Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Volume III: The Roman and Byzantine periods : small finds from the Roman refuse dump and other contexts 9789654067348, 9789654067355, 965406734X

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 67

Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations Volume III The Roman and Byzantine Periods: Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts

Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn

With contributions by

Donald T. Ariel, Elisabetta Boaretto, Leah Di Segni, Yael Gorin-Rosen, Lihi Habas, Natalya Katsnelson, Shua Kisilevitz, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Henk K. Mienis, Brigitte Ouahnouna, Silvia Rozenberg and Guy Stiebel

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2021

The Western Wall Plaza Excavations Israel Antiquities Authority

IAA EXPEDITION DIRECTORS: SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH ALEXANDER ONN

VOL. III: JERUSALEM: THE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE PERIODS: SMALL FINDS FROM THE ROMAN REFUSE DUMP AND OTHER CONTEXTS

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Zvi Greenhut Series and Production Editor: Shelley Sadeh Volume Editor: Ezra S. Marcus Front Cover: The Cardo at the foot of the hewn cliff, looking southwest (photograph, Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah) Back Cover: Brick stamped with the impression of the Roman Tenth Legion: LEGX[F...] (photograph, Dafna Gazit); Roman military bread stamp (photograph, Clara Amit). Cover Design, Production, Layout and Typesetting: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav Illustrations: Natalya Zak, Ira Brin, Ann Buchnick-Abuhav Printing: Digiprint Zahav Ltd. Copyright © 2021, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-734-8 EISBN 978-965-406-735-5 www.antiquities.org.il

Contents

CONTRIBUTORS

v

ABBREVIATIONS

vi

FOREWORD

ix

PART 1: THE QUARRIES CHAPTER 1: REMAINS OF QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

Shua Kisilevitz and Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah

3

PART 2: FINDS FROM THE ROMAN REFUSE DUMP AND RELATED CONTEXTS CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

Yael Gorin-Rosen

27

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

Natalya Katsnelson

69

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

Shua Kisilevitz

99

CHAPTER 5: A FLAN MOLD

Donald T. Ariel

113

CHAPTER 6: FRESCO FRAGMENTS

Silvia Rozenberg

115

CHAPTER 7: GROUNDSTONE OBJECTS

Brigitte Ouahnouna

125

CHAPTER 8: METAL OBJECTS

Guy Stiebel

129

CHAPTER 9: THREE MILITARY BREAD STAMPS

Leah Di Segni

135

CHAPTER 10: A MILITARY STAMP IMPRESSION OF THE ROMAN TENTH LEGION FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah

141

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

Liora Kolska Horwitz

143

CHAPTER 12: RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE ROMAN REFUSE DUMP AND THE EASTERN CARDO

Elisabetta Boaretto

159

CHAPTER 13: OPUS SECTILE TILES

Brigitte Ouahnouna

167

CHAPTER 14: COINS FROM THE 2017–2018 EXCAVATION SEASONS

Gabriela Bijovsky

169

PART 3: FINDS FROM OTHER CONTEXTS

iv CHAPTER 15: MOLLUSCS

Henk K.Mienis

175

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

Lihi Habas

181

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS (2005–2010 EXCAVATION SEASONS)

197

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF SELECTED LOCI (2017–2018 EXCAVATION SEASONS)

213

v

Contributors

Brigitte Ouahnouna, Israel Antiquities Authority Donald T. Ariel, Israel Antiquities Authority Elisabetta Boaretto, Weizmann Institute of Science Gabriela Bijovsky, Israel Antiquities Authority Guy Stiebel, Tel Aviv University Henk K. Mienis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Leah Di Segni, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Lihi Habas, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Liora Kolska Horwitz, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Natalya Katsnelson, Israel Antiquities Authority Omri Lernau, University of Haifa Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Israel Antiquities Authority Shua Kisilevitz, Israel Antiquities Authority Silvia Rozenberg, Israel Museum, Jerusalem Yael Gorin-Rosin, Israel Antiquities Authority

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

vi

Abbreviations

AASOR ACOR ADAJ AIHV AJA ANGSBA BA BAR BAR Int. S. BASOR ESI HA HA–ESI IEJ INR JAS JGS JRA JRS JSOT JSP LA MA NEAEHL NEAEHL 5 OJA PEFA PEQ RB

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research American Center of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre American Journal of Archaeology Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology The Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review British Archaeological Reports International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Excavations and Surveys in Israel Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot—Excavations and Surveys in Israel Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Research Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Glass Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Judea and Samaria Publications Liber Annuus Mediterranean Archaeology E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem 1993 E. Stern ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5: Supplementary Volume. Jerusalem 2008 Oxford Journal of Archaeology Palestine Exploration Fund Annual Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique

vii

SBF SAOC QDAP WWPE I

WWPE II

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn. Jerusalem: Western Wall Plaza Excavations I: The Roman and Byzantine Remains: Architecture and Stratigraphy (IAA Reports 63). Jerusalem 2019 Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom. Jerusalem: Western Wall Plaza Excavations II: The Pottery (IAA Reports 64). Jerusalem 2019

ix

Foreword

This monograph is the third volume in the final report of the excavations of the Eastern Cardo in the northwestern part of the Western Wall Plaza, conducted on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) between the years 2005 and 2010, under the direction of Alexander Onn and Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, with Shua Kisilevitz (2010), and financed by the Western Wall Heritage Foundation. Despite the fact that the Old City of Jerusalem has been continuously investigated over the last 150 years, it is the first time that this area, located c. 100 m west of the Temple Mount, has been excavated, and thus, the results are of great significance to the archaeology and history of Jerusalem. Our excavations descended c. 10 m below the modern surface to bedrock, and exposed 15 strata that span 2700–2800 years between late Iron Age quarries—the earliest activity at the site—and the large, open area of the Western Wall Plaza, which was constructed upon the remains of the Mughrabi Quarter in 1967 by the State of Israel (Fig. 1). The first excavation season was conducted in September 2005 (Permit No. A-4604/2005), followed by continuous excavations during the years 2006–2010 (Permit Nos. A-4710/2006, A-5002/2007, A-5432/2008, A-5568/2009, A5835/2010). In 2016, preservation operations were conducted in the Iron Age structures in the northwestern part of the excavated area, under archaeological supervision. From 2017–2019, construction work at the site was accompanied by archaeological excavations (Permit Nos. A-8053/2017, A-8211/2018, A-8437/2019).1 While the present report was submitted before the later excavations (2017 onward) took place, the conclusions arrived at here have not changed, and some of the more recent finds have been integrated where they contribute important information; in particular, additional glass finds and an LXF stamped brick of the Tenth Roman Legion, the first example of such to be found at the site. This third volume presents the small finds of the Early Roman to Byzantine periods. The stratigraphy and architecture of the Eastern Cardo, its architectural decoration, incised board games, and the numismatic finds are presented in the first volume (WWPE I). The second volume (WWPE II) describes and discusses the pottery associated with the Eastern Cardo, from its construction in the Roman period (early second century CE), its use through

The conservation work was carried out by the conservation unit of the IAA under the direction of Haim Makureya and Yossi Vaknin. The 2017–2019 excavations were directed by the author with the assistance of Meidad Shor (area supervisor, 2018), Vadim Essman (surveying), Assaf Peretz (photography) and Shimon Cohen (excavation administrator). 1

xi

the Late Roman–Byzantine periods (second–first half of seventh centuries CE), until its demise at the beginning of the Early Islamic period (second half of seventh century CE). Most of the small finds discussed in this volume originate in the Roman refuse dump, which comprises layers of soil and refuse deposited into an abandoned quarry pit (L8170) during preparatory infrastructure work prior to the laying of the Cardo’s pavement. Inside the quarry, which lay in the path of the Cardo’s eastern portico (in the northeastern corner of the excavated area, see Plans 1–3), a broad, north–south supporting wall was built (W811-W812), aligned with the eastern stylobate of the street. The layers of soil and refuse were then intentionally deposited against both faces of this supporting wall, to a total height of approximately 3.5 m above the bottom of the quarry, and then sealed by the paving stones of Street 8020 that led east from the Cardo, and presumably by the pavement of the eastern portico, which was not preserved here. The rich variety of small finds from the refuse dump, including coins (Bijovsky 2019), potsherds (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019), glass-vessel fragments (Chapters 2, 3) and military bread stamps (Chapter 9), provide a time frame for the refuse dump between 75 and 125 CE. The most recent coin was minted in 86/87 CE during the reign of Domitian (Bijovsky 2019: Cat. No. 33), providing a firm terminus post quem for the deposition. The pottery assemblages contained lamps and imported, Eastern Terra Sigillata tableware, providing dates ranging from the last third of the first century to the first third of the second century CE (Weksler-Bdolah 2019b:40; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019: Chapter 3: Groups 2a–2g). The dump also contained organic material that was burned (at least in part) at the site––as attested by the remains of hearths observed in the excavation, and the condition of the bones, which were evidently burned in situ otherwise they would have disintegrated (Chapter 11). Radiocarbon analysis of charcoal and burnt seeds from the Roman refuse dump further verifies the dating (Chapter 12). The refuse dump contained a mixture of residual Early Roman material––probably originating in the ruins of the residential buildings of the Second Temple period within the excavated area, or washed down from the Upper City after the destruction of 70 CE–– together with finds from the later, post-70 CE Roman period that appear to have originated in a Roman military context. It is possible that the fill of the quarry was brought from a nearby military dump that had accumulated on the eastern slopes of the Western Hill, where the Tenth Roman Legion possibly camped (Weksler-Bdolah 2020). The well-preserved finds from the Roman refuse dump in Quarry 8170 below the Eastern Cardo, securely dated to the period between the destruction of the Herodian city and the founding of the Roman city Aelia Capitolina (70–130 CE), represent the first time in the archaeological record of Jerusalem that a sealed assemblage of this date can be clearly attributed to the Roman army. These finds provide evidence that the Roman army, presumably the Tenth Legion, was encamped in the city at this time, and make it possible to date the founding of the Roman city––of which the Eastern Cardo was one of the first construction projects––to the reign of Hadrian, prior to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (see Weksler-Bdolah 2019a:199–200). This volume opens with a study of the numerous quarries at the site that shaped the surface topography (Part 1: Chapter 1), from the earliest quarrying activities of the

xii

late Iron Age (First Temple period), the Early Roman (Second Temple) period quarries, to the quarrying associated with the Roman Cardo (Shua Kisilevitz and Shlomit WekslerBdolah). The following Chapters 2–16 present and discuss the small finds discovered in the excavations, mainly in the Roman refuse dump and other fills sealed below the Eastern Cardo (Part 2), as well as in other contexts (Part 3). An attempt was made to group the chapters in chronological order. Chapter 2 presents the large assemblage of glass finds recovered from the Roman dump, and a small number from other locations around the site, such as water channels below the carriageway and the porticoes (Yael Gorin-Rosen). Chapter 3 documents further glass finds uncovered in the later excavations during partial dismantling of the supporting wall inside Quarry 8170 (W811-W812), and deepening in several other locations (Natalya Katsenelson). Chapters 4–7 are dedicated to finds of the Early Roman (Second Temple) period: Chapter 4 presents the assemblage of Early Roman chalk vessels from the Roman refuse dump (Shua Kililevitz); Chapter 5 describes a first-century BCE flan mold (Donald T. Ariel); Chapter 6 discusses pieces of fresco wall paintings (Silvia Rozenberg) that probably originated from nearby Early Roman residences; and Chapter 7 presents a small number of groundstone objects (Brigitte Ouahnouna). Chapters 8–11 are dedicated to finds of the later Roman period, and many of them are of a military nature: Chapter 8 presents the surprisingly small assemblage of metal objects from the Roman refuse dump (Guy D. Stiebel); Chapter 9 describes three Roman military bread stamps (Leah Di Segni); and Chapter 10 presents the fragment of a clay brick bearing a stamp impression of the Roman Tenth Legion discovered in a sealed fill during further excavations at the site (Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah). Chapter 11 discusses the faunal assemblage from the Roman refuse dump (Liora Kolska Horwitz), and it is of note that among the faunal remains, pigs constituted over 60 percent of the finds, mainly domesticated piglets—a hallmark of the Roman military diet. Chapter 12 presents the results of radiocarbon analyses of a number of samples from the Roman refuse dump and the fill below the Cardo’s paving stones (Elisabetta Boaretto). From later fills come several opus sectile tiles that probably originated in nearby Early Roman residences (Chapter 13; Brigitte Ouahnouna); and Chapter 14 is a catalogue of 20 identified coins retrieved from various contexts in the later excavations, comprising a small addition to the main corpus of coins presented in WWPE 1 (Gabriela Bijovsky). Chapter 15 discusses a small assemblage of molluscs from the Roman refuse dump and Byzantine contexts (Henk K. Mienis), indicating contacts with regions such as the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea and the Nile River. Finally, Chapter 16 presents fragments of Byzantine architectural elements and furniture discovered in secondary use in Early Islamic walls and earthen fills (Lihi Habas). Appendix 1 is the list of loci and walls of the major excavation seasons, and Appendix 2 is a list of selected loci from the 2017–2018 excavations at the site.

xiii

Stratigraphic Highlights (Table 1, Plans 1–6) The Early Roman (Second Temple period) remains consist of a small section of the Low-Level Aqueduct, discovered at the top of a rock cliff that delimits the excavation area in the southwest (738 m asl), and segments of quarries and rock-hewn installations (Plan 1: Stratum XIII). The latter are the lower parts of ground-level facilities of residential buildings that were possibly destroyed during the destruction of the city in 70 CE and whose upper floors were removed during the construction of the Roman Cardo. The small finds recovered from this period include coins (WWPE I) and potsherds (WWPE II), as well as fragments of glass vessels (Chapters 2, 3) and chalk artifacts (Chapter 4), a flan mold (Chapter 5), and pieces of fresco (Chapter 6). The post-70 CE Roman-period remains are associated with the construction and the continuous use of the Eastern Cardo (Plan 2: Strata XII–X), which served as one of the main streets of Aelia Capitolina. It included an 8 m wide carriageway in the center, which was lined on both sides by 1.5 m wide sidewalks and these flanked, in turn, by porticos 6.0–6.5 m wide. Both the carriageway and the sidewalks were paved with large flagstones. Beyond the western portico, a row of cells, probably used as shops, was hewn into the cliff face. Beyond the eastern sidewalk, a propylaeum, located between two streets that branched off from the Cardo to the east (Street 8020 in the north and Street 4108 in the south), hints at the existence of a large public building beyond the excavation boundary. The Eastern Cardo had a generally north–south alignment, parallel to the Western Wall of the temenos of the Temple Mount. Prior to the paving of the street, the foundations were uniformly leveled by filling deep quarry pits, removing earlier structures, hewing the bedrock and constructing retaining walls, and a sophisticated drainage system was installed that included hewn and built channels (Plans 3, 4). Most of these channels were in continuous use from the time of the street’s construction until its demise. After the preparatory work had been completed, the street was paved and columns were erected along its sides. The Eastern Cardo in its original form went out of use in the Early Islamic period (Stratum IX, second half of seventh–early eighth centuries), when a residential building was constructed above the western part of the street, halving its width (Plan 5). The locations of further small-scale excavations during the years 2017–2019 are presented in Plan 6.

xiv Table 1.1. The Stratigraphic Sequence of the Western Wall Plaza Excavations* Stratum

Period

Date

Main Finds

I

Modern

1967

Western Wall Plaza

II

Modern

c. 1920–1967

Buildings

III

Late Ottoman

Nineteenth–early twentieth centuries CE

Renovations of earlier buildings

IV

Late Islamic–Early Ottoman

Late fifteenth–mid-sixteenth centuries CE

Buildings, elevation of street level, narrowing of street

V

Late Islamic

Fifteenth century CE

Installations, refuse pits

VI

Late Islamic

Late twelfth/thirteenth–fifteenth centuries CE

Buildings

VII

Tenth–late twelfth centuries CE

Soil fills

VIII

Early Islamic

Eighth–ninth centuries CE

Buildings, elevation of street level

IX

Early Islamic

Second half of seventh/early eighth centuries CE

Narrowing of the Cardo, building on the west

X

Byzantine

Fifth–early seventh centuries CE

Renewal of pavements, cistern

XI

Late Roman–Early Byzantine

Third–fourth centuries CE

Cistern

XII

Roman

Second century CE

Eastern Cardo

XIII

Late Hellenistic– Early Roman (Second Temple period)

Second century BCE–70 CE

Low-Level Aqueduct, installations, quarries

XIV

Iron II (First Temple period)

Seventh century BCE–586 BCE

Buildings, alley; destruction layer

XV

Iron II (First Temple period)

Eighth century BCE(?)

