. 22 × 30 mm; Th 5 mm; 36.8 g. Plain, rectangular tablet with slightly rounded corners. The weight is of even thickness. The crack along the length of one side is due to either corrosion or the bending of the material during the manufacturing process.

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS AND SIMILAR ARTIFACTS

3

2

1

5

4

7

6

9

8

10 0

0

2

Fig. 14.1. Lead weights and weight-like objects.

2

215

216

ORNA NAGAR-HILLMAN

Early Roman Period (First Century CE) Numbers 6–18 are mainly from Areas R and S and date to the Early Roman period. The Western Quarter, which includes Areas R and S (Yavor 2010), yielded eleven weights of various shapes: six square or almost square, one rectangular, two shell-shaped, one trapezoid and one round. This quarter was a wealthy residential area that included a public building, tentatively termed a ‘basilica’ (Syon and Yavor 2005:56), as well as an industrial area with an olive-oil press and an adjoining miqveh, a large flour mill and shops. 6. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:6) Area S; L2012; Reg. No. 3305; undefined context. 16 × 16 mm; Th 2.5 mm; 3.3 g. The lug broke after the weight was drawn and weighed, and before the photograph was taken. Obv.: Square, with a high frame, a rounded lug on the top and a protrusion on the bottom. Decorated with a square inner frame with small squares around it and the Greek letter/numeral A (= 1) in the center. Rev.: Blank. Parallels: Hendin (2007:204, Nos. 311, 313): Number 311 is similar, bearing the Greek letter/numeral A with the square inner frames and the incuse of small squares around the A; the mass is heavier (4.4 g) and the lug is at the side, rather than the top. Number 313 (3.56 g) has the Greek letter/numeral A, but lacks the inner frame decoration. Holland4 shows a weight from Caesarea bearing the Greek letter/numeral A enclosed in a square inner frame (Holland 2009:21, No. 28 [21 × 21 mm, 4 g]). Comments: This type was very common during the Roman period throughout the region. See Nos. 7 and 8 and the discussion for No. 8. 7. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:7) Area S; L1907 (Level IV); Reg. No. 7496; IAA 19903020; found on a floor among Herodian lamps and chalk vessels. 20 × 22 mm; Th 2.5 mm; 6.1 g. Obv.: Square, with high frame and broken, rounded lug on the top. Decorated with an inner frame of small squares and a quarter-circle in each of the inner corners. In the center is a retrograde Greek letter/numeral ı (= 2). Rev.: Blank. Parallels: Dor, No. 48 (6.9 g) has a letter/numeral B that is not retrograde (Nagar-Hillman 2004:58;

Pl. V:48); Caesarea has three similar weights, but not found in an archaeological context, all bearing a retrograde ı (Holland 2009:21–22, Nos. 26 [7.4 g], 27 [6.8 g], 31 [7.9 g]). 8. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:8) Area S; Sq J9; Reg. No. 3002; surface; IAA 1997-4244. 29 × 29 mm; Th 2 mm, 12.9 g. Obv.: Square, with a high frame and traces of what was probably a round lug. Decoration identical to that on No. 7. In the center is the Greek letter/ numeral Δ (= 4). Rev.: Blank. Parallels: A number of weights bearing the Greek letter/numeral Δ were discovered at Dor: Nos. 20 (62 g), 44 (50.6 g) and 45 (110.5 g). Number 20 is square but has neither the lug nor the protrusion, and bears the Greek letter/numeral Δ in relief (Nagar-Hillman 2004:50; Pls. II:20; VI:20). Numbers 44 and 45 are similar in their square shape and the Greek letter/ numeral Δ, but differ in their mass and thus, clearly belong to different weighing systems (Nagar-Hillman 2004:57, Pls. IV:44, 45, VIII:44, 45). At Caesarea, two weights similar to this were found, albeit not in an archaeological context, both bearing the Greek letter/numeral Δ (Holland 2009:21–22, Nos. 25 [14 g] and 30 [13.1 g]). Hendin presents a similar weight, with the loop on its lower part (Hendin 2007:203, No. 307, 12.07 g). Comments: Based on the similar chronology, decoration and mass ratios, it is reasonable to assume that Nos. 6–8 belong to the same weighing system. 9. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:9) Area R; L5151; Reg. No. 5630; accumulated debris in cellar, found among Herodian lamps, chalk vessels and four kohl sticks. 37 × 39 mm; Th 7 mm; Th of frame 9 mm; L of protrusion 12 mm; 70.9 g. Nearly square weight with a thick frame and a perforation through the lug. Obv.: The symbol or inscription is obscured by surface damage. On the right are a perpendicular line and a half circle that cuts it from left to right. On the left is a letter or sign, resembling the top half of the Greek letter K. Above it is another sign, possibly the letter O or a circle—part of a larger design that has not survived. A piece is missing below the tentative K. There seems to be another undecipherable sign or letter next to it. All

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS AND SIMILAR ARTIFACTS

the letters and decorations are in relief, and were part of the mold. Rev.: Blank. 10. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.1:10) Area G; L1506; Reg. No. 6549; found on a fill under a floor. D 91 mm; Th 10 mm; 353 g. Relatively large disc-shaped weight with a raised frame of uneven thickness on both sides and a small perforation near the edge. Obv.: Scratches, apparently unintentional. Two depressions, not very deep, which may be unintentional. Rev.: Blank. Comments: Discovered in a two-story building in Area G (Building 1700) that was destroyed during the Jewish War, thereby dating it to the first century CE. 11. Lead Cockleshell-Shaped Piece (Fig. 14.2:11) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3539; IAA 1992-1011; from mixed debris. 28 × 30 mm; Th 12 mm; 54 g. Cockleshell-shaped piece. Obv.: No inscription or sign. Rev.: Blank. Parallels: See No. 12 below and the discussion therein. 12. Lead Cockleshell-Shaped Piece (Fig. 14.2:12) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 825; IAA 1997-4240; undetermined context. 34 × 36 mm; max. Th 12.5 mm; 49.7 g. Cockleshell-shaped piece. Obv.: Vestiges of a casting sprue, no markings. Rev.: Blank. Parallels: Similar shell-shaped lead objects have been found in excavations throughout Israel; they vary widely in size and shape. One such piece, from Ramat Ha-Nadiv, is dated by context from the first century BCE to the first century CE (Hadad 2007:208); three specimens were found at Dor (9 × 44 × 46 mm, 119.6 g; 9 × 25 × 29 mm, 39.4 g; 20 × 42 × 43 mm, 125.88 g; Nagar-Hillman 2004:59); and two, at H. Shallale (32.37 g; 52.28 g; Dar and Nagar-Hillman 2009). The objects from Dor and Horbat Shallale were dated to the Roman period (first century BCE–first century CE) based solely on their typology. All were found in disturbed loci, in excavation dumps or on the surface. Six objects, all from the area of Bet She’an, were documented from a private collection in Bet Alfa.

217

Hendin describes eight such weights from private collections—six made of lead (no specific date, only a statement that they are “Hellenistic to Roman lead weights”) and two, of bronze (under ‘Phoenician Weights’); three have a knob at the top (Hendin 2007:84; 190–191). Hendin suggests that shell-shaped objects were manufactured and used as scale weights, although their weight standards are uncertain (Hendin 2007:91–92). Holland (2009:59–64) describes 81specimens of lead and 3 of bronze from Caesarea Maritima, all random surface finds. He refers to them as ‘cockle-shaped objects’; none bears any kind of identifying mark. The mass of the lead weights varies from 4.35 to 126.40 g and the mass of the bronze objects is 1.79 g, 12.9 g and 50 g (Holland 2009:59-64; 67). Holland concludes that these objects cannot have been weights, based on the random distribution of their mass. 13. Lead Weight (Fig. 14.2:13) Area A; L1415; Reg. No. 864; found on a floor among a large assemblage of intact pottery vessels dated to the Early Roman period (first century CE). 16 × 48 mm; base 13 × 16 mm; top 9 × 13 mm; 99.4 g. Elongated, pyramidal weight with a perforation through its upper part; appears to have a decoration or mark on the flat bottom. Indentations on one of its sides are probably unintentional. Parallels: At Dor, eleven objects of this type were found and dated to the Hellenistic period, based on their archaeological context. One decorated weight (Nagar-Hillman 2004:50, No. 22; Pl. II:22; 72, Table 26) has an X marked on one of its long sides; it was found in a context dated to 275–200 BCE. Another (No. 23) was found in a context dated to 250–50 BCE. Elayi and Elayi (1997) list many similar weights, primarily from the Syrian-Phoenician coast. Many objects of this type bear the symbol of the Phoenician goddess Tanit on their underside. Underwater excavations in the northern bay of ‘Atlit brought about the retrieval of twelve objects of this type, at least seven of them having a mark of some sort on the base and at least two others (IAA Nos. 2000-1047, 2000-1048) bearing a symbol of Tanit (Galili et al., forthcoming). The excavators identified them as fishing sinkers (Galili, Rosen and Sharvit 2010:88–94). Holland, describing this type as a four-sided pyramid, published seven such objects from the vicinity of

218

ORNA NAGAR-HILLMAN

11

12

13

14

16

15

18

17

0

2

Fig. 14.2. Lead weights and weight-like objects (11–15); bronze weight-like objects (16–18).

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS AND SIMILAR ARTIFACTS

219

Caesarea; their mass varies from 4.67 to 214.7 g (Holland 2009:56–57). Comments: Objects of this type are usually dated to the Hellenistic period, but this example was found in an Early Roman stratum. Area A was inhabited continuously, from the late Hellenistic to the Early Roman periods, and thus, it may be residual. In the context of Gamla, it is more likely to have been a weight and not a fishing sinker.

17. Bronze Weight (Fig. 14.2:17) Area R; L5102; Reg. No. 5091; on the floor of a cellar with Herodian lamps, chalk vessels, jewelry and a fibula. 15 × 16 mm; Th 4 mm; 3.7 g. Nearly square, corroded weight. Obv.: Traces of a lug and a raised thin frame; damaged by scratches. Rev.: Blank.

14. Lead Trapezoid Object (Fig. 14.2:14) Area R; L5003; Reg. No. 831; undetermined context. 24 × 48 mm; max. Th 9 mm; 80.7 g. Flat, trapezoidal object with a perforation at the top; one of its upper corners is broken. A slight swelling in its center is probably caused by corrosion. It bears no marks of any kind, though there are some grooves on one of its faces that might have been deliberately made with a sharp object. Parallels: Weights of similar dimension and shape but more pointed, bearing inscriptions and decorations, were found in Syria and dated to the Hellenistic period (A. Kushnir-Stein, pers. comm.).

18. Bronze Object (Fig. 14.2:18) Area R; L5018; Reg. No. 7048/4; on a floor with Herodian lamps and chalk vessels. 14 × 15 mm, Th 5 mm; 6.5 g. Nearly square object with a groove around its circumference that might have been used to attach a thread. Obv.: Four small protrusions, one in each corner, which might indicate that it may have been attached to another object. Rev.: Blank. Comments: This item was found in a building in the central of three units—probably shops. Many grinding stones and mills were also retrieved, suggesting this may have been a commercial area. Its identification as a weight rests mostly on its context.

15. Lead Object (Fig. 14.2:15) Area R; L5038; Reg. No. 642; found in fill under a floor. D 20 mm; Th 4 mm; 12.5 g. Circular, slightly asymmetrical object that may have been used as a weight or a token. Obv.: Incisions; the irregular surface suggests that there may have been marks or decorations that cannot now be deciphered. Rev.: Incisions, scratches and dents. 16. Bronze Object (Fig. 14.2:16) Area R; L5025; Reg. No. 3232; accumulated debris. 10.0 × 13.5 mm; Th 4 mm; 3.6 g. Rectangular object. Obv.: Six incised circles arranged in two not quite straight rows of three. Rev.: Blank. Parallels: Weight No. 92 in Elayi and Elayi (1997:68, Pl. V) is likewise of bronze and has six incised circles in two rows, but differs from our item in its shape and mass—a truncated pyramid (base 6 × 7 mm, top 6.5 × 6.5) with a mass of 1.22 g. Comments: This may have been a gaming piece. For a metallurgical analysis, see Chapter 21, Sample No. 32.

Discussion A variety of weight types was found from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The weights were used for local and international commerce by merchants, each of whom would have had his personal weight-set. During these periods, weights were usually flat, square or disc-shaped. Most were of lead, a lesser number of bronze, especially the earlier ones dating to the Hellenistic period. Weights of both lead and bronze, decorated or plain, were normally cast in a mold. Some of the rectangular decorated weights have a lug, and sometimes, a protrusion for adjustment. Many weights have frames, even if not otherwise decorated. Many weighing systems existed in the ancient Near East, often leading to confusion and errors when attempting to assign a weight to any particular system. Weight standards varied from people to people and often, from city to city. Even in one place, systems may have varied over time. The demands of commerce may have led to the use of a number of weight systems simultaneously in a given city, or in neighboring

220

ORNA NAGAR-HILLMAN

cities. Inscribed weights of the same period and from the same location, while identical in shape, may have varied considerably in mass. One of the reasons for these variations is that each weight was not necessarily copied from a ‘master’ or cast in the same mold, or, authorized by the agoranomos.5 Some of the weights used by merchants were officially marked by the agoranomos, while others were plain, and not necessarily approved. In addition, lead is subject to corrosion upon long exposure to the elements and the original mass of any lead weight may have been reduced considerably by the time it was found. Pyramidal and shell-shaped weights found at archaeological sites, while not regarded by some scholars as scale-weights, might conceivably have been used as unofficial scale weights in a local market. Among the eighteen metal objects excavated at Gamla and described here, fifteen are of lead, and three of bronze. Lead was relatively inexpensive, readily available and easily recycled. It was the material of preference for official weights during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, whereas bronze was favored during the Persian and Byzantine periods. Most official lead weights were square. Typology Rectangular Weights The most common weights from the Hellenistic and Roman periods are rectangular and flat, sometimes with a frame, a lug and/or a protrusion (on the bottom). Some bear inscriptions or decoration (Nos. 6–9, 16), but most are plain. Of the twelve such weights at Gamla, nine are square or nearly square (Nos. 1–8, 17, 18), and three, rectangular (Nos. 5, 9, 16). Several of these are plain (Nos. 1–5, 18), while others have frames (with a square or triangular profile) with loops or lugs (Nos. 6–9, 17). Two weights show signs of having been adjusted (Nos. 1, 2). Disc-Shaped Weights Disc-shaped weights are known from the Persian through the Islamic periods. They are usually plain and undecorated, although there is occasionally a low frame, which may be plain or decorated. Two objects of this type were found at Gamla. One is large (No. 10), with a frame on both faces and a small perforation, and the other is small (No. 15), with indentations that seem to have been made by a sharp

object. This item may in fact have been a token of some sort. Cockleshell-Shaped Objects These objects have no inscription or decoration beyond the ribbed, shell-like appearance created from the mold in which they were cast. They are usually of lead, though bronze weights are known.6 Cockleshellshaped objects have been found in a variety of sizes and masses (Manns 1984:9; Holland 2009:59–64). They cannot be assigned to any known metrological system and are not considered scale-weights by some scholars. At Gamla, two objects of this type were found (Nos. 11, 12), No. 12 with a protuberance, which might indicate it was made in a strip-mold (a series of molds joined by channels). The individual molds were made by pressing the curved face of a cockleshell into moist clay. The mold had a flat-surfaced cover. After the lead cooled, the shells were separated by a chisel, leaving the protuberance (sprue) attached. In antiquity, molds of this kind were used for casting coin flans, tokens and slingshot bullets (Holland 2009:63). At Subterranean Complex 89 at Maresha, a mold for producing shell-shaped objects was found (Fig. 14.3).7 It was made of fired clay and produced one item at a time. Pyramidal Weights These weights or objects usually have a square base, possibly rounded at the corners, and an elongated body. The upper part of the weight is narrow and rectangular in section, and its four sides are almost equal in area. At Gamla, one weight or object of this type (No. 13) was discovered. Similar items have been found at Dor (11), at H. Shalalla (3) and at ‘Atlit (12) (Galili, Syon and Finkielsztejn, forthcoming). The weights of this type found at Dor have no inscriptions or decorations, with the exception of one (NagarHillman 2004: Plate II:22), with an X engraved on one of its elongated faces. On the base of the Gamla specimen are marks that may have been an inscription or a decoration but are now undecipherable. Objects of this type cannot normally be assigned to any known metrological system.8 Flat Trapezoidal Weight One weight of this uncommon shape was found at Gamla (No. 14).

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS AND SIMILAR ARTIFACTS

0

221

10

Fig. 14.3. Clay mold for cockle-shell weights from Maresha.

Inscriptions and Decorations Markings on ancient weights include engraved circles, round drilled depressions and various symbols and decorations such as floral and faunal motifs. The symbols may be dedications to a deity. Inscriptions occasionally are no more than a single letter, usually designating a unit or units of weight and can indicate value, name, date or a function such as that of the agoranomos and occasionally, all of these together. Decorations and inscriptions are usually in relief, having been cast in a mold. They most often appear on round or square-framed weights. Three of the square weights described here (Nos. 6–8) show a single letter of the Greek alphabet, while three others (Nos. 4, 14, 15) may have included incised marks, now undecipherable. Number 9 was definitely decorated (probably with schematic scales), and possibly, with a single letter to indicate the value (probably the Greek letter K or the Phoenician ‘ [mem] retrograde). One of the specimens (No. 16) is decorated with six incised circles arranged in two rows of three. Weights bearing decorations or inscriptions often have a frame of some sort and sometimes, a lug, a protrusion or an elongated handle without a perforation (see below). As a rule, weights inscribed with a Greek letter/numeral in relief are square with a stylized frame. The letter/numeral is usually surrounded by a decoration, as in the case of the weights from Gamla. Numbers 6–8 are similarly decorated, with small squares and a quarter circle in each corner. The retrograde beta (ı ) on weight No. 7 is relatively common on weights from the Roman period. This letter is not symmetrical; it was engraved on the

mold in the usual way, rather than retrograde, and thus it appears retrograde on the weight. With symmetrical letters such as A, Δ and H this error is not noticeable. While single letters on a weight might signify the first letter of the owner’s name, they more often have some connection to a weighing system. A single letter on a weight is typical of the Roman–Byzantine periods, but is occasionally found on Hellenistic-period weights. Metrology An effective weighing system should include individual values that can be combined (using a minimum number of individual weights) to achieve any particular mass. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, a number of weighing systems and standards, with various multiples and fractions, such as the Greek mna, the Phoenician mina and the Roman libra, were in use in the Land of Israel (Finkielsztejn 2007). At times, the use of a given weighing system would carry over from one period to another. Often, several systems were in use concurrently (Finkielsztejn 2007).9 The only items among those discussed here that can be assigned with reasonable assurance to any weight system are Nos. 6–8. They have clear value marks and are comparable to numerous specimens from many ancient locations. These weights are both decorated and inscribed, all in the same style, and each bears one letter of the Greek alphabet. Their nominal mass ratios are 1:2:4 and the actual mass is close to this ratio; thus, it seems that A, B and Δ refer to multiples of a unit. This unit, calculated from the mass of the weights themselves, would appear to be somewhere between

222

ORNA NAGAR-HILLMAN

Table 14.3. Metrology by Mass Cat. No.

Shape

Mass (g)

Square

3.31

Phoenician drachm 3.5 g or 3 gramatta/scripulum (= 1.14 g)

16

Rectangular

3.56

Phoenician drachm 3.5 g or 3 gramatta/scripulum (= 1.14 g)

17

Square

3.66

Phoenician drachm 3.5 g or 3 gramatta/scripulum (= 1.14 g)

7

Square

6.14

Phoenician didrachm or 6 gramatta

1

Square

6.28

Phoenician didrachm or 6 gramatta (?)

18

Square

6.55

Phoenician didrachm or 6 gramatta (?)

2

Square

7.09

6

Weight Unit

3

Square

10.94

15

Round

12.45

Phoenician tetradrachm or 12 gramatta/scripulum

8

Square

12.91

Phoenician tetradrachm or 12 gramatta/scripulum

4

Square

26.76

Uncia (27.2 g)

5

Rectangular

36.81

12

Shell-shaped

49.69

2 unciae?

11

Shell-shaped

54.03

2 unciae?

Square

70.92

14

Trapezoid

80.72

13

Elongated pyramid

99.37

10

Round

9

3 unciae

353.00

3.0 and 3.5 g. None of the other items can be assigned to any particular weight system with certainty, while several may not be scale weights at all (Table 14.3). The weights were made in stone molds in which the desired pattern had been engraved, and into which the molten metal, usually lead, was poured. We do not know if the weights were manufactured at Gamla or were brought to the city, but to date, no mold for casting weights has been found at the site. One limestone weight actually originated in Jerusalem (see Chapter 10), indicating that stone weights were also in use by the local population. Calibration Calibration is the examination and correction of a measuring instrument by comparison to an official standard. Occasionally, due to changes in the weighing system in use at a particular site, or to changes in the physical properties of the weight itself because of wear, the weights had to be recalibrated. Primary calibration was undertaken after the weight was removed from the mold to adjust it to the standard. This was one of

the functions of the lug. Calibration of a weight was usually accomplished by drilling a hole through its entire thickness or through part of it, and then pouring additional molten metal of the same type in order to reach the standardized weight. Afterward, the newly poured metal was usually flattened with a tool and at times, an official seal (countermark) was imprinted. Plain weights such as Nos. 1 and 2 were in use over a long period, as is clearly attested by the signs of calibration. In the case of weight No. 1, on the obverse, the placement of the calibration is centered, and on the reverse, somewhat off-center. The calibration mark of weight No. 2 is off-center on both faces. Chronology There is no difficulty in dating the Gamla weights because the site was occupied during only two periods—the late Hellenistic (5 weights; Nos. 1–5) and the Early Roman (13 weights; Nos. 6–18). The majority comes from a clearly defined archaeological context and the year of Gamla’s fall in 67 CE is the terminus ante quem for all finds at the site.

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS AND SIMILAR ARTIFACTS

223

Notes Additional excavations were carried out in 1997–2000. See Syon and Yavor 2005. 2 The drawings are by Hagit Tahan-Rosen and the photographs, by Danny Syon. 3 Calibration is the validation of a specific measurement technique and equipment. It is the process of establishing the relationship between a weight and the units of measure, by comparing the weight to a standard weight. If the mass was less, a hole was punched and melted bronze or lead was poured into that hole in order to get to the desirable standard mass. If the mass was more, the lower protrusion or the sides of the weight were filed with a rough object to reduce its mass. 4 I wish to thank Lionel Holland for his assistance and comments on this article. 5 The agoranomos (ἀγορανόμος) was the official who was authorized to govern and regulate the market. Among his duties was certifying weights and the accuracy of the scales. 1

Shell-shaped weights that were made of bronze are known mainly from antiques catalogues and private collections. For bronze shell-shaped objects, see Hendin 2007:184 and Holland 2009:67. Four shell-shaped items made of gold were found in a Late Roman tomb excavated in Jerusalem (Iliffe 1935:74) and are on display at the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem. 7 I wish to thank Ian Stern and Bernie Alpert for graciously allowing me to use the information (photograph, Danny Syon). 8 Eleven weights of this type from Dor may have suggested that this type was somehow connected to coastal cities and had a symbolic maritime-related value. It is now obvious that these weights are equally common at inland sites. 9 For a more in-depth analysis of the weighing systems of the Levant see Finkielsztejn 2014, 2015, forthcoming. 6

R eferences Dar S. and Nagar-Hillman O. 2009. Two Types of Weights from Tel Dor and Horvat Shallale on the Carmel. EretzIsrael 29:118–124 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 286*). Elayi J. and Elayi A.G. 1997. Recherches sur les poids Phéniciens (Transeuphratène Suppl. 5). Paris. Finkielsztejn G. 2007. Poids de plomb inscrits du Levant: Une réforme d’Antiochos IV? In M. Sartre ed. Productions et échanges dans la Syrie grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque de Tours, juin 2003; Topoi Suppl. 8). Lyon. Pp. 35–60. Finkielsztejn G. 2014. The Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant, Part One: The Evidence of the Syrian Scale Weights. INR 9:61–94. Finkielsztejn G. 2015. The Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant, Part Two: The Evidence of the Phoenician Scale Weights. INR 10:55–103. Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming. The Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant, Part Two: Scale Weights of the Southern Levant. INR. Galili E., Rosen B. and Sharvit J. 2010. Artifact Assemblages from Two Roman Shipwrecks off the Carmel Coast. ‘Atiqot 63:61–110. Galili E., Syon D. Finkielsztejn G., Sussman V. and Steibel G. Forthcoming. Late Ptolemaic Assemblage of Metal Artifacts and Bronze Coins Recovered off the Coast of ‘Atlit. ‘Atiqot 87.

Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 113–152. Hadad S. 2007. Weights from the Early Roman Period at Ramat Hanadiv. IEJ 57:208–210. Hendin D. 2007. Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-Coinage Currency of the Near East. New York. Holland L. 2009. Weights and Weight-Like Objects of Caesarea Maritima. Hadera. Iliffe J.H. 1935. Cemeteries and a ‘Monastery’ at the YMCA: c. Third and Sixth Centuries A.D. Jerusalem. QDAP 4:70– 80. Manns F. 1984. Some Weights of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (SBF Museum 7). Jerusalem. Nagar-Hillman O. 2004. Typology, Chronology and Metrology of the Metal Weights from Tel Dor from the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods. M.A. thesis. Haifa University. Haifa (Hebrew). Syon D. And Yavor Z. 2005. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot 50:37–71. Yavor Z. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Eastern and Western Quarters. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 13–112.

Chapter 15

A Bronze Pendant in the Shape of Horus the Child (Harpokrates) from the Hasmonean Quarter Yoav Farhi During the 1979 season of excavations at Gamla, a small bronze pendant in the shape of Horus the child (in Greek: Harpokrates) was found in a room dated to the first century BCE (Area D, L3001). The pendant is almost complete, except for the rounded loop at the back of the figure, probably made for placing it on a necklace as an amulet. Unfortunately, it has since been lost and thus, its dimensions are based on a life-sized drawing (scaled 1:1), showing it to be 47 mm high (Fig. 15.1).1 The amulet is solid copper alloy, most probably bronze (D. Syon, pers. comm.).2 In Egyptian mythology, Harpokrates was the infant son of the gods Isis and Osiris, for whose protection his mother wove potent spells that were thought to be accessible to the amulet’s wearer (Andrews 1994:16). The image of the infant Horus was therefore associated primarily with the protection of children and with the healing powers of Isis (Ben-Tor 1997:40). Amulets of Harpokrates were common, especially in Egypt (Petrie 1914:34, Pl. XXXVI:145), from the end of the New Kingdom, but his figure became especially popular in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Tran Tam Tinh et al. 1988:415–416; Ben-Tor 1997:40–41; Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003).

0

1

Fig. 15.1. The Harpokrates amulet from Gamla.

In the Gamla amulet, Harpokrates is portrayed standing as a mummy, wrapped in a tight-fitting garment and wearing a tight-fitting cap (probably a cap-like crown; see Ben-Tor 1997:40–41, Nos. 28, 29). As in his usual depictions, he holds his right index finger to his lips, while his left hand is alongside his body. Contrary to his usual representation, he is not shown with the typical ‘sidelock of youth’, but since the amulet is much worn, it is possible that a ‘sidelock of youth’ was present. Harpokrates amulets are not very common in Israel. So far, only twelve pendants and one figurine made out of faience, bronze and glass have been recorded, dating from the Iron Age to the Roman period.3 Nine amulets (from Gezer, Megiddo, Lakhish, Ashqelon, Anthedon, ‘Atlit and ‘Akko) are included in Herrmann’s corpuses of Egyptian amulets from Israel (Herrmann 1994:105–110, Cat. Nos. 9–16; 2006:53, Cat. No. 1) and three pendants derive from Yavne–Yam (Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003), Horbat Sher, Modi‘in (for a preliminary report see: Farhi et al. 2009:139, 141; Fig. 28) and Bet Guvrin (unpublished).4 In addition to the amulets, one medium-sized bronze figurine of Harpokrates was found at Maresha (Kloner 1996:7; Erlich, in prep.).5 Out of these only the one found in ‘Akko (Herrmann 2006:53, Cat. No. 1) is similar, but not identical, to the one from Gamla.6 Attributing a date to Egyptian pendants and figurines is difficult, and usually depends on the archaeological context in which they are found. Of the thirteen specimens from Israel, four seem to date to the Hellenistic period (either manufactured during this period or used until then): the glass pendant from Yavne-Yam, the bronze figurine from Maresha, the bronze pendant from ‘Akko (Persian–Hellenistic period) and the bronze pendant from H. Sher. This type of amulet was used in one of two ways. Some were probably worn as part of a necklace or as a bracelet by someone believing in its magical powers to protect the wearer, while the evidence from graves at

226

YOAV FARHI

Lakhish (Murray 1953:379) and ‘Atlit (Johns 1933:49, 97, Pl. XXXIII:891–892) suggests that at least some pendants were employed to protect the deceased, probably children. The Harpokrates amulet from Gamla is significant for several reasons. It is one of a mere few examples derived from a controlled archaeological excavation and it seems to be the first item of its specific type to be discovered, so far, in Israel. More significant is the fact that this pagan amulet, in contrast to others recovered in

Israel, was found in a clearly Jewish context—among the remains of a room, unearthed in the Hasmonean quarter, which had been abandoned, probably at the end of the first century BCE (Goren 2010:116–118). It is hardly credulous that this pendant was used by Jews and it is conceivable that the amulet belonged to a Seleucid person (soldier?) stationed at Gamla during the second century BCE,7 or to some other pagan who arrived at Gamla during the Hasmonean period, and lost it there.