Quarries

*Dates may be slightly modified in subsequent volumes.

xv

L6170

8170

L2050

L5336

L2022

L9588

L116

Stratum XIII Quarry Line 0

Plan 1. Second Temple-period remains.

10 m

xxi

Acknowledgements2 We wish to thank the many experts of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) who took part in the treatment, restoration and drawing of the finds and the production of this volume. The metal finds were treated by Raisa Vinitsky, Lena Kupferschmidt, Ilia Reznisky, Victoria Nosikovsky and Gali Beiner,* and the stone and bone conservation was carried out by Oded Raviv and Raisa Vinitsky. The glass vessels were restored by Olga Shorr and Adrienne Varnai-Ganor, and the bread stamps were restored by Yosef Bukengolts. The stone architectural elements were drawn in the field by Mark Kunin and Tania Kornfeld, and prepared for publication by Dov Porozky and Elena Delerzon. The stone vessels were drawn by Dalit Weinblatt* and Mannie Goodman, and the glass by Dalit Weinblatt and Carmen Hersch. The figures were prepared by Carmen Hersch. The finds were photographed by Clara Amit and Dafna Gazit. The plans in this volume were prepared by Natalia Zak, Ira Brin and Ann Buchnick-Abuhav; Brigitte Ouahnouna and Shua Kisilevitz, the area supervisors, also organized all the post-excavation material, enabling the publication not only of this volume, but of all the volumes of the Western Wall Plaza excavations. Special thanks are extended to the anonymous readers of the reports and to the volume editor, Ezra Marcus, the IAA Monograph Series editor, Shelley Sadeh, and the head of the IAA Publication Department, Zvi Greenhut, all of whose work helped bring this report to completion.



Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Jerusalem 2021

R eferences Bijovsky G. 2019. Coins of the Hellenistic and Byzantine Periods. WWPE I. Pp. 165–193. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2019. WWPE II. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019a. The Cardo in Urban Context. WWPE I. Pp. 195–200. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019b. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2020. The Camp of the Legio X Fretensis. In Aelia Capitolina––Jerusalem in the Roman Period: In Light of Archaeological Research. Leiden–Boston. Pp. 19–50.

A full list of participants in the excavations at the Western Wall Plaza is presented in the foreword of WWPE I. * not of the IAA. 2

Part 1 The Quarries

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 1

R emains of Quarrying Activities below the Eastern Cardo Shua Kisilevitz and Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah

Introduction The site of the Western Wall Plaza excavations is situated on the northeastern slope of ancient Jerusalem’s ‘Western Hill’, which was the Upper City during the Second Temple period (the present-day Jewish Quarter). The surface of the underlying bedrock descends sharply to the northeast from the top of the Western Hill toward the confluence of the Transversal Valley and the Tyropoeon Valley. Geologically, the bedrock below the site is of the Bina Formation, which is the topmost formation of the Judea Group. This formation is divided into three superimposed members that bear the Arabic names coined by stone quarriers and masons for the three distinct types of building stone (from bottom to top): mizzi aḥmar, meleke and mizzi ḥilu (see Gill 2019). The exposed bedrock in the excavation area is of the Meleke Member, a porous white limestone containing fossil fragments. The thick deposits of up to 20 m lend it a massive appearance, although it is easily quarried for building blocks. Numerous ancient features have been hewn into this rock member, such as quarries, water cisterns and the fosse to the north of Jerusalem. The Mizzi Ḥilu Member, a fine-grained, finely layered, dense, yellowish white limestone, is found on top of the meleke within the Old City and on Mount Zion. Owing to its natural layering and high quality, mizzi ḥilu stones were used for paving (e.g., the Herodian street at the foot of the Temple Mount and the Roman Eastern Cardo), and for the construction of stairways (e.g., the Ḥulda stairs). Below the meleke is the Mizzi Aḥmar Member, which is a hard, dense, impermeable dolomite with red iron-oxide spots. The natural topography at the foot of the Western Hill was modified by quarrying activities that began in the late Iron Age (First Temple period) and continued in the Early Roman (Second Temple) period. The remains attest to the step method of quarrying, which creates tiered levels that generally follow the slope of the bedrock (Ward-Perkins 1971:6; Sumaka’i Fink 2000:633–634; Safrai and Sasson 2001:4). The result was a stepped cliff of meleke rock with a general orientation perpendicular to the slope’s natural gradient (Plan 1.1), which descends from an elevation of c. 740.00 m asl at the top of the cliff in the southwestern area of the excavation, to c. 722.00 m asl in the depths of the quarries in the northeastern part of the area. In the Roman period (second century CE), the rock surface was reshaped when the Eastern Cardo was paved and the cliff was transformed into a vertical north–south rock wall (with an average height of c. 10 m), which today separates the Jewish Quarter from the Western Wall Plaza. These developments marked the end of quarrying activity in this area, and thus, the re-exposed rock surface today represents, in general, its Roman condition, despite later (Ottoman) alterations.

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

7

Area 1. The northwest–southeast extension of the jagged vertical rock edge that represents the remains of an Iron II quarry. Features and segments of the rock face are labelled a–n, from north to south. Area 2. Subarea 2a is the eastern extension of the rock edge (L8129) and the quarry to its north (L8170), and Subarea 2b is a quarry in the southern part of the excavation (L9588); both represent the remains of Early Roman quarries (Weksler-Bdolah 2019:26–27). Area 3. The terraced rock to the south of the rock edge that reveals quarrying associated with the Roman Cardo.1

Quarrying in the Late Iron Age A jagged vertical rock edge with a general northwest–southeast orientation was preserved up to 5 m high (Plan 1.1:1). Along the upright rock face are remains of quarried steps and severance channels that were sealed by the seventh-century BCE buildings, evidence that the quarrying here took place prior to their construction. The rock face is composed of various segments, some of which were directly sealed by late Iron Age construction (Plan 1.1:a–g; 2.5 m high in the north and 4 m in the south). After c. 13 m, a sharp turn to the east can be discerned between Segments e and f, and then there is a sharp turn south along Segments h and n (Fig. 1.1). In the northwest (Plan 1.1: Segment b), two rock protrusions (western: 0.5 × 1.0 m, 1.5 m high; eastern: 0.1–0.3 × 1.2 m, 1.15 m high), create sort of a square cell in the rock face (1.0 × 1.2 m) that is partially open to the northeast (Fig. 1.2). This cell is apparently the depression of a removed block (c. 0.8 × 1.1 m) delineated by severance channels (5–10 cm wide). In Segments b and c, horizontal bands (0.3–0.4 m wide) of quarrying marks made by a sharp, single-pointed tool are discernible in the rock face (Fig. 1.3). The marks are short, straight, diagonal and arranged in a uniform, parallel direction within each band. In a number of places, the bands of diagonal marks face opposing directions and create a herringbone pattern (Fig. 1.4). In the corners of rock faces, the quarrying marks descend in opposite directions. In Segment e (Plan 1.1: Section 1-1; Fig. 1.5), three narrow steps, c. 0.15 m wide, are preserved in the rock face (c. 4.8 m high). On the face of the upper step (c. 2 m high), diagonal quarry marks are discernible. The rock face of the middle step (0.8 m high) is worn and no quarry marks are discernible. The lower step (c. 2 m high) contains an opening to a natural karstic void (0.6 × 1.0 m). Apparently, this void was accidently exposed during the quarrying activity, which may have ceased here due to the damage caused by the karstic activity.2 In the rock face of Segment f (1.8 m long, 4 m high), perpendicular to Segment e

This phase of quarrying demolished most of the Early Roman remains; however, a water cistern in the northwestern corner of the site was factored into the planning of the Cardo (L6170; Plan 1.1; see Weksler-Bdolah 2019:17–28). 1

This idea was suggested by the late David Amit.

2

8

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

aa

n

l

m

k j

i h

f g

e d

Fig. 1.1. Excavation area: in the center foreground is the jagged rock edge from the Iron Age quarry (Segments d–h, l–n); in the center background is the hewn western portico wall of the Roman Cardo (aa); view to the south.

to the west, very worn, narrow steps are evident, and irregular depressions of an unknown nature were hewn in its lower part. To the south of Segments f and g, there is a c. 5 m wide protrusion in the area of the western portico of the Roman Cardo (Plan 1.1: L5283) in which five more-or-less parallel quarried steps are visible (Plan 1.1: h, i, j, k, m; see Fig. 1.1). These reflect an earlier quarrying activity that probably predates the construction of the Cardo, but cannot be dated with certainty. To the south, Segments l and m meet at a sharp angle (Fig. 1.1: l, m), which suggests that they were not hewn simultaneously. The rock in these segments is worn and shows no hewing marks. Further south, in Segment n, narrow severance

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

Fig. 1.2. Segment b: rock cell with a negative of a removed stone block at its bottom; view to the southwest.

Fig. 1.3. Segment c: Iron Age quarry marks; view to the southwest.

Fig. 1.4. Segment c: bands of Iron Age quarry marks; view to the southwest.

9

10

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

Fig. 1.5. Segments e–g: Iron Age quarry walls; view to the south.

channels (7–8 cm wide, at least 0.15 m deep) and depressions of square stone blocks (1 × 1 m; Fig. 1.6) have survived. The fill of the quarry in this section, below the Cardo pavement, included Iron II (eighth–early sixth centuries BCE) and Roman (75–125 CE) pottery sherds, evidence that the quarries here were only sealed when the Cardo was paved. South of Segment n, the line of the Iron Age quarries meets the step of the western portico of the Roman Cardo (Plan 1.1:aa; see Fig. 1.1), which was hewn in a different orientation.

Fig. 1.6. Segment n: at the top, a Cardo flagstone resting on fills in the Iron II quarry; in the foreground the depression of a stone block; view to the northwest.

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

11

Quarrying in the Roman Period Remains of quarries attributed primarily to the Early Roman (Second Temple) period and sealed below fills associated with the Roman Cardo, were revealed in the northeastern (Quarry 8170) and southern (Quarry 9588) parts of the excavation area. In the northeastern corner, Quarry 8170 was exposed over an area of 5 × 9 m, on the lowest bedrock level at the site (Plan 1.1:2a, Section 2-2; Weksler-Bdolah 2019:26–27, 40–44, Plan 2.1: Sections 5-5, 6-6). Shallow severance channels (c. 0.2 wide) exposed in the northern part of the quarry attest to the size of the blocks that were removed here––c. 1 × 2 m. In the southern part of the quarry, several rectangular blocks (c. 0.7–0.8 × 1.0–1.2 × 0.5 m high), severed from the bedrock by channels (c. 0.15–0.25 m wide), but not yet detached, remained at the bottom of the quarry (Fig. 1.7). The sides of the severance channels and the upper surfaces of the undetached blocks bear the imprints of the quarrying tools, attesting to the use of different tools for the various tasks. Short, straight, diagonal lines on the lower sides of the severance channels indicate the use of a sharp chisel or quarrying spike; on the upper sides, coarser, wider, and slightly rounded grooves descend in random directions (Fig. 1.8) and represent the use of larger, hand-swung tools during the initial stage of quarrying (Gorzalczany

Fig. 1.7. Quarry 8170: a row of hewn blocks that had not yet been detached from the rock are visible in the foreground; view to the north.

12

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

2007:41). Short, V-shaped, diagonal lines on the upper faces of the undetached stone blocks (Fig. 1.9) were made when the blocks on top were detached by the insertion of iron wedges or rectangular cleaving spikes. Approximately 9 m south of Quarry 8170 is the eastern extension of the jagged rock edge (L8129), which rises to an elevation of 3.5 m above the bottom of the quarry. Here, depressions left by rectangular stone blocks (0.5–1.0 × 0.8–1.2 m) and severance channels (0.1–0.2 m), somewhat narrower than those described above, were revealed.

Fig. 1.8. Quarry 8170: in the foreground, the southern edge of the top tier; in the background, burnt fills from the Roman period sealed beneath Street 8020; view to the north.

Fig. 1.9. Quarry 8170: the upper surface of an undetached stone block in the lower tier bearing V-shaped quarry marks; view to the south.