Notes The pendant was drawn by Hagit Tahan-Rosen of the IAA. For a photograph of the figurine, see Gutman 1994:48. 3 For other representations of Harpokrates found in Israel, see Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003:38–39. Note, in addition, some Roman gems and tesserae from Caesarea (Hamburger 1968:33, Nos. 116, 117; 1986:199, No. 54a), a Roman citycoin from Akko-Ptolemais (Kadman 1961:73, 136, No. 224) and a terracotta figurine from Maresha (Erlich and Kloner 2008:10–11, Pl. 4:15). 4 The amulet from Bet Guvrin is the only one that was dated, both by its type and by the context in which it was found, to the Roman period. I wish to thank the excavator, Amos Kloner, for this information and for permission to include it here. 1 2

Based on the shape and size of this figurine, it probably was used by a local cult, perhaps as part of cult offerings. Erlich agrees with Stern’s argument (Stern 2001:500) that Egyptian figurines from Palestine are not evidence for an Egyptian cult, but of the adoption of Egyptian motifs and symbols by a local cult (Erlich, in prep.). I wish to thank Adi Erlich for the information about the figurine from Maresha, and for her useful comments regarding the Gamla pendant. 6 For similar amulets from Egypt, see Petrie 1914: Pl. XXVI:145c, d. 7 For the Seleucid occupation at Gamla, see Chapter 1. 5

R eferences Andrews C. 1994. Amulets of Ancient Egypt. London. Ben-Tor D. 1997. The Immortals of Ancient Egypt; From the Abraham Guterman Collection of Ancient Egyptian Art. Jerusalem. Erlich A. In Preparation. Two Bronze Figurines from Maresha. In A. Kloner. Maresha Excavations Final Report (IAA Reports). Erlich A. and Kloner A. 2008. Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989– 1996 Seasons (IAA Reports 35). Jerusalem. Farhi Y., Gadot Y.,  Ilan D., Pincus-Ben-Avraham J., Taxel I., Tsfania L. and Bachar S. 2009. The Givat Sher–Modi‘in Community Based Excavation: Preliminary Report on the 2004–2006 Seasons. Strata: BAIAS 27:89–148. Fischer M. and Jackson-Tal R.E. 2003. A Glass Pendant in the Shape of Harpokrates from Yavneh-Yam, Israel. JGS 45:35–40.

Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 113–152. Gutman S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Hamburger A. 1968. Gems from Caesarea Maritima (‘Atiqot [ES] 8). Jerusalem. Hamburger A. 1986. Surface-Finds from Caesarea Maritima—Tesserae. In L.I. Levine and E. Netzer. Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1979: Final Report (Qedem 21). Jerusalem. Pp. 187–204. Herrmann C. 1994. Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel I: mit einem Ausblick auf ihre Rezeption durch das Alte Testament (OBO 138). Fribourg–Göttingen. Herrmann C. 2006. Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel III (OBO.SA 24). Fribourg–Göttingen.

CHAPTER 15: A BRONZE PENDANT IN THE SHAPE OF HORUS THE CHILD (HARPOKRATES) FROM THE HASMONEAN QUARTER

Johns C.N. 1933. Excavations at ‘Atlit (1930–1): The SouthEastern Cemetery. QDAP 2:41–104. Kadman L. 1961. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palestinensium 4). Jerusalem. Kloner A. 1996. Maresha: A Guide. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Murray M.A. 1953. Faience Amulets. In O. Tufnell. Lachish (Tell Ed-Duweir) III: The Iron Age (The Wellcome Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East Publications III). London–New York–Toronto. Pp. 378– 381.

227

Petrie W.M.F. 1914. Amulets. Warminster (reprint 1975). Stern E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible II: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE. New York. Tran Tam Tinh V., Jaeger B. and Poulin S. 1988. Harpokrates. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae 4.1:415– 445. Zurich–Munich.

Chapter 16

Worked Bone Artifacts Yoav Farhi

Introduction The Gamla excavations recovered 126 bone artifacts,1 among which a small number were found intact; the rest were broken or fragmentary. In addition to the worked items are 4 scapulae and 81 astragali that are not included in this count and appear in Table 16.1, below. Several other worked bone artifacts from Gamla are presented in other chapters of this publication.2 Bone was used for a wide range of artifacts, from utilitarian items to purely decorative objects. As a raw material, bone has several advantages. It is easy to model, readily available, inexpensive yet strong, but light and easy to work. Accordingly, it was widely used in antiquity and many cosmetic accessories, as well as small implements such as needles, pins, hinges and other small items, were made entirely from bone (Wapnish 1991; 1997).3 With any bone tool type, it is important to distinguish between casually worked bone (made by the user, most likely in or around the home) and objects produced by professional artisans in organized workshops (Wapnish 1997:336–337; Ayalon and Dray 2002). Bone was not the only skeletal material to be worked; artisans who modeled bone often worked with ivory, horn and antler as well. So far, no worked items of ivory or antler have been found at Gamla, and only one item (No. 63) can possibly be identified as made of horn. Bone artifacts are very common finds in strata of all periods in Israel (Ayalon and Sorek 1999). The majority of the assemblage presented here includes artifacts that were in use at Gamla until the last days of occupation, and derives from Second Temple-period loci (mainly in Areas R and S) dated to the first century BCE–first century CE. In addition, several items that were found in Area B might be dated, according to their find spot, to the Early Bronze Age (these items may derive from later fills) and the late Hellenistic period (not later than the first century BCE).4

The bone artifact assemblage from Gamla includes mainly rods (41 items) and spindle whorls/buttons (27 items). These are common types from this period, and similar ones were found at other sites in Israel, for example in Jerusalem (Ben-Dov 1982:164; Avigad 1983: Fig. 236; Tushingham 1985:343–344, 420–421, Figs. 68, 69; Geva 2003, 2006); Masada (Yadin 1966:145); Caesarea (Ayalon 2005); Dor (Stern 2000:317–318); Samaria (Crowfoot 1957:400–402, Fig. 92a:18–22; Kenyon 1957:457, 459–463, Figs. 114, 115), Sepphoris (Yeivin 1937:33, Pl. I, Fig. 2), Yodefat (Aviam 2005:129, 204–206) and Hammat Gader (Coen Uzzielli 1997:448–450). Similar assemblages are also known in Israel from Roman-period graves such as the ones near Geva (Siegelman 1988:37–39, Figs. 58–61) and ‘Akko (Tzaferis 1986:274, Fig. 10). The artifacts were made mainly of bones from small and medium-sized mammals.5 They are yellowish light brown in color, and well worked and polished, although sometimes they still bear the marks or grooves of the artisan, which remain from the primary rough shaping of the bones. Although it was common to decorate bone items with colors (Wapnish 2008:589), none of the items from Gamla shows evidence of coloration. Some of the items presented here show signs of burning or bear traces of fire (Nos. 47, 67–70, 103, 108). It is possible that these signs are evidence that the items were deliberately blackened by fire in order to make them harder, for reinforcement (Marshall 1982:570; Campana 1989:36; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:19, 24 Figs. 12, 28). Several objects bear use marks (Nos. 56, 88, 92, 101, 103, 105). Campana (1989:137–138) proved that through close study of bone implements and a microscopic study of the wear appearing on these implements it would be possible to reach reasonable conclusions as to the purpose for which these tools were used. Unfortunately, the evidence from Gamla is too limited to reach similar conclusions.

230

YOAV FARHI

The most common decoration on Second Templeperiod bone artifacts was the circle-and-dot motif, consisting of incised patterns of concentric circles, usually two, around a central dot.6 This motif was common on other objects during this period, such as the well known ‘Herodian’ oil lamps, found in sizable numbers in Jewish settlements in Judea, as well as at Gamla, during the first century CE (Terem and AdanBayewitz, forthcoming). Only a limited number of parallels are presented here. Additional parallels as well as comprehensive typological and chronological discussions of bone artifacts are found in reports on bone artifacts from the City of David (Ariel 1990), Caesarea Maritima (Ayalon 2005) and Alexandria (Rodziewicz 2007).

Catalogue The finds appear here in the following order: spindle whorls/buttons (Nos. 1–27), rings (Nos. 28–31), rods (Nos. 32–72), pinheads (Nos. 73–79 ), needles (Nos. 80–82), spoons (Nos. 83–86 ), spatulae (Nos. 87–99), awls and points (Nos. 100–105), handles and cylinders (Nos. 106–110), hinges (Nos. 111–116), a relief appliqué (No. 117), inlays (Nos. 118–120), gaming dice (Nos. 121, 122), a cylindrical pyxis (No. 123) and varia (Nos. 124–126). All measurements are in millimeters and the given measurement is always the largest one, unless otherwise specified.7 The current location of several items is unknown and thus in some cases, the locus and/ or basket number as well as some of the measurements are unknown and a question mark appears instead. Spindle Whorls/Buttons (Figs. 16.1, 16.2; Nos. 1–27) These 27 bone objects are commonly identified in the literature as buttons (Elderkin 1928:342–344; Davidson 1952:296–297; Ariel 1990:139) or as spindle whorls (Oldenburg 1969:118–128), though their exact purpose remains uncertain (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:27–28; Geva 2003:345; Ayalon 2005:22). A few items of this type were found in situ with rods identified as spindles (see for example, de Vaux 1961:41–43, Fig. 12:11; Tzaferis 1986:274, Fig.10; Siegelman 1988:38–39, Fig. 61; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:27, Fig. 20; Ayalon 2005:24– 25, n. 57 and Shamir 2008:121 [wooden spindle and whorl from Wadi Murabba‘at]), though according to

some scholars, an in situ rod and disk is still not clear evidence for their use as spindle whorls. In their opinion, these pieces served as garment pins (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:27). Since bone spindle whorls similar in shape to the Greco-Roman ones appear already in Bronze Age contexts (Guy 1938:170–171, Fig. 175:8–20, Pls. 84:3–14, 95:41–48; Brandl 1993:237, Nos. 4, 5),8 and continue to appear in the Byzantine, Islamic and medieval periods (Davidson 1952:300–302, Nos. 2525– 2578; Oldenburg 1969:117–128; Agadi 1996:236, Nos. 1–3; Ayalon 2005:25–29, Nos. 63, 65–70, 74, 77, 81), I think that these items did serve as spindle whorls, and not as buttons (see also Chapter 17).9 Since their exact use remains controversial, and since at least some of the types might have served more than one purpose, these objects will be referred to here as spindle whorls, for convenience. All the spindle whorls from Gamla have a central hole—usually drilled from one side; they are polished and they seem to have been made from mammalian bones. Many of the items were carved on a lathe, and therefore, are symmetrical and finely decorated. The Gamla assemblage presents a large variety of diameters and ornamentations and it can be divided into two main groups: (1) Dome shaped/convex spindle whorls decorated with incised grooves and circle-and-dot designs on top, with flat, undecorated bottoms. These types are very similar in shape to the stone spindle whorls known from various periods (see for example Davidson 1952:302–304, Nos. 2590–2628; Brandl 1993:256, No. 21; Shamir 1996: Fig. 22:11–19, 24–27; Aviam 2005:205–206, Fig. 165). (2) Flat (disk-shaped) or slightly concave bone disks, usually decorated on both sides—probably on a lathe—with shallow grooves around the center.10 Although similar items are known from other Early Roman sites (Ben-Dov 1982:164; Avigad 1983: Fig. 236; Edelstein 2002:91*, Fig. 24:6; Geva 2003:345, No. B5; Ayalon 2005: Nos. 62, 78–79), it seems, based on the published material, that they are less common than the dome shaped/convex ones. A bronze spindle with a similar disk, made of bronze and identified as a whorl, was found in Turkey; it was dated to the midfirst millennium BCE (Barber 1991:64, Fig. 2.31). All the items of this group from Gamla seem to be made of mammalian flat bone.

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

It should be noted that the division and arrangement of the items into these two main groups is typological (according to shape or decoration) and not chronological (see also Ayalon 2005:22). Moreover, the fact that items from both groups were found in the same strata seems to indicate that they were used simultaneously, probably for different functions. According to Shamir (1996:149), items from both groups were used for spinning, but for different types of fibers. Similar assemblages of such bone objects are known from other sites in Israel such as Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie 1898: Pl. XXVIII:54; Ben-Dov 1982:164; 1990:104; Geva 2003:345, Nos. B4–B7, 2006:267, Nos. B6–B8), Masada (Yadin 1966:145; Tsafrir 1997:11), Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:24–29, Nos. 57–67, 72–73, 78–79), Ashqelon (Wapnish 1991:56), Samaria (Crowfoot 1957:400–402, Fig. 92a:18–22), Geva (Siegelman 1988:38–39, Fig. 61), Yodefat (Aviam 2005:205–206, Fig. 165:10–12) and Hammat Gader (Coen Uzzielli 1997:448, 450, Nos. 8–10, dated to the late Byzantine period).11 Group A Dome shaped/convex spindle whorls decorated with incised grooves and circle-and-dot designs over the top, with a flat and undecorated bottom. 1. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:1) Area G, L1505; Reg. No. 6396; IAA 2007-1967. Complete; D 20 mm; Th/H 7 mm. Mammalian bone. Decorated with two groups of two concentric circles, one group around the central hole (4.5 mm) and the other on the side profile. Between the two groups and around the circumference are 19 circleand-dot designs. For similar decorations, see Crowfoot 1957:401–402, Fig. 92a:19. 2. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:2) Area S; L5010; Reg. No. 6271; IAA 2007-1976. Fragmentary; D 25 mm; Th/H 6 mm. Mammalian bone. Decorated with three concentric circles around the central hole (4 mm, drilled from both sides) and circle-and-dot designs (nine survive) around the circumference. 3. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:3) Area R; L5110; Reg. No. 4969; IAA 2007-2039. Complete; D 20 mm; Th/H 6.5 mm.

231

Mammalian bone. Decorated with two groups of two concentric circles, one group around the central hole (2.6; 3.6 mm) and the other on the side profile. Between the two groups and around the circumference are nine circle-and-dot designs. One groove appears on the bottom and its function is not clear, probably remains of previous use or of a previous manufacturing process. 4. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:4) IAA 2007-1985; Area R, L5201, Reg. No. 667. Complete; D 16 mm; Th/H 7.5 mm. Mammalian bone. Decorated with one concentric circle around the central hole (4.5 mm) and seven circle-anddot designs around the circumference. Unusually thick relatively to its diameter; base smaller than perimeter. 5. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:5) Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3288. Fragmentary; D 23 mm; Th/H 7 mm. Mammalian bone. Decorated with one concentric circle around the central hole (3.5 mm) and seven (?) circle-and-dot motifs (five survive) around the circumference. Current location of item unknown. 6. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:6) Excavation data missing. Complete; D 27 mm; Th/H 7 mm. Mammalian bone. Decorated with two concentric circles around the central hole (5 mm) and alternating circle-and-dot motifs, three of each type: a large one of three-circles-and-dot and a group of four small designs. Whorls/buttons with similar decorations are known to have been painted (Geva 2003:345, No. B7; Ayalon 2005:26, Nos. 66–67) and thus it is possible that our item was painted as well. Current location of item unknown. Group B: Flat (disk shaped) or slightly concave bone disks, decorated, probably on a lathe, usually on both sides, with shallow grooves around the center. 7. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:7) Area R; L5106; Reg. No. 4569. Fragment (one-third preserved); D 33 mm; Th 1 mm. Flat disc shape, both sides well polished. The bottom is not decorated and the top is slightly concave and

232

YOAV FARHI

decorated with circle-and-dot designs (two survive) alternating with a stylized rosette (one petal survives) around the central hole (6 mm). The pattern is surrounded by three concentric circles (for similar pattern see below, hairpin No. 73). This item is an exception in this group because of its decoration and size but was included here because of its shape. A similar item, decorated on both sides, is known from the Jewish Quarter excavations (Geva 2006:267, No. B6).

(7 mm). A very similar item is known from Jerusalem (Ben-Dov 1982:164).

8. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:8) Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 6961. Complete; D 36 mm. Flat disc shape. Well polished and decorated with a ridge around the central hole (8 mm) and a groove around the perimeter. Three small holes drilled asymmetrically around the central one. This unique item might suggest that the other items of its type, which do not have additional holes but only the central one, should not be identified as buttons at all.12 A similar item with one small perforation, beside the central one, drilled near the edge, is known from Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:29–30, No. 86).

14. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:14) Area R; L5005; Reg. No. 286; IAA 1992-1045. Complete; D 28 mm; Th 5 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (5 mm).

9. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:9) Area R; L5053; Reg. No. 7838; IAA 2007-1980. Complete; D 26 mm; Th 3.5 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (4.8 mm), which seems a bit squarish.

16. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:16) Area S; L5014; Reg. No. 6406. Fragment (less than half preserved); D 29 mm; Th 2 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (7 mm).

10. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:10) Area R; L5037; Reg. No. 471; IAA 2007-2369. Complete; D 25 mm; Th 4 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (5 mm). 11. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:11) Area R; L5017; Reg. No. 6586; IAA 2007-1987. Nearly complete; D 30 mm; Th 3 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (7 mm). 12. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:12) Area S; L1909; Reg. No. 6917; IAA 2007-1968. Complete; D 26 mm; Th 5 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole

13. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.1:13) Missing excavation data. Complete; D 20 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides(?) well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (6 mm). Current location of item unknown.

15. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:15) Area R; L5025; Reg. No. 7693; IAA 1997-4313. Complete; D 32 mm; Th 2 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (6 mm).

17. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:17) Area S; L1921; Reg. No. 8180. Fragment; D 27 mm; Th 2 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (7 mm). 18. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:18) Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3092/2. Fragment (one-third preserved); D 21 mm; Th 2 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished, one decorated with a ridge around the central hole (6 mm). 19. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:19) Area T; L4016; Reg. No. 1430/1. Fragment (less than half preserved); D 29 mm; Th 2 mm.

233

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

1

4

2

3

8

7

6

5

9

10

13

12

11

14 14 0

2

Fig. 16.1. Whorls and buttons.

234

YOAV FARHI

Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (8 mm). Shoulder is convex and bottom is slightly concave and decorated with concentric grooves. Very similar items are known from Corinth (Davidson 1952:299, Nos. 2522–2523) and Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:25, No. 62).

15

20. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:20) Area S; L2027; Reg. No. 4002; IAA 2007-2006. Nearly complete (one-fifth missing); D 29 mm; Th 4 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (6.5 mm).

16

18

17

20

19

23

22

21

25

24

26

27 0

2

Fig. 16.2. Whorls and buttons.

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

21. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:21) Area S; L2014; Reg. No. 3657/1-2; IAA 2007-2004. Nearly complete; D 32 mm; Th 3 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (8 mm). 22. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:22) Area R; L5033; Reg. No. 234; IAA 2007-1960. Fragment (one-half preserved); D 26 mm; Th 3.6 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (6.5 mm). 23. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:23) Area S; L2002; Reg. No. 3289/1–2. Fragment (one-half preserved); D 26 mm; Th 1.0–1.5 mm. Flat disc shape; one side is decorated with a groove and a ridge around the central hole (6 mm), and the other side is roughly polished and not decorated. 24. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:24) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3904. Fragment; D 31 mm; Th 2.0–2.5 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole. 25. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:25) Area S; L2018; Reg. No. 3694. Fragment (less than one-third preserved); D 31 mm; Th 2.0–2.5 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (not preserved). Decoration identical to No. 24 (above). 26. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:26) Area S; L1925; Reg. No. 8249. Fragment (one-half preserved); D 34 mm; Th 4 mm. Flat disc shape; both sides well polished and decorated with grooves and a ridge around the central hole (6.5 mm). 27. Bone Spindle Whorl/Button (Fig. 16.2:27) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3396; IAA 2007-1975. Nearly complete; D 27 mm; Th 3 mm. Flat disc shape; the top is decorated with a groove and a ridge around the central hole (6 mm) and the bottom, roughly polished and not decorated.

235

Rings (Fig. 16.3; Nos. 28–31) The following four undecorated items were classified as rings. Their exact use is uncertain. Due to their shape and since most of them derive from Hellenistic contexts, it is possible that some (Nos. 28, 29, and, perhaps, 31) served as spindle whorls—an early type of the more common Roman whorl presented above. At the City of David, they were identified as buttons (Ariel 1990:139–140, Nos. 159–163), and theoretically, they could have been used as beads as well. Similar items, most of them from Hellenistic contexts, are known from several sites in Israel and abroad, for example Samaria (Kenyon 1957:462–463, Fig. 115:8, 9); Jerusalem (Geva 2006:267, No. B8); Shiqmona (Elgavish 1968:36–37, No. 96; 54–55, No. 196) and Alexandria (Rodziewicz 2007:216, No. 471). 28. Bone Ring (Spindle Whorl?) (Fig. 16.3:28) Area B; L1283; Reg. No. 3334. Fragment; D 21 mm. Doughnut-shaped with rounded edges and a central hole (8 mm); polished and undecorated. 29. Bone Ring (Spindle Whorl?) (Fig. 16.3:29) Area B; L1284; Reg. No. 2426/1. Fragment; D 20 mm. Doughnut-shaped with rounded edges and a central hole (7 mm); well polished and undecorated. 30. Bone Ring (Spindle Whorl?) (Fig. 16.3:30) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 310; IAA 1997-4334. Complete; D 30 mm; Th 3 mm; central hole 12 mm. Cylindrically shaped, made of a section of a tubular bone with its marrow removed; slightly uneven walls. This ring type, with a large central hole, might have been used to fasten women’s tunics (Croom 2000:76– 77, Fig. 31:2). Similar items are known from Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:125, No. 35) and Alexandria (Rodziewicz 2007:155, No. 247). 31. Bone Ring (Spindle Whorl?) (Fig. 16.3:31) Area T; L4036; Reg. No. 2050. Almost complete; D 47 mm. Flat disc shape; flat on one side(?), slightly convex on the other, with rounded edges and a large, central hole (17 mm); undecorated. Location unknown; no osteological examination could be made.

236

YOAV FARHI

28

29

30

31

0

2

Fig. 16.3. Rings.

Rods (Figs. 16.4, 16.5; Nos. 32–72) Rod fragments comprise the largest group of bone objects found at Gamla and seem to have been made from large mammalian limb bones. Forty-one fragments, in various dimensions and conditions, are presented here. Very small and fragmentary pieces were omitted. The rods have circular or oval cross sections, they are polished and some are decorated with incised horizontal grooves. Due to the fragmentary state of the rods (all are broken), and since similar rods (in shape and/or decoration) were used for different needs, we were unable to determine their function with certainty. These thin fragments, easily broken, could have served as spoon handles (for decorated spoon handles, see Avigad 1983: Fig. 236; Ben-Dov 1990:104), hair or garment pins, spindles (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:27) or needles (see below). They could also have been used for writing (i.e., stylus) (de Vaux 1961:44, Pl. XII:11 [made of wood]), for mixing and applying cosmetics and medicines (Geva 2006:268) or for decorating pottery as engravers (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:20). Some of the fragments are undecorated while many others are decorated with crosshatch patterns that were very popular in the Second Temple period (Ariel 1990:140–141, Nos. BI 181,183; Geva 2006:268, Nos. B12–B14). It should be noted that identical crosshatch patterns were used for the decoration of spindles as early as Late Bronze Age II (Guy 1938:170–171, Fig. 175:6 and Pls. 84:1, 95:50). Similar objects are known from various sites in Israel, including Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:140–141, Nos. BI 169–BI 185; Geva 2003:346–347, Nos. B14– B17; 2006:268–269, Nos. B12–B18), Masada (Yadin 1966:145; Tsafrir 1997:11), Samaria (Kenyon 1957:457, 459–461, Fig. 114); Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:35, Nos.

113–122; 51–63, Nos. 173–245), Ashqelon (Wapnish 2008:607–610), Dor (Stern 2000:317–318) and Yodefat (Aviam 2005:205–206, Fig. 166). Many parallels are known from abroad for the majority of these types as well, for example from Egypt (Petrie 1927:24, No. 57, Pl. XIX; Rodziewicz 2007:164–201, Nos. 278–419) and Corinth (Davidson 1952: 186–187, Pls. 83, 84, Nos. 1355–1376 [stylus]; pp. 278–287, Pls. 118–120, Nos. 2291–2388 [pins]). Decorated Rod Fragments (Fig. 16.4) 32. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:32) Area R; L5027; Reg. No. 7870; IAA 1997-4296. Fragment; L77 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. The top end of the rod is decorated with a pointed head and grooves and the bottom (broken), with grooves. 33. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:33) Area S; L1918; Reg. No. 7490; IAA 1990-5080. Fragment; L 85 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. One end has a pointed head; the other is broken and decorated with grooves. 34. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:34) Excavation data missing; IAA 1990-5074. Fragment; L 53mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Carved cylindrical head; decorated with grooves and a band of sparse crosshatching. 35. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:35) Area T; L4185; Reg. No. 1076; IAA 2007-1971. Fragment; L 66 mm; D 9 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Carved cylindrical head (tip broken); decorated with grooves and a band of sparse crosshatching.

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

36. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:36) Area B; L1270; Reg. No.1772; IAA 1990-5086. Fragment; L 35 mm; D 8 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Carved cylindrical head; decorated with grooves and a band of dense crosshatching. 37. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:37) Area B; Sq B/20; Reg. No. 1163. Fragment; L 43 mm; W 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. The top end has a pointed head and grooves, in the middle, a band of dense crosshatching and the other end is broken. 38. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:38) Area B; L1294; Reg. No. 2463. Fragment; L 39 mm; W 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Pointed head (tip broken); decorated with grooves and a band of sparse crosshatching. 39. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:39) Area B; Sq B/15; Reg. No. 3078. Fragment; L 33 mm; W 5mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Pointed head (tip broken); decorated with grooves and a band of sparse crosshatching. 40. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:40) Area R; L5101; Reg. No. 4430. Fragment; L 25 mm; W 6 mm; Th 3 mm (one-half preserved). Mammalian long bone shaft. Decorated with ribs and a band of sparse crosshatching; oval section. A photograph of this fragment was published in Guttmann 1994:149. 41. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:41) Area B; L1253; Reg. No. 3234. Fragment; L 34 mm; W 10 mm; Th 6.5 mm. Oval section; decorated with grooves and a band of sparse crosshatching. 42. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:42) Area T. Fragment; L 60 mm; D 15mm. Decorated with grooves and a band of sparse crosshatching. Current location of item unknown.

237

43. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:43) Area B; L1280; Reg. No. 2158; IAA 1990-5083. Fragment; L 35 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Decorated with grooves and a band of dense crosshatching. 44. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:44) Area R; L5057; Reg. No. 3121. Fragment; L 16 mm; W 6 mm; Th 4 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Oval section; decorated with pairs of grooves and a band of dense crosshatching. 45. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:45) Area B; L1282; Reg. No. 3359. Fragment; L 18 mm; W 3.5 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Decorated with pairs of grooves and a band of dense crosshatching. This item has a flat back and may have been used as a part of handle(?), or as a mount or inlay (compare Ayalon 2005: Fig. 46:433, 434, 437, 438). 46. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area B; L1267; Reg. No. 1519. Fragment; L 38 mm; D 8 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft or rib. Decorated with pairs of grooves and a band of dense crosshatching. 47. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:47) Area S; L5023; Reg. No. 7449. Fragment; L 28 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Decorated with eight longitudinal grooves; burnt. 48. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:48) Area S; L5021; Reg. No. 7374; IAA 2007-1958. Fragment; L 66 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian long bone. Rod narrows at one end (tip broken); the other (top?) end is broken and decorated with several grooves. 49. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:49) Area S; L1918; Reg. No. 7529. Fragment; L 45 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Oval section; decorated with grooves (two preserved). 50. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area B; L1260; Reg. No. 1080.

238

YOAV FARHI

36 39

38 34

37

35 32 33

41

40

43

42

45

44

53

52

51

49

48

0

2

Fig. 16.4. Decorated rods.

47

54

239

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Fragment; L 53 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Oval section; decorated with grooves (one preserved). 51. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:51) Area B; L1267; Reg. No. 1258; IAA 1990-5087. Fragment; L 29 mm; W 8 mm; Th 4mm. Oval section; decorated with grooves. 52. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:52) Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 8199. Fragment; L 24 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Oval section; decorated with four grooves. 53. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:53) Area G; L1507; Reg. No. 6932. Fragment; L 13 mm; D 6.5 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Decorated with pairs of ribs and a plain band, circular or oval section. This item has a flat back and may have been used as a mount or inlay (compare Ayalon 2005: Fig. 46:433, 434). 54. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.4:54) Area S; L1924; Reg. No. 8215. Fragment; L 11 mm; D 8 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Circular section; decorated with concentric rings. Its condition hints that it was broken during manufacture.