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

13

It is noteworthy that the quarried steps in the northeastern quarry (L8170) descend southward, in an atypical manner against the natural slope rather than in accordance with it. Thus, the quarriers advanced toward the high face of the rock wall, limiting the available quarry area and trapping themselves within a deep, narrow pit, and consequently rendering the removal of the stone blocks much more difficult. Quarry 8170 in the northeast was sealed below layers of soil and refuse that were deposited after the quarry had ceased operation, and these layers can be attributed to four construction phases; the final two phases represent the construction of a broad retaining wall (W805-W806-W810-W811-W812; Plan 1.1:2a: Section 2-2) and the subsequent deposition of earth layers attributed to the construction of the Roman Cardo (WekslerBdolah 2019:40–44, Fig. 3.11). Despite the clear stratigraphic phasing, the finds from these layers are homogenous and cannot be chronologically separated (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019:219; Weksler-Bdolah 2019:40). The fills yielded an abundance of finds that date to the period between 70 and 125 CE, providing a terminus ante quem for the retiring of the quarry in the first third of the second century CE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019:1). A pristine spatulate oil lamp, typically attributed in Jerusalem to pottery assemblages dating until 70 CE, was found at the bottom of the quarry (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019: Fig. 3.7:4), suggesting that the quarry was in operation until the end of the Early Roman period, or slightly afterwards.

Fig. 1.10. Quarry 9588 and W958, view from above; looking south.

14

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

In the southern part of the excavation area, Quarry 9588, with steps descending northeastward, perpendicular to the natural slope (Plan 1.1:2b, Section 3-3; Fig. 1.10; WekslerBdolah 2019:26–27), was discovered in a probe measuring c. 2.3 × 3.5 m. Severance channels and the negative imprints of quarried stones enable reconstruction of the size of the blocks that were removed––c. 0.50 × 0.75 m. A wide, north–south wall (W958) was constructed in the quarry directly on the rock step, and an earthen fill was piled against it (L9580; WekslerBdolah 2019:38). The wall and fill were partially sealed below the Roman Cardo pavement and are probably associated with its construction, providing a terminus ante quem for the quarry’s final use. The orientation of the quarry resembles that of the Iron Age and Early Roman quarries, and it is tentatively attributed to the Early Roman (Second Temple) period based on the dating of the fill deposited directly on the hewn rock steps.3

Quarrying R elated to the Roman Eastern Cardo The natural bedrock on the slope of the Western Hill was extensively quarried and meticulously shaped according to the plan of the Eastern Cardo in the first third of the second century CE (Weksler-Bdolah 2019:35–36). Numerous quarry marks from this period are evident below the paved carriageway, on the eastern stylobate, on the eastern and western porticos, and in the row of shops hewn into the rock cliff separating the street from the Western Hill above. Quarry Marks below the Paved Carriageway In the southern part of the excavation area, the paving stones of the Cardo had been robbed in antiquity and excavation could easily be deepened to the bedrock beneath the street’s infrastructure, where quarrying marks were discerned. Along the eastern stylobate of the street (W457) was a quarried step, c. 1.5 m wide (Plan 1.1:xx) that was lower than the stylobate and 0.3 m higher than the level of the bedrock to its west. To the north, two roughly square blocks still remain (1.1 × 1.2 m), separated from the surrounding bedrock by severance channels (0.1–0.2 m wide). Thin, diagonal, parallel lines made by a sharp quarrying tool, possibly a chisel or a quarrying spike, are visible on the severance-channel walls (L658; Fig. 1.11). Approximately 5 m south of these blocks, along the same line, is the corner of an unsevered block with its eastern and southern severance channels. At a distance of 1.5–1.8 m farther south, were three parallel quarry lines perpendicular to the street’s orientation. In several places on the surface of this leveled bedrock, parallel bands of quarry marks, 0.1–1.2 m wide and approximately 0.25–0.30 m apart (Fig. 1.12), were discerned. These bands are composed

The excavation of this quarry was carried out in July 2010 as part of a small addendum to the largescale excavations at the site, after preparation for the publication of WWPE I and WWPE II was underway. Examination of the pottery from L9580 by Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom indicated that it was similar to the assemblage from the Roman dump and dated to the first third of the second century CE. 3

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

15

of dense, overlapping, V-shaped tool marks, perhaps caused by a spike-like tool used to separate blocks from the bedrock or for hewing severance channels. Along the length of the central part of the street, at a distance of 7.5 m from the eastern stylobate and following the same orientation, the western wall of a quarried step (Plan 1.1:yy; Fig. 1.13), c. 0.2 high, contains negatives of two severed rectangular blocks (1.5–2.0 m long, at least 1.2 m wide). Farther to the west, near the western portico, is another quarried step (Plan 1.1:zz; Fig. 1.13) with the negatives of severed blocks of various sizes (ranging from 0.7–0.9 × 1.5 m to 1.0–1.3 × 2.0–2.2 m), and between them the lower parts of severance channels (c. 5 cm wide).

Fig. 1.11. Diagonal quarry marks on a severance-channel wall (L658) west of the eastern stylobate; view to the north.

Fig. 1.12. Parallel bands of V-shaped tool marks at the base of the eastern stylobate (W457), and quarry marks on its western face; view to the east.

16

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

aa zz yy

Fig. 1.13. Quarried blocks and severance channels hewn into the bedrock infrastructure upon which the Cardo’s carriageway was laid; view to the north.

Quarry Marks on the Eastern Stylobate Wall (W457) and the Eastern Portico The stylobate walls were hewn from the bedrock along the margins of the street (WekslerBdolah 2019:35). The eastern stylobate (W457; 1.0–1.4 × 11.5 m) rises 0.4 m higher than the level of the bedrock on either side. Parallel, diagonal quarry marks with rounded ends were discerned on its western face (see Fig. 1.12), descending from south to north; apparently, the quarryman held the pick in his right hand. The floor of the eastern portico was levelled and bears no pronounced quarry marks. On the east, the eastern portico is bounded by a rock-hewn wall (W424; 1.0 × 10.5 m, max

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

17

height 1.4 m) upon which short, diagonal tool marks, arranged in a horizontal herringbone pattern, were discerned on its western face (Fig. 1.14). Quarry Marks on the Western Portico and the Row of Shops The western portico (L5348) is delineated on the east by an upright wall that rises to a maximum height of c. 1.2 m above the bedrock (Plan 1.1:aa). This side of the portico was exposed from the southern limit of the excavation area northwards until it meets the ancient quarry line, at an acute angle (Plan 1.1:n). Diagonal quarry marks made with a sharp chisel were discerned on the rock face of the portico, arranged in rows of relatively short, parallel lines (c. 0.2 m long; Fig. 1.15). They descend from south to north and intermittently change direction slightly, without any regular order.

Fig. 1.14. The western face of rock-hewn W424; view to the northeast.

Fig. 1.15. Diagonal quarry marks on the eastern edge of the western portico; view to the west.

18

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

On the west, the western portico is delineated by the front wall of the row of shops (W317, W566; see Fig. 1.1) hewn out of bedrock as part of the construction of the Cardo (Weksler-Bdolah 2019:35, Plan 3.5: Sections 2-2, 3-3, 12-12, 13-13, 25-25). In the northern part of the excavation area, west of the ancient quarry line (Plan 1.1:h, l–n), the surface of the rock was lowered, and two steps were hewn in front of the entranceway to Shop 5297 (Fig. 1.16). Farther south (L490), remains of quarried steps or the negatives of stone blocks, and a single undetached stone block (0.6 × 1.2 m) were discerned. The quarry lines lie perpendicular to the Roman street and the negatives indicate square blocks measuring 1.3–1.5 × 1.3–1.5 m. The row of shops located west of the portico was hewn into the slope of the western hill, resulting in high, rock walls that formed their facades and the partitions between the shops. A vertical cliff face towered above the shops, reaching a maximum height of 13 m, and separating the Western Hill from the paved, colonnaded street at its foot (WekslerBdolah 2019:35, Plan 2.1: Sections 7-7, 8-8, Fig. 3.5). Many clusters of elongated, diagonal and slightly rounded quarry marks arranged in rows could be discerned on the rock walls separating the individual shops and on the cliff wall to their rear (Figs. 1.17– 1.20), apparently made with a pick (Bessac 1988). In some instances, a herringbone pattern was formed (Fig. 1.18), and occasionally there is a slight difference in the direction of the quarry marks within the adjacent clusters, creating an impression of disorder (Fig. 1.19). The corners of the shops display long, rounded strokes extending outward from the corner and fanning downward (Fig. 1.20).

Fig. 1.16. The western portico and the entrance to rock-hewn Shop 5297; view to the northwest.

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

Fig. 1.17. Diagonal quarry marks, slightly rounded at the ends, on W302 in Shop 5311; view to the north.

Fig. 1.18. Quarry marks creating a herringbone pattern on W300 in Shop 5311; view to the south.

Fig. 1.19. Quarry marks in varied orientations on the rock cliff (W322) above Room 466; view to the west.

19

20

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

Fig. 1.20. Elongated quarry marks on W566 and W302 in the southeastern corner of Shop 5297; view to the southeast.

Apart from the fashioning of the walls, various installations were hewn into the rock walls, such as doorposts, steps in front of Shop 5297 (see Fig. 1.16), arched niches to support a ceiling vault in Shop 5297 (W302; Fig. 1.21), rectangular sockets for anchoring wooden beams (Fig. 1.22), sockets or hooks for hanging in Shop 5311 (Fig. 1.23),4 and niches for oil lamps in Shop 3070. It appears that other quarrying tools were used for the finer hewing and finishing of these installations, such as multi-tooth combs and chisels of various sizes. The date of the hewing of these installations in the walls of the shops cannot be determined with certainty, as the rock walls were in continuous use long after the Roman period. Fig. 1.21. A hewn passageway in W302 of Shop 5297, above which is a hewn niche for an arch to support a vaulted ceiling; view to the south.

4

This figure was erroneously attributed to Shop 3070 in WWPE I (Weksler-Bdolah 2019: Fig. 3.43).

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

Fig. 1.22. Hewn depressions for the fixing of wooden beams in the center of W307 in Cell 3006; view to the northwest.

Fig. 1.23. A carved socket in W300 of Shop 5311; view to the south.

21

22

SHUA KISILEVITZ AND SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

Discussion Quarries and quarry marks attributed to three principal periods were identified in the vicinity of the Eastern Cardo: (1) the late Iron II (seventh century BCE) at the very latest; (2) the Early Roman period or somewhat after the 70 CE destruction; (3) the first third of the second century CE when the Eastern Cardo of the Roman city Aelia Capitolina was constructed. The quarrying methods in all three periods left similar features, most of which were steps, rectangular depressions of building blocks, severance channels and partition walls between blocks that were removed. Tool marks discernible on the hewn walls are mostly short diagonal grooves arranged in rows in a uniform direction, or creating a herringbone design. Iron II tool marks are short, straight and orderly, while tool marks associated with the Roman period, particularly the Roman Cardo, are generally more convoluted, often longer and rounded at the lower end, as on the rock walls separating the shops. In some places, for example on the high western cliff whose present shape is associated with the Roman Cardo, the quarry marks are uniform and orderly. It may be presumed that the quarrying tools utilized by the quarriers in the different periods were more or less similar, and included pick axes, hammers, various chisels and metal spikes to split stone (Bessac 1988; Safrai and Sasson 2001:20). The principal distinction between the three periods is based on the orientation of the quarries, with apparent discontinuity evident where they meet or overlap, indicating phases of activity that are completely unrelated. The quarrying steps in the late Iron Age were adapted to the natural slope of the bedrock, descending in a northeast direction and forming the jagged rock wall oriented northwest–southeast. In the Early Roman phase, the quarriers worked in the opposite direction, against the natural slope of the bedrock rather than in accordance with it, advancing from the lower point in Quarry 8170 southward, toward the high face of the rock wall. This may have been due to the restricted and builtup area surrounding the quarry in this period. In contrast, the quarrying of the bedrock in preparation for the paving of the Roman Cardo was influenced by and adapted to the north– south orientation of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. The divergence between periods is also related to the incorporation of the quarries within an urban landscape, which impacted on the extent of hewing and stone masonry that could be carried out in the quarry. The abundant hewing waste that was found in the earthen fills that sealed the quarries at the end of the Iron Age (e.g., L5211) attests to the dressing of large stone blocks within the quarry or in its close vicinity. This activity, which creates much waste and requires space, was possible due to the distance between the quarry and the urban center at that time. In later periods, when the area was already built up, or was being planned as part of the urban center of the new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, the blocks were removed from the quarries in their rough form without any further hewing. This data aids in reconstructing the urban development of the area over time.

CHAPTER 1: QUARRYING ACTIVITIES BELOW THE EASTERN CARDO

23

R eferences Bessac J.C. 1988. Problems of Identification and Interpretation of Tool Marks on Ancient Marbles and Decorative Stones. In N. Herz and M. Waelkens eds. Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade (NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series. Series E, Applied Sciences 153). Dordrecht–Boston–London. Pp. 41–53. Gill D. 2019. Bedrock Geology and Building Stones in the Western Wall Plaza Excavations and the Jerusalem Area. WWPE I. Pp. 209–249. Gorzalczany A. 2007. Stone Quarries at Ḥorbat Gilan in the Menashe Hills. ‘Atiqot 55:37–44 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 55–56). Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2019. WWPE II. Safrai Z. and Sasson A. 2001. Quarrying and Quarries in the Land of Israel. Elqana (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 115–117). Sumaka’i Fink A. 2000. Quarries and Quarrying Methods at Ramat Hanadiv. In Y. Hirschfeld. Ramat Hanadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons. Jerusalem. Pp. 628–636. Ward-Perkins J.B. 1971. Quarrying in Antiquity: Technology, Tradition and Social Change (Proceedings of the British Academy 57). London. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

Part 2 Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and R elated Contexts

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 2

Glass Finds Yael Gorin-Rosen

Introduction The glass assemblage retrieved in the Western Wall Plaza excavations can now be added to the Roman glass corpus excavated in the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003, 2006b; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006; Israeli 2010), and further enhances our knowledge of the glass vessels used in Jerusalem during this period, especially between the First Jewish and Bar Kokhba Revolts (70–132 CE). Several of the vessels presented here appear for the first time in a secure archaeological context in Jerusalem, shedding light on the geographical distribution of these types and the people and communities who used them.1 Most of the glass objects from the current excavations were poorly preserved and some examples were deformed from heat. Eighty-three representative diagnostic vessel fragments and inlays were studied (Figs. 2.1–2.12), and are presented here in catalogue form according to their stratigraphic context and typology. The majority of the finds, apart from two small assemblages from later fills in drainage channels, originate in the burnt deposits in the large Early Roman quarry (L8170), dated to c. 75–125 CE and referred to as the ‘Roman refuse dump’ (Weksler-Bdolah 2019b:40–44). The layers of fill were dumped into the quarry during infrastructure work on the Eastern Cardo (Stratum XIIB) and then sealed below the pavement of the eastern portico of the Cardo and Street 8020 (Stratum XIIA; see Foreword: Plans 2, 3). In the following typological discussion, references to similar vessels are cited primarily from sites within Jerusalem and its vicinity, in order to corroborate the dating. In turn, these earlier studies and excavation reports cite extensive references to further parallels, and therefore it is unnecessary to re-list all the references here. Identification and reconstruction of complete vessel shapes are based on broader comparanda, including the western Roman provinces as well as collections worldwide. The Stratum XII assemblage consists of cast (Fig. 2.1) and free-blown (Figs. 2.2– 2.10) vessels, which appeared simultaneously. Most of these vessels are well-known from Jerusalem and its environs, the Judean Desert and the Dead Sea region, where they are firmly dated between the late first century BCE and the mid-second century CE (see, e.g.,