57

58

Undecorated Rod Fragments (Fig. 16.5) 55. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3331. Two fragments, probably from the same rod; L 81 and 28 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished. 56. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area R; L5017; Reg. No. 6728. Fragment; L 61 mm; D 6.5 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished. Depression on one end bearing signs of use. Unclear what purpose it served. 57. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.5:57) Area R; L5019; Reg. No. 6742/1; IAA 1990-5016. Fragment; L 58 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Well polished. Possibly stylus. 58. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.5:58) Area B; L1296; Reg. No. 2553; IAA 1990-5084. Fragment; L 55 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Well polished. 59. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L1918; Reg. No. 7763. Fragment; L 65 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished.

67

64

0

2

Fig. 16.5. Undecorated rods.

240

YOAV FARHI

60. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area R; L5107; Reg. No. 4829. Fragment; L 44 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished. 61. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area R; L5033; Reg. No. 323. Fragment; L 29 mm; D 3 mm. Long bone shaft (fibula?) of a small mammal. Circular section. Well polished. This very thin undecorated rod fragment is probably a needle or pin fragment. 62. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area B; L1251; Reg. No. 592. Fragment; L 27 mm; D 3.5 mm. Long bone shaft (fibula?) of a small mammal. Circular section. Well polished. This very thin undecorated rod fragment is probably a needle fragment or pin fragment. 63. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L1908; Reg. No. 6767. Fragment; L 45 mm; D 7.5 mm. Possibly horn corn of gazelle. Well polished. 64. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.5:64) Area B; L1284; Reg. No. 2426/2. Fragment; L 50 mm; D 5–7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Polygonal; several cuts on body; traces of sawing on the thin end. 65. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L1914; Reg. No. 7347/20. Fragment; L 35 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Well polished. 66. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 7939/34. Fragment; L 27 mm; D 6.5 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Well polished. 67. Bone Rod (Fig. 16.5:67) Area S; L2051; Reg. No. 3875/1–2. Fragment; L 49 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished; burnt. 68. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L2051; Reg. No. 3875/4. Fragment; L 26 mm; D 7 mm.

Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished; burnt. 69. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3538/1–2. Two fragments, probably from the same rod; L 20 and 40 mm; D 6 and 7.5 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished; burnt. 70. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L1911; Reg. No. 6941. Fragment; L 17 mm; D 7 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Well polished; burnt. 71. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area B; Sq C/18; Reg. No. 3291. Fragment; L 28.5 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. 72. Bone Rod (not illustrated) Area S; L1913; Reg. No. 7046. Fragment; L 70 mm; D 5 mm. Current location of item unknown. Pinheads (Fig. 16.6) Bone pins were very common in the Roman Empire, as well as in later periods. They were used especially for styling hair (Stephens 2008) and for garments (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:42; Ayalon 2005:51–65). No complete pins were found at Gamla, but several parts of bone items that were probably the heads of hairpins were found and are presented below. In addition, it is possible that some of the rods presented above were actually parts of pins. Highly decorated pinheads and pins in which the head and shaft were made separately were common in the Roman period and parallels are known from many sites in Israel and abroad (see, for example, Davidson 1952:282–283, Pl. 118:2291– 2297; Edelstein 2002:89*, Fig. 21:6; Ayalon 2005:52, Nos. 170–172). As explained below, it is suggested that item No. 73 is not a spoon (as these items were classified until now) but a highly decorated hairpin head. 73. Pinhead (Fig. 16.6:73) Area S; L1914; Reg. No. 7417; IAA 1990-5071.

241

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Hairpin head. fragment (one-half of the head and part of the rod preserved); D 33 mm; Th 2 mm. Flat disc-shaped head; both sides well polished. Surface decorated with circle-and-dot designs (two survive) between three petals of a stylized rosette (two complete petals and the beginning of the third preserved), surrounded by three concentric circles. On the back, the beginning of the rod remains. These types are usually identified as cosmetic spoons (Bliss and Dickie 1898: Pl. XXVIII:53; Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:368–369, Fig. 240: C2a; de Vaux 1961:42–43, Fig. 12:1; Yadin 1966:145; Ben-Dov 1982:164, 1990:104; Avigad 1983: Fig. 236; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:38, Fig. 43; Ayalon 2005:49, No. 165; Geva 2006:268, No. B9), probably because of the flat-shaped bowl. According to Ariel (1990:142) and Ayalon (2005:47), this flat, decorated type is found in Israel in the Early Roman period only and has no parallel in Europe. A very similar (almost identical), intact, item was found at Khirbet Yattir and was identified by the excavators as a Roman pin (Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2000:156, Fig. 4). I suggest that the conical rod of that find and its sharp tip are evidence for the use of such items as pins, probably hairpins, and not as spoons. 74. Pinhead (Fig. 16.6:74) Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8176.

73

Fragment; L 30 mm; W 7 mm; Th 3 mm. The head of the pin appears to be in the form of a female figure (Aphrodite? head missing), dressed in a long garment, her hand held up (broken). Roman parallels to this rare form are known from Corinth (Davidson 1952:285, Pl. 119:2349), and Budapest (Bíró 1994: 92 and 174, No. 385, and pp. 120, 227, No. 853), while another example, less similar, is known from Caesarea (Ayalon 2005: Fig. 23:248). 75. Pinhead (Fig. 16.6:75) Area S, L5014, Reg. No. 6204. Complete; D 7 mm; L 8 mm. Mammalian bone. Small, polished flat-topped globular head with a lathe groove on its top and a small hole (D 3 mm) in its bottom for the shaft. 76. Pinhead (Fig. 16.6:76) Area S; L1910l; Reg. No. 7689. Fragment; L 21 mm; W 7 mm; Th 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft; oval section; decorated with several ribs. This grooved item was probably part of a pinhead or part of a rod or handle. 77. Pinhead(?) (Fig. 16.6:77) IAA 1990-5073. Fragment; L 28 mm; W 7 mm; Th 3 mm (only half preserved?); pointed top, decorated with parallel

75

74

78

77 0

79 2

Fig. 16.6. Pinheads.

76

242

YOAV FARHI

bands. This item has a flat back and may also have been used as a mount or inlay (compare Ayalon 2005: Fig. 46:435). 78. Pinhead(?) (Fig. 16.6:78) Area B; L1300; Reg. No. 3273. Fragment; L 20 mm; W 5–8 mm; Th 2.5–5.5 mm. Flat back; roughly pear-shaped head; highly polished. The flat back suggests that it may also have been used as a mount or inlay (compare Ayalon 2005: Fig. 46:435). 79. Pinhead (Fig. 16.6:79) Area B; L1260, Reg; No. 749/1. Fragment; L 15.5 mm; W 6 mm; Th 2.5 mm. Rectangular section; upper side decorated with pillarshaped carving and the back, flat and undecorated. Needles (Fig. 16.7) Bone needles have been in use since prehistoric times (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:32). Many needles from the Roman period, varying in size and type, are known from Corinth (Davidson 1952:174, 176–177, Nos. 1249–1262). Few were found in Roman-period sites in Israel and several are known from Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie 1898: Pl. XXVIII:55; Ben-Dov 1982:164, 1990:104), Yodefat (Aviam 2005:205–206, Fig. 166), Samaria (Kenyon 1957:457, 459, 461, Fig. 114:41– 46), Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:32–34, Nos. 102–111), Dor (Stern 2000:317) and Geva (Siegelman 1988:38, Fig. 61). Needles are identified by the presence of an ‘eye’. Only three fragments with an ‘eye’ are known from Gamla. When only a portion of the shaft is preserved, it is difficult to distinguish between needles, pins or other rods. Thus, it is possible that there are more needles, whose parts appear under the rod category. Research reveals that in addition to their normal use, needles were used in hairdressing as well (Ayalon 2005:24; Stephens 2008). 80. Needle (Fig. 16.7:80) Area S; L1918; Reg. No. 7526; IAA 2007-1977. Fragment; L 51 mm; W 4 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?); oval-circular section; pointed head(?). At least two eyes were drilled beneath the point where the head narrows. The central eye (broken) is elongated and elliptical, and the lower

80

81 0

82 1

Fig. 16.7. Needles.

is round and small. It is unclear whether all the eyes were used simultaneously or not. It is possible that when an eye broke, a new one was added. For similar needles, see Aviam 2005:205–206, Fig. 166; Ayalon 2005:34, Nos. 109–111. 81. Needle (Fig. 16.7:81) Area S; L1919; Reg. No. 8209. Fragment; L 17 mm; W 3 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Oval-circular section; pointed head. At least two eyes were drilled beneath the point where the head narrows. The upper eye is round and small, the central eye broken. For a similar needle, see Ayalon 2005:34, No. 111. 82. Needle (Fig. 16.7:80) Area S; L2025; Reg. No. 3889. Fragment; L 43 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula?). Oval-circular section; elliptical eye (broken); point missing. Spoons (Fig. 16.8) Four bone fragments of items generally identified as spoons were found at Gamla. One fragment consists of part of the handle of the spoon with a small part of the bowl and the other three are complete or broken parts of the bowl. Two spoons are flat and two are concave. The handles of the three bowls that did not survive could be among the rod fragments described above. Note that it seems plausible that in this group of finds,

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

usually classified as spoons, either for makeup or for food (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:38), we should distinguish between the shallow and usually undecorated items (Nos. 84, 85), which are quite similar to the spoons we use today, and the highly decorated and usually flat items (No. 73, above). The latter belongs to a group of objects that should be reclassified as highly decorated hairpins and not as spoons (see above). Similar shallow spoons, dating to the Roman period, are a common find at many sites in Israel and the Mediterranean basin, for example in Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:142, No. BI 195; Geva 2003:346, Nos. B11, B12; 2006:267–268, Nos. B9, B10), Masada (Yadin 1966:145), Yodefat (Aviam 2005:129, Fig. 101),

Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:48–49, No. 163) and Corinth (Davidson 1952:189–191, Pls. 84, 85, Nos. 1393– 1399). 83. Spoon (Fig. 16.8:83) Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 8007. Fragment; L 61 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft; part of the handle and only a small part of the bowl are preserved. 84. Spoon (Fig. 16.8:84) Area B; L1277; Reg. No. 240; IAA 1992-1043. Fragment (handle and small part of bowl missing). L 50 mm; W 27 mm.

84

83

85

86 0

243

2

Fig. 16.8. Spoons.

244

YOAV FARHI

Mammalian long bone shaft. Deep leaf-shaped bowl with pointed tip; base of tapering handle extends onethird up the length of the bowl from the bottom. 85. Spoon (Fig. 16.8:85) Area S; L2026; Reg. No. 3957; IAA 2007-1972. Fragment (handle and part of bowl missing); L 62 mm; W 29 mm. Mammalian flat or long bone shaft. Long oval shallow bowl; base of tapering handle extends one-quarter up the length of the bowl from its bottom. A similar spoon, dated to the first century CE, is known from Corinth (Davidson 1952:189–190, Pl. 84:1393) and two others, dated to the Byzantine period, are known from Sepphoris (Yeivin 1937:33, Pl. I, Fig. 2) and Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:48, No. 161). 86. Spoon (Fig. 16.8:86) Area R; L5011; Reg. No. 6433. Fragment (handle missing); D 16 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Circular and shallow bowl; decorated with concentric rings in the center. The back of the bowl is not as well carved, and is encroached upon by the handle, which ends in a triangular projection, extending one-third up the height of the bowl. Current location of item unknown. Very similar spoons are known from Masada (Yadin 1966:145), Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: Fig. 236; Tushingham 1985:344, 420, Fig. 68:15; Ben-Dov 1990:104), Sepphoris (Yeivin 1937:33, Pl. I, Fig. 2), Ashqelon (Wapnish 2008:601, Fig. 34.9) and Corinth (Davidson 1952:191, Pl. 85:1398). Spatulae (Fig. 16.9; Nos. 87–99) Thirteen spatulae, all fragmented, are presented here. Bone spatulae are very common and are known from the Neolithic period through Roman times (Ariel 1990:128–129; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:24). They are made of long bone shafts or ribs of medium-sized mammals (i.e., sheep/goat) and their shapes preserve the natural curvature of the bones. In the spatulae, one end is usually sharpened and the other is rounded. Many of the Gamla fragments derive from Area B and all but one (No. 87) were found in Hellenistic contexts of the first century BCE. Although all the items from Gamla are fragmented, it seems that these spatulae are similar to the ones from the other areas at the site. The typical spatula of the early Hellenistic

period (second century BCE) is usually short, stubby, evenly rounded on one side and having a sharp point at the opposite end. Spatulae of this early type are known from several sites such as Gezer (Macalister 1912: II, 274, Fig. 420; III, Pl. CLXXXV:13) and the Hellenistic temple at Be’er Sheva‘ (Derfler 1984:122, No. 45). No such early spatulae are known so far from Gamla and thus their absence from Area B supports the other finds that suggest that during the Hellenistic period this area was inhabited not earlier than the first century BCE. It should be noted that thinner and longer spatulae, similar to the Roman ones, are also known in the early Hellenistic period and several were found in Ashdod (Dothan and Freedman 1967:23, Fig. 4:14, Pl. VII:13; Dothan 1971:67, 70, Fig. 29:17–20); Beth Zur (Sellers 1933:62–63, Fig. 57) and Shiqmona (Elgavish 1968: Nos. 97, 180, 197). Both types of spatulae are known already in the Iron Age and in the Persian period (Petrie 1928:16–17, Pl. XXXIV:5–34; Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pls. 95:39–62, 96:1–9; Friend 1998:61–66, Nos. 181–196; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005:226, 233– 234, Fig. 3.110:7). Early Roman-period spatulae, similar to the ones from Gamla, were found at many sites, e.g., the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2003:344, B1–B3; 2006:267, B1–B5), the City of David (Ariel 1990:127–134), the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie 1898, Pl. XXVIII:52; Tushingham 1985:344, 420, Fig. 68:17, 18), Masada (Yadin 1966:145) and Dor (Stern 2000:317). The function of the spatulae is uncertain, but since they are so numerous, they must have had some common household use. The suggested functions for these bone implements are varied (see Ariel 1990:127– 130; Van Beek and Van Beek 1990), and the prevailing view is that they were used as ‘sword beaters’ (or spacers) in loom weaving (Friend 1998:61), for writing and for mixing and applying medicine and/or cosmetics (Geva 2003:344). 87. Spatula (or awl?) (Fig. 16.9:87) Area B; L1256; Reg. No. 829. Fragment; L 84 mm; W 14mm; Th 3 mm. Flat bone (rib?). Brown in color; one side highly polished, the other not worked. The color of the bone is evidence for use of the method of heat-treatment to harden bone implements (Campana 1989:36). The long, sharp point (or tang?) might indicate that it served as an awl as well (see Ariel 1990:141, No. BI 190).

245

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

The findspot of this item may indicate that it belongs to the Early Bronze Age. For spatulae dated to the Early Bronze Age, see Amiran et al. 1978:56–57, Pls. 72:2–8, 73:1–4; Sass 2000:379, Fig. 12.20:1; Sass and Cinamon 2006:394–395, Fig. 18.29:633–636.

excavations (Ariel 1990:128, Type 3; 130–131, No. 78). 89. Spatula (Fig. 16.9:89) Area G; L1752; Reg. No. 6246. Fragment; L 70 mm; W 20 mm; Th 2.5mm. Mammalian long(?) bone shaft or sheep/goat-sized rib bone. Both sides well polished. Although one side is broken, this spatula appears to have the widest point, from its shoulders (see Ariel 1990:132–133, Nos. 109–114). This type of spatula is dominant at the City of David excavations (where it was termed Type 1) and was very common in Iron Age II (Ariel 1990:128, Type 1).

88. Spatula (Fig. 16.9:88) Area G; L1503; Reg. No. 6351. Fragment; L 36 mm; W 17 mm; Th 3 mm. Mammalian long bone. One side is well polished, the other, roughly polished. Use marks can be seen toward the edge (tip is broken). This spatula type, with one shoulder, is termed Type 3 in the City of David

88

89 90

87

98

92 0

91

Fig. 16.9. Spatulae.

2

246

YOAV FARHI

90. Spatula (Fig. 16.9:90) Area R; L5011. Fragment; L 67 mm; W 18 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft or sheep/goat-sized rib bone. Only one side is well polished. Current location of item unknown. 91. Spatula (Fig. 16.9:91) Area S; L2019; Reg. No. 3969. Fragment; L 52 mm; W 21 mm; Th 1.5 mm. Mammalian bone. Both sides are well polished with a rounded end (with some use marks?). 92. Spatula (Fig. 16.9:92) Area B; L1282; Reg. No. 3300. Fragment; L 46 mm; W 19 mm; Th 2 mm. Mammalian bone. Both sides are well polished and there are use marks along the edge. 93. Spatula (not illustrated) Area B; L1260; Reg. No. 749/2. Fragment; L 70 mm; W 15 mm; Th 1.5 mm. Mammalian bone. Both sides well polished. Appears to belong to the same type as Nos. 91 and 92. 94. Spatula (not illustrated) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 495. Fragment; L 42 mm; W 18 mm; Th 2.5 mm. Rib of medium-sized mammal. Convex section; both sides well polished. 95. Spatula (not illustrated) Area B; L3102; Reg. No. 851. Fragment; L 30 mm; W 16 mm; Th 1.5 mm. Mammalian bone. Both sides well polished. 96. Spatula (not illustrated) Area B; L1293; Reg. No. 2910. Fragment; L 44 mm; W 19 mm; Th 3 mm. Mammalian bone. Curved section; both sides well polished. 97. Spatula (not illustrated) Area B; L1305; Reg. No. 315. Fragment; L 30 mm; W 15 mm; thickness: 1.5 mm. Mammalian rib. Both sides well polished; only rounded end survives.

98. Spatula (Fig. 16.9:98) Area T; L4054; Reg. No. 2170. Fragment; L 22 mm; W 11 mm; Th 2.2 mm. Mammalian bone. Both sides well polished; only rounded end survives. 99. Spatula (not illustrated) Area B; L1274; Reg. No. 1615. Fragment; L 21 mm; W 14 mm; Th 2mm. Mammalian rib. Both sides polished, only rounded end survives. Awls and Points (Fig. 16.10) The following items seem to be awl fragments. These sturdy tools are stronger and broader than pins and could have been used in many ways: for piercing leather, for threading thongs, for pegging out skins (Marshall 1982:576; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:19). They are made of metapodial bones, in which the joint of the bone is used as the handle of the tool. Similar tools feature already in the Natufian period (Campana 1989:45–47, Pl. 24) and are known in Early Bronze Age levels from ʽArad (Amiran et al. 1978:56–57, Pl. 75:1–15); Jericho (Marshall 1982:576–577, 615–619, Figs. 251:8–12; 252:1); Megiddo (Sass 2000:386–388, Fig. 12.25:9, 10; 415–417, Fig. 12.53:1; Sass and Cinamon 2006:389, 392, Fig. 18.27:599–608). 100. Awl (Fig. 16.10:100) Area B; L1260; Reg. No. 3165. Awl(?) handle, fragment; L 52 mm; W 9–21 mm; Th 5–10 mm. Mammalian bone (proximal metacarpal of sheep/goat). 101. Awl (Fig. 16.10:101) Area B; L1296; Reg. No. 579/1. Awl(?) handle, fragment; L 38 mm; W 8 mm; Th 5 mm. Mammalian bone (half distal metacarpal of sheep/ goat). 102. Awl (Fig. 16.10:102) Area B; L1296; Reg. No. 579/2. Awl point, fragment; L 37 mm; W 8 mm; Th 4 mm. Mammalian bone.

247

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

103

102 101

100 0

2

Fig. 16.10. Awls and points.

103. Awl (Fig. 16.10:103) Area B; L1292; Reg. No. 2402. Point, fragment; L 24 mm; D 5mm. Mammalian bone. Burnt; on broken side—a small drilled depression (not visible in photograph), similar to a needle ‘eye’. Traces of use on broken tip. 104. Awl (not illustrated) Area B; L1279; Reg. No. 1990. Point, fragment; L 62 mm; W 12 mm; Th 3mm. Mammalian bone. The findspot of this item may indicate that it dates to the Early Bronze Age. 105. Awl (not illustrated) Area B; L3102; Reg. No. 902. Awl (spatula?) point, fragment; L 24 mm; Th 4mm. Mammalian bone. Traces of use on broken tip. Handles and Cylinders (Fig. 16.11) Bone cylinders are a common find in Hellenistic and Roman assemblages. The majority are made of hollow bone shafts of medium-sized mammalian long bones. Several fragments from Gamla can be assigned to this group. Similar bone objects were used as handles for metal tools, probably knives, as attested by complete finds from several sites in Israel and abroad (Macalister 1912, II:246, III: Pl. CXCIV:11–14; Dothan and Freedman 1967:23, Fig. 1:7; Elgavish 1968:52, No. 150, Pl. LXII:150; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:25; Geva 2003:346, No. B13; Ayalon 2005:10–11, Nos. 1–5; Geva 2006:268, No. B11). Similar bone cylinders

were identified in Corinth as furniture joints (Davidson 1952:128–129, Pl. 64:870, 871, 876–878). 106. Handle/Furniture Joint (Fig. 16.11:106) Area S, L1907; Reg. No. 6987 + 7300. Two fragments; L 57 mm; Th 6.5; D 20 mm (not preserved). Hollow bone shaft of medium-sized mammalian long bone. Fragments are polished, with several bands of lathe-turned rib decoration close to one end. 107. Handle(?) (not illustrated) Area B; Sq C/18; Reg. No. 2822. Fragment; L 21 mm; W 8 mm; Th 6 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Decorated with grooves. 108. Cylinder (Fig. 16.11:108) Area R; L5110; Reg. No. 5008. Fragment (less than half); L 22 mm; D 15 mm; Th 4 mm; D of pierced hole in side 8 mm. Hollow bone shaft of mammal long bone. Burnt. Outer side is polished. May have been used as a handle, furniture joint or something else (cf. Ayalon 2005: Fig. 45:422). 109. Handle(?) (Fig. 16.11:109) Area R; L5054; Reg. No. 3092/1. Fragment; L 34 mm; W 13 mm; Th 9 mm. Mammalian long bone shaft. Polished; lathe-turned groove decoration on its long side. The hole drilled along its length might have served as a socket for the tool’s tang. May have been a handle of a small tool.

248

YOAV FARHI

108

110

109

106

0

2

Fig. 16.11. Handles and cylinders.

110. Cylinder (Fig. 16.11:110) Area S; L5014; Reg. No. 6406/1. Fragment; D 28 mm; W 16 mm; Th 8 mm. Transverse section of long bone shaft (tibia?) of large mammal. Sawed at both ends (traces of horizontal marks); surface unworked. Possibly production waste from a bone tool industry. For a similar item, see Rodziewicz 2007:266, No. 647. Hinges (Fig. 16.12; Nos. 111–116) Bone hinges are not a very common find in Israel and as far as I know, the Gamla assemblage (6 items) is the largest of its type excavated in this country. Several are known from Jerusalem (Ariel 1990:125–126, Nos. BI 36, BI 37—dated to Iron II; Geva 2003:345–346, No. B9), Caesarea (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:60) and Ashqelon (Wapnish 2008:601, 606, Fig. 34.13). Bone hinges (and furniture joints) of various sizes from the Roman period are known also from Corinth (Davidson 1952:128–129, Pl. 64:865–874). The common type is a short or long hollow cylinder with one or two holes in its wall. They were mounted on a wooden rod, which was attached to a chest or box, and held them in place while they could rotate on it, with their holes at right angles to each other (see Bíró 1994:56–58 [with reconstructions]; Ayalon 2005:44). 111. Hinge (Fig. 16.12:111) Area R; L5053; Reg. No.7863; IAA 2007-1981. Complete; L 5 mm; D 6.5 mm; D of lateral and bottom holes 3.5 mm.

Mammalian long bone shaft (fibula). Small hinge with cylindrical body, made on a lathe; polished, with small lateral hole pierced through one side and another hole or lathe indentation in its bottom. A small joint topcenter is meant to facilitate connecting it to a similar hinge. Hinges of this sort are known from Ashqelon (Wapnish 1997:338, Fig. 5). 112. Hinge (Fig. 16.12:112) Area T; L4016; Reg. No. 1678/2. Complete (except for a small break in the joint); L 11 mm; D 11 mm. Mammalian bone. For description and parallels, see No. 111, above. Lathe indentation on the joint. 113. Hinge (Fig. 16.12:113) Area B; L1308; Reg. No. 368; IAA 1992-1041. Complete (except for a small break in the joint); L 15 mm; D 14 mm. Mammalian bone. For description and parallels, see No. 111, above. 114. Hinge (Fig. 16.12:114) Area R; L5024; Reg. No. 1049; IAA 2007-1963. Complete (except for a small break in the joint); L 30 mm; D 6 mm. Mammalian bone. Long hinge with two grooves on one end, one groove near the other end and two lateral holes drilled along its length for affixing perpendicularly projecting dowels. One long hinge is known from Ashqelon (Wapnish 2008:606, Fig. 34.13) and several others, far larger, and made of wood, were found in

249

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

111

112

114

113

116

115 0

2

Fig. 16.12. Hinges.

Second Temple-period tombs at Jericho (Hachlili 1999:65–67). 115. Hinge (Fig. 16.12:115) Missing excavation data, probably Area R; IAA 19905072. Complete (except for a small break in the joint); L 25 mm; D 8 mm. Mammalian bone. For description and parallels, see No. 114, above. 116. Hinge (Fig. 16.12:116) Area B; L1302; Reg. No.19; IAA 1992-1034. Complete; D 23 mm; Th 10 mm. Long bone shaft. Similar hinges are known from Ashqelon (Wapnish 1997:338, Fig. 5), Jerusalem (Geva 2003:345–346, No. B 9), Alexandria (Rodziewicz 2007:152–153, No. 237) and Corinth (Davidson 1952:128–129, Nos. 866–867, 874).

Relief Appliqué 117. Relief Plaque (Fig. 16.13:117) Area S; L1921; Reg. No. 8236; IAA 2007-1970. Fragment (upper right corner preserved); L 39 mm; W 21 mm; Th 3 mm. Scapula of medium-sized mammal. Fragment of bone (rectangular) plaque with relief carving on one face, representing a dressed human figure (probably a woman wearing a peplos) standing to front and looking right. The back is flat. Raised and grooved border around the edge, and small holes (two complete and half of another preserved) are pierced around the edges and were probably used to attach it to a background by small rivets (furniture?). This rare plaque from Gamla seems to belong to a special group of plaques depicting mythological and epic themes (Graeven 1903: Pl. 22–40 [reference from Rodziewicz 1971:84–87]; Marangou 1976:46–50,

250

YOAV FARHI

119

117

118

121

122

125

124

123

126

127

128

129

0

2

Fig. 16.13. Miscellaneous objects.

120

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Pl. 52). The characteristics of the group according to Marangou (pp. 46–47) are a carefully executed carving of a common feature in a narrow, slightly raised frame pierced with closely spaced small rivet holes. Carved bone and ivory pieces with human figures are rare in Hellenistic and Roman contexts in Israel (for the only published Hellenistic example I know of, see Ariel 1990:137–138) and Corinth (Davidson 1952:338 and Pl. 138:2901), but better known in Egypt (Marangou 1976; Rodziewicz 2007). In Israel, they start to appear more often in Late Roman and Byzantine contexts (Ayalon 2005:88–92, Nos. 335–345). Inlays(?) Three items, possibly used as inlays for wooden furniture, are included in this group. 118. Inlay(?) (Fig. 16.13:118) Area R; L5107; Reg. Nos. 4689 + 4815; IAA 20072036. Fragment; L 41 mm; W 16 mm; Th 2mm. Mammalian rib. Decorated (rectangular?) tablet; surface polished; double-circle-and-dot designs (only three survive). Might have been used as an inlay for a wooden box or furniture (for a similar inlay, see Ayalon 2005:123–124, No. 558). 119. Decorated object (Fig. 16.13:119) Area S; L1924; Reg. No. 8119. Complete except for a small break; L 16 mm; W 7.5 mm; Th 4 mm. Mammalian bone(?). This small, polished, rectangular object, shaped like a propeller, was probably attached to another item by the socket in its back and the two drilled holes there. 120. Inlay(?) (Fig. 16.13:120) Area S; L2027; Reg. No. 4021. Fragment (only one-half preserved); D 16 mm; Th 1–2 mm. Flat disc shape; central hole. One side decorated with a groove and a ridge around the central hole, the other roughly polished and not decorated. This small object might have been used as an inlay or a playing piece and probably not as a spindle whorl.

251

Game Dice Two bone dice were found at Gamla. The display of values is as on modern dice (1–6, 2–5, 3–4), with one to six dots. The circle-and-dot designs used for numeration on the die was a very popular decorative motif on a variety of other bone implements as well (above). Bone dice, used for games, were very popular in the Greco-Roman world (Petrie 1927:57, No. 110, Pl. XLIX:234–258; Davidson 1952:218, 221–222, Nos. 1739–1752; Ayalon and Sorek 1999:51; Rodziewicz 2007:32–33). In Israel, they were used at least as early as the Late Bronze Age (Klamer 1981:33) and are known from many Roman-period sites, among them Jerusalem (Ben-Dov 1982:164; 1990:105; Geva 2006:269, No. B19—for various parallels from Jerusalem), Masada (Yadin 1966:145), Caesarea (Ayalon 2005:73–74, Nos. 280, 281), Sepphoris (Yeivin 1937:33, Pl. I, Fig. 2; Nagy et al. 1996:235, Nos. 152, 153), Ashqelon (Wapnish 1991:57), Dor (Stern 2000:317–318) and Hammat Gader (Coen Uzzielli 1997:448, 450, No. 6, dated to the late Byzantine period). The two dice from Gamla belong to a group of small dice made of a solid piece of bone. Other dice, usually larger, were made from the hollowed shaft of a bone in which the medullar cavity was filled with a single long stopper or with two thin lids (Ayalon 2005:71–72). 121. Bone Die (Fig. 16.13:121) IAA 2007-1974; Area R, L5106, Reg. No. 4738. Complete; 12 × 13 mm. Mammalian bone. 122. Bone Die (Fig. 16.13:122) Area S, L5003, Reg. No. 4568. Complete; 11 × 17 × 17.5 mm. Mammalian bone; some of the numbers on the face are asymmetrical and not well positioned; in the case of the numbers 3 and 6 the circle-and-dot designs cut across each other. Note that this die is rectangular, not square; thus, while gambling, it would probably fall on numbers one or six rather than on the others. Current location of item is unknown.

252

YOAV FARHI

Cylindrical Pyxis 123. Cylindrical pyxis (Fig. 16.13:123) Area R; L5038; Reg. No. 661. Fragment (about one-half preserved); L 33 mm; D 32 mm; Th 4 mm. Humerus shaft of medium-sized mammal. Slightly widens toward the bottom, with a cut protrusion at the bottom and another protrusion on the exterior for the lid; outer face very well carved on a lathe, polished and decorated with one horizontal groove around the base. Bottom missing. This type of pyxis may have served as a dice-box or as a toiletries container (Rodziewicz 2007:33). Similar items, dated to the first century BCE– first century CE, were found in Ashqelon (unpublished; on display in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem, No. 1942.239) and in Alexandria (Rodziewicz 2007:160, No. 264). Varia 124. Weaving Tablet/Thread Divider(?) (Fig. 16.13:124) Area R; L5110; Reg. No. 4856. Fragment; L 36 mm; W 8 mm; Th 3 mm. Elongated and polished fragment with flat bottom and convex top; small holes (diam. of each 3.5 mm; only three survive) drilled along its width. Inlay(?) or decoration(?). Parallels: Ayalon and Sorek 1999:29; Ayalon 2005:30, No. 89. 125. Unidentified Object (Fig. 16.13:125) Area B; L1265; Reg. No. 1214. Complete; L 22 mm; W 16 mm; Th 6 mm; W of central hole 8mm. Mammalian long bone. Signs of lathe-turning or drill inside the central hole; decorated with two very small (diam. 2 mm) inlays of red coral,13 one on each long face. The findspot leads us to date it to the Early Bronze Age or the late Hellenistic period. Its use is unknown; perhaps one of several similar bone pieces that served as part of the haft of a short Early Bronze Age dagger.14 126. Fastener (Fig. 16.13:126) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 633. Complete; L 19.5 mm; W 8 mm. Small; its central part is thin and cylindrical. Both sides are shaped like a truncated cone, with each narrow

end turned-out, ending in a circular head (one head flattened, the other thicker and convex). Similar items are known from the time of the Iron Age (Petrie 1928:17, Pl. XXXIII:46), but they are more common in later periods (see Ayalon and Sorek 1999:29; Ayalon 2005:30, Nos. 90, 91 with many parallels therein. Bone Implements Used in Their Primary Form Some bone implements were used in their natural, primary forms, usually almost without having been worked. Such items were homemade, not manufactured. Items belonging to this group found at Gamla include knucklebones (astragali) and scapulae (shoulder blades). Astragali Knucklebones (astragali) were an essential part of many ancient games and used as dice or gaming pieces. Worked astragali were smoothed and sometimes drilled and filled with lead, while others were painted or inscribed.15 They have been found at various sites in Israel (Elgavish 1968:48, 54 Pl. LXIV:179, 1974:27, Pl. XI:218, 1994:101, Fig. 77; Dothan 1971:67, Fig. 30:1; Ariel 1990:144, Nos. BI 197–BI 205; Sass 2000:395, Fig. 12.32:2; Stern 2000:317; Ayalon 2005:71, 73, No. 279) and abroad, for example at Corinth (Davidson 1952:218, 222 and Pl. 100: 1753). At least 81 astragali (mainly goat or sheep knucklebones) are recorded from Gamla (Table 16.1). However, the location of the majority of them is unknown (they could not be examined) and it is possible that at least some of them were worked in some fashion. Several were traced and checked; of these, only a few seem to have been worked (i.e., smoothed and/or drilled) and these were probably used as gaming pieces (see below and IAA Nos. 905070, 2007-2045, 2007-1979 and 2007-1973). The remainder are unworked (see below and IAA Nos. 2007-1984, 2007-1983, 2007-1982, 2007-1964, 20071965, 2007-1966, 2007-1969 and 2007-1978) and therefore, their use as gaming pieces is not certain. Two of the astragali presented below (Nos. 127, 128) are drilled and may have served other functions in addition to (or instead of) their use as gaming pieces. They were found in Area B; therefore, they may belong to the Early Bronze Age. For similar drilled astragali from an Early Bronze Age context in Megiddo, see Sass 2000:395, Fig. 12.32:4.

253

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Table 16.1. List of Astragali Found at Gamla Arranged by Area and Locus Area

Locus

Reg. No.

IAA No.

Notes

No. of Specimens

A

1019/2

5

2007-1973

B

1256

800/1

Deer bone; not worked; Early Bronze period?

1

B

1256

800/2

Fallow deer bone; not worked; Early Bronze period?

1

B

1257

107

B

1260

731

B

1288

114

No. 127

1

B

1295

188

Not worked

1

B

3100

153

B

Unknown

Unknown

B77

1204

561

2007-1969

1

B77

1211

5227

2007-1978; 2007-1979

2

B77

1211

5242

1

B77

1211

5247

6

B77

1211

5277

1

B77

1211

5335

B77

1212

5280

1

B77

Q14

423

1

D

3006

4119

1

G

1506

6590

1

G

1506

6595

G

1507

6706

H

1804

6302

M

4151

2534

1

R

5027/2

7970

1

R

5003

4591

1

R

5003

4644

1

R

5004

4617

1

R

5011

6383

1

1

1 2

1 No. 128

2007-1982; 2007-1983; 2007-1984

1

3

1 No. 129 2007-1964

1 1

R

5011

6559

1

R

5011

6889

1

R

5017

7827

1

R

5018

7657

1

R

5018

7659

1

R

5020

7044

1

R

5021

7662

1

R

5021

7677

1

R

5022

7401

R

5027

7902

Not worked

1 1

R

5051

6554

1

R

5051

6636

1

R

5053

6798

1

R

5053

7837

1

254

YOAV FARHI

Table 16.1. (cont.) Area

Locus

Reg. No.

IAA No.

Notes

No. of Specimens

R

5053

7905

1

R

5053

7977

1

R

5054

3014

2

R

5054

6870

1

R

5054

6964

1

S

1904

6822

S

1907

Unknown

S

1909

7108

1

S

1910

7744

1

S

1914

7421

1

S

2002

3237

1

S

2005

3157

1

S

2007

3558

1

S

2012

3443

1

S

2013

3767

1

S

2013

3769

1

S

2014

3473

1

S

2014N

3559

1

S

2014N

3560

1

S

2014

3599

1

S

2017

3397

1

S

2017

3728

1

S

2018

3693

1

S

2019

3633

1

S

2019

3634

1

S

2023

3758

1

S

2027

4011

1

T

4012

1300

1

T

R7-8

1349

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

2007-1965

Not worked

1

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

2007-1966

Not worked

1

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Not worked

1

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Worked

1

1 1990-5070

No. 130

1

1

2007-2045

127. Worked astragalus (sheep) (Fig. 16.13:127) Area B; L1288; Reg. No. 114. Complete; L 35 mm; W 21mm; Th 18 mm; D of hole drilled in wide side 7 mm.

Fragment (cut to half); L 32 mm; W 17mm; Th 14 mm; D of hole drilled on its long side 7 mm. Its shape leads to the thought that it may have been used as a pendant or a bead.

128. Worked astragalus (sheep or goat) (Fig. 16.13:128) Area B; missing excavation data.

129. Worked astragalus (Fig. 16.13:129) Area G; L1507; Reg. No. 6706. Complete; L 29 mm; W 16mm; Th 14.5 mm; burnt.

255

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

130. Worked astragalus (not illustrated) Area S; L1907; IAA 1990-5070. Complete; L 30 mm; W 18 mm. Worked Scapulae (Fig. 16.14) Four shovels made from cattle scapulae (shoulder blades) were found at Gamla. Two complete ones (Fig. 16.14a, b) were recovered from the oil press in Area R (L5011, Reg. Nos. 7516 and 7925) and are mentioned in previous publications (Gutmann 1994:132; Wagner 1996:305; Baruch 2001:32; Yavor 2010:102, Fig. 2.125) and two other, worked but fragmented shoulder blades were recognized as such only lately (Horwitz 2008:242, Fig. 5:244). One was found in a cave used for grain or flour storage in Area R (L5027, Reg. No. 7848), not far from the oil press mentioned above and the other derived in an oil press in Area B (Fig. 14c; L1281, Reg. No. 2062), dated to the first century BCE. Signs of extended use are evident on the first three items, while the fourth one, which is covered with hard encrustation, does not bear such signs. Scapulae modified in a similar fashion are known from other Roman and Byzantine sites (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:22; Ayalon 2005:161; Horwitz 2008). It is accepted that these implements, identified by some as the tarwadot (sing. tarwad) of Jewish literature (M. Kelim 17.12; Shabbat 8.6; Yadaim 4.6), were used in oil presses as shovels (the narrow end served as a handle, while the wide end was sawed and smoothed into a blade), to scoop up and transfer the crushed olives into the baskets (‘akalim) and to scrape and clean the crushing stones.

Conclusions Except for several items that might belong to the Early Bronze Age, the assemblage of bone artifacts from Gamla is unique in its period (first century BCE–first century CE) and as such, it is the largest assemblage of its type to be published from Israel so far. It is also the largest assemblage of bone artifacts assigned to a Jewish population to see publication.16 The bone assemblage from Gamla mainly includes items that can be classified as functional—used in and around the living area for cosmetics, spinning, sewing and clothing. This assumption is supported by the location in which most of the items, especially the bone rods and the bone disks/whorls, were found. Most of the bone items from Gamla can be classified as utilitarian objects, but the high level of their workmanship testifies to the professional status of their makers. The quality of most of the bone artifacts (as well as other finds from the site discussed in this volume) indicates the high standard of living of at least some of the local population. Since all bone items are portable, it is hard to determine whether they were manufactured at Gamla or elsewhere and later brought to the site. The discovery of an item (No. 54) that may have broken during its manufacture and another (No. 110) that seems to be waste from bone production might point to the existence of a bone workshop at Gamla. Yet, without additional evidence, it is hard to say this with any certainty. The site of Gamla offers a rare opportunity to reconstruct the use of bone implements among the Jewish population on the eve of the Roman conquest.

256

YOAV FARHI

a

b

c

0

4

Fig. 16.14a–c. Scapulae used as scoops.

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

257

Notes I wish to thank Danny Syon for allowing me to study and publish the bone artifacts, and to the curators Yael Strassberg (Golan Archaeological Museum, Qazrin), Ofra Rimon and Peri Livne (Hecht Museum, University of Haifa), for their help in studying the bone artifacts from Gamla exhibited under their supervision. I also wish to thank Orit Shamir and Debi Cassuto for helping me to clarify several issues concerning the manufacture of ancient textiles and to A. Dabah for her help with various other matters. Debi also read the draft of this paper and offered useful comments. The photographs were taken by Danny Syon and Clara Amit and the drawings were made by Hagit Tahan-Rosen, Tina Waghorn and Alex Kranz. I am indebted to Etan Ayalon for his help in clarifying the nature of some of the artifacts and for supplying me with important bibliographical references. References are updated to 2010. 2 These items are an army belt frog (see Chapter 4, No. 102) and eight beads (see Chapter 12: Nos. 47, 70, 145, 209, 341, 414, 454, 481). 3 For further information concerning the manufacture of bone artifacts, see Wapnish 1997, 2008, especially pp. 589– 596; Ayalon 2005:131–144. 4 For the stratigraphy of Area B, see Goren 2010. 5 I wish to thank Guy Bar-Oz and Noa Raban-Gerstel (University of Haifa) and Rivka Rabinovich (The Hebrew University) for the osteological identification of the artifacts. 6 The excellent symmetry of the circles strongly suggests that they were incised with a center-bit scriber, a tool that has a cutting element set at a fixed radius from a center point, similarly to a compass (Wapnish 1991:57). It should be noted that this type of decoration was common in other areas of the Roman Empire; see for example, MacGregor 1985:130, Fig. 71b, d; 136, Fig. 72b; 186, Fig. 101:11. 7 Abbreviations: L = Length; W = Width; H = Height; Th = Thickness; D = Diameter; De = Depth; Wt = Weight. 8 Clay and stone whorls used on suspended spindles, not similar in shape and decoration to the items from Gamla, are known in Israel since the Neolithic period (Shamir 2002:23*– 24*). 9 It seems unlikely that the type of garments in which these ‘buttons’ were used continued to be popular for such a long period, e.g., from the Bronze Age to the Middle Ages. Based on descriptions, they could have been used in men’s cloaks or women’s tunics (Roman women are sometimes 1

represented in sculptures and paintings wearing tunics held on the shoulders and along the upper arms by a series of what look like modern buttons placed at equal intervals [Croom 2000:76–78, Figs. 31:1, 32, Color Pls. 12, 13). However, it seems that the most basic and well known items of Roman male clothing, for example the tunic and the toga, did not include any buttons at all [Croom 2000:30–41]. Yet, whether these were buttons in the modern sense—a disc sewn onto the cloth with a slit in the corresponding opposite cloth edge—or decorative additions where the two pieces of cloth were sewn together, is debated, and what appear to be buttons in sculptures and paintings may simply be twists of cloth (Cleland, Davies and Llewellyn-Jones 2008:26–27). In addition, according to Orit Shamir (pers. comm.), buttons in the Roman period were made of cloth. 10 According to Aviam (2005:204–206, Fig. 166), these items might have been used not as whorls but for limiting the string while it was wrapped on the spindle. 11 A comprehensive discussion and parallels for this type of object from abroad can be found in the reports of the findings at Corinth (Davidson 1952:172, 296–302) and Alexandria (Rodziewicz 2007:30–31). For a general explanation about spinning and the use of spindles, see Wild 1976:169–170; Barber 1991; Ayalon 2005:22. 12 Ancient bone buttons with more than one hole, similar to modern buttons, are known from Corinth (Davidson 1952:298, 302, Nos. 2579–2581). 13 The inlays were checked by Shimon Ilani and Michael Dvorachek in the laboratory of the Geological Survey of Israel, using SEM-EDS. I wish to thank them for their help. The red coral could have originated in the Red Sea, perhaps from its northern part, e.g., the Gulf of Elat. 14 For a dagger in which the haft is constructed from several bone pieces (not identical to the one presented here), see Ayalon and Sorek 1999:35, Fig. 38. 15 In addition to real knucklebones, astragali of bronze, glass and stone, dated to the Graeco-Roman periods, are known from Corinth (Davidson 1952:218, 222, Nos. 1754, 1755) and Egypt (Petrie 1927:57, No. 110, Pl. XLIX: 227–229). For further discussion and bibliography on astragali, see Reese 1985; Dandoy 1996; Gilmour 1997. 16 Concerning the butchering patterns of Gamla, see Chapter 23. Concerning bone implements and Jewish halakha, see Baruch 1999; 2001.

258

YOAV FARHI

R eferences Agadi S. 1996. The Bone Objects. In A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali. Yoqne‘am I: The Later Periods (Qedem Reports 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 236–238. Amiran R., Paran U., Shiloh Y., Brown R., Tsafrir Y., BenTor A. 1978. Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City I: First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Ariel D.T. 1990. Worked Bone and Ivory. In D.T. Ariel. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 119–148. Aviam M. 2005. Yodefat; A Case Study in the Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee during the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. diss. Bar-Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew; English summary, pp. i–v). Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Ayalon E. 2005. The Assemblage of Bone and Ivory Artifacts from Caesarea Maritima, Israel, 1st–13th Centuries CE (BAR Int. S. 1457). Oxford. Ayalon E. and Dray Y. 2002. Workshops for Bone Tools in Caesarea. Michmanim 16:15–22 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 39*–40*). Ayalon E. and Sorek C. 1999. Bare Bones: Ancient Artifacts from Animal Bones. Tel Aviv. Barber E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special References to the Aegean. Princeton. Baruch E. 1999. Bone Tools in Talmudic Sources. In E. Ayalon and C. Sorek. Bare Bones: Ancient Artifacts from Animal Bones. Tel Aviv. Pp. 73–76 (Hebrew). Baruch E. 2001. The Halakhic Status of Bone Utensils: A Disagreement between the Pharisees, Saducees and the Dead Sea Sect, ‘Al ’Atar, Journal of Land of Israel Studies 8–9:21–35 (Hebrew). Ben-Dov M. 1982. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. New York. Ben-Dov M. 1990. Jerusalem—Man and Stone: An Archaeologist’s Personal View of His City. Tel Aviv. Bíró M. T. 1994. The Bone Objects of the Roman Collection (Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici. Series Archaeologica II). Budapest. Bliss F.G. and Dickie A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Brandl B. 1993. Clay, Bone, Metal and Stone Objects. In I. Finkelstein ed. Shiloh: The Archaeology of A Biblical Site (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 10) Tel Aviv. Pp. 223–262. Campana D.V. 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant (BAR Int. S. 494). Oxford. Cleland L. Davies G. and Llewellyn-Jones L. 2008. Greek and Roman Dress from A to Z. London–New York. Coen-Uzzielli T. 1997. Marble Decorations, Wall Mosaics and Small Finds. In Y. Hirschfeld. The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 442–455.

Croom A.T. 2000. Roman Clothing and Fashion. Gloucestershire–Charleston. Crowfoot G.M. 1957. Spindle Whorls and Loom Weights. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria–Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 398–402. Dandoy J. 1996. Astragali: The Ubiquitous Gaming Pieces. Expedition 38:51–58. Davidson G.R. 1952. Corinth XII: The Minor Objects. Princeton. Derfler S.L. 1984. The Hellenistic Temple at Beersheva, Israel. Ph.D. diss. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. Dothan M. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967 (‘Atiqot [ES] 9–10). Jerusalem. Dothan M. and Ben-Shlomo D. 2005. Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969) (IAA Reports 24). Jerusalem. Dothan M. and Freedman D.N. 1967. Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations, 1962 (‘Atiqot [ES] 7). Jerusalem. Edelstein G. 2002. A Section of the Hellenistic-Roman Cemetery at Berit Ahim, North of ‘Akko (Acre). ‘Atiqot 43:75*–98* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 257–258). Elderkin K.Mck. 1928. Buttons and Their Use on Greek Garments. AJA 32:333–345. Elgavish J. 1968. Archaeological Excavations at Shiqmona, Filed Report I: The Level of the Persian Period, Seasons 1963–1965. Haifa (Hebrew). Elgavish J. 1974. Archaeological Excavations at Shiqmona, Field Report II: The Level of the Hellenistic Period— Stratum H; Seasons 1963–1970. Haifa (Hebrew). Elgavish J. 1994. Shiqmona: On the Sea Coast of Mount Carmel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Eshel H., Magness J. and Shenhav E. 2000. Khirbet Yattir, 1995–1999: Preliminary Report. IEJ 50:153–168. Friend G. 1998. Tell Taannek 1963–1968 III/2: The Loom Weights. Birzeit. Geva H. 2003. Bone and Ivory Artifacts. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 343–350. Geva H. 2006. Bone Artifacts. In H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 III: Area E and Other Studies, Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 266–271. Gilmour G. H. 1997. The Nature and Function of Astragalus Bones from Archaeological Contexts in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean. OJA 16:167–175. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 113–152.

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Graeven H. 1903. Antike Schnitzerein aus Elfenbein und Knochen in Photographischer Nachbildung, im Auftrage des Kais. Hannover. Gutman S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv. Guy P.L.O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs (OIP 33). Chicago. Hachlili R. 1999. The Wooden Coffins. In R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew. Jericho, the Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7). Jerusalem. Pp. 60–87. Horwitz L.K. 2008. From Food to Function: Fauna and Bone Tools from Roman-Byzantine Ahuzat Hazzan. In S. Bar ed. In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill-Country Survey. Jerusalem. Pp. 236*– 258*. Kenyon K.M. 1957. Miscellaneous Objects in Metal, Bone and Stone. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria–Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 439–468. Klamer C. 1981. A Late Bronze Age Burial Cave near Shechem. Qadmoniot 53–54:30–34 (Hebrew). Lamon R.S. and Shipton G.M. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34 Strata I–V (OIP 42). Chicago. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer 1902– 1905 and 1907–1909 I–III. London. MacGregor A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. London–Sydney. Marangou L. 1976. Bone Carvings from Egypt I: GraecoRoman Period. Tübingen. Marshall D.N. 1982. Jericho Bone Tools and Objects. In K.M. Kenyon and T.A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London. Pp. 570–622. Nagy R.M., Meyers C.L., Meyers E.M. and Weiss Z. eds. 1996. Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Raleigh, N.C. Oldenburg E. 1969. Les objects en faïence, terre-cuite, os et nacre. In G. Ploug, E. Oldenburg, E. Hammershaimb, R. Thomsen and F. Løkkegaard. Hama, Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938 IV/3: Les petits objets médiévaux sauf les verreries et poteries. Copenhagen. Pp. 107–141. Petrie F. 1927. Objects of Daily Use (BSAE 42). London. Petrie F. 1928. Gerar (BSAE 43). London. Reese D.S. 1985. The Kition Astragali. In V. Karageorghis, Excavations at Kition V: The Pre-Phoenician Levels, Part 2. Nicosia. Pp. 382–391. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. Cambridge, Mass. Rodziewicz E. 1971. Greek Ivories of the Hellenistic Period. Études et Travaux 5:71–89. Rodziewicz E. 2007. Bone and Ivory Carvings from Alexandria. French Excavations 1992–2004. Cairo. Sass B. 2000. The Small Finds. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern eds. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv. Pp. 349–423.

259

Sass B. and Cinamon G. 2006. The Small Finds. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B .Halpern eds .Megiddo IV :The 2002–1998 Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18). Tel Aviv. Pp. 353– 425. Sellers O.R. 1933. The Citadel of Beth-Zur. Philadelphia. Shamir O. 1996. Loomweights and Whorls. In D.T. Ariel and A. de Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Pp. 135–170. Shamir O. 2002. Textile Production in Eretz-Israel. Michmanim 16:19*–32*. Shamir O. 2008. Organic Materials. In D.T. Ariel, H. Katz, S. Sadeh and M. Segal eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Jerusalem. Pp. 116–133. Siegelman A. 1988. An Herodian Tomb near Tell Abu-Shusha. In B. Mazar ed. Geva—Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq. Jerusalem. Pp. 13–42 (Hebrew). Stephens J. 2008. Ancient Roman Hairdressing: On (Hair) Pins and Needles. JRA 21:110–132. Stern E. 2000. Dor: Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite–Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast. Jerusalem. Terem S. and Adan-Bayewitz D. Forthcoming. Gamla IV: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989; The Lamps (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Tsafrir Y. 1997. Masada and Its Warriors: The Rise and Fall of a Fortress of the Second Temple Period. In G. Hurvits ed. The Story of Masada: Discoveries from the Excavations. Provo, Utah. Pp. 1–31. Tushingham A.D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961– 1967 I. Toronto. Tzaferis V. 1986. The Ancient Graveyard of ‘Akko-Ptolemais. In M. Yedaya ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv. Pp. 266–280 (Hebrew). Van Beek G. and Van Beek O. 1990. The Function of the Bone Spatula. BA 53:205–209. Vaux R. de. 1961. Archaeologie. In P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba‘ât (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II). Oxford. Pp. 3–63. Wagner D. 1996. Oil Production at Gamla. In D. Eitam and M. Heltzer eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period. Padova. Pp. 301–306. Wapnish P. 1991. Beauty and Utility in Bone: New Light on Bone Crafting. BAR 17:54–57, 72. Wapnish P. 1997. Bone, Ivory and Shell: Typology and Technology. In E.M Meyers ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East I. New York–Oxford. Pp. 335–340. Wapnish P. 2008. The Manufacture of Bone Artifacts. In L.E. Stager, J.P. Schloen and D.M. Master eds. Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake. Pp. 587–637. Wild J.P. 1976. Textiles. In D. Strong and D. Brown. Roman Crafts. New York. Pp. 167–177.

260

YOAV FARHI

Yadin Y. 1966. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. New York. Yavor Z. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Eastern and Western Quarters. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 13–112.

Yeivin S. 1937. Historical and Archaeological Notes. In L. Waterman. Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931. Ann Arbor. Pp. 17–34.

Chapter 17

Textile Production Implements Deborah Cassuto1

Introduction This chapter presents the artifacts associated with textile production found at Gamla. In the absence of textile finds, the implements used for textile production, such as loom weights and spindle whorls, can be extremely helpful tools for comprehending the character and the contexts of spinning and weaving. While they have been greatly overlooked in the excavation reports of earlier excavations in the southern Levant, recent decades have shown an increase in the attention paid to loom weights and their meaning in the archaeological record. Whereas the majority of loom weight and spindle whorl reports published to date in the region tend to deal with the Iron Age, recent reports of later sites such as Masada and ‘En Gedi have contributed significantly to the study of textiles and textile production during the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods (Shamir 1994, 2007). The present report on the loom weights and spindle whorls found at Gamla broadens our knowledge of Hellenistic–Early Roman textile production in the Levant and adds to the growing corpus of textile tools.

Loom Weights The Gamla excavations original database listed 86 loom weights, of which merely 70 were available for study.2 These were each measured for weight, thickness and height. The weight and the thickness of the loom weights constitute the two principal operative parameters that influence the density of the weave of the cloth and the width of the loom (Mårtensson, Nosch and Andersson Strand 2009). Of the available corpus, 37 are either intact or completely restorable and could be typologically identified and measured for weight and physical dimensions. The rest are incomplete or fragments that could be identified for type but could only be partially measured, except for three that are too poorly preserved to be even typologically

identifiable. The loom weights belong to three forms: pyramidal, dome shaped, and doughnut shaped. Only a representative number is illustrated.3 The loom weights were tied to the warp threads of warp-weighted vertical looms and were used to create the tension necessary for weaving (Fig. 17.1).4 For the most part, the organic materials that made up the looms, e.g., the threads and wooden frames, disintegrated over time, leaving only the loom weights to attest to any form of weaving activity. Even the loom weights themselves, simple clay forms, may not have survived well unless fired, and hence, in most cases, may be assumed to represent only a fraction of what may have once existed (Hoffmann 1964:314; Elgavish 1968:33; Shamir 1996:136). However, under particularly arid climatic conditions, threads and wooden beams have in fact been discovered in situ, e.g., at Masada (Shamir 1994:271–272, 274) and at Tel Iztaba, north of Tel Bet She’an, where three complete looms were discovered in a Hellenistic-period context, complete with a large number of weights.5 Archaeological evidence based on the dispersion patterns of loom weights indicates that the warpweighted loom first evolved in the area of modern Hungary in the Early Neolithic period and became prevalent in the region by the sixth millennium BCE (Barber 1991:93–95).6 Its popularity spread throughout Europe and Anatolia (Barber 1991:99, 166) and into the northern Mediterranean (Barber 1991:99–100), where the prevalence of loom weights found, in conjunction with iconographic depictions of the warp-weighted loom, reveal that by the Bronze Age, this was the most popular, if not the sole, technology used for weaving. In the Southern Levant, the earliest evidence of the warpweighted loom dates to Early Bronze Age III—at Tel Ta’anakh (Friend 1998:13–14, Pl. 1:1–4) and recently, at Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer and Feldbacher 2009:139– 152). In the Middle Bronze Age (Barber 1991:91–113), we find loom weights at numerous Levantine sites such as Megiddo (Loud 1948: Pl. 169:2, 5, 11, 13),

262

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Fig. 17.1. A reconstructed loom in the Golan Archaeological Museum, Qazrin; the weights, from Gamla.