I thank Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, the director of the Western Wall Plaza excavations, for inviting me to study the glass finds and for sharing with me all of her data and ideas. Thanks are also due to Brigitte Ouahnouna for her assistance during the registration process, to my colleagues in the Glass Department, Natalya Katsnelson and Tamar Winter, for their help, and to Yael Israeli for her learned advice. Restoration was carried out by Olga Shorr, drawings by Dalit Weinblatt and the photography by Clara Amit. 1

28

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

Gorin-Rosen 2006b:256–257). They have been discovered in excavations in Jerusalem in the City of David, particularly in Locus 1, a context dated until 70 CE (Ariel 1990); in the Burnt House, dating to the third quarter of the first century CE (Israeli 2010); in various other contexts of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003, 2006b; Israeli and Katsnelson 2006); in the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyene Ha-Umma; GorinRosen 2005); and in Shu‘afaṭ, north of Jerusalem, in a settlement inhabited from the last third of the first century CE to the first third of the second century CE (Katsnelson 2007). Outside Jerusalem, additional comparanda to the assemblage from the Roman dump come from the refuge caves in Judea, which were used in the later stage of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (135/136 CE) and have been comprehensively discussed by Jackson-Tal (2016c). The study of the glass finds from Masada Camp F is also important for both the dating and the military connection of the present assemblage (Jackson-Tal 2016a), as is the glass from ‘Avedat (Jackson-Tal 2016d). The assemblage from Stratum XII includes plain household vessels, among them bowls, beakers, bottles and jugs, as well as luxury ware displaying various decorative techniques. Much smaller assemblages originate in the fills of drainage channels dated to Stratum XI and another that went out of use in Stratum IX, and include well-known types of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods.

Glass from Stratum XII The assemblage comprises cast vessels and blown vessels, including a rich assemblage of decorated mold-blown bowls, beakers and closed vessels. The vast majority of the glass vessels were recovered from the Roman refuse dump, which was deposited during preparation of the infrastructure of the Eastern Cardo (Stratum XIIB; L8037, L8053, L8104, L8107, L8123, L8126, L8137, L8144, L8145, L8162, L8174). The dump yielded a variety of finds, including pottery and coins, which can safely be dated between 75–125 CE, or earlier (see Foreword; see also Bijovsky 2019; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019; Weksler-Bdolah 2019b:40–44). A few glass finds were recovered in contexts assigned to Stratum XIIA, the paving of the street (L525, L5295); in addition, a small number originate in later fills (L8046, L8060, L8063) and were typologically assigned to this group (Cat. Nos. 2, 4, 54, 63). Pre-Blown Glass Finds This category comprises cast bowls of various types, five of which are illustrated here (Fig. 2.1); others were too small to be drawn. In addition to the cast bowls, four glass inlays (Fig. 2.2:6–9) are included here, as they were fashioned in simple molds or by glass drops. Most of them originate in the Roman dump, and they are usually associated with Late Hellenistic and Early Roman assemblages. Conical Bowls with Internal Grooves (Fig. 2.1:1–3) These bowls are classified under Grose’s Group A, dated mainly to the second–first centuries BCE (Grose 1979:55–59); however, in Judea and Jerusalem they have been found in later

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

29

contexts as well, up to 70 CE (for a detailed discussion, see Gorin-Rosen 2003:375–376; 2006b:240–241). Conical bowls with internal grooves were found in Areas A and E in the Jewish Quarter, and they differ slightly in the width and depth of the grooves and in the arrangement of narrow and thick grooves (Gorin-Rosen 2003:375–377; 2006b:240–241). Bowl No. 3 was probably conical. A thin shallow groove is almost invisible on the rim’s interior. The fragment is too small to determine if additional grooves originally decorated the lower wall. No. 1. L5295, B52205. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light yellowish green glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Slanting rim (D ~185 mm) with polishing marks on the interior. Thick wall with a group of three horizontal grooves on the interior below the rim, the upper and lower grooves slightly thinner than the middle one. Additional thin groove below it. No. 2. L8060, B80223/1. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass with yellowish green tinge. Black and silver crust (removed), iridescence and severe pitting. Slanting, rounded rim (D 188 mm) with polishing marks on the interior. Thick wall with three horizontal grooves on the interior below the rim, the upper and lower grooves slightly thinner than the middle one, which is wider and deeply cut. No. 3. L8107, B80474/2. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light greenish blue glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and severe pitting. Slightly slanting, rounded rim (D 130 mm). Thick walls with traces of one horizontal groove on the interior below the rim. Linear-Cut Bowls (Fig. 2.1:4, 5) Bowl Nos. 4 and 5 belong to the group of hemispherical and sub-hemispherical linear-cut bowls that are classified under Grose’s Group D and dated to the mid-first century BCE– mid-first century CE (Grose 1979:63–65). Bowls of this type were excavated in Areas A and E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003:368, 381, Pl. 15.3: G29, G30; 2006b:249, Pl. 10.4: G41, G43, and see further references therein). No. 4. L8060, B80223/2. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light greenish blue glass. Black and silver crust (removed), iridescence and severe pitting. Relatively goodquality fabric and workmanship. Slightly slanting, rounded polished rim (D ~190 mm) with wide deep groove on the interior below the rim, and three lower down on the wall, of which the middle groove is wider and more deeply cut. No. 5. L8107, B80606. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Greenish blue glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Hemispherical bowl with slightly incurving rim, highly polished on both sides (D 140 mm), and a deep groove on the interior just below the rim. Rather thin wall.

30

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

1

2

3

4

5

0

4

Fig. 2.1. Cast bowls from Stratum XII.

Glass Inlays (Fig. 2.2:6–9) Dome-shaped, circular and oval glass inlays or gaming pieces are generally associated with the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. Similar specimens were discovered in the City of David in fills dated from the Hellenistic period until 70 CE (Ariel 1990:157, Fig. 31: GL37–GL40), one example in Area X-2 of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2003:388, Pl. 15.9: G106, and see further references therein), and another in a context of the third quarter of the first century CE in the Burnt House (Israeli 2010: G50). They appeared in large quantities at Gamla, where 165 pieces were dated prior to the 67 CE destruction (AmoraiStark and Hershkovitz 2016:115–132, and see there further references to Samaria, Marisa, Jerusalem and Masada) and were also found at ‘Akko (Gorin-Rosen 2013:109, Fig. 1:2; Katsnelson 2016:85–86, Fig. 3.10:66–68). No. 6. L8144, B81201. Circular inlay. Intact. Colorless glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Fine workmanship. Dome shaped with flat base (D 14 mm).

32

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

No. 10. L8137, B80807/1. Bowl. Small body fragment. Translucent blue glass decorated with opaque white trails. Vertically ribbed wall with horizontal, fused-in trails. Bowl with a Plain, Flaring, Rounded Rim and a Shallow, Horizontal Ridge Below (Fig. 2.3:11). This type of bowl with a delicate, flaring rim and a shallow, horizontal ridge just below it is characterized by its fine fabric and workmanship. Some of these rims are also decorated with delicate crimped trails (see Nos. 12–15). These bowls date to the Early Roman period and are among the early examples of the type, which are distinct from later examples that were very common during the fourth century CE (Weinberg and Goldstein 1988:45–47, Fig. 4–6:53). A rim of this type, of fine fabric and workmanship, was found in Area E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2006b:253, Pl. 10.5: G63), and a similar bowl was recovered from a refuge cave in Judea (Cave III/9, the Large Cave Complex), in use during the late stage of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (135/136 CE; Jackson-Tal 2016c:37–38, 41, Fig. 8:6). Another example was found on the northern coast, in the Akhziv Eastern Cemetery, dated to the second half of the first–second centuries CE (Abu-‘Uqsa 2000: Fig. 15:2). The plain rim fragments of this type could also belong to bowls decorated with crimped trails, like Nos. 12 and 14, which have the typical early second-century CE characteristics. This type of rim also appears on smaller deep bowls (e.g., No. 21), which might suggest the same local source for both. No. 11. L8174, B81302/2. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Greenish blue glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric and workmanship. Flaring rounded rim (D 180 mm) with shallow horizontal ridge just below the rim. Thin delicate wall. Bowls with Crimped Trails Applied on the Rim (Fig. 2.3:12–15). These bowls, both deep and shallow, have a flaring rounded rim characterized by a pair of trails applied on the rim on opposite sides of the bowl. The trails taper toward their ends and are tooled into vertical (No. 12) or diagonal (Nos. 13, 14) ribs. Numbers 12 and 14 are shallower bowls with a horizontal ridge below the rim, while No. 13 probably belonged to a deeper bowl with a slanting wall. Bowl No. 15 presents another, more common subtype that is characterized by a hollow, out-folded rim with applied crimped trails. This bowl was found in L525 in the bedding below the pavement of the Eastern Cardo (Stratum XIIA; Weksler-Bdolach 2019b:53), and therefore is important for the dating of this context. Bowls with a crimped trail on the rim appeared in Provincia Judaea in the late first century CE (post-70 CE) and disappeared after the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE; Barag 1970:107–109, 135, No. 6; 139, No. 9-1; Pls. 24; 30:6; 31:9-1), suggesting a narrow date range (for further discussion and additional parallels, see Winter 2006:77–79, Fig. 1:14–16; Jackson-Tal 2016c:42). Examples with a crimped trail on a rounded rim (as Nos. 12–14) and others with a double-fold below the rim, were discovered in Area E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2006b:253, Pl. 10.5: G62) and the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyene Ha-Umma; Gorin-Rosen 2005:199, Fig. 1:10). Many similar

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

33

bowls from Shu‘afaṭ date to 70–135 CE (Katsnelson 2007:7*, Fig. 3:5, 6), and numerous and varied bowls with crimped trails were found in the Judean refuge caves, which were used in the late stage of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (135/136 CE; Jackson-Tal 2016c:42, 45, Fig. 11, and see further references therein). No. 12. L8104, B80551/1. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Yellowish green glass. Silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric and workmanship. Flaring rounded rim (D ~160 mm) with shallow horizontal ridge just below the rim. Tapering tooled trail applied horizontally on the rim’s edge. Thin delicate wall. No. 13. L8053, B81000/1. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering (partly removed), iridescence and severe pitting. Fine fabric and workmanship. Flaring rounded rim (D 185 mm) with tapering tooled trail applied horizontally on the rim’s edge. Thin delicate wall. No. 14. L8107, B80474/1. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric and workmanship. Flaring rounded rim (D 220 mm) with shallow horizontal ridge just below the rim, visible on both sides. Tapering, uneven, tooled trail applied horizontally on the rim’s edge. Thin delicate wall. No. 15. L525, B5023. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light green. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Flaring, out-folded rim (D 122 mm). Relatively thick, wide tooled trail with dense, vertical ribs applied horizontally on the rim’s edge. Bowls with a Double Fold in the Base (Fig. 2.3:16–18). Three examples are represented here; additional examples are not included in the catalogue. This type of bowl base appeared in the Early Roman period, contemporary with the double fold below the rim. Bowls with such bases had either a plain rim or a crimped trail decoration as Nos. 12–15. Similar bases were found at Shu‘afaṭ, north of Jerusalem, in a settlement dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts (Katsnelson 2007:164–165, Fig. 3:8). Katsnelson notes that these bases, which are quite rare in Judea, belong to shallow bowls or dishes resembling the terra sigillata ware of the first century CE in shape. Complete bowls were also found in the Akhziv Eastern Cemetery, dated to the second half of the first– second centuries CE (Abu-‘Uqsa 2000:9*–10*, Fig. 15:2), and at Ḥorbat Qasṭra (Tomb 7; unpublished2). One such base was found at Caesarea Maritima together with Early Roman glass vessels (Israeli 2008:373, 398, No. 35), and another in a post-Herodian context in the Roman Villa at Jericho (Jackson-Tal 2013a:108, 110, Pl. 3.6:51). Complete bowls with a plain rim, or a rim with crimped trails and a double fold in the base were also found at Pella, in Tombs 12 and 13 dated to the Roman period (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessey 1982: Pls.