Tel Ta’anakh (Friend 1998:14–35; Pls. 1:5, 6; 2:1), Bet She’an (Yahalom-Mack 2007:666–669), Gezer (Dever ed. 1986: Pl. 50:1) and Jericho (Wheeler 1982:623). The popularity of the warp-weighted loom increased significantly during the Iron Age, and continued through the Persian, Hellenistic and into the Early Roman periods. By the end of the first century CE, loom weights cease to appear altogether, making their last appearances at ‘En Gedi, Masada (Shamir 1994:275; 2007:381, 387), Yodefat (Aviam 2005:190–197) and Gamla. The subsequent absence of loom weights seems to attest to a change in regional weaving technology whereby the warp-weighted loom was replaced by a different loom, most likely the vertical two-beam loom (Barber 1991:113–116; Peskowitz 1997:82–83, 2004:141; Shamir 2007:381).

Typologically, clay loom weights have been found in a diversity of shapes and sizes; the earliest recorded in Israel were mostly dome shaped (Barber 1991; Friend 1998). This form continued in the Iron Age alongside spherical, doughnut and pyramidal-shaped loom weights, as well as spool-shapes (or reel-shapes), appearing at sites associated with the Philistines (Stager 1991:14–15). During the Persian and Hellenistic periods, loom weights were manufactured smaller and more consistent in size and form. This would appear to indicate a change in weaving technology—probably toward finer fabrics. Pyramidal Loom Weights (Figs. 17.2, 17.3; Table 17.1) The majority of the loom weights (57) are pyramidal, making up just over 80% of the entire assemblage.

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

5

3

7

6

8

9

12

14 0

4

Fig. 17.2. Pyramidal loom weights.

263

264

DEBORAH CASSUTO

24

39

40

46

51

48 0

52 4

Fig. 17.3. Pyramidal loom weights (cont.).

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Thirty are complete or intact, while the rest are fragments that could be identified as pyramidal. Usually, the top or bottom sections of this type tend to break horizontally across their centers (No. 46; MacAlister 1912:75). Their average weight is 230 g (std. dev. ± 54), ranging between 140 and 320 g.7 These are terracotta weights, shaped as truncated square pyramids—each with a horizontal perforation through its upper half. Notwithstanding slight variations in height or finish, for the most part there is a clear degree of uniformity in the quality and shape of the pyramidal loom weights, indicating that a distinct effort was invested in their manufacture. The consistency of the clay, in most cases, is fine and uniform. Seven weights have rows of tiny indentations running evenly, and, at times, haphazardly, around their sides (Nos. 8, 9, 24, 48). Similar impressions can be seen on two of the dome-shaped loom weights (Nos. 61, 62), discussed below. In some cases, these marks appear to have been made by a comb tool of sorts, as the impressions tend to be relatively deep and equidistant, while in other cases, they appear to be more rope-like. The marks may be remnants of the production process. Comb-like markings appear on loom weights from Gezer (MacAlister 1912:75) and ‘En Gedi (Shamir 2007: Photograph 1.5). The function of these marks is unclear; they appear to be more decorative than the haphazard rope-like marks described on loom weights at Pella (McNicoll Smith and Hennessy 1982:75, Pl. 15b) and at Jebel Khalid (Crewe 2002:237). Textile or rope impressions, in fact, can be observed on at least one of the loom weights (No. 46). They were probably left by a cloth mold or rope used during the drying process (Crewe 2002:237; Aviam 2005:196). Several of the loom weights show signs of having been scraped or ‘pared’ on the sides before firing (Nos. 3, 5, 7). On 32 out of 37 intact loom weights and upper frustums, the flat tops have concave depressions, sometimes described as finger-made indentations (Aviam 2005:190–197), which could only have been made when the clay was still soft. Indentations are described as appearing on the Hellenistic pyramidal terracotta loom weights from Gezer (MacAlister 1912:75) and can be observed as well on a pyramidal loom weight from Shillo found in a Hellenistic context (Brandl 1993:235, Fig. 9.6:5). To the north of Israel, the surfaces of 31 Persian/Hellenistic period spherical loom weights from Tell Mardikh-Ebla, were similarly

265

treated by smoothing and decorated with punctured or combed lines (Peyronel 2007:30, 32).8 Prior to the Persian and Hellenistic periods in Roman Palestine, the most popular loom weight forms were the spherical, doughnut, and dome shapes. The origins of the pyramidal form can be traced back to the northern Mediterranean, where the earliest pyramidal loom weights were found on Azoria, Crete, from the end of the seventh century BCE (Haggis et al. 2004:371– 372), and at Corinth, from the fifth–fourth centuries BCE (Davidson 1952:161–162, Pl. l77:1202–1204). In Israel, they began to appear, at first in a crude form, in the Persian period, and became copious by the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:343; Shamir 1994:267, 2007:386). The change from the heavier, rounded doughnut and spherical-shaped loom weights of the Iron Age can be associated with the adaptation of new skills that enabled the weavers to produce lighter, finer fabrics (there is a similar, albeit much earlier, transition in Azoria at the end of the seventh century BCE [Shamir 1994:270; Haggis et al. 2004:371–372]). Similar pyramidal loom weights are known from Hellenistic and Early Roman contexts at SamariaSebaste (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:343, Pl. 68; Crowfoot 1957:399–400, Pl. 92a:23–26), Bet She’an (Johnson 2006), Dor (Stern 2000:194–195, Fig. 130), Caesarea Maritima (Holland 2009:76, Nos. 279, 280), Masada (Shamir 1994), ‘En Gedi (Shamir 2007), Gezer (MacAlister 1912), Shilo (Brandl 1993:235, Figs. 9.6:5, 9.8:5), Tel Anafa (Herbert 1979:234, Fig. 19), Ramat Ha-Nadiv (Kol-Yaakov 2000:490, Nos. 77, 78, Pl. 7:17, 18) and Pella (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessy 1982:75, Pl. 15b; McNicoll 1992:107, Pl. 79b). However, the loom weights in the Gamla corpus show that a greater effort was made in their production than those found in many of the other contemporaneous Hellenistic and Early Roman contexts. Pyramidal loom weights from Hellenistic contexts at ‘En Gedi are less uniform in form and size (Shamir 2007:383). Rows of comb-like impressions as described above can be seen on at least one example (Shamir 2007:382, Photograph 1:5). Despite the fact that they are not the dominant form found at ‘En Gedi and that they are less uniform than the Gamla corpus, the weight range of the ‘En Gedi pyramidal loom weights (130–383 g) is similar to that of the loom weights from Gamla.

266

DEBORAH CASSUTO

At Masada, the pyramidal form is dominant (Shamir 1994:265–267). Since the pyramidal form is more complicated to produce than other forms, its appearance at Masada reflects an adherence on the part of the refugees/zealots to maintain their technological traditions, altered only by the fact that conditions at Masada apparently prevented them from firing the loom weights (Shamir 1994:266–267). Their weight range is broader than that of the loom weights from Gamla and ‘En Gedi (91–590 g; average 195 g ± 109 g), which may also be due to the refugees’ limited resources and sparse life style, in which their needs would have been

different from the settled communities of Gamla and ‘En Gedi. At Samaria, pyramidal loom weights, described as “weaver’s weights,” were found in Hellenistic strata falling into the same height and weight range as the Gamla corpus (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:343; Crowfoot 1957:399–400). Pyramidal loom weights were also found in the remains of the affluent Hellenistic city of Pella, south of Gamla, in the Jordan Valley, some even bearing the same ‘rope’-like impressions from manufacture (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessy 1982:75, Pl. 15b).

Table 17.1. Pyramidal Loom Weights by Area and Locus No.

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No.

1

B

B20

2

B

C15

3

B

1258

287

4

B

1258

5

B

1258

6

B

7

IAA No.

Description

Comments

1145

Partial—top

Lined on one side

142

Partial—top

Indented

Height (cm)

Top and Bottom Dimensions (cm)

Intact

Well formed; surface treatment—dotted lines on all sides from cloth wrapped around it; finger indent on top

259

8.4

2.1 × 2.4; 5.7 × 6.2

331

Intact

357

Intact

Indented top

205

8.0

1.5 × 1.6; 5.0 × 4.6

Indented top

270

7.7

1261

1031/18

2.5 × 2.7; 5.7 × 5.9

Chipped

Finger indent; very smooth sides

201

7.6

1.8 × 1.6; 6.1 × 5.6

B

1263

517

Intact

Indented top

205

7.5

1.7 × 1.3; 5.0 × 5.3

8

B

1263

1100/12

Intact

Surface treatment—dotted lines on all sides from cloth wrapped around it; significantly leans toward one side; finger indent on top

312

8.6

2.5 × 2.7; 6.2 × 6.2

9

B

1266

1034/32

Partial—top

Indented top; surface treatment with lined punctuations (possibly from having been formed between pieces of woven cloth)

150

10

B

1280

2006

Partial— bottom

Square

185

11

B

1285

2215/1

Partial—top

Indented top

12

B

1302

88

19902154

Complete

Chipped on bottom, does not stand independently; crudely formed with deep crude finger indent

8.3

3.7 × 3.4; 5.0 × 5.1

13

B77*

19902115

Partial— bottom

Bottom half

14

B77*

19902094

Complete

Slightly chipped; finger indent on top

309

9.3

2.4 × 2.8; 5.98 × 5.99

15

B77*

19902153

Complete

Slightly chipped; straighter, less pyramidal form stands slightly offside; deep indent on top

321

9.4

3.9 × 3.6; 5.3 × 5.5

20071637

Weight (g) 50

230

Bottom 5.5 × 5.8

267

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Table 17.1. (cont.) No.

Area

16

Locus/ Square

Reg. No.

IAA No.

Description

Comments

Weight (g)

Height (cm)

Top and Bottom Dimensions (cm)

B77*

19902211

Intact

Slight chip; finger indent on top

188

8.6

2.40 × 2.38; 4.78 × 4.39

17

B77*

19902210

Intact

Minor chip on bottom corner; finger indent

312

8.8

2.8 × 2.7; 5.8 × 6.2

18

B77*

19902083

Intact

Well formed; slightly chipped; finger indent on top; yellowish material

167

7.5

2.00 × 2.05; 5.2 × 5.3

19

B77*

19902152

Partial—top

Top half; deep finger indent

Top 2.2 × 2.2

20

B77*

19902151

Partial—top

Top; finger indent; orange material; square form

Top 2.8 × 2.8

21

B77*

19902119

Partial— bottom

Bottom half chipped; square form

Bottom 5.1 × 5.3

22

B77*

19902082

Intact

Slightly chipped; indent on side above perforation (possibly from an embedded stone that fell out); orange clay

176

7.7

1.8 × 2.2; 5.2 × 5.6

23

B77*

Intact

Minor chip on bottom corner; slight finger indent

191

8.9

1.7 × 1.7; 5.4 × 5.4

24

D

3006

4116

Intact

Surface decorated with punctuation marks; indent on top

210

8.1

2.5 × 2.1; 5.5 × 5.0

25

G

1704

6206

Partial— bottom

Bottom half

155

26

G

1706

6942

Complete

Slightly chipped

215

7.8

3.2 × 3.3; 5.9 × chipped

27

G

1752

6244

Complete

Indented top; chipped; very small perforation

180

7.5

2.0 × 2.1; 5.2 × 5.0

28

H

1801

6227

Partial

Well formed; surface find

135

29

H

1804

6278

Partial—top

Indented top

30

R

5003

7884

Partial

31

R

5005

274

Intact

Slightly chipped; yellowish material

8.5

3.0 × 1.7; 5.0 × 3.9

32

R

5007

997

Partial—top

Indented top

33

R

5017

6547

Intact

8.1

2.6 × 2.6; 5.7 × 5.0

34

R

5019

6784/13

Partial— bottom

Poorly preserved; bottom half; of inferior material with large imbedded inclusions

35

R

5033

233

Partial—top

Indented top with lines around the sides, as if rolled in cloth to dry—line continues on all sides

36

R

5038

628

Partial— bottom

Indented on side

115

37

R

5054

3395

Partial—top

Indented top

130

38

R

5151

5470

Intact

Indented top; slightly chipped

255

8.0

4.6 × 3.4; 5.4 × 5.4

39

R

5201

645

Complete

Chipped; poorly formed; flattened

200

8.0

2.9 × 4.5; 3.2 × 6.2

40

R

5202

876

Complete

Chipped; well formed; crumbly material

140

7.9

1.8 × 3.1; 4.3 × 4.6

70 175 170 85 265 175

268

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Table 17.1. (cont.) No.

Area

Locus/ Square

Reg. No.

41

S

1907

42

S

43

S

44

IAA No.

Description

Comments

Weight (g)

Height (cm)

Top and Bottom Dimensions (cm)

7449

Complete

Lightly chipped

275

8.5

Top chipped; 6.5 × 6.3

1916

7398

Intact

Poorly formed

160

7.0

3.7 × 3.9; 4.3 × 3.7

1921

8144

Partial—top

Indented top

65

S

1922

8140

Partial— bottom

Light airy yellowish material

95

45

S

1922

8143

Partial— bottom

46

S

1924N

8299

47

S

2012

3391

Complete

48

S

2014

3387

Intact

49

S

2017

3356

50

S

2018

51

S

2018

52

S

53

S

54

20071632

Partial— bottom

170 Bottom three corners; lines from wrapping in cloth

Bottom 5.1 × 4.8 145

7.5

2.7 × 2.9; 5 × ?

Indented top; lined impression on side; yellowish material

170

6.9

2.3 × 1.8; 5.4 × 4.1

Partial—top

Narrow; poorly preserved

110

8.2

2 × 2.6; 5.6 × ?

3533

Intact

Indented top; whitish material

310

7.6

3.7 × 3.1; 6.7 × 5.3

3593

Intact

Indented top

275

7.5

2.3 × 1.9; 6.0 × 6.3

2019N

3747

Intact

Slight indentation on top

215

7.5

2.5 × 2.3; 5.3 × 4.9

2019

3835/1

Fragments

S

2056

4054

Complete

Indented top

240

7.8

2.5 × 3.1; 5.5 × 5.3

55

T

Surface find

1223

Partial—top

Top half

130

56

T

4028

1958

Partial— bottom

Bottom half

115

57

n/a

Intact

Slightly chipped; small indent on top; elongated; small perforation

224

9.5

1.4 × 2.0; 4.8 × 5.4

19921025

* The loom weights from Area B77 are physically marked with their IAA numbers, but they cannot be linked to the original excavation data, which is as follows: L1211: Reg. Nos. 5217, 5221, 5236, 5237, 5267, 5318; L1212, Reg. No. 5279; L1214, Reg. No. 5294; L1215, Reg. No. 5290; L1216, Reg. No. 5268; Sq O15, Reg. No. 439.

Dome-Shaped Loom Weights (Fig. 17.4:58, 59, 61–63; Table 17.2) The six flattened, dome-shaped loom weights, five of them illustrated here, have flat bottoms, with two parallel flatter sides and two rounded thinner sides that form a dome at the peak through which a horizontal perforation has been made. They range in weight between 150 and 304 g. These fired terracotta loom weights show similar characteristics to the pyramidal type. Two bear textile impressions that are similar to those described above (Nos. 61, 62), and three of the six have the typical finger impression on the top (Nos. 58, 61, 63). Although it is possible that

these were initially shaped as pyramidal forms that were accidentally flattened during preparation, the consistency in their form and size implies that this was the intended form. An explanation for the presence of the dome-shaped loom weights among the pyramidal-loom weights could be that they would have been ideal for hanging on the outer edges of the loom, closest to the upright beams. Whereas pyramidal/triangular forms hanging on the ends could have been more likely to collide with the side beams and break, these flatter loom weights could have hung parallel to the beams, and would have been less likely to break on an active loom.

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

58

59

61

62

65

63

0

4

Fig. 17.4. Dome- and doughnut-shaped loom weights.

269

270

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Table 17.2. Conical/Dome-Shaped Loom Weights by Area and Locus No.

Area

Locus

Reg. No.

58

R

5003

810

IAA No.

Description

Comments

Weight (g)

Partial—top

Flattened form; indented top

140

Height (cm)

Top and Bottom Dimensions (cm)

59

R

5054

3338

Intact

Slightly chipped

260

7.4

2.0 × 3.7; 4.7 × 8.3

60

S

1921

8260

Intact

Light material

150

6.9

2.1 × 4; 4.8 × 6.3

61

S

1925

8088

Intact

Flattened conical shape; finger indent on top; surface treatment—lines on all sides from cloth wrapped around it; perforation slightly off center

304

8.4

3.2 × 3.9; 4.6 × 7.1

62

S

2002

3437

Intact

Surface treatment—lined impressions on both sides in different directions (possibly pressed between pieces of cloth)

180

6.3

1.6 × 4.6; 4.3 × 6.7

63

S

2019N

3748

Intact

Indented top; yellowish material

240

7.1

2.6 × 4.3; 4.6 × 7.1

2007-1638

Doughnut-Shaped Loom Weights (Fig. 17.4:65; Table 17.3) The three complete doughnut-shaped loom weights and one-half of a weight (one of them illustrated here) are all poorly preserved. However, they show signs of having been carefully formed with clear, and, in one case, sharp edges. Their sizes and weights—130 g, 235 g and 315 g—differ drastically. The Hellenistic doughnut forms have sharper edges than their Iron Age II predecessors, which tend to be more spherical. The effort invested in their manufacture differentiates them from the earlier doughnut-shaped loom weights. At Shiqmona, the doughnut-shaped weights from the Persian period are less rounded, with flatter sides (Elgavish 1968: Pls. XLV:76–77, 79, 80–81, L:99, 100– 101, 103). Although doughnut-shaped loom weights have been found in Hellenistic and Roman contexts in Israel, they are less common than the pyramidal and the dome-shaped forms, representing a fraction of the corpus (Shamir 1997:6*).

Summary The evidence from Gamla indicates a marked emphasis placed on the manufacture of quality loom weights. These mold-formed, pared, sometimes ‘comb’decorated and well-fired objects reveal that weaving was a respected craft and that extra effort had been made to produce the elements of the warp-weighted loom used for weaving fine quality fabrics. At Gamla, with the exception of one small cluster in Area B, the loom weights were found either individually or in pairs. This is surprising compared to other Hellenistic sites, such as Yodefat, Pella, Jebel Khalid, Gezer and Tel Iztaba, where large clusters were found, and is particularly striking in light of the fact that the well-fired Gamla loom weights are less likely to have disintegrated.

Table 17.3. Doughnut-Shaped Loom Weights by Area and Locus No.

Area

Locus

Reg. No.

Description

Comments

Weight (g)

Diam. (cm)

Width (cm)

64

R

5018

7420

Partial

Few chips

235

7.9

3.8

65

R

5151

5561

Complete

Clear edges; slightly chipped

315

8.0

4.4

66

S

2014

3589

Half

Angled edges

130

8.1

2.6

67

n/a

Half

Straight sides

271

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Spindle Whorls. (Fig. 17.5; Table 17.4) Spindle whorls, or flywheels, are round, symmetrical objects that come in various shapes and sizes, each with a perforation straight through the center through which a spindle, usually wooden, is meant to be fitted (Fig. 17.6). Except for rare occurrences, spindle whorls are generally found without their spindles. The identification of these artifacts as spindle whorls is based on their similarity to spindle whorls used today by hand spinners, augmented by early iconographic depictions of spinners at work and the rare discoveries of such artifacts when found together with their spindles and, even rarer, threads (Reich 2007:171,

2

30

10

3

11

31

44

191). However, it should be noted that the identification of extremely small spindle whorls is complicated, as they may in fact be beads or weights or vice versa (Liu 1978:90–91; Barber 1991:51). The circular shape and weight of the spindle whorl allows the spindle to keep the momentum of a top-like spin for the pulling or drafting of the raw fibers and twisting it into thread while the finished product is wrapped around the spindle to prevent unraveling. The spindle is spun in either a clockwise direction, creating what is known as the ‘z-spin’ or right-hand spin, or in a counterclockwise direction known as the ‘s-spin’ or left-hand spin, in the thread (Barber 1991:65–68). The spun threads can subsequently be strengthened by a process known

18

12

32

33

45

46

71

73

35

25

38

52

60

74 0

19

75 4

Fig. 17.5. Stone, glass and clay spindle whorls.

41

68

42

69

76

28

272

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Table 17.4. Spindle Whorls of Stone, Glass and Clay by Area and Locus No.

Area

Locus

Reg. No.

1

B

1266

2

B

1267

3

B

4

IAA No.

Shape

Decoration

1023

Hemispherical

Soft chalk; incised

1238

Conical

Incised

1267

1505

Discoid

B

1272

1463

19921032

Hemispherical

5

B

1272

1588

19921023

Conical

6

B

1282

2327

Discoid

Diam. (cm)

Height (cm)

Perforation Diam. (cm)

8.0

2.7

1.20

0.5

4.0

2.0

0.80

0.3

Incised

8.0

2.9

0.60

0.4

Incised circle around rim

5.7

2.5

1.10

0.3; 0.4

8.3

2.0

1.00

0.4; 0.5

At least 3.5

2.6

0.50

0.8

7

B

1283

2081

8

B

1288

2333

Conical

20.0

2.3

1.50

0.6

Hemispherical

11.2

1.9

1.00

0.4

Fragment

Weight (g)

9

B

1288

2785

Hemispherical

10.0

2.1

1.10

0.5

10

B

1289

2207

Hemispherical

8.5

2.2

1.10

0.5

11

B

1291

2484

Conical

8.0

2.7

0.80

0.4

12

B

1295

2850

11.6

2.5

1.10

3.8; 4.3

13

B

1301

3249

Conical

Extremely small, off-side perforation

1.5

1.0

0.20

0.4

14

B

1302

74

Conical

Slightly chipped

15.5

3.1

1.20

0.8

15

B

3100

835

Conical

15.5

2.8

1.40

0.6

16

B

A:18

1708

Conical

At least 4.5

2.4

1.00

0.5

17

B

A:18

1795

Hemispherical

22.5

2.9

1.70

0.4

18

E

1505

5074

20.6

2.8

1.70

0.5; 0.6

19

G

1712

5.0

2.4

0.60

0.3

20

L

21

M

22

19921022

19905013

Incised

Hemispherical

Half

Hemispherical

Higher rounded cone

6270

Conical

Incised

1685

5538

Conical

20.0

3.5

1.50

0.3

4015

3009

Conical

5.5

2.2

0.90

0.4

M

UA -1718

1496

Conical

13.0

2.8

1.10

0.5

23

R

5006

6031

Conical/ Hemispherical Flattened

Incised, chipped

6.0

2.6

0.70

0.3

24

R

5010

6352

Conical

Incised—one circle near top edge and two concentric circles around outer edge

4.7

2.2

0.80

0.3

25

R

5011

6171

Conical

Two incised concentric circles midway slightly chipped

5.7

2.3

0.70

0.3; 0.3

26

R

5011

6835

Hemispherical

Half; soft material

27

R

5018

6988

Conical

Poorly formed

28

R

5025

3230

Hemispherical

29

R

5033

308

Conical

20072051

Incised—scraping marks on underside from production process

n/a

2.0

0.90

0.7

6.8

1.8

5.20

3.7; 4.4

17.5

2.8

1.80

0.6

3.5

2.1

0.70

0.4

273

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Table 17.4. (cont.) No.

Area

Locus

Reg. No.

IAA No.

Shape

Diam. (cm)

Height (cm)

Perforation Diam. (cm)

30

R

5053

6764

20072052

Conical

7.5

2.5

0.70

0.3; 0.4

31

R

5053

7999

20072053

Conical

18.8

3.0

1.80

0.7; 0.8

32

R

5054

3065

20072048

Conical

5.5

2.2

0.70

0.3; 0.4

33

R

5054

3132

20072049

Hemispherical

7.3

2.1

1.00

0.5; 0.6

34

R

5057

3445

11.5

2.8

0.40

0.4

35

R

5105

4533

7.2

2.5

0.68

0.4; 0.4

36

R

5110

4970

Conical/ Hemispherical Flattened

Incised with two concentric circles around outer edge

5.5

2.4

0.70

0.4

37

R

5110

5040

Conical

Incised with two concentric circles around outer edge

6.5

2.5

0.80

0.3

38

R

5110

5123

Conical

13.0

2.7

1.20

0.7

39

R

5151

5336

Conical

Incised with one circle along top and one around bottom edge

11.5

3.0

0.90

0.3

40

R

5151

5595

Discoid

Incised with two concentric circles along outer edge

8.5

2.8

0.60

0.3

41

R

5151

5596

Discoid

Incised, worn down around the edge

5.5

2.2

0.70

0.4

42

R

5163

5682

Conical

Chipped

at least 19.5

3.3

1.50

0.6

43

R

5201

687

Conical

Incised

6.5

2.6

0.70

0.3

44

R

5202

877

20072054

Conical

Incised with two concentric circles around edge

4.5

1.9

0.75

0.3; 0.4

45

S

1902

6657

19905014

Conical

Incised with two concentric circles— one along the outer edge and one around the perforation

5.9

2.4

0.70

0.4

46

S

1903

6765

19905015

Conical

11.6

2.7

1.40

0.6; 0.7

47

S

1906

6857

Conical

6.0

2.4

0.90

0.3

48

S

1909

7105

Flat

49

S

1917

8364

Conical

50

S

1918

7518

Conical

Incised

51

S

1919

8213

Conical

Half-decorated with leaf-like pattern painted light blue

52

S

2002

3269

Conical

Incised

53

S

2008

3454

Conical

Incised

Conical/ Hemispherical Flattened 20072047

19905069

Decoration

Two concentric circles incised rim

Incised with two concentric circles around outer edge

Hemispherical

Weight (g)

7.0

2.6

0.60

0.5

10.5

2.8

0.90

0.5

7.5

2.8

0.70

0.4

2.5

1.00

0.6

5.5

2.7

0.60

0.4

9.0

2.1

1.50

0.5

n/a

274

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Table 17.4. (cont.) No.

Area

Locus

Reg. No.

IAA No.

Shape

Decoration

Weight (g)

Diam. (cm)

54

S

2008

3511

Hemispherical

55

S

2012

3320

Conical

Incised

56

S

2014

3467

Conical

57

S

2014

3615

58

S

2014

59

S

2014

60

S

61

S

17.5

2.7

1.50

0.5

11.5

3.0

0.90

0.4

Incised with one circle near top edge

8.5

2.5

0.90

0.4

Conical

Incised with two concentric circles around outer edge

3.5

2.2

0.60

0.3

3616

Conical

Incised

7.0

2.5

0.80

0.4

3639

Discoid

Chipped

2.5

2.3

0.60

0.7

2017

3399

Hemispherical

16.5

2.7

1.50

0.5

2027

4022

Conical

7.0

2.6

0.70

0.4

62

S

2053

4029

Conical

7.5

2.2

1.10

0.6

63

S

5016

6710

Conical

Incised with two concentric circles around outer edge

5.5

2.7

0.60

0.4

64

S

Surface

8123

Hemispherical

Soft chalk, very worn on sides

6.0

2.5

1.00

0.6

65

T

4027

1897

Conical

Broken; rounded bottom

19.8

3.2

1.80

0.6

66

T

4188

1224

Discoid

Incised

67

surface find

Incised with two concentric circles around outer edge

Height (cm)

6.5

2.5

0.60

0.4

Conical

8.5

2.7

7.80

0.4

6.3

2.0

1.10

0.4

3.8

2.1

0.50

0.3; 0.3

5.1

2.2

1.00

0.3; 0.4

8.3

2.5

0.70

0.4

19.0

2.8

1.60

0.6; 0.7

3.5

1.2

0.40

0.2

68

19905066

Conical

69

19905067

Conical

70

19905064

Conical

71

19905065

Conical

72

19921020

Conical

Two concentric circles close to the outer rim

Two concentric circles

73

S

2107

92

Hemispherical

Glass

74

S

1920

8051

Hemispherical

Glass; half broken

n/a

2.5

75

R

5054

3072

Hemispherical

Glass; fragment

n/a

3.7

10.10

76

R

5054

3034

Conical/ Hemispherical Flattened

Clay

16.3

2.6

1.60

20072050

Perforation Diam. (cm)

as plying, which is done by spinning two or more spun threads together in the opposite direction from which they were originally spun. Textiles found in the Levant indicate that in Roman Palestine, local spinners preferred the left-handed spin, following the natural twist found in flax (Wild 1970:38, 44; Barber 1991:65– 68, Shamir 1996:149–170; 2005:30).

0.3; 0.6 0.7

In general, variations in spindle whorl weights and sizes can be linked to characteristics of the fibers used—lighter whorls for shorter fibers, wool or cotton, and heavier whorls for longer fibers, flax or hemp— and for the quality and thickness of thread desired. Furthermore, studies have shown that the thicknesses of threads may be the direct result of the

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

0

275

4

Fig. 17.6. A reconstructed spindle with one of the whorls from Gamla, on display at the Golan Archaeological Museum, Qazrin.

weights of the spindle whorls used, meaning that the lighter spindle whorls will produce thinner threads and the heavier ones thicker threads (Andersson Strand 2010:13–14). Wider, flatter whorls spin slowly and produce a looser thread, while the shorter thicker whorls spin faster creating a tighter thread (Crewe 2002:219). Thus, the weight and shape of the spindle whorl are in direct relation to the thickness of the required thread (Crewe 1998:13). Perforation size should be no smaller than 4 mm; anything smaller should be classified as a bead (Liu 1978:97; Crewe 1998:11, 13). Minimal differences in perforation diameter from one side to the other would not impede upon the functionality of a spindle whorl unless the difference was great enough to create wobble (Crewe 1998:12–13). For the most part, the earliest spindle whorls are hardly any different from those used in later periods, testimony to a technology so practical that spinning in this manner, with the exception of the invention of the spinning wheel, has continued thousands of years and is still in use today (Crowfoot 1957:399; Barber 1991:39–78). The corpus of spindle whorls at Gamla comprises 103 objects, of which 76, made of stone, clay and glass, are presented here, and 27, made of bone, are discussed by Farhi (Chapter 16). Ten additional spindle whorllike lead objects are also presented here although for reasons discussed below, it is doubtful that they are in fact spindle whorls. The spindle whorls presented here are made mostly of stone, but there are also three of glass (Nos. 73–75) and one of clay (No. 76). All but seven are intact. They are either conical or hemispherical in form. Excluding the lead weights, which will be dealt with below, they range between 1.0 and 3.7 cm in diameter and weigh between 1.5 and 22.5 g. They were found throughout the excavated areas, primarily in domestic contexts. Of the 72 stone spindle whorls, 31 are decorated with typical concentric circles along the outer or inner rims.

Such stone spindle whorls are abundant throughout the Mediterranean and are frequently decorated with the same patterns (Crowfoot 1957: Fig. 92a; Crewe 2002:219). They vary in size, weight, form and in the stone used. Typologically, three forms are found at Gamla: hemispherical, conical and discoid.9 Some of the weights are significantly heavier than others, and weigh well over 10 g. These were probably used, as noted above, for spinning thicker, stronger threads or for multiple plying. Three glass spindle whorls were found in Areas S and R. The first (No. 73) is a simple, undecorated hemispherical whorl found during restoration work at the site. It is similar to a glass spindle whorl from the Roman period found at Samaria-Sebaste (Crowfoot 1957:399, Fig. 92a:16) and another from Caesarea Maritima (Holland 2009:76, No. 277); a frit spindle whorl from Jebel Khalid is also similar in form (Crewe 2002:232, Fig. JK SW.70). The other two (Nos. 74, 75) are more elaborate, decorated with a trail-decoration dragged to form a scallop pattern similar to ones found at Samaria-Sebaste (Crowfoot 1957:399, Fig. 92a:17), Meiron and Sarepta (Spaer 2001:259, 261). One complete clay spindle whorl (No. 76) was found, similar to one from Caesarea Maritima (Holland 2009:76, No. 278). Ten conical perforated lead weights (Fig. 17.7; Table 17.5) that resemble spindle whorls are included here solely because the excavators originally identified them as spindle whorls, and they would have otherwise remained unpublished.10 They are poorly manufactured, smaller in diameter, heavier in weight and with significantly smaller perforations than spindle whorls, one off-center. This implies that these weights could probably not have been used as flywheels. The smaller diameters and the heavier weights would create too fast a spin while the perforation apertures would be too small for the spindles, and an off-sided spindle whorl would produce extremely poor quality thread if at all.

276

DEBORAH CASSUTO

78

77

79

80

83

82

81 0

84

85

86

4

Fig. 17.7. Lead spindle whorl-like objects.

Table 17.5. Lead Spindle Whorl-Like Objects by Area and Locus No.

Area

Locus

Reg. No.

IAA No.

Shape

Weight (g)

Diam. (cm)

Height (cm)

Perforation Diam. (cm)

77

B

1296

2876

Conical

6.59

1.70

0.70

0.40

78

B

C:18

2829

Conical

19.40

1.70

1.10

0.50

79

B

1262

3315

Conical

20.50

2.00 × 1.60

1.50

0.40

80

B

3110

423

Conical

7.40

1.60

0.60

0.50

81

B

1284

788

Conical

15.30

1.20

1.10

0.50

82

B

1309

390

Conical

28.40

2.00

1.50

0.40

83

M

Outside city wall

2311

2007-2029

Conical

16.00

1.80

8.10

0.27; 0.35

84

R

5053

6751

2007-2026

Conical

14.80

1.90

0.83

0.28; 0.39

85

R

5018

6988

2007-2027

Conical

12.50

1.52

0.96

0.30; 0.37

86

T

4002

1101

2007-2028

Conical

33.30

2.30

1.40

0.33; 0.40

Discs for Tablet Weaving Two double perforated discs were found at Gamla (Fig. 17.8). One (Area B, L1266, Reg. No. 1703, IAA 2007-2184) is a round pottery disc. The other (Area R, L5151, Reg. No. 5465, IAA 2007-2185) is a rectangular potsherd measuring 3.0 × 1.7 × 1.0 cm. Perforated discs with two or more holes made of clay, wood, bone or slate are used when weaving on a band loom in place of the heddle rod11 (Barber 1991:118–119), or for winding thread (Davidson 1952:178, No. 1284). Tablet weaving, or card weaving, which can create intricate weaves, has been documented as utilizing tablets or cards of four, or even five, holes (Barber 1991:118–122). The threads are threaded through the holes, creating the space through which the weft thread is to be ‘thrown.’ After each ‘throw’ the disc is turned

to switch the shed. The identification of these tablets as part of the weaving kit is still highly questionable (Van Beek 1989); however, experiments using them in band weaving have demonstrated that they can be used for preparing woven strips or belts of cloth (Shamir 1996:148–149). To date, no clear evidence exists in the Southern Levant to suggest that tablet weaving was, or was not, practiced here.12 Nevertheless, it should be recognized that the use of two-holed tablets in tablet weaving was, in all likelihood, not the use for which these particular objects from Gamla were originally made. While their precise function remains ambiguous, tablets of this kind, usually with only two holes, have been found in Israel in Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age and Persian contexts (Van Beek 1989:56; Shamir 1996:148–149).

277

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

0

4

Fig. 17.8. Tablet weaving disks.

Textile Production at Gamla Numerous bone objects that may have been part of the textile industry were found, dispersed throughout the site (see Chapter 16). Bone tools such as spatulae, rods, picks and needles are included in the ‘weaving kit’ used to identify textile production at a site (Tufnell 1953:397; Crowfoot 1954; Wild 1970:156; Broudy 1979:82; Tiede 1989:315–316; Friend 1998:6–7, 61– 67). The inclusion of these bone objects as definitive elements in the ‘weaving kit’ is tricky, since the functions of these artifacts can be ambiguous. Bone spatulae have also been identified as netting tools and as cosmetic, writing and eye-cleaning implements (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 95; Ariel 1990:127– 130, 140–141; Van Beek and Van Beek 1990). They have also been identified as implements used in pattern weaving (Tufnell 1953:397; Friend 1998:6–7). Rods, decorated or not, may have served as cosmetic tools, as spindles (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 95:38) or as picks used to smooth out knots or separate threads

for intricate patterns (Davidson 1952:174).13 However debatable, the proximity of these artifacts to loom weights and/or spindle whorls may in fact indicate a connection between the objects and provide a clearer understanding of textile production at sites. Textile production implements of one kind or another were found dispersed throughout the site (Table 17.6). Significantly, the quantities of loom weights and spindle whorls found alongside bone rods can presumably be proof of some sort of association. A quantitative analysis of their distribution identifies three textile production centers, in Areas B, R and S, each identified as a domestic quarter during the first century BCE to the first century CE (Fig. 17.9). This shows that the character of textile production at Gamla was clearly domestic as opposed to industrial or commercial (Berlin 2006:136–153). The close proximity of the loom weights and spindle whorls to tabuns, grinding stones, mortars and cooking pots implies an unequivocal association between textile production and food preparation, both tasks commonly

Table 17.6. Textile Implement Distribution at Gamla Area

Character

Loom Weights

Spindle Whorls*

B

Domestic/miqveh/ oil press

12

17

B77

Domestic

11

D

Domestic

1

G

Domestic

3

H

Domestic

2

E+L

Domestic?

M/T

Domestic/city wall

2

4 (1)

1

2

10

R

Domestic/oil press/ shops/public mill

15

21 (12)

1

8

57

S

Domestic

19

24 (11)

1

15

Surface or Unknown

n/a

2

7 (2)

67

76 (27)

Total * Bone whorls appear in parentheses (see Chapter 16)

Bone Spatulae 8

Bone Rods

Bone Needles

14

Total 51 11 1

1 (1)

2

1

8 2

2

2

3

1 13

41

73 12

3

278

DEBORAH CASSUTO 80 Rods Spatulae

70

Spindle Whorls Loom Weights 60

Number

50

40

30

20

10

0 B

B77

D

G

H

E+L

Area

M/T

R

S

Other

Fig. 17.9. Distribution of textile implements at Gamla by area.

performed by women in domestic contexts (Cassuto 2008). Furthermore, a comparison of the weight ranges of the loom weights from these three areas (Area B, 50–321 g; Area R, 85–315 g; Area S, 65–310 g) shows that they are strikingly similar to one another, indicating that similar weaving work—in this case domestic weaving—was carried out in each of these quarters, and that textiles of consistent quality were produced from the first century BCE until the destruction of the city in 67 CE. This continuity in tools used for textile production is in contrast to variations in the residents’ social behaviors, as reflected in evident changes in their pottery repertoire, from the first century BCE to the first century CE (Berlin 2006:133–155). As a cottage industry, textiles would have been woven primarily for household use and any surplus would have supplemented the family’s income (Shamir 2005:289–303). Household spinning and weaving have long been associated with women (Wild 1976:169; Barber 1991:283–298; Peskowitz 1997, 2004; Carr 2000:163; Reich 2001; Cassuto 2008). Such easily

interrupted tasks enabled the housewife and mother the flexibility to avert her attention to her children’s and household’s demands whenever necessary (Brown 1970). This association is particularly evident during the Classical period, when Greek literature depicts the crafts of spinning and weaving as symbols of female morality, a fundamental aspect of Hellenic femininity. A woman working at her loom came to symbolize feminine virtues—domesticity, devotion, patience and loyalty—a metaphor with which the Classical world was well acquainted (Crowfoot 1954:444; Peskowitz 1997:6). Such would have been the case with the cultured women of the Levant. As in Greece and Rome, domestic spinning and weaving were customarily the responsibilities of the Jewish woman, continuing a tradition portrayed in Proverbs 31.10–31. In the passage venerating the ‘virtuous woman’, the ideal wife provides for her household by spinning and weaving cloth for her family and selling the surplus to augment the family income (Lang 2004:195). The ‘virtuous woman’ runs an upper-class household and

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

can easily have others do her spinning and weaving but she chooses not to (Hoffner 1966:329). In M. Ketubot 5.5, Rabbi Eliezer insists that even the wealthiest wife who has servants to do her housework must be kept busy working in wool (Peskowitz 1997:97–98). Although rabbinical sources refer to a later period, they reflect an ongoing tradition associating women with domestic spinning and weaving. During the first century CE, the warp-weighted loom was replaced by the two-beam vertical loom (Barber 1991:113).14 It is more difficult to identify in the archaeological record due to the absence of nonorganic components. The significant advantage of the two-beam vertical loom was that the weaver could work from a seated position, working downward, which eliminated the tedious walking to and fro, and working upward, of its predecessor, and hence, was less exhausting (Davidson 1952:147; Broudy 1979:27; Barber 1991; Peskowitz 1997:82–84). This escalated production output, and industrialized centralized weaving, which resulted in the installment of male weavers who were freer to become specialized weavers than women (Barber 1991:113–115; Peskowitz 1997:8; O’Brian 1999:32, 36). In early rabbinic texts, references to weaving associate women with a type of loom at which they had to work standing up with their arms in the air (the warp-weighted vertical loom) and men as seated before a loom (the two-beam vertical loom) (Peskowitz 1997:191, 2004:136–137). As for the type of textiles produced at Gamla, cotton and silk had yet to arrive in the region and, as Jewish law forbids the combination of wool and linen (known as shatnez or shaʽatnez), it is likely that the weavers

279

at Gamla worked exclusively in either wool or linen.15 While this theory is at present mere conjecture, it appears that textile production in the region went through a transformation from primarily wool to mainly linen fabrics following the Great Revolt (Safrai 1985:110–112, 144, 146–148).16 The areas around the Sea of Galilee and the Bet She’an Valley (albeit almost 100 years later) were renowned as production centers for linen of the highest quality from the second century CE on (Safrai 1985:110–112, 144). Second Templeperiod sources hardly mention the cultivation of flax. However, from as early as the second century CE, flax appears to have become a fruitful agricultural crop in the Galilee, providing fibers for the production of some of the finest linens in the Roman Empire (Yerushalmi Ketubot 7:9, 31c; Kiddushin 2:5, 62c). This was apparently the case at the turn of the fourth century CE, which compelled Diocletian, despite efforts otherwise, to enable the sale of the highly coveted Bet She’an linens at extremely high prices (Diocletian Ch. 26; Aberbach 1994:132–133).17 When exactly this commercial transition occurred is not clear, but it postdates the Great Revolt, the fall of Gamla and the end of the evidence for the warp-weighted loom. The fine quality and character of the Gamla loom weights clearly imply that the earliest Jewish housewives at Gamla, while following in their mothers’ footsteps, spinning and weaving at home, must have incorporated their Hellenistic neighbors’ attitudes toward the cultural benefits awarded to the skilled domestic weaver. This approach continued for several generations, as reflected in the continuity observed at Gamla and in the rabbinic texts that ensued.

Notes Portion of this chapter were written while the author was serving as the Ernest S. Frefichs Fellow at the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaelogical Research, Jerusalem. 2 The remainder may have been lost in the interim storage or the discrepancy may be due to misinterpretation of the artifacts at the time they were recorded. Aviam’s investigation of the Yodefat loom weights led him to study the Gamla weights as well. He studied only 59 loom weights, of which all but 6 are recorded here. The six unmatched weights come from Areas B (L1258, L1286, L1293), S (L1924, L1925) and D (L3006) (Aviam 2005:197–198). 3 All drawings in this chapter are by Hagit Tahan-Rosen and Alex Krantz. Photographs are by Clara Amit and Danny Syon. 1

The warp-weighted vertical loom, depicted in classical iconography, was constructed of two upright wooden posts joined at the top by a third wooden beam from which the warp threads were hung (Barber 1991:91–113). It is characterized by the use of stone or clay loom weights, tied to the ends of the warp threads to provide the tension necessary for weaving textiles. Work on the warp-weighted loom began with the preparation of a starting-strip woven on a smaller bandloom, or backstrap-loom, which would then be anchored to the upper cloth beam of the loom horizontally as a border from which the warp threads would hang. Although there is no direct evidence to the separate weaving of a border band to begin work on the warp-weighted looms in the Southern 4

280

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Levant, we cannot assume that this was not a local practice in Israel as well. The weft, or woof, thread wrapped around a wooden or bone shuttle could then be woven through the shed of hanging warp threads and then tightened upward with the help of a bone or wooden comb or a weaving sword (spatha) (Wild 1976:171). The weaver would work the loom from a standing position, rolling the finished fabric around the upper beam. 5 Information courtesy of Gabi Mazor and Wallid Atrash, The Bet She’an Excavation Project. 6 Barber (1991:93) dates the earliest loom weights discovered to the Körös culture in Early Neolithic Hungary calibrated to the end of the seventh–beginning of the sixth millennia BCE. 7 Mårtensson et al. (2009) emphasize the importance of two principal parameters when recording the dimensions of loom weights: weight and thickness. Their recent experiments have demonstrated that not only the weight but the thickness of the loom weights play an important role in the weaving, and hence, that the choice of loom weights has a direct influence on the finished woven fabric. 8 Peyronel (2007:32) suggests that it is possible that such markings are meant to differentiate these loom weights from the others for some sort of functional reason such as fitting to a specific loom, owner, or even fiber. 9 Typologically, there are four primary spindle whorl classes as discussed by Crewe (1998:21–22), of which only two are represented here: Type I conical/hemispherical (here, represented as conical—having straight sides, and

hemispherical—having convex sides) and Type IV cylindrical (in the Gamla corpus, these are only discoid in shape). 10 These objects were examined by Orna Nagar-Hillman (see Chapter 14) and were rejected as scale weights. 11 A heddle rod is a wooden rod that separates the warp threads, creating an opening, or shed, through which the shuttle or bobbin of the weft thread is passed. 12 Although there is no evidence that tablet weaving was conducted in the Southern Levant, I believe that it probably was. Evidence for extensive tablet weaving has been found in Egypt, the Northern Levant and in other neighboring lands (Barber 1991:119–122), leaving it highly unlikely that the Southern Levant was ‘skipped’. The absence of organic cards or woven cloth, which would be clearly indicative, does not prove that it was not practiced. 13 This interpretation was first pointed out to me by Glenda Friend, and was noted by Ariel 1990:129–130. 14 Which apparently developed earlier, in Syria (Barber 1991:113). 15 Only finished silk was brought from the Far East to the West, from the Persian period until c. 300 CE. 16 For an extensive discussion on the prominence of linen in the region during the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods (see Safrai 1985:110–112, 148–152), including the possible identification of flax retting pools adjacent to Horbat ‘Amudim (Safrai 1985:56–57). 17 I am grateful to Orit Shamir for pointing out this specific reference to Diolcetian’s involvement with the linen products from Bet She’an.

R eferences Aberbach M. 1994. Labor, Crafts and Commerce in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem. Andersson Strand E. 2010. The Basics of Textile Tools and Textile Technology: From Fibre to Fabric. In C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch eds. Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Ancient Textiles Series 8). Oxford. Pp. 10–22. Ariel D.T. 1990. Worked Bone and Ivory. In D.T. Ariel. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 119–148. Aviam M. 2005. Yodefat: A Case Study in the Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee during the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew; English summary, pp. i–iv). Barber E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton.

Berlin A. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem. Brandl B. 1993. Clay, Bone, Metal and Stone Objects. In I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman eds. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 10). Jerusalem. Pp. 223–262. Broudy E. 1979. The Book of Looms: A History of the Handloom from Ancient Times to the Present. Hanover, N.H. Brown J.K. 1970. A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex. American Anthropologist 72:1073–1078. Carr K. 2000. Women’s Work: Spinning and Weaving in the Greek Home. In D. Cardon and M. Feugère eds. Archéologie des textiles des origins au Ve siècle (Actes du colloque de Lattes, octobre 1999 (Monographies Instrumentum 14). Montagnac. Pp. 163–166. Cassuto D. 2008. Bringing Home the Artifacts: A Social Interpretation of Loom Weights in Context. In B. Alpert

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Nakhai ed. The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East. Newcastle upon Tyne. Pp. 63–77. Crewe L. 1998. Spindle Whorls: A Study of Form, Function, and Decoration in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature. Pocket Books 149). Jonsered. Crewe L. 2002. Spindle-Whorls and Loomweights. In G.W. Clarke, P.J. Conner, L. Crewe, B. Frohlich, H. Jackson, J. Littleton, C.E.V. Nixon, M.O. O’Hea and D. Steele eds. Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates: Report on Excavations 1986–1996 (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 5). Sydney. Pp. 217–243. Crowfoot G.M. 1954. Textiles, Basketry, and Mats. In C. Singer, E.J. Holmyard and A.R. Hall eds. A History of Technology. Oxford. Pp. 413–451. Crowfoot G.M. 1957. Spindle Whorls and Loom Weights. In J.W Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria–Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 398–402. Davidson G.R. 1952. Corinth XII: The Minor Objects. Princeton. Dever W.D. ed. 1986. Gezer IV: The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis”. Jerusalem. Elgavish Y. 1968. Archaeological Excavations at Shiqmona Field Report 1: The Levels of the Persian Period; Seasons 1963–1965. Haifa (Hebrew). Fischer P.M. and Feldbacher R. 2009. Swedish Jordan Expedition: Preliminary Report on the Eleventh Season of Excavation at Tall Abū al-Kharaz. 2008. ADAJ 53:139– 152. Friend G. 1998. Tell Ta‘annek 1963–1968 III/2: The Artifacts; The Loom Weights. Birzeit. Haggis D.C., Mook M.S., Scarry C.M., Snyder L.M. and West III W.C. 2004. Excavations at Azoria. 2002. Hesperia 73:339–400. Herbert S.C. 1979. Tel Anafa 1978: Preliminary Report. BASOR 234:67– 83. Hoffmann M. 1964. The Warp-Weighted Loom: Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement (Studia Norvegica 14). Oslo. Hoffner H.A. Jr. 1966. Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity: Their Use in Ancient Near Eastern Sympathetic Magical Rituals. Journal of Biblical Literature 85:326– 334. Holland L. 2009. Weights and Weight-Like Objects from Ceasarea Maritima. Hadera. Johnson B.L. 2006. Clay, Stone, and Metal Objects from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period. In A. Mazar ed. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 I: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period (The BethShean Valley Archaeological Project 1). Jerusalem. Pp. 654–665. Kol-Yaakov S. 2000. Various Objects from the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods. In Y. Hirschfeld. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 473–503.

281

Lamon R.S. and Shipton G.M. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–1934, Strata I–V (OIP 42). Chicago. Lang B. 2004. Women’s Work, Household and Property in Two Mediterranean Societies: A Comparative Essay on Proverbs XXXI 10–31. Vetus Testamentum 54:188–207. Liu R. 1978. Spindle Whorls: Part 1. Some Comments and Speculations. The Bead Journal 3:87–103. Loud G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939 (OIP 62) (2 vols.). Chicago. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer, 1902– 1905 and 1907–1909 II. London. Mårtensson L., Nosch M.-L. and Andersson Strand F. 2009. Shape of Things: Understanding a Loom Weight. OJA 28:373–398. McNicoll A.W. 1992. The Hellenistic Period. In A.W. McNicoll. Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985 (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 2). Sydney. Pp. 103–118. McNicoll A., Smith R.H., and Hennessy B. 1982. Pella in Jordan 1: An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981 (2 vols.). Canberra. O’Brian R. 1999. Who Weaves and Why? Weaving, Loom Complexity, and Trade. Cross-Cultural Research 33:30– 42. Peskowitz M.B. 1997. Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender, and History. Berkeley–London. Peskowitz M.B. 2004. Gender, Difference, and Everyday Life: The Case of Weaving and Its Tools. In D.R. Edwards ed. Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. New York–London. Pp. 129–145. Peyronel L. 2007. Spinning and Weaving at Tell MardikhEbla (Syria): Some Observations on Spindle-Whorls and Loom-Weights from the Bronze and Iron Ages. In C. Gillis and M-L.B. Nosch eds. Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19–23, 2003. Oxford. Pp. 26–35. Reich R. 2001. Women and Men at Masada: Some Anthropological Observations Based on the Small Finds (Coins and Spindles). ZDPV 117:149–163. Reich R. 2007. Spindle Whorls and Spinning at Masada. In J. Aviram, G. Foerster and E. Netzer eds. Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 171–194. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria: 1908–1910 (2 vols.). Cambridge, Mass. Safrai Z. 1985. The Galilee in the Time of the Mishna and Talmud 2 (2nd ed.). Jerusalem (Hebrew). Shamir O. 1994. Loomweights from Masada. In Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports: Lamps; Textiles, Basketry, Cordage and Related Artifacts;

282

DEBORAH CASSUTO

Wood Remains; Ballista Balls; Addendum: Human Skeletal Remains. Jerusalem. Pp. 265–282. Shamir O. 1996. Loomweights and Whorls. In D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Pp. 135–170. Shamir O. 1997. Loomweights of the Persian Period from Khirbet Nimra. ‘Atiqot 32:1*–8*. Shamir O. 2005. Textiles in the Land of Israel from the Roman Period till the Early Islamic Period in Light of the Archaeological Finds. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Shamir O. 2007. Loomweights from ‘En-Gedi. In E. Stern ed. En-Gedi Excavations I: Conducted by B. Mazar and I. Dunayevsky; Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem. Pp. 381–390. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects (Israel Museum Catalogue 447). Jerusalem. Stager L.E. 1991. Ashkelon Discovered: From Canaanites and Philistines to Romans and Moslems. Washington, D.C. Stern E. 2000. Dor—The Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast. Jerusalem.

Tiede L.J. 1989. Ceramic and Clay Loomweights. In W.J. Bennett Jr. and J.A. Blakely eds. Tell el-Hesi 3: The Persian Period (Stratum V). Winona Lake. Pp. 279–282. Tufnell O. 1953. Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) III: The Iron Age (The Wellcome Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East Publications III) (2 vols.). London–New York– Toronto. Van Beek G.W. 1989. The Buzz: A Simple Toy from Antiquity. BASOR 275:53–58. Van Beek G. and Van Beek O. 1990. The Function of the Bone Spatula. BA 53:205–209. Wheeler M. 1982, Loomweights and Spindle Whorls. In K.M. Kenyon and T.A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London. Pp. 623–637. Wild J.P. 1970. Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces. Cambridge. Wild J.P. 1976. Textiles. In D. Strong and D. Brown eds. Roman Crafts. New York. Pp. 167–177. Yahalom-Mack N. 2007. The Textile Industry. In A. Mazar and R.A. Mullins eds. Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989–1996 II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Jerusalem. Pp. 661–669.

Chapter 18

Seals, Seal Impressions and a Violin Figurine Nimrod Getzov

Introduction The excavations at Gamla yielded four seals, two cylinder seal impressions and a violin figurine from the proto-historic periods. The items were found on the surface and in accumulations from the Hellenistic– Roman period.1 The objects2 (Fig. 18.1) date from the beginning of the Chalcolithic period to Early Bronze Age II.3, 4 1. Button Seal (Fig. 18.1:1) Area S; L2053; Reg. No. 4030; found in accumulations from the first century CE. D 20 mm; Th 3 mm; D of central hole 4 mm. Black stone.5 Half of a broken disc, round with a convex surface. At the back—a broken-off handle, the stub smoothed. The hole was bored in the center as a replacement for the handle. Deep cuts around the edge (two out of a probable four survive) lend the object the appearance of a flower. The surface is covered with shallow incisions, mostly short radial lines perpendicular to a few long chords. Parallels: Ha-Gosherim Stratum VI, dated to the Early Chalcolithic period (Early Halafian culture)—a similar seal, also with a broken handle replaced by a hole (Getzov 2011: No. 2); the Wolfe Collection—a round seal resembling a flower, with deep cuts around the edges, but with a different front design, dated by Amorai-Stark (1997: No. 130) to the Late Halafian culture; Stratum XV at Mersin, Cilicia (southern Anatolia; Von Wickede 1990: No. 226; Garstang 1953: Fig. 97)—a very similar seal (Stratum XV is dated to the Early ‘Ubeidian culture, contemporaneous with the late phase of the Middle Chalcolithic period). 2. Button Seal (Fig. 18.1:2) Area B; L1266; Reg. No. 1685; found in a mixed late Hellenistic and Early Bronze Age context. Th 5 mm; D of hole 2 mm.

Black stone. Fragment of a polygonal (hexagonal?) disc. Its fragmentary condition impeded a determination as to whether there was a handle at the back. A biconical hole near one of the sides might be a replacement for a handle. The front design has shallow bores surrounded by a channel, probably made by a borer (Garfinkel, Burian and Friedman 1992). Two complete bores remain, two broken, and a fifth has the biconical hole that may have held a string for hanging, instead of the original handle(?) that broke. Parallels: Ha-Gosherim (Keel-Leu 1989: No. 16)—a seal with similar frontal bores, with many parallels from Syria and Mesopotamia; Herzliyya—a seal with bores surrounded by circles, dated there by parallels to the fifth millennium BCE (Garfinkel, Burian and Friedman 1992); Tepe Gaura, Halafian stratum—a pendant with similar bores (von Wickede 1990: No. 129). 3. Duck-Shaped Seal (Fig. 18.1:3) Area B; surface; Reg. No. 805. L 17 mm; W 9 mm; H 13 mm; D of hole 2 mm. Translucent milky stone with brown and white veins, possibly cornelian. The seal is in the shape of a duck, resting its head on its back. The hole is where the eyes should be and probably was used to hang the seal by a string. The bottom is oval, slightly convex and carries the seal’s design. The front design has two perpendicular lines at one end, and a third, long line from the intersection to the other edge. Parallels: No exact parallel to this seal was found, but animal-shaped seal pendants are known in Mesopotamia from the Halafian culture (e.g. Von Wickede 1990: Nos. 163–165) to the Uruk culture, at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (von Wickede 1990: Nos. 610–618). 4. Conical Seal (Fig. 18.1:4) Area G; L1712; Reg. No. 6237; found in a mixed context of Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age and

284

NIMROD GETZOV

1

3 2

5

4

6

7

0

2

Fig. 18.1. The objects.