Excavated by Ze’ev Yevin and Gerald Finkielstzejn; the glass was studied by Yael Gorin-Rosen, Natalya Katsnelson and Tamar Winter of the IAA. 2

34

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

132:8; 133:3), and Tomb 54, dated to the second half of the first century or the beginning of the second century CE (Smith and McNicoll 1992:124–132, Pls. 87:8, 10; 90a, c). No. 16. L8174, B81302/3. Bowl. Small fragment of base and beginning of wall. Light green glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric and workmanship. Double-fold tubular base (D 140 mm). Beginning of delicate, slightly curving wall. No. 17. L8104, B80426. Bowl. Small fragment of base and beginning of wall. Yellowish green glass. White enamel-like weathering, iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric and workmanship. Double-fold tubular base (D 140 mm). Beginning of delicate, slightly curving wall. No. 18. L8126, B80688. Bowl. Small fragment of a massive base and beginning of wall. Light green glass. Dull surface with cracks, black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Thick, double-fold tubular base (D 140 mm). Beginning of a delicate, slightly curving wall. Bowl with an Incurving, Out-Folded Rim (Fig. 2.3:19). This fragment is characterized by its unique wide, incurving rim and its yellowish brown color, rare attributes among glass assemblages of the Early Roman period in our region. A wide bowl with a similar rim, but of colorless glass with a greenish tinge, was found at Herodium in a context that can be dated around the end of the First Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2015:398, Pl. 9.I:5, and see further references therein). However, Jackson-Tal included this bowl within the group of bowls with folded rims, without sub-dividing them according to inclination of the rim (outward is most common, inward is uncommon during the first–second centuries CE). A single complete bowl of fine fabric with a rim similar to No. 19 and a base similar to No. 20, was found at Masada in the Rebel Occupation (Max 2012:863–864, 1120–1121, Pl. 87:541, with further references to the western Roman provinces). Similar rims were found at Colchester in England (Cool and Price 1995:95, Figs. 6.2:633, 642–643; 6.3:687–690), one of which (No. 690) has the same profile and width as No. 19 here. These fragments show a variety of colors: one is deep blue, one is yellowish/ colorless, one is dark yellowish brown and five are blue-green, and the rim diameters range between 70 and 130 mm; a single example (No. 690) is 160 mm. Regarding the rather small diameters of most of these pieces, Cool and Price (1995:95) suggest that they were some form of jar rather than a bowl. Only the deeply colored bowls were found in contexts dated to the first century CE. No. 19. L8104, B80441/1. Bowl. Rim fragment with beginning of wall. Yellowish brown glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Wide, incurving, outfolded rim (D 165 mm). Relatively thick fold. Bowl with a Solid Ring Base (Fig. 2.3:20). This base is characterized by its bright color and cracked surface. The ring base and the wall are thick compared to other blown vessels. As

36

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

Small Bowl with a Flaring, Rounded Rim and a Shallow, Horizontal Ridge Below (Fig. 2.4:21). Plain and decorated bowls with a similar profile, but larger and wider, were discussed above (Nos. 11, 12, 14). It is possible that this treatment of the rim was typical of a local glass workshop, as we see different types with a similar rim. The fabric was also used for other types of this period. A small bowl with a horizontal ridge below a flaring rim was found in the fill of the miqveh at Alon Shevut, south of Jerusalem, dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts (Gorin-Rosen 1999:87–88, Fig. 2:7, and see further references therein). No. 21. L8145, B80883. Bowl. Two separate fragments, probably from the same bowl: (a) fragment of rim and wall, (b) complete base and beginning of wall. Yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Thin, very delicate, flaring rounded rim (D 110 mm) with shallow, horizontal ridge below the rim. Pushed-in, concave bottom with faint scar off-center. Irregular tubular ring base (D 52 mm). Small Bowls (or Beakers) with a Flaring, Rounded Rim (Fig. 2.4:22–24). These three rims represent many small fragments of similar rims that were too small to be drawn. The rims have a very simple shape and flare out to a rounded edge. Earlier versions of bowls with this type of rim were found at Gamla in a context that pre-dated the destruction of the site in 67 CE (Jackson-Tal 2016b:2, 20, Fig. 8.19:108–111). A similar rim was found in the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005:199–200, Fig. 1:11), and a rim similar to No. 24 was recovered from Masada Camp F1 and dated to the First Jewish Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2016a:1–2, 13, Fig. 9:15). Bowls of this type, dated to the period of the First Jewish Revolt or later, were found at Herodium (Jackson-Tal 2015:398–399, Pl. 9.I:8, 9, and see further references therein to the City of David, ‘En Boqeq and ‘En Gedi), and in the fill of the miqveh at Alon Shevut, dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts (Gorin-Rosen 1999:85–88, Fig. 2:1–6, and see further references therein). No. 22. L8137, B80807/2, 3. Bowl. Two separate fragments, probably from the same bowl: (a) fragment of rim and wall, (b) small fragment of base and beginning of wall. Light bluish green glass. Black, gold and silver weathering (partly removed), iridescence and severe pitting. Slightly thickened, flaring, rounded rim (D 76 mm). Thin wall, almost straight. Very thin, delicate, tubular ring base (D 58 mm). Broken at center. No. 23. L8104, B80530/4. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Bluish green glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Probably local fabric and workmanship. Thick, flaring, rounded rim (D 92 mm). Slightly curving wall. No. 24. L8104, B80530/3. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Green glass. Black and silver weathering, golden iridescence and severe pitting. Relatively low-quality fabric. Flaring, shelf-like, rounded rim (D 100 mm). Slightly curving, rather thin wall.

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

37

Small Bowl/Jar with a Flaring, Out-Folded ‘Collar’ Rim (Fig. 2.4:25). This vessel is characterized by its color, fabric, rim shape and careless workmanship. It can be defined as a deep bowl or small jar. Plain and decorated jars with similar rims were found at Colchester, with diameters of 75–115 mm (Cool and Price 1995:106–109, Fig. 7.2:735–737, 740, 748), of which two were made of yellow/brown glass (Nos. 735, 736). These jars were dated mainly to the Neronian period, but continued until the second century CE (Cool and Price 1995:106–107, and see there further references to the western Roman provinces). No. 25. L8144, B80924/3, 4. Bowl/Jar. Two separate fragments, probably from the same bowl: (a) fragment of rim and wall, (b) half of base and beginning of wall. Yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Low-quality fabric with bubbles and black impurities, as well as careless workmanship. Flaring, irregular, out-folded rim with two hollows creating a collar rim (D 70 mm). Thin wall with carinated shoulder. Delicate, tubular ring base with small flat bottom (D 35 mm). Bowls or Beakers with a Tubular Ring Base (Fig. 2.4:21b, 22b, 25b, 26–29). Ring bases are the most common base of bowls and beakers during the Roman period. Slightly different versions of bowl/beaker bases are presented in Fig. 2.4, which vary mainly in size, height of concavity and angle of base. Base Nos. 26–29 are all hollow, pushed-in ring bases with slight variations; No. 26 is somewhat larger, resembling the base of No. 21, while Nos. 27–29 are characterized by a delicate, almost flat ring base with a high concavity and a rather thin wall; Nos. 27–29 could belong to bowls or to beakers like an example found at Caesarea Maritima along with Hellenistic and Early Roman coins, the latest dating to the first century CE (Israeli 2008:374, 399, No. 42). No. 26. L8137, B80807/4. Bowl. Nearly complete base and beginning of wall. Yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Pushed-in, thickened, concave bottom, without a pontil scar. Tubular ring base (D 60 mm). No. 27. L8107, B80637/2. Bowl/beaker. Part of base and beginning of wall. Light green glass. Dull surface with cracks. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. High, pushed-in, thickened, concave bottom with a crude scar and traces of glass from the pontil. Low tubular ring base (D 55 mm). Thin delicate wall. No. 28. L8107, B80662. Bowl/beaker. Almost complete base and beginning of wall. Light green glass. Gold and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Pushed-in, thickened, concave bottom with a crude scar and traces of a glass ‘button’ from the pontil. Tubular, flattened, tooled-out ring base (D 44 mm). Fine fabric with very delicate wall, but a crude pontil that contrasts the fine workmanship. No. 29. L8137, B80807/5. Bowl/Beaker. Small fragment of base and beginning of wall. Colorless glass with green tinge. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Remains of small, delicate, tubular ring base (D 40 mm).

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

39

No. 30. L8104, B80441/2. Beaker. Rim fragment and part of wall. Light green glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Upright, cut-off, unworked rim (D 72 mm). Thin wall. No. 31. L8144, B80924/2. Beaker. Rim fragment and beginning of wall. Colorless glass with purple tinge. Weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric. Slightly flaring, cut-off rim, polished (D 70 mm). Thin, slightly curving wall. Beakers with Horizontal, Wheel-Cut Decoration (Fig. 2.5:32–36). This type includes a few subtypes divided mainly according to body shape. Most of them are characterized by a cut-off rim and abraded, wheel-cut lines or grooves on the exterior, below the rim and on the wall (Isings 1957:27–30, Form 12; 44, Form 29; 48–49, Form 34). An intact beaker and cup, both with cut-off rims and abraded wheel-cut decoration, were found in Burial Trough I in Chamber D of Cave 1 at Akeldama, dated to the first century CE (Winter 1996:96, Fig. 5.1:1, 2, color photo on back cover; see there for further references to Machaerus and Samothrace). Several beakers with slightly different shapes of wheel-cut decoration and numbers of grooves were found at Gamla in a context that pre-dated the destruction of the site in 67 CE (Jackson-Tal 2016b:2, 21, Fig. 8.21:129–138, and see further references therein). Beaker Nos. 32 and 33 have an incurving rim and are decorated with a wide wheel-cut groove below the rim, and another one farther down the wall (No. 33). Beaker No. 34 has a slightly incurving rim and a thin wall with pairs of narrow, wheel-cut lines. Beakers of this subtype, with slight differences mainly in the location of the decoration, were found at Shu‘afaṭ and dated to the period between 70–135 CE (Katsnelson 2007:164–165, Fig. 4:1, 2). Beaker No. 35 is characterized mainly by its conical body decorated with a few wheel-cut grooves, one below the rim and others on the body. A similar beaker was found in Area E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2006b: Pl. 10.5: G66, and see there reference to Early Roman Tomb 54 at Pella). Another beaker of this subtype was found in the Palatial Fortress at Cypros, dated to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2013b:167, Pl. 6.2:10, and see further references therein), and others in a Herodian context at Machaerus, and at Caesarea Maritima along with Early Roman glass vessels (Israeli 2008:373, 399, No. 36, and see further references therein). Beaker No. 36 has four relatively deep, wheel-cut grooves. No. 32. L8107, B80474/3. Beaker. Rim fragment and beginning of wall. Colorless glass with yellowish tinge. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Fine workmanship. Incurving, cut-off rim, finely polished (D 66 mm). Wide, horizontal, wheelcut band below rim. Thin, slightly curving wall.

40

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

No. 33. L8137, B80807/7. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Light yellowish green glass. Brown and silver weathering, iridescence, severe pitting and cracks on the wall. Fine workmanship. Incurving, cut-off rim, finely polished (D 74 mm). Wide, horizontal, wheelcut band below rim and another one further down the wall. Thin, slightly curving wall. No. 34. L8144, B81248. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Clear colorless glass. Gold and silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Slightly curving, cut-off rim, finely polished (D 80 mm). Two narrow, shallow, wheel-cut lines below the rim and two slightly deeper ones further down the wall. No. 35. L8107, B80637/1. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. High-quality workmanship. Upright, cutoff rim, polished (D 74 mm). One narrow, wheel-cut groove below rim, two wide, deep grooves below them on the wall and two more further down: the upper is wide and deep, the lower is narrow and shallow. The wall thickens toward the bottom. No. 36. L8123, B80750. Beaker. Fragment of wall. Yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Body fragment with four relatively deep, wheelcut grooves. Facet-Cut Beaker (Fig. 2.5:37). This body fragment probably belongs to a facet-cut beaker of good-quality colorless glass. These beakers were studied and divided into several subgroups (Cool and Price 1995:71–75). Fragment No. 37 is too small to reconstruct its shape, but the adjoining facets assign it to the Early Roman faceted vessels, which were made in the eastern part of the Roman Empire in the last third of the first–beginning of the second centuries CE (Oliver 1984:37–41). This date is confirmed by the findspot of this fragment in the Roman dump under the Eastern Cardo. Two comparable body fragments of the lower part of the faceted zone were found at Colchester (Cool and Price 1995:71–75, Fig. 5.6:395, 396, and see further references therein). Cool and Price state that facet-cut beakers were manufactured during the last third of the first century and possibly in the early second century, and were certainly in use by the late Neronian or early Flavian period (1995:72). They had a wider distribution in the western Empire, and were more numerous at military and former military sites than at civilian sites. For example, large numbers were discovered at three legionary fortresses in Britain occupied during the Flavian to early Trajanic period, when the use of these beakers was at its peak; this was probably due to the high economic status and relative wealth of the legionnaires (Cool and Price 1995:73, and see further references therein). As the military context of this class is quite pronounced in the western Roman provinces, the example from Jerusalem may point to a similar pattern in the East, although its occurrence in the eastern provinces is so far limited. A few fragments of faceted beakers were found in the Judean refuge caves used in the later stage of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, such as the Cave of Skulls and Cave V/59, as well as in Masada Camp F and at ‘Avedat (Jackson-Tal 2016c: 47, Fig. 13:3, 4). Such beakers were also found at Karanis in Egypt (Harden 1936:137, 149–151, Pl. 15:409, and see further

42

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

Indented Beaker (Fig. 2.6:38). This beaker is characterized by its flaring, cut-off rim, conical shape and indented wall. Such beakers vary in rim angle, shape of the body (cylindrical or conical) and proportions (tall and narrow or short and squat). They usually have four indentations on the body, but in some cases more appear. The base is flat or slightly pushed in. Indented beakers were very common in the Early Roman period in the eastern and western Roman provinces (Isings 1957:46–47, Form 32). In his discussion of the ‘beakers with indentations’ found at Amathos in Cyprus, Oliver (1992:107) notes that they were widespread during the first century CE, and also well represented in wall paintings, as at Pompeii and Herculaneum. A base of an indented beaker was found in Area E of the Jewish Quarter (Gorin-Rosen 2006b:239, Pl. 10.5: G65). Indented beakers were found at Shu‘afaṭ in a settlement dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts (Katsnelson 2007:164–165, Fig. 4:4, 5), in the refuge caves at ‘Abud, and in the Cave of Horror (Jackson-Tal 2016c:44, Fig. 12:8, 9, and see further references there to Masada Camp F, ‘Aro‘er, the Roman estate at Jericho, and Qumran). Bases of indented beakers were also found at Khirbat Burnaṭ, a rural settlement in the Modi‘in region (Winter 2012:143–144, Fig. 2:9, 10). A fragment of such a base was found at Caesarea Maritima along with Early Roman glass vessels (Israeli 2008:374, 399, No. 41), and an indented beaker was found at Naḥal Ḥaggit (Winter 2010:156–157, Fig. 5.1:5, and see further references there to ‘Akko). A beaker of this type was found in Tomb 54 at Pella, dated to the second half of the first century or the first half of the second century CE (Smith and McNicoll 1992:132, Pl. 87:17), and fragments were recovered from Jerash (Meyer 1988:185–186, Fig. 2:I) and Quseir al-Qadim (Meyer 1992:27–28, Pl. 8:149–165, and see further references there to Karanis, Karanòg, Carthage and Dura Europos). No. 38. L8104, B80530. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless clear glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and severe pitting. Upright, cut-off rim, unfinished (D 98 mm). Thin wall decorated with wide indentation. Arcaded Beakers (Fig. 2.6:39–41). Two rims and a wall fragment represent this type in the catalogue; additional fragments were too small to be drawn. This type is characterized by an upright, cut-off rim and ground edge, sometimes with a wheel-cut groove below the rim edge. The body was pinched to create an arcade-like pattern of elongated ovals in low relief that are either separate (open), as on the examples presented here, or joined together to create a closed arcade pattern, as on a complete beaker from Pella (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessey 1982: Pl. 132:4) and an example from Colchester (Cool and Price 1995:71, Fig. 5.5:394). The base is usually pushed-in, either to create a tubular ring (as in Nos. 27–29), or to create an open fold. Cool and Price (1995:71) note that this type of beaker was contemporary with the indented beakers during the second half of the first century CE, but less popular, and is mainly a Flavian form. The Colchester beaker is one of the earliest, originating in a context dated 49–75 CE. The greatest concentration of these beakers is in Italy, southern Switzerland, southern France, Spain, northern Holland and