CHAPTER 18: SEALS, SEAL IMPRESSIONS AND A VIOLIN FIGURINE

Hellenistic material; published in the past by Ben-Tor (1985). D 30 mm; H 10 mm. Greenish-black stone (identified by Ben-Tor as obsidian). Low cone with a round base and a hole near the apex. According to Ben-Tor, the front design shows a schematic scene that includes a horned animal, a snake and a human. Parallels: The source of the stone and the scene suggest a northern Syrian or Mesopotamian origin, and thus, it should be dated to the Late Chalcolithic period or to the Early Bronze Age (see also Ben-Tor 1985:93, n. 18; 1995:365–366). 5. Cylinder Seal Impression (Fig. 18.1:5) Area A; L1078; Reg. No. 251/16; found in Early Roman-period accumulations, and in Area G, nearby, Early Bronze Age deposits were found. Preserved L 55 mm; preserved H of impression 32 mm; Th 11 mm. The impression was made near the neck of a Metallic Ware storage jar, common in northern Israel and the Golan in the Early Bronze Age II (Greenberg 2002: Fig. 5.2). The design comprises a lozenge filled with parallel lines and parallel lines that fill the side-triangles as well. One lozenge of the fragment is preserved, but it is clear that there were at least two. Parallels: A geometric pattern consisting of a central motif of a row of lozenges is common in seal impressions from the Early Bronze Age II. Very similar impressions were found at Bet Yeraḥ (Esse 1990: No. 2); Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor 1994: No. 10) and ‘En Qiniya, in the Golan (Epstein 1972: Fig. 2). 6. Cylinder Seal Impression (Fig. 18.1:6) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 2802; found in accumulation debris in a kitchen dated to the first century BCE. Preserved L 33 mm; preserved H of impression 22 mm; Th 11 mm. Impressed on a Metallic Ware jar that was combed prior to the application of the seal. Reconstruction of the entire pattern of the design is difficult because of the small size of the fragment, but it may be suggested that it is similar to a geometric impression from Bet Yeraḥ depicting a circle and a lozenge, and the space between them filled with parallel lines (Esse 1990: No. 5).

285

7. Violin Figurine (Fig. 18.1:7) Surface find east of Area S. Preserved H 61 mm (originally approximately 65 mm); W 34 mm; Th 6 mm. Limestone. Violin-shaped, with a rounded bottom. Violin-shaped figurines are characteristic of Late Chalcolithic assemblages, especially in southern Israel (Alon and Levy 1991: Table 3).

Discussion Seal Nos. 1 and 2 should be dated to the Early and Middle Chalcolithic periods—the Wadi Rabah culture in Israel (Kaplan 1972) and the Halafian culture, widespread in northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia (Mellaart 1975:156–170). Seals are very rare in Israel, with the exception of an assemblage of scores of seals found in a Wadi Rabahculture context at Ha-Gosherim, north of the Hula Valley. This assemblage stresses the affinity between the Wadi Rabah and the Halafian cultures (Keel-Leu 1989; Getzov 2011). No evidence of a settlement from this period was found at Gamla, so it is possible that the seals were brought there in later periods, by itinerants who visited northern regions and considered these seals valuable items. The duck-shaped (No. 3) and conical (No. 4) seals are dated to either the Chalcolithic period or the Early Bronze Age. They serve as evidence of the inhabitants of Gamla’s early contacts with the northern cultures. The cylinder seal impressions (Nos. 5, 6) add to the abundant evidence of the Early Bronze Age II at Gamla, and stress the similarity of the assemblage to other assemblages from sites in the Golan and northern Israel (Paz 2003:136–143; Getzov 2005). The violin figurine (No. 7) is to be dated to the Chalcolithic period, and joins a number of other artifacts from this period identified at the site (see Chapter 1). In contrast to many such figurines found at Chalcolithic sites in Israel, this is the only one from a site in the Golan, in spite of the fact that Chalcolithic sites are abundant there and have been studied in depth (Epstein 1998). Violin figurines are especially abundant in central and southern Israel; most have a squarish body. Rounded figurines have been found at the extraordinary site of Peqi‘in in Upper Galilee (Shalem, Gal and Smithline 2013:

286

NIMROD GETZOV

Figs. 9.1:2, 4) and at Ḥ. ‘Uẓa in the ‘Akko Plain (Getzov 2009:101–102). Thus, it appears that the figurine from Gamla shows an affinity to the

Chalcolithic sites of Galilee, also evident in the distribution of Golan ceramic forms at Galilean sites (Frankel et al. 2001:49).

Notes Two other, very similar, seal impressions were not included. 2 Abbreviations: L = Length; W = Width; H = Height; Th = Thickness; D = Diameter. 3 The terminology adopted in this paper is that used in NEAEHL 5:2126. The Early Chalcolithic period: 5800–5300 BCE; the Middle Chalcolithic period: 5300–4500 BCE; the 1

Late Chalcolithic period: 4500–3600 BCE; the Early Bronze Age I: 3600–3000 BCE; the Early Bronze Age II: 3000–2800 BCE. 4 Photographs are by Danny Syon and drawings, by Hagit Tahan-Rosen. 5 No mineralogical analysis was carried out; hence, only a visual description of the material is provided.

R eferences Alon D. and Levy T. 1991. The Gilat Sanctuary: Its Centricity and Influence in the Southern Levant during the Late 5th–Early 4th Millennium BCE. Eretz-Israel 21:23–26 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 101*–102*). Amorai-Stark S. 1997. Wolfe Family Collection of the Near Eastern Prehistoric Stamp Seals (OBO.SA 16). Fribourg– Göttingen. Ben-Tor A. 1985. A Fourth Millennium BCE SealImpressions from Gamla. Eretz-Israel 18:90–93 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 68*). Ben-Tor A. 1994. Early Bronze Age Cylinder Seal Impressions and a Stamp Seal from Tel Qashish. BASOR 295:15–29. Ben-Tor A. 1995. A Stamp Seal and a Seal Impressions of the Chalcolithic Period from Grar. In I. Gilead. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Pp. 361–375. Epstein C. 1972. Early Bronze Age Seal Impression from the Golan. IEJ 22:209–217. Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Esse D. L. 1990. Early Bronze Age Cylinder Seal Impression from Beth Yerah. Eretz-Israel 21:27*–34*. Frankel R., Getzov N., Aviam M. and Degani A. 2001. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee (IAA Reports 14). Jerusalem. Garfinkel Y., Burian F. and Friedman E. 1992. A Late Neolithic Seal from Herzliya. BASOR 286:7–13. Garstang J. 1953. Prehistoric Mersin: Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford.

Getzov N. 2005. Finds of the Early Bronze Age in Area G. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot 50:45–46. Getzov N. 2009. Strata 21–15, C8–C6: The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. In N. Getzov, R. LiebermanWander, H. Smithline and D. Syon. Horbat ‘Uza: The 1991 Excavations I: The Early Periods (IAA Reports 41). Jerusalem. Pp. 7–105. Getzov N. 2011. Seals and Figurines from the Beginning of the Early Chalcolithic Period at Ha-Gosherim. ‘Atiqot 67:1–26 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 81*–83*). Greenberg R. 2002. Early Urbanization in the Levant: A Regional Narrative. London–New York. Kaplan J. 1972. Twenty Years to the Discovery of the Chalcolithic Culture of Wadi Raba. Ha’aretz Museum Annual 14:9–13 (Hebrew). Keel-Leu H. 1989. Die frühesten Stempelsiegel Palästinas: Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3. Jahrtausends. In O. Keel, H. Keel-Leu and S. Schoer. Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina-Israel II (OBO 88). Fribourg–Gottingen. Pp. 1–38. Mellaart J. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. London. Paz Y. 2003. The Golan ‘Enclosures’ and the Urbanization Process in the Central and Southern Golan during the Early Bronze Age. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary, pp. b–h). Shalem D., Gal Z. and Smithline H. 2013. Peqi’in: A Late Chalcolithic Burial Site, Upper Galilee, Israel (Land of Galilee 2). Ẓemaḥ. Wickede A. von 1990. Prähistorische Stempelglyptik in Vorderasien (Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 6). Munich.

Chapter 19

Three ‘Hyksos’ or Late Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Scarabs Baruch Brandl

Introduction Three scarabs were unearthed during the excavations at Gamla—in Areas T and B. They are the subject of this chapter.1 I have attempted here to list most of the excavated parallels from Canaanite and Egyptian/Nubian sites as a basis for future studies. Since illustrations of the parallels are not incorporated, several references are made to the same items, in the hope that the reader will ultimately have access to some of them. Parallels from collections are cited only when they are essential to the discussion. An attempt has been made to standardize the vocabulary and terminology employed in the description of similar elements, features, etc.

General Notes For the sake of brevity, I describe here several features, mainly of a technical nature, pertaining to the scarabs. They are arranged under the same headings used in the descriptions of the individual items. Material Enstatite. All three scarabs are made of enstatite (or heated steatite)2 and their color is usually gray, sometimes with blackish spots (see below, ‘Heating’). Dimensions The three main dimensions used in this publication are: H = height, L = length, W = width. Method of Manufacture Heating. This term is used for all enstatite scarabs. It is employed as an alternative to the term ‘glazing’ because no additional materials were added to the carved surfaces before firing.

Technical Details Crosshatching. One of the most characteristic features of the late Middle Bronze Age Canaanite scarabs (formerly named ‘Hyksos’) is the extensive use of crosshatching on the bodies of the figures depicted.3 Scarab Shape There are two main classification systems or typologies that relate to details of the shape of the Middle Bronze Age scarabs.4 The first was defined by Alan Rowe (Rowe 1936: Pls. 32–35 = Keel 1995: Ills. 44, 46, 67), the second, by Olga Tufnell (Tufnell 1984:31–38, Figs. 12–14 = Keel 1995: Ills. 45, 49, 69).5 Neither is sufficiently accurate, and there is a noticeable discrepancy between their respective identifications. This discrepancy caused me to refrain from discussing these features in several of my previous studies (Brandl 1984:60; 1986:247; 1993a:203; 1993b:129). However, in this chapter, I decided to refer to the scarabs’ features, as comparative data are still meager, and as the features provide additional means for refining their dating, albeit a secondary means, when compared to the motifs on the scarabs. Base Design The Egyptian hieroglyphic sign is referred to [in square brackets] as it appears in Gardiner’s (1973) sign list.6 Typology The Middle Bronze Age Design scarabs are described according to Tufnell’s Design Classification (see above),7 with some later modifications made by Keel (1995:158–162) and more recently by Ben-Tor (2007:10). Origin An attempt has been made here to determine whether the scarabs were imported (from Egypt) or locally

288

BARUCH BRANDL

made. Ben-Tor has convincingly shown that most of the early Middle Bronze Age design scarabs found in Canaan were local products (her “early Palestinian scarab series”), as were the later Middle Bronze Age ones (her “late Palestinian [scarab] series”; Ben-Tor 1997, 1998). I fully agree with Ben-Tor’s observation regarding origins, but suggest employing alternative terms for these two groups, since imitations of Egyptian scarabs were locally produced in Canaan also during the Late Bronze Age and later. I thus propose to use the terms “Early Middle Bronze [Age] Canaanite Scarabs” (or EMBCS) for her early series, and “Late Middle Bronze [Age] Canaanite Scarabs” (or LMBCS) for her late series. Date The criteria used for dating are the shape of the scarab, the carving style and parallels originating in controlled excavations. My dating of EMBCS is lower by 30 years than Ben-Tor’s “early Palestinians scarab series” (for a full discussion, see Brandl 2004:124–125). I suggest the following dates: EMBCS: early MB IIB (1680–1650 BCE) according to Bietak’s Low Chronology (= Tell el-Dab‘a E/3). LMBCS: late MB IIB–MB IIC (1650–1530 BCE), with a division between early LMBCS, dating to 1650–1590 BCE (= Tell el-Dab‘a E/2 and E/1), and late LMBCS, dating to 1590–1530 BCE (= Tell el-Dab‘a D/3 and D/2).

Description and Discussion 1. Scarab (Fig. 19.1) Area T; L4016; Reg. No. 1049; IAA No. 1990-5000. Material: Enstatite, grayish surface. Dimensions: L 21.5 mm; W 15.5 mm; H 8.5 mm. Method of Manufacture: Carving, abrading, drilling, incising and heating. Workmanship: Good. Technical Details: Perforated, drilled from both sides. Hollowed-out engraving with crosshatching. Preservation: Broken, the beetle’s clypeus and its left plate are missing. Scarab Shape: Rowe HC 1 (Dynasties XII–XXII) or HC 4 (c. Dynasty XIII— Hyksos), EP 5 (Dynasties XII– XXVI), Side 38 (Dynasties XII–XX); Tufnell D6-O-e2.

The combination of features on the scarab is very rare. It appears neither in Rowe 1936 nor in Tufnell 1984. Base Design: In a horizontal oval frame, three figures are depicted in a manner that occupies almost the entire area, e.g., in a horror vacui. In the center is a crouching lion, facing an erect, confronted cobra, a determinative in the word _iart (or “Uraeus”) [I 12]. Behind the lion, in the remaining space and perpendicular to the beast, is a kneeling human figure looking backward, whose left hand presents at the same time the lion’s tail.8 The lion has a triangular eye9 and the paws of his forelegs are depicted like his hind legs.10 In Egypt, a similar scarab, most probably an import from Canaan, was found at Tell el-Yehudiyeh (Griffith 1890:39, Pl. 16:16). In Canaan, a lion, a human figure and a Uraeus appear together, but in a different way, on a scarab from Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie 1931, Pl. 14:164 = Rowe 1936: No. 315 = Tufnell 1984: Pls. 40:2640, 43:2751 = Keel 1997:158–159 [Tell el-‘Ağul No. 158] = Ben-Tor 2007:177, Pls. 100:20, 106:27 presented with two different drawings). Three unprovenanced scarabs with a human figure,11 a “Uraeus” (or cobra) and a sphinx, instead of the lion, may be related to this small group. One scarab is from the Bezalel Museum Collection (in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem). Here, the human figure is depicted in relation to the sphinx in tête-bêche (Leibovitch 1960:6*, Pl. 41:2 [center of the lower row]). The second is said to originate from Tel ‘Akko (Giveon and Kertesz 1986:24–25, No. 79 = Keel 1997:596–597 [Akko No. 190]). The third, bought in Jerusalem, is a variant. Here, the human figure looks toward the back of the sphinx, while the sphinx turns his head back, toward the human figure (Keel 1995: Pl. 22:3, 4 = 1995:199 § 545, Ill. 369). Typology: Design scarab. Tufnell’s Design Classes 9E “Animals and Heraldic Beasts, Lions”12 and 10C1f “Human and Mythical Figures, Kneeling, humanheaded empty-handed (cf. Tufnell 1984: Pls. 40 and 46:2817).13 Origin: Canaanite, based on the crosshatching, the horror vacui and the use of the human figure’s hand simultaneously with a lion’s tail, which are clear non-Egyptian phenomena, typical of the ‘Hyksos’ or LMBCS groups. Yet, the lion on the Canaanite

CHAPTER 19: THREE ‘HYKSOS’ OR LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CANAANITE SCARABS

0

289

1

Fig. 19.1. Scarab No. 1.

scarabs seems to originate in Egypt—on scarabs and bifacial oval plaques dated to Dynasty XIII (see Brandl 2007:596–597 [No. 14]). Date: This scarab seems to belong to our late LMBCS group or to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, between 1590 and 1530 BCE, based on the following:

Excavated parallel: The Canaanite imported parallel from Tell el-Yehudiyeh (mentioned above). For an overview concerning various suggestions for the chronology of the Second Intermediate Period scarabs from that site, see Ben-Tor 2007:63–66. Carving Style: The lion’s forelegs resemble a scarab dated to Group IV at Jericho (see n. 10).

290

BARUCH BRANDL

Archaeological Context: Locus 4016 is a street segment from the Roman period (Gutmann 1985:102–103, and General Plan; Yavor 2010:28, Plan 2.7; 32, Fig. 2.21). Many Early Bronze Age sherds were found in its lower part. Apparently, the scarab was found in the street’s ‘makeup’, which contained earlier material from the site or in close vicinity. Previous Bibliography: Gutmann 1985:102–103 and a photograph of its base in Pl. 3 (upper left); Gutman 1994:136.

0

2. Scarab (Fig. 19.2) Area T; L4007; Reg. No. 1621; IAA No. 1990-5001. Material: Enstatite, blackened surface. Dimensions: L 18 mm, W 13 mm, H 7.5 mm. Method of Manufacture: Carving, abrading, drilling, incising and heating. Workmanship: Mediocre to poor. Technical Details: Perforated, drilled from both sides. Linear engraving. Preservation: Broken, the beetle’s clypeus and its left plate are missing, as are part of the scarab’s left side, front and base.

1

Fig. 19.2. Scarab No. 2.

CHAPTER 19: THREE ‘HYKSOS’ OR LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CANAANITE SCARABS

Scarab Shape: Rowe HC 24 (Dynasties XII–c. XXVI or later), EP 5 (Dynasties XII–XXVI), Side 40 (Dynasties c. XIII–XXVI); Tufnell B2-O-e11.14 Base Design: In a vertical oval frame, a clumsy depiction of an isolated motif that looks like a twisted rope that crosses itself in the center and is tied by two knots or bars—one at the top and one at the bottom. Although the scarab’s base is incomplete, the reconstruction of the motif is safe. Parallels with more symmetrical motifs were found in Egypt and Greater Canaan. The Egyptian parallels are known as of yet only from collections (Newberry 1907:292, Pl. 12: 37165; Petrie 1925: Pl. 8:150). In Greater Canaan, scarabs with parallel motifs were excavated at Gezer (Macalister 1912, III: Pl. 35:20 = Rowe 1936: No. 404), Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie 1933: Pl. 3:97 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 24:2093 = Giveon 1985:92– 93 [No. 91] = Keel 1997:260–261 [Tell el-‘Ağul No. 465] = Ben-Tor 2007:170, Pl. 88:18), Lachish (Tufnell 1958:119, No. 178, Pl. 34:178 = Ben-Tor 2007:170, Pl. 89:6) and Byblos (Dunand 1937: Pl. 130:1420; 1939:94). A closer parallel, found at Aniba, Nubia (Steindorff 1937:108, No. 156, Pl. 56:156), is most probably of Canaanite origin.15 Typology: Design scarab. Tufnell’s Design Class 6B2a “Coiled and ‘Woven’ Patterns, Convoluted—knot-like, central ‘x’ cross” (cf. Tufnell 1984: Pl. 24:2098). BenTor, without justification in my view, combined both Tufnell’s Canaanite Design Classes 6B2a and 6B2b into one, Class 6B2, and referred to that design class as “Convoluted Coils, knot-like” for her Early Series, and simply “Convoluted Coils” for scarabs of her Late Series (Ben-Tor 2007:139 vs. 170). According to a much older typology, it belongs to “Cords with bindings” or “Linked Cords” (Petrie 1925:13 [145– 150], Pl. 8:150). The motif on the Gamla scarab seems to belong to the simplest variant in Design Class 6B2a.

291

XV.16 The combination of features HC 24, EP 5 and Side 40 in Rowe’s typology appear on a scarab from Tell el Far‘ah (South) and two others, from Garstang’s excavations at Jericho, dated to the very end of the Hyksos period (Rowe 1936: Nos. 275, 368, 417). Excavated Parallels: The dated scarabs from Lachish and Aniba (above, Base Design) that bear the same design. Archaeological Context: Locus 4007 is a room west of Room 4006, attached to the Roman-period wall (Gutmann 1985:98 and General Plan; Yavor 2010:33, Plan 2.8; 34). The scarab was found on the floor, most probably a remnant from the roof material brought from a nearby location. Previous Bibliography: Gutmann 1985:98, and photograph of its base in Pl. 3 [upper right]; Gutman 1994:136. 3. Scarab (Fig. 19.3) Area B; L1271; Reg. No. 1689; IAA No. 1990-5081. Material: Enstatite, yellowish surface. Dimensions: L 15.25 mm, W 11.25 mm, H 6.75 mm. Method of Manufacture: Carving, abrading, drilling, incising and heating. Workmanship: Good to mediocre. Technical Details: Perforated, drilled from both sides. Incised. Preservation: Almost complete, except for scars on both ends of the perforation. Scarab Shape: Rowe HC 25 (Dynasties c. XIII–XXVI), EP 58 (Dynasties XVIII–XXV), Side 40 (Dynasties c. XIII–XXVI); Tufnell D8-vIv17-e11.18

Origin: Canaanite. The mediocre workmanship of the design points clearly to a non-Egyptian workshop.

Base Design: In a vertical oval frame, three tiers of eight concentric circles of a single ring around a dot. The central tier contains two circles, while those on its sides contain three. All the six side-circles are linked by short, diagonal bars encircling the isolated couple in the center.

Date: This scarab seems to belong to our late LMBCS group (MB IIC, 1590–1530 BCE), based on the following aspects: Scarab Shape: The features B2-O-e11 in Tufnell’s scarab typology appear solely on royal scarabs, on those with names of Hyksos, or pharaohs of Dynasty

Typology: Design Scarab. Tufnell’s design Class 4C1, “Concentric Circles, Small—single ring” (Tufnell 1984: Pl. 22). According to Keel’s modifications, it should be included in his new Design Class 4B1 “Concentric Circles, Linked—single ring” (Keel 1995:160 and 182, §§ 488 [Ill. 297a] and 490). It

292

BARUCH BRANDL

0

1

Fig. 19.3. Scarab No. 3.

may also be related to Tufnell’s Design Class 4D3 “Concentric Circles, Bordered—triple ring”. Origin: Canaanite. Based on the clumsiness of the design, it most probably imitates Tufnell’s Design Class 7A1a “Scroll Borders, Continuous—round, hooked” (Tufnell 1984: Pl. 28). Date: This scarab seems to belong to the latter part of the LMBCS group based on the following: Scarab Shape: Tufnell’s back feature [vIIv] with the humeral callosity20 is very rare on Middle Bronze Age scarabs20 and starts at the very end of that period.21 As such, the scarab should be dated to MB IIC (1590– 1530 BCE).

Archaeological Context: Locus 1271 is a small room that dates to the second phase of occupation in Area B—roughly the late first century BCE (Goren 2010: 132). The scarab was found on the floor together with Hasmonean coins. Previous Bibliography: Gutman 1994:136.

General Observations and Conclusions All the Gamla scarabs share the same date—the later part of LMBCS, which equates with MB IIC (1590–1530 BCE) and all are typical ‘Hyksos’ or Late Middle Bronze Age Canaanite products, made in Greater Canaan. The variations in the quality of the workmanship of the carvings lead me to the conclusion

CHAPTER 19: THREE ‘HYKSOS’ OR LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CANAANITE SCARABS

that during this period in Canaan, there were several centers, or workshops, for scarab production. All three Gamla scarabs were found in postdepositional contexts. However, their common date and origin hint to a shared primary context, such as a burial cave, a dolmen buried under a tumulus22 or some other tomb, located not far from Gamla (for two additional Middle Bronze Age finds, see Chapter 1 and Chapter 20).

293

These scarabs are a welcome addition to the small group of scarabs known until now on the Golan Heights—the lion’s share is of Middle Bronze Age date. The three scarabs are rare, and as such, they contribute to the general corpus of ‘Hyksos’ or Late Middle Bronze Age Canaanite scarabs from Canaan. These finds also help to fill the gap along the inland route that connected both Trans- and Cis-jordan to the Lebanese and Syrian coasts of Greater Canaan.

Notes I wish to thank David Goren and Danny Syon for inviting me to study and publish these finds. Mariana Salzberger photographed the objects, Carmen Hersch redrew them and Silvia Krapiwko scanned the illustrations and composed the plates—all under my guidance. Thanks are also due to the the reader of this work for his or her contributions. Many thanks to Lori Lender for the excellent final editing. 2 For the heating of steatite for scarabs, see Noble 1969:438. For the transformation of steatite into enstatite, see BaynesCope and Bimson 1987; Keel 1995:147–148, §§ 386–390. 3 Cf. Hayes 1959:35–36 and Fig. 17. There are very rare instances of hatching and crosshatching on earlier scarabs (Tufnell 1975:74, n. 46; Keel 1995:130, § 327), but they seem to be within double-lined borders and appear less dense. 4 See diagrams of the parts of the scarab beetle in Rowe 1936: Pl. 23; Ward 1978: Frontispiece; Uehlinger 1990:62, Fig. 37; Keel 1995:20, Fig. 1. The last is the most detailed, with the terms given in four languages—German, English, French and Italian. For a diagram of the parts of the scarab, see Schulz 2007:3. 5 With some changes in Ward and Dever 1994:161–165. 6 With additional information in Allen 2000:423–452. 7 On the history and development of Tufnell’s Design Classification, see Brandl 1986:247, n. 4. 8 A similar phenomenon, with the lion’s tail acting at the same time as that of a cobra, is known on scarabs from Jericho [Group III] (Kirkbride 1965: Fig. 295:23 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 40:2605 = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 99:36), Tell el-Far‘ah (South) (Petrie 1930: Pl. 10:69 = Price Williams 1977: Fig. 27:2 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 40:2611 = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 100:8) and Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie, Mackay and Murray 1952: Pl. 10:111 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 40: 2643 = Keel 1997:490–491 [Tell el‘Ağul No. 1137] = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 101:7; and Petrie 1934: Pl. 5:89 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 40:2631 = Keel 1997:324–325 [Tell el-‘Ağul No. 649] = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 100:33). For a similar phenomenon, where the phonogram nb, originally derived from the words “lord” or “all” [V 30] (see also Keel 1995:171, § 458), becomes a crocodile’s tail, see 1

Brandl 1996:1 and n. 6; 1997:58–59 [Achsib 110]; Mlinar 2004:129–132, 138 [TD Palestinian Type VIa], Fig. 13a:6. 9 Compare with a scarab from Tell el ‘Ajjul (Petrie, Mackay and Murray 1952: Pl. 10:112 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 40: 2620 = Keel 1997:492–493 [Tell el-‘Ağul No. 1138] = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 101:8). 10 Compare with a scarab from Jericho [Group IV] (Kirkbride 1965: Fig. 296:16 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 40:2606 = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 99:37). 11 According to Giveon and Kertesz (1986), in a discussion of the second item (below), the human figure is that of a woman dressed in a short kilt. Keel followed that observation, but with a question mark. If the dress is indeed a kilt then the figure must be that of a male, as is the case on the Gamla scarab. 12 According to Keel’s modifications, it should be included in his new Design Class 9E1 “liegende Löwen” [crouching lions] (Keel 1995:161, 196 § 537, Ills. 357, 358). 13 This subtype was cancelled in Keel’s and Ben-Tor’s later modifications. 14 According to Ward and Dever’s modifications, this side type was changed to e11a; see Ward and Dever 1994:164– 165, Fig. 9:3. 15 For the Kushite-Hyksos interactions that bypassed Upper Egypt via the Oasis Road, see Yurco 2001:72–76. 16 For Mayebre / Sheshi, see Tufnell 1958: Pl. 38:267 = 1984: Pl. 58:3277; for Sekhaenre, see Hall 1913: No. 280 and Petrie 1917: Pl. 22: [16.F.5] = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 60:3387–3388 respectively; for Auserre / Apophis I, see Petrie 1917: Pl. 21 [15.5.18] = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 62:3435. 17 In fact, the scarab back is marked [vIIv] in Tufnell 1984:39:2595 = 43:2750; 62:3460. Tufnell 1984: Pls. 9:1489 = 12:1489 is erroneous and see Rowe 1936: No. 147 = Keel 1997:396–397 [Tell el-‘Ağul No. 856] = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 53:12. 18 According to Ward and Dever’s modifications, this side type was changed to e11a; see Ward and Dever 1994:164– 165, Fig. 9:3.