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

43

Britain (Cool and Price 1995:71, and see references therein). Very few examples were found in the eastern provinces, such as the aforementioned example from Pella. A complete beaker of clear glass with open arcades on the upper part and closed arcades on the lower part was acquired in Lebanon, provenanced to Syria, and dated to the first–second centuries CE (Smith 1957:248–249, Cat. No. 296). Two complete examples with fine arcades from the cemetery of Zadar on the Adriatic coast are dated to the mid-first–mid-second centuries CE (Ravagnan 1994:131, Cat. Nos. 248, 249, and see further references therein). Beyond the eastern frontier of the Empire, an almost-complete beaker decorated with open arcades, similar to the examples presented here, was found at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain) in the eastern Arabian Peninsula (described as transparent, but probably pale yellowish brown or green; Whitehouse 1998:44–45, Fig. 10:104, Pl. 13:104, and see reference there to a beaker from a grave at al-Hajjar Site 2 in Bahrain). The few fragments from the Western Wall Plaza excavations are the first to be found in Israel and among the few examples from the eastern Mediterranean. This limited distribution may point to an association of this type with the Roman legion. No. 39. L8123, B80754. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless clear glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. High-quality workmanship. Upright, cut-off rim, polished (D 80 mm). Thin wall decorated with protruding vertical ribs with horizontal arches above and between them. No. 40. L8104, B80551/3. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass with grayish green tinge. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Small cracks on the interior surface. Upright, flaring, cut-off rim, polished (D 78 mm). Thin wall decorated with protruding vertical ribs with horizontal arches above and between them. No. 41. L8104, B80551/4. Beaker. Small wall fragment. Colorless glass. White enamel-like weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Thin wall decorated with protruding vertical rib. Beaker Bases (Fig. 2.6:42, 43). The two bases with a slight concavity probably belong to beakers. The fragments are too small to reconstruct the complete shape. Number 43 bears similarities to a beaker found in the refuge cave at Har Yishai, dated to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2016c:42, Fig. 12:1). No. 42. L8104, B80530/1. Beaker. Fragment of base and wall. Yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Slightly concave bottom, no pontil mark (D 40 mm). Relatively thick wall. No. 43. L8107, B80662. Beaker. Fragment of base and wall. Colorless glass with light greenish tinge. Brown and silver weathering with cracks in the walls, severely pitted. Slightly concave bottom (D 42 mm). Very thin wall.

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

45

No. 44. L8104, B80530. Modiolos. Rim and wall fragment. Colorless glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Dull surface. High-quality fabric and workmanship. Thick, rounded rim with a protruding ridge below it on the slanting wall (D 16 cm). No. 45. L8104, B80551/2. Modiolos. A complete handle and small wall fragment. Green glass. Silver and gold weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Slightly curving wall with a wide loop handle drawn upward, with remains of leftover glass attached on the upper part of the handle.

44

45 0

4

Fig. 2.7. Modioli from Stratum XII.

Vessels with Mold-Blown Decoration A rich assemblage of bowls, beakers and closed vessels with relief decoration made by blowing the molten glass into molds was uncovered in the excavations. The most notable of these vessels belong to the well-known group of ‘Sidonian’ ware, a traditional name referring to highly decorated, mold-blown vessels widely distributed in the eastern and western Roman provinces. As a relatively large number of these vessels were found in Syria-Palestine, glass scholars attributed them to Sidon, based on Roman written sources rather than solid archaeological evidence (Israeli 2003:123; 2011:11, 15, 29). However, more recent finds from excavations in the western Roman provinces, such as Dalmatia (e.g., Buljević 2009), suggest that the mold-blown ‘Sidonian’ ware was probably produced in several production centers. The Sidonian ware is characterized by its typical shapes and elaborate decoration. A well-known subtype of ‘Sidonian’ ware is decorated with a few formulas of inscriptions, the most common of which is: ‘made by . . .’, and among these, the most famous glassmaker is ‘Ennion’, whose name appears on luxurious jugs and cups. A well-known example from an excavation was discovered in the destruction layers of the First Jewish Revolt in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and dated to 70 CE (Israeli 1983; 2011:18–19). Other inscriptions include benedictory formulas, such as ‘rejoice and be merry’ or ‘seize the victory’, which

46

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

were found in various excavations in Jerusalem, the Judean Desert and elsewhere (e.g., Israeli 2003:124; Gorin-Rosen 2005:196–197; Jackson-Tal 2007:481–482). The inscribed vessels are also decorated with floral motifs that are usually arranged in horizontal bands above and below the inscription. In addition to the inscribed subtypes, other ‘Sidonian’ vessels are decorated with vegetal and geometric patterns (for further discussion and examples, see Israeli 2003:123–140; 2011). The Western Wall Plaza excavations yielded the richest assemblage of mold-blown decorated vessels unearthed so far in Israel and they belong to at least five different types: 1. Finely-ribbed, hemispherical bowls with a pronounced shoulder; 2. Beakers with almond-shaped decoration; 3. Cylindrical beaker with an inscription; 4. Vessel with a figure (‘mythological beaker’); 5. Closed vessels with vegetal or geometric patterns. Finely-Ribbed, Hemispherical Bowls with a Pronounced Shoulder (Fig. 2.8:46, 47). Complete specimens of this type are mainly known from collections around the world. Although the two fragments presented here each lack one of the characteristic features of this bowl type, they are unequivocally representative of this type: No. 46 has the typical cut-off rim, slightly curved-in on the edge, and a pronounced shoulder, but is broken at the beginning of the wall and the ribbed decoration is missing; No. 47 is a body fragment displaying the shape, size and fine ribs of this type, although it is missing the base and rim, and therefore cannot be assigned to any of the known subtypes (Stern 1995:112). Hayes called this type a ‘ribbed bowl’ and assigned it to the ‘Sidonian’ mold-blown wares originating in Syrian or northern Italian workshops c. 50–100 CE (Hayes 1975:31– 33, 47–48, Cat. No. 82). Stern studied the mold-blown vessels in the Toledo Museum of Art and pointed out that vessels with a pronounced shoulder (1995:111–113, Cat. Nos. 13, 14) were predominant in the western part of the Roman Empire. While some examples are known from Greece and the eastern provinces, she mentions only two parallels from SyriaPalestine, both of which are from collections: one is said to be from Jerusalem and the other from Rakka, Syria (Stern 1995:112–113, n. 21). Despite this paucity, Stern attributed the two bowls from the Toledo Museum to the eastern Mediterranean region and dated them to the second quarter of the first century CE. Therefore, the well-dated, excavated context of the two fragments in the present assemblage is important for both the distribution and the date of this type in the East. Among the examples published since Stern’s study, some originate in excavated contexts, e.g., a mold-blown fragment with ‘ribs close together’ from Caesarea Maritima, found together with Early Roman glass vessels (Israeli 2008:372, 397, No. 20), and several examples from Gamla, found in a context predating the destruction of the site in 67 CE (Jackson-Tal 2016b:2, 15–16, Fig. 8.17:83–87). The Gamla vessels comprise, so far, the largest well-dated collection of this type published from the eastern Roman provinces. Other noteworthy examples include a few pieces from Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Price 1985b: Fig. 24.3:43–46) and an example from the region of Tripolitania, dated to the second and third quarters of the first century CE (Price 1985a:70, Fig. 1:3, and see references therein).

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

47

Five bowls of this type were found in Slovenia, dated from the mid- to second half of the first century CE (Lazar 2003:50–52, Figs. 15; 18:2.2.1, with further references to the western Roman provinces). No. 46. L8048, B80403. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light green glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Very fine fabric and workmanship. Flaring rim with an upright, slightly curved edge (D 120 mm). Protruding shoulder below the rim. Very delicate wall. No. 47. L8107, B80663/2. Bowl. Small fragment of wall. Yellowish green glass with yellow streaks. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Remains of vertical ribbing starting above the base on the wall. Even pattern and high-quality workmanship. Rather thick wall: the ribbed pattern is only on the exterior, while the interior is flat. Beakers with Almond-Shaped Decoration (Fig. 2.8:48–51). These well-known beakers with almond-shaped decoration differ in dimensions, size of the knobs, and density of rows and knobs in each row. The fragments found in the present excavation include at least two subtypes based on variations of the pattern: No. 48 belongs to a rather large beaker with an incurving, cut-off rim and large, tiered, almond-shaped knobs, while Nos. 49 and 50 display rows of regular-sized almond-shaped knobs. Base fragment No. 51 is decorated with concentric circles. Beakers with almond-shaped knobs were very common throughout the Roman Empire. They are well-known from excavations in both the eastern and western provinces, as well as from glass collections throughout the world, and are dated to the second half of the first century CE (Isings 1957:45–46, Form 31; Hayes 1975:33, 48). The description and identification of the knobs vary. Whitehouse named the type ‘knobbed’ or ‘lotus-bud’ beakers, while others identified the knobs as almonds, knots in a tree trunk, or even the knots in the club of Hercules (Whitehouse 2001:13–14). The source of this pattern is unclear, although a western origin is generally accepted for most of the variations distributed in both the East and the West. However, Hayes suggested that this type was made in both Syrian and Italian workshops (Hayes 1975:33, 48, Cat. No. 83, and see further references therein). Weinberg and Stern note that only two variations of patterns are common at eastern Mediterranean sites: three-tiered almond-shaped bosses (knobs) arranged in alternating rows, and threetiered almond-shaped bosses alternating with round bosses (Weinberg and Stern 2009:67, and see further references therein). The three fragments found in this excavation represent the first variation. The few beakers with an almond-shaped, mold-blown pattern recovered from other excavations in Israel represent both variations. One fragment from Area E of the Jewish Quarter excavations, with a pattern of almond-shaped knobs alternating with round bosses (Gorin-Rosen 2006b:254–255, Pl. 10.5: G68), was found in the upper layer of a locus dated within the first century CE up to the First Jewish Revolt (67 CE). Beakers with almond-shaped knobs were discovered at Herodium, in a context dated before or near the end of the First Jewish Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2015:404, Pl. 9.III:21), and at Masada (Barag 1991:139), where 21 fragments of both variations were registered, dated from the mid- to

48

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

third quarter of the first century CE (Max 2012:657–660, 1134–1137, Pls. 44, 45). These examples from the first century CE are probably the earliest occurrences of this type in Israel. Additional pieces were found in the refuge caves in the Judean Desert, dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, for example in Cave VII/1 (‘El-Mafjer Cave’) near Jericho, at ‘Ein ‘Arrub, and at ‘En Gedi where a body sherd similar to Nos. 49 and 50 was retrieved (Jackson-Tal 2002:110, Fig. 6:6; 2016c:47, Fig. 13:2, and see further references therein). A similar base to No. 51, with the remains of one almond knob, was also found at ‘En Gedi (Jackson-Tal 2007:481, Pl. 5:3). A complete beaker with large knobs similar to No. 48 was found in a burial cave at Ḥorbat Qasṭra (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 1999:27*, Color Pl. iii:1), and a fragment with huge knobs was discovered at Yavne (Gorin-Rosen 2015:35*– 36*, Fig. 1). From the wide distribution of this type in well-dated excavations in Israel, it is now evident that it was the most common mold-blown beaker in Provincia Judaea. Elsewhere in the Roman East, two beakers were found at Berenike, the Roman emporium along the Red Sea (Kucharczyk 2018:154–155, 160, Figs. 4:7, 6:6, and see there references to Medinet Madi). Kucharczyk notes that while this type was widely distributed in the Roman world, it was almost non-existent in Egypt (2018:155). Beakers of this type were found even farther to the southeast at ed-Dur in the eastern Arabian Peninsula (Whitehouse 2000:111–112, No. 97). The examples in the West were contemporary to those in the East, as beakers of this type were found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, and were therefore common in 70 CE. Additional beakers dated to 70–100 CE (Weinberg and Stern 2009:67) were found in southern England, Portugal, central Italy (Whitehouse 2000:113), the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland (Isings 1957:45–46, Form 31). No. 48. L8162, B81163. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Light green glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Incurving, cut-off rim, unworked, thicker than wall below it. Remains of two protruding, almond-shaped knobs on the wall, in one of the knobs the lower tier is visible. No. 49. L8145, B80883/1. Beaker. Fragment of wall. Yellowish brown glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Body fragment with four complete almond-shaped knobs and remains of two more, arranged in four rows. No. 50. L8144, B80886. Beaker. Fragment of wall and beginning of base. Yellowish brown glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Body fragment with two complete knobs from the lowest row above the base, and the pointed end of one more above them. No. 51. L8144, B80924/1. Beaker. Small fragment of base. Yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Remains of mold-blown concentric circles on the bottom with a dot in the center.

50

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

At ‘Aro‘er in the Negev, a small body fragment of a mold-blown vessel with a leaf pattern similar to the horizontal friezes above and below the inscription of No. 52 was found, along with another subtype of inscribed beaker (Jackson-Tal 2011:371, Pl. 262:10). Harden mentioned three examples of his Class L: one from Cornus, Sardinia, and two in the Louvre collection, of which one is said to be from Syria and the other from Kerch in the Black Sea region (Harden 1935:180, Pls. 26:a, b; 27:c; 28:20). These inscribed beakers were published in detail in the Louvre catalogue (Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:183, 194, 294, Cat. Nos. 537, 873). Another beaker of this type originated in Narbonne in France (Foy and Nenna 2003:246). No. 52. L8107, B80663. Beaker. Rim, wall and beginning of base, almost complete profile, base missing (mended). Light green glass. Brown and silver weathering, cracked, iridescence and severe pitting. Relatively fine-quality fabric and workmanship. Upright, cut-off rim (D ~82 mm). Thin wall. Relief decoration consisting of a wide central frieze divided by vertical palm leaves with remains of three letters and the edges of another two arranged in two lines. Above and below the main frieze are horizontal bands. Vessel with a Figure (‘Mythological Beaker’) (Fig. 2.9:53). The ‘mythological beakers’ are a group of four-sided beakers or flasks decorated with figures, usually one figure on each side. The figures are identified as mythological based on their attributes. The body fragment from the Roman dump is among the very few fragments of figurative, mold-blown vessels known from Israel. Two fragments of ‘mythological beakers’ from the excavations at Masada were tentatively dated by Barag (1991:139) to 74–115 CE, based on coins dating to the days of the second garrison found together in the same loci. The glass finds from Masada were the subject of a later study, in which three fragments of ‘mythological beakers’ were presented (the previous two and an additional fragment), one of which (No. 226) bears similarities to No. 53 here, although the dancer is facing to the right (Max 2012:630–639, 1124–1125, Pl. 39:226, with extensive discussion of the types and the dating). The two fragments mentioned by Barag were first described in detail by Weinberg (1972:46–47) and attributed to Group IV in her typology of ‘mythological beakers’; another fragment in the Erez Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, was assigned to her Group III (Weinberg 1972:45, No. 3). Weinberg’s 1972 typology was updated by Wight (1994), who also mentions the same three examples from Israel. In addition to the four examples from Israel, two fragments were found at Dura-Europos in Syria, in contexts dated to the Middle Imperial period (Clairmont 1963: Pl. 21:127a–127c), and a complete beaker originated in a grave in Slovenia, dated to the last third of the first century CE (Lazar 2003:52–53, Figs. 17, 18:3.1.1). The small number of excavated examples from the Roman world––a few from burial contexts and even less from dwellings––does not allow any interpretation as to the function or production of these beakers. The fact that at least some of them can be associated with the Roman legions, such as those from Masada and Vindonissa (Weinberg 1972:46; Wight 1994:52–53), and now the fragment from the Roman refuse dump, must be taken into consideration. The fragment from the Roman dump cannot be assigned to any of Weinberg’s groups, as the combination of a dressed female figure facing left between plain

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

51

(unfluted) columns is unknown elsewhere. The figure’s position and manner of dress could be assigned to a dancer rather than a specific mythological figure. No. 53. L8121, B80615. Beaker/bottle/flask? Body fragment with the beginning of a base. Colorless glass with light green tinge or very light green glass. Black and silver weathering, cracked, iridescence and severe pitting. Thin wall. Relief decoration consisting of remains of one figure, facing left, probably female wearing a long chiton and himation, barefooted, standing on the ground. A plain (unfluted) column to the right with a pedestal. Closed Vessels with Vegetal or Geometric Patterns (Fig. 2.9:54, 55) Fragment No. 54 belongs to a small bottle or juglet decorated with a band of vegetal scrolls between two bands of vertical ribbing. Two complete examples, one of a two-handled flask (height 70 mm) and the other of a small juglet (height 78 mm) are in the Israel Museum, dated to the first century CE and attributed to the Phoenician coast (Israeli 2003:138, Cat. Nos. 144, 145, and see further references therein). Bottles decorated with mold-blown vegetal patterns were common in the first century CE, with approximately two-thirds originating in eastern Mediterranean excavations, the rest from Dalmatia and Italy (Weinberg and Stern 2009:68, and see there for additional examples from the Athenian agora and Samothrace, Thessaloniki and Panticapaeum; see Stern 1995:152–154 for a distribution list). A similar small jug of transparent purple glass with an ovoid body decorated with tendril-scroll motifs between vertical ribbing was found at Zadar, in southern Liburnia, dated to the second half of the first century CE (Fadić and Štefanac 2010:292–294, 336, Cat. No. 15, with further discussion of the type and references to Dalmatia). It was assigned to a group of small jugs traded from Eastern Mediterranean workshops; however, it was also suggested that a glassmaker from the east migrated with his knowledge and molds to Liburnia (Fadić and Štefanac 2010:310). Among those in collections worldwide, a few vessels are recorded from Syro-Palestinian sites, e.g., two in the Louvre collection said to have been found at Tartous/Tortose, and one from Amrit (Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:185, 222–223, Cat. Nos. 648−650). Vessel No. 55 is a small bottle or juglet characterized by its opaque white appearance and unique basket-like pattern of horizontal lines, with a frieze of herringbone pattern above it and a row of circular bosses below it where it connects to the base. This pattern is rare in comparison to vegetal patterns like that of No. 54, and even amphoriskoi bearing similar basket-like patterns lack the additional circular bosses on the lower part. The single example with an identical pattern to that of No. 55 is a complete amphoriskos located in the Wheaton College collection, dated to the first century CE (Dusenbery 1971:14, Fig. 8). It is made of clear, pale blue glass that appears dark and opaque in reflected light. The only parallel noted by Dusenbery is to a more common subtype with a slightly different body shape and additional floral patterns, examples of which are seen in the Oppenländer Collection (Saldern et al. 1974:150, Cat. Nos. 430, 431).3 Thus, Fragment No. 55 represents a unique subtype of mold-blown vessels.

I wish to thank Yael Israeli for informing me of these parallels.

3

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

53

band bottles were discovered at ‘Avedat (Jackson-Tal 2016d:85–86, Fig. 9:1, 2, and see there references to Masada). Three bottles of this type in the Israel Museum collection are dated to the first century CE and attributed to the eastern Mediterranean (Israeli 2003:115, Cat. Nos. 100–102, and see further references therein, mainly from collections). Nos. 56, 57. L8107, B80662. Bottle. Two body fragments. Probably dark blue appearing black with glass bands of white, yellow, blue and grayish blue. Patches of brown weathering and sand deposits. Thick wall with uneven, asymmetrical, fused-in bands of various shades. Small Bottle with an In-Folded Rim (Fig. 2.10:58) This bottle is characterized by its color, fabric and delicate wall. The combination of the shape and fabric may point to the Sidonian ware (see above), although no remains of moldblown decoration have survived. No. 58. L8174, B81302/1. Bottle. Complete rim and neck. Light bluish glass with purple veins. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Partly in-folded rim, very thin and delicate (D 15 mm). Very thin wall. Bottle with a Pear-Shaped, Constricted Body (Fig. 2.10:59) The body of Bottle No. 59 is characteristic of a very common type of small or mediumsized bottle with a constriction at the middle of the pear-shaped body, a narrow neck and an infolded, flattened rim. This type is dated to the first–early second centuries CE. Most of the complete examples were found in burial caves, very few in settlement contexts. For example, bottles of this type were found in the Jewish cemetery of the Second Temple period at Jericho (first century CE; Hachlili and Killebrew 1999:134, Fig. III.71:3, 5) and in the Akhziv Eastern Cemetery, in Tomb 103 dated to the second half of the first century CE (Abu-‘Uqsa 2000: Fig. 15:3, 4). No. 59. L8147, B80920. Bottle. Fragment of base and body. Greenish blue glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Flat bottom with part of body, constricted horizontally. The wall becomes thinner from the bottom upward. Bottle with Applied Trail Decoration (Fig. 2.10:60). This bottle is small, made of blue glass decorated with thin white trails. Despite its poor state of preservation, this fragment can be identified as a Roman type that is rarely found in excavations in the eastern Roman provinces. Trail decoration around the neck and body appears on very few bottle types during the first century CE; for example, one with a globular body and one with an elongated drop-shaped body in the Israel Museum collection, dated to the first century CE and attributed to the eastern Mediterranean (Israeli 2003:116, Cat. Nos. 103, 104). A base of a bottle decorated with a white trail was found in the City of David (Locus 1), dated prior to 70 CE (Ariel 1990:162–163, Fig. 33: GL88), and a body fragment with thin white trails in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot; Gutreich 2013:272–274, Fig. 12.3:41). A bottle of the globular-body type was found in Burial Cave 301 on the Mount of Olives

54

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

(Bagatti and Milik 1958:142–143, Fig. 33:13) and dated by Barag, based on the associated finds, to the period after the First Jewish Revolt (Barag 1970:27, 187, Type 15.1-1, Pl. 41:15.1-1, and see there for reference to Emessa). A body fragment of a bottle with applied trails was found at ‘En Gedi and dated to the Early Roman period (Jackson-Tal 2005:75*, Fig. 1:14, and see there for references to Wadi ed-Daliyeh). No. 60. L8137, B80807/6. Bottle. Neck fragment. Blue glass with white trails. Brown and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Relatively narrow neck decorated with thin white trails wound carelessly around it. Bottles and Jugs with a Double-Folded Rim (Fig. 2.10:61–63). These three rims were made by tooling the rim edge out and downward and then up again, creating a double fold. The edge of the fold is rounded. Bottles and jugs with such rims were common during the late first–second centuries CE and have a wide distribution (see Winter 2010:156–157, Fig. 5.1:5). They were particularly common in Judea, including Jerusalem and its surroundings, the Judean Desert caves and the settlements around the Dead Sea. For example, a group of such bottles and jugs was found at Shu‘afaṭ in a settlement dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts (Katsnelson 2007:166–167, Fig. 6:2, 3). One such jug was found in Cave VIII/28 (Cave of the Sandal) in the Judean Desert, together with other glass vessels dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts, or to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (Gorin-Rosen 2002:143–144, Fig. 1:3, and see further references therein). Additional examples dated to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt were discovered in other refuge caves in Judea, such as ‘Abud, Wadi ed-Daliyeh, Cave of Letters, Cave of Skulls and ‘Ein ‘Arrub, as well as the sites of ‘Ein Feshkha, Cypros and Herodium (Jackson-Tal 2016c:49, Fig. 15:1–3, and see further references therein). Rim No. 61 is relatively small and could belong to a bottle, a small jug or an aryballos (see these three different options among the Early Roman glass assemblage at Caesarea Maritima; Israeli 2008:400, Nos. 55, 56, 58). A rim similar to No. 61 was found at the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005:200, Fig. 1:12), and another at Herodium dated around the end of the First Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2015:402, Pl. 9.I:18, and see further references therein). A rim similar to Nos. 62 and 63 was found in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot; Gutreich 2013:273–275, Fig. 12.3:45). No. 61. L8144, B80924/5. Bottle/jug. Rim fragment. Bluish green glass. Silver and gold weathering, iridescence and pitting. Double out-folded rim, first downward then upward (D 30 mm). Rounded edge. No. 62. L8121, B809664. Bottle/jug. Rim fragment. Bright yellowish green glass. Silver and gold weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Double out-folded rim, first downward then upward (D 60 mm). Rounded edge. No. 63. L8046, B80343. Bottle/jug. Rim fragment. Light green glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Double out-folded rim, first downward then upward (D 70 mm). Rounded edge.

56

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

The types assigned to the local glass repertoire include two groups. The first is the cast bowls (Fig. 2.1:1–5) of the Late Hellenistic period, which have been found in most of the excavated areas in the Old City of Jerusalem. The second group comprises the blown bowls, with or without crimped trails (Fig. 2.3:11–18), the simple deep bowls and beakers (Figs. 2.4; 2.6:38, 42, 43), some of the bottles (Fig. 2.10:59, 61−63), and perhaps some of the beakers with horizontal, wheel-cut decoration (Fig. 2.5), although these could also have been manufactured elsewhere. In contrast, the facet-cut vessel (Fig. 2.5:37) was probably made in an imperial workshop and brought to Jerusalem, together with the arcaded beakers (Fig. 2.6:39−41), and the mold-blown vessels (Figs. 2.8:46–2.9:55). The majority of the glass assigned to this stratum was retrieved from the wellstratified context of the Roman refuse dump, dated to the last quarter of the first–beginning of the second centuries CE, and most of the parallels originate in well-dated contexts in Jerusalem and Judea, in the eastern Mediterranean, or in the western Roman provinces. Some of the comparanda were found in Roman military contexts in the western provinces, and therefore lend support to the historical reconstruction of the preparation and paving of the Eastern Cardo as suggested by the excavator (Weksler-Bdolah 2019a:199–200).

The Glass from Stratum XI The glass vessels assigned to this stratum (Fig. 2.11) originate in two contexts dated mainly to the third–fourth centuries CE and are characterized by their various shapes and fabrics. The first group (Fig. 2.11:65–70) was discovered in L475, a narrow water channel under the western portico that drained into Cistern 300 (Weklser-Bdolah 2019b:78–80). The remaining glass vessels from this stratum (Fig. 2.11:71–78) were found in L514, and one in L319, the lower and upper fills that accumulated inside Drainage Channel 514, which drained the western sidewalk into the street’s central Channel 536. The finds from L514 include three Roman provincial coins dated to the second–third centuries CE (Bijovsky 2019: Cat. Nos. 38, 39, 42). Bowls and Beakers Shallow Bowl with an Out-Folded Rim (Fig. 2.11:65). Bowls with out-folded rims were very common during the Late Roman period. The rims differ mainly in their angle and folds. Rim No. 65 is incurving. A similar bowl was found at Khirbat el-Ni‘ana in a fourth– early fifth-century CE assemblage (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:79–98, Fig. 2:1, and see further references therein). No. 65. L475, B4673/1. Bowl. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass with pale yellowish green tinge. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and slight pitting. Very bubbly glass with blowing spirals. Wide, incurving rim, folded out at its edge (D ~ 200 mm). Thin, curving wall. Bowls with a Flaring, Rounded Rim (Fig. 2.11:66, 67). Bowls with these simple rims appeared from the Early Roman period onward (e.g., Nos. 22–24). At Naḥal Ḥaggit, for

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

57

example, they were found among vessels dated to the late second–third centuries CE (Winter 2010:157, 159–161, Fig. 5.3:19–24). Rim Nos. 66 and 67 represent rather delicate bowls and therefore may belong to the Late Roman type, although they could also be the upper part of Byzantine bowl-shaped oil lamps with a hollow stem, like those found at Khirbat el-Ni‘ana (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:116–117, Fig. 22:6, 7, and see further references therein). No. 66. L475, B4673/2. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light yellowish green glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and slight pitting. Blowing spirals. Flaring, rounded rim (D ~ 90 mm). Thin, curving wall. No. 67. L475, B4673/3. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Light green glass. Silver weathering (removed), iridescence and slight pitting. Blowing spirals. Flaring, partly infolded, rounded rim (D ~ 80 mm). Thin, slightly curving wall. Vessels with a Conical Body and a Thick Trail-Wound Knob-Base (Fig. 11:68–70). These three bases are characterized by their shape, fabric and workmanship, which identify them as local products. The careless finish of No. 70, in which the glassmaker didn’t cut off the pontil button, points to mass production of vessels that were probably daily wares. Many bases of this type were found in Jerusalem and its vicinity (see below), mainly in Late Roman contexts, but no complete vessels are known. Two possible reconstructions can be suggested, both based on vessels dated to the fourth–early fifth centuries CE: a conical beaker or a closed vessel such as a flask or amphoriskos, like those from Karanis (Harden 1936: Pls. 5; 10:788; 16:464, 465; 20:788). A conical amphoriskos with a similar body is found in the Israel Museum collection (Israeli 2003:261, Cat. No. 341, and see there for further references to collections). Conical beakers with wound knob-bases, which were used as oil lamps, were found in the Auditoria at Kom el-Dikka in Alexandria, dated to the Late Roman period (Kucharczyk 2007:46–48, Fig. 1:4–6, with further references to other sites in Egypt). Bases with a thick, wound trail were discovered in Jerusalem in the Garden Tomb north of Damascus Gate (Katsnelson 2006: Figs. 4, 5), and on the southern slopes of Mount Zion (Tamar Winter, pers. comm.). No. 68. L475, B4673/4. Beaker/flask. Base fragment. Bluish green glass with turquoise trail base. Silver weathering (removed) and iridescence. Oval bubbles and blowing spirals. Conical vessel with thick bottom and applied trail knob-base of turquoise glass (D ~ 18 mm). Remains of pontil scar (D 8 mm). No. 69. L475, B4673/5. Beaker/flask. Base fragment. Green glass. Silver weathering (removed), iridescence, slight pitting and sand deposits. Oval bubbles and blowing spirals. Conical vessel with thick bottom and applied trail knob-base of turquoise glass (D ~ 20 mm). Remains of pontil scar (D 10 mm).