294

BARUCH BRANDL

For Tufnell’s discussion of that back feature, see Tufnell 1984:34–36, Fig. 13. 20 One scarab was excavated at Tell el-Far‘ah (South); (Starkey and Harding 1932:24, Pl. 52:148 = Giveon 1985:22– 23 [No. 4]), one at Tell el-ʽAjjul (Petrie 1933: Pl. 4:165 = Tufnell 1984: Pls. 39:2595, 43:2750 = Giveon 1985:76–77 [No. 49] = Keel 1997:282–283 [Tell el-‘Ağul No. 526]), one at Tell Jemmeh (Giveon 1985:56–57 [No. 2]) and one at Akhziv (Brandl 1997:58–59 [Achsib 110]). The date of the first three scarabs was discussed also in Weinstein 1991:82. 19

For a scarab of the Hyksos or Dynasty XV pharaoh Auserre / Apophis I, see Hayes 1959:6–7, Fig. 2 = Tufnell 1984: Pl. 62:3460 = Ben-Tor 2007: Pl. 47:15. 22 An EMBCS was found in Dolmen 16 at Deir Sras (Epstein 1985:31–34, 52–53, Fig. 5:12 [= IAA No. 85760]) together with a Late Bronze Age, or New Kingdom, scarab (Epstein 1985:31–34, 52–53, Fig. 5:13 [= IAA No. 85-759]). Both were erroneously dated, in the name of Raphael Giveon, to Dynasty XXVI (see also Leclant and Clerc 1990:1f: Golan). 21

R eferences Allen J.P. 2000. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge. Baynes-Cope A.D. and Bimson M. 1987. Scarabs and Seals: Scientific Examination. In R.D. Barnett and C. Mendleson eds. Tharros: A Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and Other Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia. London. Pp. 106–107. Ben-Tor D. 1997. The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs. IEJ 47:162–189. Ben-Tor D. 1998. The Relations between Egypt and Palestine during the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs. In C.J. Eyre ed. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82). Leuven. Pp. 149–163. Ben-Tor D. 2007. Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections. Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period. (OBO.SA 27). Fribourg–Göttingen. Brandl B. 1984. A Scarab, Two Seal-Impressions and a Cowroid. In E. Stern. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973– 1976) II: The Bronze Age (Qedem 18). Jerusalem. Pp. 60–61. Brandl B. 1986. The Scarabs from Field VI at Gezer. In W.A. Dever. Gezer IV: The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis” (ANGSBA 4). Jerusalem. Pp. 247–257. Brandl B. 1993a. Scarabs and Other Glyptic Finds. In I. Finkelstein ed. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 10). Tel Aviv. Pp. 203–222. Brandl B. 1993b. Scarabs, a Scaraboid and a Scarab Impression from Area G (1968–1970). In M. Dothan and Y. Porath 1993. Ashdod V: Excavations of Area G; The Fourth–Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968–1970 (‘Atiqot 23). Jerusalem. Pp. 129–142. Brandl B. 1996. A “Hyksos” Scarab from a Burial Cave on Mt. Canaan, Zefat (Wadi Hamra). ‘Atiqot 29:1–5. Brandl B. 1997. Tell Abu Hawam [Nos. 21–25] and Achsib [Nos. 110–128 and 129–162]. In O. Keel. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel; Von den

Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit I: Von Tell Abu Farağ bis ‘Atlit (OBO.SA 13). Fribourg–Göttingen. Pp. 12–15, 58–77. Brandl B. 2004. Scarabs, Seals, an Amulet and a Pendant. In S. Ben-Arieh. Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim (IAA Reports 23). Jerusalem. Pp. 123–188. Brandl B. 2007. Canaanite and Egyptian Scarabs from Area R. In A. Mazar and R.A. Mullins eds. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Jerusalem. Pp. 582–605. Dunand M. 1937. Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926–1932; Atlas. Paris. Dunand M. 1939. Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926–1932; Text. Paris. Epstein C. 1985. Dolmens Excavated in the Golan. ‘Atiqot (ES) 17:20–58. Gardiner A. 1973. Egyptian Grammar (3rd rev. ed.). London. Giveon R. 1985. Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British Museum (OBO.SA 3). Freiburg–Göttingen. Giveon R. and Kertesz T. 1986. Egyptian Scarabs and Seals from Acco. From the Collection of the Israel Departement of Antiquities and Museums. Fribourg–Göttingen. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 113–152. Griffith F.L. 1890. The Antiquities of Tell el Yahûdîyeh, and Miscellaneous Work in Lower Egypt during the Years 1887–1888 (Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 7). London. Gutmann S. 1985. Gamla: The Excavations during the First Eight Seasons. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gutman S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Hall H.R. 1913. Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, etc., in the British Museum I: Royal Scarabs. London. Hayes W.C. 1959. The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art II: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (1675–1080 B.C.). New York.

CHAPTER 19: THREE ‘HYKSOS’ OR LATE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CANAANITE SCARABS

Keel O. 1995. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Einleitung (OBO.SA 10). Fribourg–Göttingen. Keel O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel; Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit I: Von Tell Abu Farağ bis ‘Atlit. With Three Contributions by Baruch Brandl (OBO.SA 13). Fribourg–Göttingen. Kirkbride D. 1965. Scarabs. In K.M. Kenyon. Excavations at Jericho II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London. Pp. 580–655. Leclant J. and Clerc G. 1990. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1988–1989. Orientalia 59:335–439. Leibovitch J. 1960. Un choix d’antiquités égyptiennes au Musée Bezalel. Eretz-Israel 6:1*–6*. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909 I–III. London. Mlinar C. 2004. The Scarab Workshops of Tell el-Dab‘a. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny eds. Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete, and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications (Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th–13th of January 2002) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXXV; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean VIII). Vienna. Pp. 107–140. Newberry P.E. 1907. Scarab-Shaped Seals (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, Nos. 36001–37521). London. Noble J.V. 1969. The Technique of Egyptian Faïence. AJA 73:435–439. Petrie W.M.F. 1917. Scarabs and Cylinders with Names. Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and BSAE 29). London. Petrie W.M.F. 1925. Buttons and Design Scarabs (BSAE 38). London. Petrie W.M.F. 1930. Beth Pelet (Tell Fara) I (BSAE 48). London. Petrie W.M.F. 1931. Ancient Gaza I: Tell el Ajjul (BSAE 53). London. Petrie W.M.F. 1933. Ancient Gaza III: Tell el Ajjul (BSAE 55). London. Petrie W.M.F. 1934. Ancient Gaza IV: Tell el Ajjul (BSAE 56). London. Petrie W.M.F, Mackay E.J.H. and Murray M.A. 1952. City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza V (BSAE 64). London. Price Williams D. 1977. The Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age II Period from the ‘500’ Cemetery at Tell Fara

295

(South) (University of London, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publication 1). London. Rowe A. 1936. A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Cairo. Schulz R. 2007. Khepereru—Scarabs: Scarabs, Scaraboids, and Plaques from Egypt and the Ancient Near East in the Walters Art Museum Baltimore. Oakville. Conn. Starkey J.L. and Harding G.L. 1932. Beth-Pelet Cemetery. In E. Macdonald, J.L. Starkey and G.L. Harding. Beth-Pelet II (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and BSAE 52). London. Steindorff G. 1937. Aniba II (Mission Archéologique de Nubie 1929–1934). Glückstadt–Hamburg–New York. Tufnell O. 1958. Hieroglyphic and Ornamental Seals. In O. Tufnell. Lachish (Tell ed Duweir) IV: The Bronze Age. (The Wellcome Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East Publications IV) London–New York–Toronto. Pp. 92–126. Tufnell O. 1975. Seal Impressions from Kahûn Town and Urunarti Fort: A Comparison. JEA 61:67–101. Tufnell O. 1984. Studies on Scarab Seals II: Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Warminster. Uehlinger C. 1990. Die Sammlung ägyptischer Siegelamulette (Skarabäensammlung Fouad S. Matouk). In O. Keel and C. Uehlinger. Altorientalische Miniaturkunst. Die ältesten visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel: Ein Blick in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Mainz. Pp. 58–86. Ward W.A. 1978. Studies on Scarab Seals I: Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets. Warminster. Ward W.A. and Dever W.G. 1994. Studies on Scarab Seals III: Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context; An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology. San Antonio, Tex. Weinstein J.M. 1991. Book Review of R. Giveon 1985. Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British Museum (OBO.SA 2). Fribourg–Göttingen. BASOR 281:81–83. Yavor Z. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Eastern and Western Quarters. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 13–112. Yurco F.J. 2001. Egypt and Nubia: Old, Middle, and New Kingdom Eras. In E.M. Yamauchi ed. Africa and Africans in Antiquity. East Lansing. Pp. 28–112.

Chapter 20

Study of a Middle Bronze Age Sickle Sword H.J. Wagner and Danny Syon1

Introduction In 1985, a bronze artifact was found in the Hasmonean Quarter (Area B) of Gamla (L1279, Reg. No. 3260; Goren 2010:118) (Fig. 20.1). Since L1279 was in part constructed during the Early Bronze Age, the object was tentatively identified at the time by the excavator as a ceremonial axe head dating to the Early Bronze Age (Gutmann 1994:47). The right side (see Fig. 20.1) is fractured; the rest of the artifact was not found. It was subsequently submitted to the Israel Military Industries for metallurgical investigation. The investigation included the following: 1) Visual examination, noting any special features. 2) Evaluation of the state of preservation of the artifact (surface inspection), emphasizing evidence of corrosion. 3) Chemical analysis. 4) Metallographic examination of the microstructure and measurement of the micro hardness in selected areas.

0

5) Scanning electron examination (SEM) at high magnification and microanalysis of selected microstructural features. 6) Discussion—interpretation of the results.

R esults of the Investigation Visual Examination Most prominent is a recessed design in the shape of a rearing cobra snake on both sides of the artifact. The snake design could have been cast as part of the original mold, or hammered in using ambienttemperature forms (dies) on the hot part when removed from the furnace. Metallographic evidence might have provided some answers to this question, but this effort would have required destructive removal of specimens. Therefore, no further metallographic examination was carried out. Two v-notches are noted on the outer radius. The left edge is mushroomed, as is the edge of the inner radius.

2

Fig. 20.1. The artifact received for investigation.

298

H.J. WAGNER AND DANNY SYON

The right edge is a fracture where the rest of the artifact had once been. State of Preservation The bronze color of the artifact attests to the fact that no general corrosion of any significance occurred. Metallographic examination did reveal some intergranular corrosion, but this is not evident on the surface.

Discussion). Lead is sometimes added in those alloys to improve machinability in plates and bars. It is very doubtful that the lead addition was for that purpose in the alloy under discussion. Metallographic Examination

Drillings from two spots were analyzed for copper, tin and lead by wet chemical methods. Zinc content was taken as the balance, and was actually somewhat less than shown in the table. Zn Composition (%): Cu Sn Pb 87.3 10.3 0.41 bal. (< 2) The chemical composition can be compared to a common cast copper alloy that was known in the past in the United States as ‘tin bronze’ or ‘gunmetal’ and used for cannon barrels. This family of 10% tin bronzes is well known today, and can be cast by various methods. The small lead content may have been a deliberate addition to increase fluidity. If the snake design was part of the casting mold, the alloy seems to have filled the mold well. Tin bronzes of similar composition are also prepared (with some phosphorus) for manufacturing high-strength springs, bars and plates (see below,

Sections were removed for examination from the upper radius of the artifact and from the mushroomed left edge. The purpose of this examination was to provide information that could serve to define the manufacturing methods used. In particular, standard metallographic specimens were viewed at magnifications of 100x–500x, to reveal the basic microstructure and inclusions. Further examination at high magnification, together with instrumental microanalysis, was used to identify various minor constituents. Metallographic microstructures in certain areas are shown in Figs. 20.2–20.5 together with Vickers diamond point hardness impressions (Fig. 20.6). Figure 20.2 shows the overall microstructure, mostly fine, equiaxed grains, measuring between 5 and 6 on a scale of 1 to 10 according to standard charts published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). This microstructure was also found in almost all of the mushroomed edge. However, at the very end of the mushroomed edge (Fig. 20.4), the grain structure was severely deformed and harder, as would be expected from cold working. Figure 20.5 shows intergranular corrosion, penetrating about 0.2–0.3 mm from the surface.

Fig. 20.2. Typical microstructure (80x).

Fig. 20.3. Hardness, 105HV10kg (80x).

Chemical Composition

CHAPTER 20: STUDY OF A MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SICKLE SWORD

Fig. 20.4. Edge deformation, 208HV5kg (80x).

208 HV

299

Fig. 20.5. Intergranular corrosion (170x).

104 HV 5 kg

104 HV 5 kg

Fig. 20.7. Lead distributed randomly (black dots) in the alloy matrix (200x).

Fig. 20.6. Schematic drawing of mushroomed edge, showing location of Vickers hardness tests (prepared by H.J. Wagner).

Another aspect of the microstructure is shown in Fig. 20.7. In this photomicrograph, the lead (dark spots) shows up clearly against the lightly etched alloy matrix. Lead is insoluble in the copper-tin matrix and is always observed as a distinct phase. Further

instrumental microanalysis confirmed that the dark phase is lead (Pb), as illustrated in Fig. 20.8. Several additional spectral plots were made to identify selected phases that could be seen at magnifications as high as 5000x. These indicated traces of iron, arsenic, and sulfur (found to be about 0.055% in a separate wet chemical analysis). The photomicrograph in Fig. 20.9, taken from the interior of the artifact, shows a remnant of a cast microstructure, indicating that the part was originally made by casting, followed by cold deforming. Possibly, the snake design could have been pressed in while the part was still hot (see below).

300

H.J. WAGNER AND DANNY SYON

30000 EV PB

PB PB

0

1

2

CU

PB

3

4

5

6

7

8

CU PB 9

10

TAAS #101 @1. BRT.SPT LT=100 SECS. Total Time=115.00 SECS.

Fig. 20.8. Spectral analysis of dark inclusion, confirming that it is lead (Pb) (prepared by D. Syon from original plot).

temperature (perhaps as high as 800°C, which is fairly close to the melting temperature of 850°C). The hardness, HV104, higher than HV77–85, which is to be expected for a cast structure, suggests that the artifact had been cold deformed (ambient temperature) somewhat after the heat treatment. The severely deformed areas of the mushroomed edge shown in Fig. 20.4 were presumably the result of hammering. The reason for such heavy local deformation is not clear, since there is no evidence that the mushroomed edges were formed by pressing or hammering rather than casting to shape. Fig. 20.9. Remnant of an interdendritic phase seen in the interior, indicating cast structure (1000x).

Discussion Microstructure and Processing History The microstructure, chemical composition and hardness measurements indicate that the artifact was first cast to shape. The fine, equiaxed grain microstructure (see Fig. 20.2) would then be the result of some cold deformation followed by heat treatment at an elevated

Copper-Tin Alloy Applications In antiquity, ‘bronze’ was the name given exclusively to alloys composed of copper and tin, particularly with 10% tin. Today, copper alloyed with an element other that zinc are called bronze, with the alloying element becoming part of the name, for example aluminum bronze or silicon bronze. Copper-zinc alloys are called brasses. The mining and smelting of copper, and the establishment of a prehistoric copper industry, date from the Chalcolithic period (fourth millennium

CHAPTER 20: STUDY OF A MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SICKLE SWORD

BCE) (Rothenberg 1972:24). Bronze was discovered to be stronger and harder than copper and therefore superseded copper for such uses as arrowheads and spearheads. Furthermore, the copper-tin alloy is easier to cast into molds than is copper (Coghlan 1951:43). It is not likely that copper-tin alloys were produced unintentionally from ores that contained both copper and tin. Based on ore compositions alone the maximum tin content would be only 3% (Coghlan 1951:23, 24). It may be supposed that the tin was imported either as ore or as a tin compound from Europe, Syria or Iran. The first appearance of bronze for weapons was reported to be at Megiddo, in the Middle Bronze Age. Bronze daggers, an axe head and a spear were found (Kenyon 1960:164). Arrowheads are thought not to have appeared at this time, as bronze was presumably still too precious to be used for such expendable objects. At Tell Abu Matar in the Jordan Valley, excavation revealed copper objects, such as mace heads (probably ceremonial), ornamental cylinders and handles, which were dated to the nineteenth century BCE. Here too, the metal was considered too precious to be used for everyday use (Kenyon 1960:80). Two copper axes found at Tuleilat Ghassul are said to have been from the Chalcolithic phase (fourth millennium BCE), when the metal was first beginning to make its appearance (Kenyon 1960:75). Identification Because of the fragmentary nature of the artifact, the first clue to its identity comes from its cobra design. The rearing cobra, or uraeus, plain or with various combinations of wings, solar disk headdress and other attributes, is one of the commonest animals appearing in ancient Egyptian art, from the earliest times down to the Roman period. It is found on paintings, reliefs (Fig. 20.10) and sculpture in the round, often as an attribute of a deity or king. However, Egyptian motifs were common also in lands that had been at some time under Egyptian domination, such as Phoenicia. In fact, the piece from Gamla is the broken end of a so-called sickle sword, three of which—with very similar decorations—were found in three royal tombs in Byblus, dated to the midnineteenth–early eighteenth centuries BCE (Middle Bronze Age IIA) and apparently of local manufacture (Figs. 20.11:1–3; 20.12).

301

Fig. 20.10. Cobras with a solar disk headdress on a mural at Karnak.

The sickle sword originated in third millennium BCE Mesopotamia, and slowly evolving, found its way—through Syria—to Egypt, where it became known as the khepesh and is very common on reliefs of the New Kingdom (Late Bronze Age). It is an unusual bronze weapon, with the cutting edge on the outer curve. The earlier Mesopotamian and Syro-Phoenician examples had tangs attached to the handles, while the later Egyptian examples were cast in one piece with the handle. Because all extant examples have been found in tombs, it is still debated whether it was an actual weapon or was for ceremonial use only. Beside the three swords from Byblus (Fig. 20.11:1– 3; Montet 1928:173, Pl. CI) are swords from a similarly dated context and with Egyptianizing lotus decoration from Shechem (Fig. 20.11:4; Müller 1987) and Abydos in Egypt (Fig. 20.11:5, now in the Royal Ontario Museum). While a full discussion on this weapon is beyond the scope of this article (for an overview, see Müller 1987; Wernick 2004), it is noteworthy that in the Middle Bronze Age II, Syro-Phoenicia was much influenced by Babylonia on the one hand (Keel 1974:28) and by Egypt on the other. Egyptianizing art was also common in Syria and Phoenicia, and in our case, this is evident in the uraeus and lotus decorations. However, the imitative nature of this art becomes apparent in the hieroglyphs on one of the Byblus swords, which, while readable, are decidedly un-Egyptian (Montet 1928:176–177; Keel 1974:29). Masetti-Rouault and Rouault (1996:187) noted that the style and decoration on the Byblus, Shechem and Abydos swords, and now

302

H.J. WAGNER AND DANNY SYON

4 3 2

1

Fig. 20.11. Sickle swords from MB II contexts (composite drawing after Müller 1987 and Montet 1928): (1–3) Byblus Tombs I–III; (4) Shekhem; (5) Abydos, Egypt.

Fig. 20.12. The tip of one of the Byblus swords, showing the uraeus similar to the one on the Gamla artifact (after Müller 1987).

5

CHAPTER 20: STUDY OF A MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SICKLE SWORD

on that from Gamla, are very similar and suggest that their production center should be sought somewhere on the Syro-Phoenician coast. On a wall painting in a Dynasty XVIII (mid-sixteenth–late fourteenth centuries BCE) tomb in Thebes, a similar sickle sword with an uraeus decoration appears among Syrian tribute objects (Fig. 20.13; Säve-Söderbergh 1957:50, Pl. LXXII [non vidi]), further confirming its Syro-Phoenician origin. Since the Middle Bronze Age is attested at Gamla only by a single fragment of Tell el-Yahudiye ware, a broken fenestrated axe (see Chapter 1), three scarabs (Chapter 19) and the artifact under discussion, these may have arrived as chance finds. Perhaps one of the inhabitants of the town during the Hasmonean period inadvertently ‘discovered’ a Middle Bronze Age II tomb. If indeed all the Middle Bronze Age objects came from the same tomb, they should be dated to around 1590–1530 BCE, according to the date of the scarabs (Chapter 19). This tomb may have been one of the hundreds of dolmens scattered near Gamla, and, if so, these finds may reflect on their dating.

303

Fig. 20.13. Sickle sword from a wall painting from Thebes (after Müller 1987).

Note We would like to thank David Goren, Avraham Pasternak (Israel Military Industries) and the Israel Institute of Metals, for their assistance in obtaining the data and in the preparation 1

of this paper. The metallurgical analysis is by Herbert J. Wagner and the identification, by Danny Syon.

R eferences Coghlan H.H. 1951. Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze in the Old World (Occasional Papers on Technology 4). Oxford. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989; The Architecture and Stratigraphy (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 111–148. Gutman S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Keel O. 1974. Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament (OBO 5). Fribourg–Göttingen. Kenyon K.M. 1960. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York. Masetti-Rouault M.G. and Rouault O. 1996. Une harpé à Terqa. In H. Gasche and B. Hrouda eds. Collectanea

Orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre; Études offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Civilisations du Proche Orient série I; Archéologie et environement 3). Neuchâtel-Paris. Pp. 181–198. Montet P. 1928. Byblos et l’Égypte: Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921–1922–1923–1924. Paris. Müller H.W. 1987. Der Waffenfund von Balâta-Sichem und die Sichelschwerter. Munich. Rothenberg B. 1972. Timna: Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London. Säve-Söderbergh T. 1957. Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs (Private Tombs at Thebes I). Oxford. Wernick N.E. 2004. A Khepesh Sword in the University of Liverpool Museum. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31:151–155.

Chapter 21

The Chemical Composition and Technology of the Non-Ferrous Metalwork Matthew J. Ponting

Lead

Zinc

Gunmetal

ze ron

Brass

Leaded gunmetal

db ade

ras s

Leaded copper

Le

The technology of copper-alloy metalwork is one of a series of traditions that invariably reflects the attitudes, biases and social mores of the people making and using artifacts, as well as the more mundane factors of resource availability and technological ability. This chapter presents the results of the chemical analysis of a significant proportion of the copper-alloy metalwork from the excavations at Gamla and interprets these data in light of recent research into the material culture of the region and period. The main copper-alloys of the pre-modern world are bronze (tin and copper), brass (zinc and copper) and the ternary alloy containing significant levels of both tin and zinc that is usually referred to by the name of ‘gunmetal’ (Bayley 1998). All copper-alloys can also have varying amounts of lead added to them, usually to improve the casting properties, and these alloys are called leaded bronze, leaded brass etc. Figure 21.1 shows the relationship between the composition and the alloy name. The concentrations of zinc and tin that define an alloy as being brass, bronze or gunmetal are not precise and vary from researcher to researcher, and are dependent on the type of assemblage. The criteria used here are based on those used by the author for other, comparable assemblages; brass contains over 5% zinc and less than 2% tin, bronze contains more than

db

Any technique, in any society, though be it a mere gesture or a simple artifact, is always the physical rendering of mental schemas learned through tradition and concerned with how things work, are to be made, and to be used (Lemonnier 1993:3).

ade

It is well known that the way a society uses a particular technology can tell us much about how a society views itself and its relationships and interactions with the world around it. As the French anthropologist Lemonnier has put it:

2% tin and gunmetal more than 2% tin and 2% zinc. Unalloyed copper has less than 2% of either tin or zinc. Objects were selected for analysis based on whether they were sufficiently robust to be sampled without causing damage that would affect the integrity of the object as an historical artifact. In practice, the majority of excavated copper-alloy objects were analyzed and the resultant data set is fully representative of the complete excavated assemblage. Two groups of non-ferrous metalwork were selected for analysis. The first group (see Table 21.1) comprises the metalwork that is understood to have been left by the Roman army during and immediately after the siege of 67 CE. The second group (see Table 21.3) comprises 38 artifacts excavated from within the town walls that come from domestic contexts, which were thus attributed to the inhabitants of the town. This group is composed of a representative selection of artifact types: decorative pieces (furniture fittings etc.), cosmetic implements, tools (awls), utilitarian pieces (handles, a weight etc.) and casting waste, presumably representing metalwork conducted at the site.

Le

Introduction

Bronze

Tin

Fig. 21.1. The relationship of alloy names and composition for copper-alloys (after Bayley 1998:8).

306

MATTHEW J. PONTING

The analysis of each group of metalwork is discussed independently and conclusions are drawn for each. The final part of this chapter compares the two groups and discusses the inherent implications. A concordance of all the analyzed objects correlated to the chapters discussing their typology is presented in Table 21.4.1 Roman Military Metalwork (Table 21.1) The military metalwork from Gamla shows the same pattern of alloy types as Roman military metalwork from other sites across the Roman world (see Craddock, Lang and Painter 1973; Craddock 1977; Craddock and Lambert 1985; Jackson and Craddock 1995; Bayley 1998). In particular, there is a close similarity in the alloy types represented with the contemporary military artifacts that were analyzed from Masada (Ponting and Segal 1998); this has been discussed fully elsewhere (Ponting 2002b). The main compositional feature of the Roman military metalwork from Gamla is the frequency of the use of brass (orichalcum). Two-thirds of the artifacts analyzed (67%) are made of brass, compared to 25% of copper and only 8% of bronze. These figures compare well with the Masada military artifacts, where 59% are made of brass, 20% of copper, 17% of bronze and 4% of gunmetal (Ponting and Segal 1998). Gunmetal is not represented in the Gamla assemblage, although this is probably related to the smaller sample size, given the small proportion identified at Masada. Bronze is more frequent at Masada, but is still considerably less common than brass. Furthermore, the proportions of the main alloying metals are also similar; the average zinc content of the brass at Masada is 20% and at Gamla, it is 21%, while the tin content of the bronze is 7% at Masada and 7.5% at Gamla. These similarities can be taken further; the commonest fibula type amongst both assemblages is the aucissa type. This type of fibula has strong military associations (Feugère 1985; Bayley and Butcher 2004:151) and is usually made of brass. The examples from both Gamla and Masada are no exception and, furthermore, the compositions of the fibulae from both sites are sufficiently similar to suggest a common origin. Indeed, statistical tests reveal a significant similarity of the trace components. The major element compositions of these fibulae are also very similar to those of aucissa fibulae from Britain (Table 21.2),

leading us to infer that these fibulae were produced in European workshops and shipped out to troops. The manufacture of brass in antiquity is discussed in detail elsewhere (Caley 1964; Craddock 1978; Craddock 1995; Bayley 1998); what should be understood here is that only the direct heating of zinc ore (or prepared zinc oxide) with metallic copper was used to make brass in antiquity; metallic zinc was generally not available. Because this is a direct process, the trace contaminants inherent in the zinc ore (smithsonite or calamine) will also contaminate the brass and, indeed, were known to have an adverse effect on the finished product (Day 1998:142). The main impurities in brass produced this way are iron and lead, which impair ductility, and manganese, which, although present in amounts too small to make any noticeable difference to working properties, has been identified as a diagnostic feature of smithsonite brass (Carradice and Cowell 1987). Consequently, brass produced from this type of ore will contain relatively high levels of iron and manganese, and sometimes lead. Of course, the intentional addition of lead to casting alloys, together with its frequent association with copper ores, makes its presence in brass undiagnostic of smithsonite brass. Iron, on the other hand, although always present in copper through its use as a fluxing agent and from certain ores, was an undesirable contaminant and thus efforts were made to produce copper virtually free of iron. Roman copper usually has iron contents of below 0.25% (although this is a general trend observed over many individual analyzes) and therefore the higher levels identified in Roman brasses are a good indication of the use of smithsonite ore (Craddock, Burnett and Preston 1980; Carradice and Cowell 1987; Craddock, La Niece and Hook 1998; Ponting and Segal 1998). Likewise, manganese is only occasionally found in detectable levels in Roman coppers or bronzes, but has been identified as a consistent impurity in smithsonite brasses (Carradice and Cowell 1987; Cowell 1990). This trend has been identified in Roman military equipment from Britain (Cowell 1990) and is clearly identifiable in the brasses from Masada and Gamla (Fig. 21.2). In the Near East, smithsonite is a scarce mineral, but another zinc ore, sphalerite (zinc sulphide, ZnS), is common (Craddock 1995:298; Sagiroglu 1989: 417; S. Ilani, pers. comm). To utilize sulphidic ores, it is necessary for the sulphur to be driven off by roasting, which, in the case of zinc sulphide, also drives off the

CHAPTER 21: THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE NON-FERROUS METALWORK

reduced zinc metal as a vapor, which then oxidizes and collects in cooler parts of the roasting furnace. In this way, the contaminants present in the original ore are left behind in the roasting hearth and result in a relatively pure zinc oxide, which can then be used in much the same way as untreated smithsonite. Indeed, the available analyzes suggest that it is quite likely that the smithsonite ores found in parts of western Turkey were treated in the same way; the chemistry is diagnostic of the technology rather than of the type of ore used. It should therefore be possible to identify the products of these two processes by their iron and manganese contents. The first attempt to identify this was a study of the first brass coinages. Here, the Hellenistic brass coins from Phrygia and Bithynia (Anatolia) were found

to have significantly less iron in them than the first Roman brass coins from Europe (Craddock, Burnett and Preston 1980). Other studies of first–century BCE and Byzantine/Early Islamic brasses have also shown that brass manufactured in the Near East generally contains little iron, other than the amounts normally expected from the copper, and little or no manganese (Craddock, La Niece and Hook 1998; Ponting 1999; 2006). The amounts of iron and manganese in the Roman brass military metalwork from Masada and Gamla indicate that the brass was produced by the direct heating of smithsonite ore and was therefore most likely to have been manufactured in Europe rather than the Near East.

0.1000

Weight (% manganese)

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

Copper Brass Bronze Gunmetal 0.0000 0.001

0.010

307

0.100

1.000

10.000

Weight (% iron)

Fig. 21.2. Manganese as opposed to iron for Roman military copper-alloys from Masada and Gamla.

0.125

0.253

0.053

0.350

0.264

0.091

Buckle

Aucissa fibula

Suspension loop

Scabbard chape

Handle

Lorica tie hoop

17

18

19

20

21

0.094

15

16

0.395

Aucissa fibula

14

0.067

Aucissa fibula

12

0.093

0.595

Scabbard chape

11

Belt mount

0.089

10

Decorated washer

0.836

Divided bow fibula

9

13

0.079

0.029

Elbow fibula Type III4

3

Belt frog

0.043

Elbow fibula Type III4

2

Scabbard mount

0.066

Arched fibula Type II4

1

5

Silver

Description

Sample No.