58

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

No. 70. L475, B4673/6. Beaker/flask. Base fragment. Greenish blue glass. Silver weathering (removed), iridescence, slight pitting and sand deposits. Blowing spirals. Conical vessel with thick bottom and applied trail knob-base of green glass (D ~ 22 mm). Careless workmanship—the glass button attached to the pontil was left with a pontil scar on it (D 12 mm). Bowls or Beakers with a Flaring, Cut-Off Rim (Fig. 2.11:71, 72). These delicate fragments belong to bowls or beakers characterized by a cut-off rim and a very thin wall. This rim type appeared during the Early Roman period (see No. 31), and continued into the Late Roman and Byzantine periods with slight changes. During the Byzantine period, this type of rim characterized bowl-shaped oil lamps, like the examples found in the excavations at the Mount of Olives (Bagatti and Milik 1958: Fig. 35:12, 13). No. 71. L514, B5097. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Very pale bluish green glass, almost colorless. Golden and brown weathering (removed), iridescence and slight pitting. Relatively good-quality glass. Flaring, cut-off rim (D ~ 100 mm). Very thin wall. No. 72. L514, B5097. Bowl/beaker. Small fragment of rim and part of wall. Very pale bluish-green glass, almost colorless. Iridescence and slight pitting. Relatively good-quality glass. Flaring, cut-off rim (D ~ 80 mm). Very thin wall. Bowl or Beaker with a Slightly Incurving, Rounded Rim (Fig. 2.11:73). Rim No. 73 could belong to a bowl, beaker, or bowl-shaped oil lamp with a stem. A similar rim was found at Khirbat Ṭabaliya (Giv‘at Ha-Maṭos) dated to the late Byzantine or early Umayyad period (Gorin-Rosen 2000:84*, Fig. 2:10, with further references therein). No. 73. L514, B5097. Bowl/beaker/oil lamp. Small fragment of rim and part of wall. Greenish blue glass. Iridescence and slight pitting. Upright, slightly incurving, rounded rim (D ~ 82 mm). Thin wall. Bowl with an Upright, Rounded Rim (Fig. 2.11:74). This bowl is characterized by its fine colorless glass, deep shape and fine workmanship. It is similar in fabric to the base of No. 75, which might be part of the same vessel. Numbers 74 and 75 belong to a group of colorless wares dated mainly to the second–third centuries CE (for further discussion, see Gorin-Rosen 2005:200). Colorless glass bowls of this type were found at Dura Europos, dated to the Middle Imperial period (Clairmont 1963: Pl. IX:328, 330). No. 74. L514, B4950. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and part of wall. Colorless glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting, dull surface. Polishing marks on exterior. Relatively high-quality glass. Upright, slightly thickened, rounded rim (D ~ 112 mm). Very thin wall.

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

59

Bowl with a Flat Bottom and a Low Ring Base (Fig. 2.11:75). This base is made of colorless glass and could belong to the same vessel as No. 74, displaying the same fine workmanship and colorless glass of bowls and beakers common during the Roman period. No. 75. L514, B4951. Bowl. Base fragment. Colorless glass. Silver weathering (removed) and iridescence. High-quality fabric and workmanship. Thick, flat bottom with very low ring base (D 60 mm), polished, no remains of pontil left on the bottom. Thin wall. Bowls with a Flat, Thickened Base (Fig. 2.11:76, 77) This type of base is common, although rarely published. Similar bases were found in other excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, in contexts dated to the second–third centuries CE.4 Elsewhere, a base of this type was found at Naḥal Ḥaggit among vessels dated to the late second–third centuries CE (Winter 2010:157, 163, Fig. 5.4:40). No. 76. L514, B4950. Bowl. Base fragment. Greenish blue glass. Black and silver weathering (removed), iridescence and pitting. Low-quality glass. Thick, uneven bottom, flat on the underside and slightly convex inside (D 45 mm). No remains of pontil left on the bottom. No. 77. L514, B4950. Bowl. Base fragment. Bluish green glass. Black and silver weathering (removed) and iridescence. Thick, flat, uneven bottom (D 50 mm). No remains of pontil left on the bottom. Jug/flask with a Trail-Wound Base and Indented Decoration on the Body (Fig. 2.11:78). This vessel is characterized by its fabric, the different colors of the body and the trail base, and the indentation. It bears similarities to a small flask from the Dobkin Collection in the Israel Museum, dated to the third century CE (Israeli 2003:309, Cat. No. 410, and see further references there to collections). No. 78. L319, B4941. Jug/flask. Almost half the base and fragment of wall. Light yellowish green glass decorated with bluish green trail. Black and silver weathering (removed) and slight iridescence. Relatively good-quality fabric and workmanship. Flat bottom with applied trail-wound base of darker color (D 32 mm). Thin wall with remains of a shallow indentation.

Similar bases were found in excavations along the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, conducted by Alexander Onn, and are presently being studied by Natalya Katsnelson. 4

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

61

constructed upon it in Stratum IX. The pottery finds from this channel are dated to the midsixth–end of seventh centuries CE (Avissar 2019:295–297), and most of the glass finds can also be attributed to this time span. One particular context (B4915-24) produced Byzantine and late Byzantine-period vessels (Nos. 80, 81) and windowpanes (not illustrated), as well as fragments of a typical Abbasid bottle characterized by its dark blue color, short cut-off and unworked rim, cylindrical asymmetrical body and convex bottom (not illustrated; see GorinRosen 2010:227–228, Pl. 10.1:19). The presence of this Abbasid vessel may be due to intrusive material from overlaying fills following the removal of the covering stones of Channel 491. Bowl with a Flaring, Out-Folded Rim (Fig. 2.12:79). This type of bowl is quite common in the Byzantine period and could be part of a shallow bowl or a wide-open bowl-shaped oil lamp. A similar rim was discovered in the Byzantine monastery in Naḥal Qidron, Jerusalem (Winter 2017:101, Fig. 1:1, and see further references therein). No. 79. L491, B4786. Shallow bowl. Rim fragment. Pale green glass. Silver weathering (removed) and iridescence. Flaring, uneven, out-folded hollow rim (D 140 mm). Thin wall. Bottles with an Upright, Rounded Rim and Multiple Trail Decoration on the Neck (Fig. 2.12:80, 81). These bottles represent two subtypes: one with a narrow cylindrical mouth, the second with a wide mouth, probably funnel-shaped, both decorated with applied horizontal trails wound below the rim. Trail decoration was very common, especially on bottles, in the Byzantine and early Umayyad periods. Similar bottles were found in fifth–seventh-century CE contexts in Jerusalem and its vicinity, as at the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005:204, Fig. 2:30, and see references there to Ras Abu Ma‘aruf, north of Jerusalem, and Khirbat Ṭabaliya). No. 80. L491, B4915-24. Bottle. Rim and mouth. Greenish blue glass with dark turquoise trail. Silver weathering and iridescence. Bubbly glass. Upright, rounded rim (D 26 mm) and long, narrow mouth decorated with applied horizontal trails of darker color. No. 81. L491, B4915-24. Bottle. Fragment of rim and neck. Light greenish blue glass. Silver weathering and iridescence. Low-quality glass with black impurities, mainly in the trails, and green veins. Uneven, upright, rounded rim (D 70 mm), wide mouth decorated with applied, wound horizontal trails of the same color. Wineglass with a Hollow Ring Base (Fig. 2.12:82). This base belongs to the most common wineglass type during the late Byzantine and early Umayyad periods in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and parallels are seen, for example, in the City of David (Ariel 1990:161, GL72, Fig. 32: GL72), the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot; Gutreich 2013:281–283, Fig. 12.6:96–97), the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005:203–204, Fig. 2:25, 26, and see further references therein), the northwestern corner of the Old City wall (Gorin-Rosen 2006a:116*, Fig. 14:4), and the Byzantine monastery in Naḥal Qidron, Jerusalem (Winter 2017:103, Fig. 1:3).

62

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

No. 82. L491, B4786. Wineglass. Complete base and foot and beginning of body. Greenish blue glass. Silver weathering (removed) and iridescence. Low-quality glass with black impurities and many bubbles. Uneven, tubular base with hollow beaded foot (base D 42 mm). Crude pontil scar (D 10 mm). A small fragment of a rim that might belong to the same vessel was also found in this basket, but was too small to be drawn. Bowl-Shaped Oil Lamp with a Hollow Stem (Fig. 2.12:83). This stem represents one of the most common Byzantine glass vessels: a bowl-shaped oil lamp. This type of oil lamp was suspended by a metal hanging device, generally a bronze polycandelon. Similar stems were discovered at many sites from the sixth–seventh centuries CE in Jerusalem and its vicinity; for example, in the City of David (Ariel 1990:161, Fig. 32: GL77, GL78), the Tyropoeon Valley (Gutreich 2013:281–283, Fig. 12.6:94), the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005:205–206, Fig. 2:36, 37) and Khirbat Ṭabaliya (Gorin-Rosen 2000:91*–92*, Fig. 3:35). No. 83. L491, B4796. Oil lamp. Base fragment. Light bluish green glass. Silver weathering (removed). Very bubbly glass: small and medium-sized, thin oval bubbles. Lower part of a hollow conical stem with a small pontil scar on the edge (D 7 mm).

79

80 81

83

82 0

4

Fig. 2.12. Blown vessels from Channel 491.

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

63

R eferences Abu-‘Uqsa H. 2000. Akhziv, Eastern Cemetery. ESI 20:9*–10*. Amorai-Stark S. and Hershkovitz M. 2016. Jewelry. In D. Syon. Gamla III, 2: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989; Finds and Studies (IAA Reports 59). Jerusalem. Pp. 97–189. Ariel D.T. 1990. Glass. 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. 149−166. Arveiller-Dulong V. and Nenna M.-D. 2005. Les verres antiques du musée du Louvre II: Vaisselle et contenants du Ier siècle au début du VIIe siècle après J.-C. Paris. Avissar M. 2019. Pottery from Drainage Channels 491 and 5248. WWPE II. Pp. 295–302. Bagatti P.B. and Milik J.T. 1958. Gli scavi del ‘Dominus Flevit’ (Monte Oliveto-Gerusalemme) I: La necropoli del periodo romano (SBF Collectio Maior 13). Jerusalem. Barag D. 1970. Glass Vessels of the Roman and Byzantine Period in Palestine. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. I–VIII). Barag D.P. 1991. The Contribution of Masada to the History of Early Roman Glass. In M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention (Occasional Papers 13). London. Pp. 137–140. Bijovsky G. 2019. Coins of the Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. WWPE I. Pp.165–193. Buljević Z. 2009. Traces of Glassmakers in the Roman Province of Dalmatia. Quaderni friulani di archeologia 19:35–50. Clairmont C.W. 1963. Dura-Europos IV, V: The Glass Vessels. New Haven. Cool H. and Price J. 1995. Roman Vessel Glass from Excavations in Colchester 1971–1985 (Colchester Archaeological Report 8). Colchester. Davidson G.R. 1952. Corinth XII: The Minor Objects. Princeton. Dusenbery E.B. 1971. Ancient Glass in the Collection of Wheaton College. JGS 13:9–33. Fadić I. and Štefanac B. 2010. The Small Relief Decorated Jugs Produced in Syrian Glass Workshops and Found in the Territory of Southern Liburnia. Asseria 8:275–350 (Croatian). Foy D. and Nenna M.-D. eds. 2003. Échanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique (Actes du colloque de l’Association française pour l’archéologie du verre. Aix-en-Provence et Marseille 7–9 juin 2001). Montagnac. Gorin-Rosen Y. 1999. The Glass Vessels from the Miqveh near Alon Shevut, ‘Atiqot 38:85–90. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2000. The Glass Vessels from Khirbet Ṭabaliya (Giv‘at Hamaṭos). ‘Atiqot 40:81*−95* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 165−166). Gorin-Rosen Y. 2002. The Glass Vessels from Cave VIII/28. ‘Atiqot 41/2:143–145. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2003. Glass Vessels from Area A. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 364–386. 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

64

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

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. 2006a. The Glass Finds. In S. Weksler-Bdolah. The Old City Wall of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Corner. ‘Atiqot 54:115*−117* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 163−164). Gorin-Rosen Y. 2006b. Glass Vessels. 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. 239−265. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2010. The Islamic Glass Vessels. In O. Gutfeld. Ramla: Final Report on The Excavations North of the White Mosque (Qedem 51). Jerusalem. Pp. 213–264. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2013. Glass Finds from the Crusader-Period Bathhouse in ‘Akko (Acre). ‘Atiqot 73:109–116. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2015. Glass Vessels from Yavne. ‘Atiqot 81:35*–37*. Gorin-Rosen Y. and Katsnelson N. 1999. The Glass Vessels. In Z. Yeivin and G. Finkielsztejn. Ḥorbat Castra—1993−1997. HA−ESI 109:27*. Gorin-Rosen Y. and Katsnelson N. 2007. Local Glass Production in the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Periods in Light of the Glass Finds from Khirbat el-Ni‘ana. ‘Atiqot 57:73–154. Grose D.F. 1979. The Syro-Palestinian Glass Industry in the Later Hellenistic Period. Muse 13:54– 67. Grose D.F. 1989. The Toledo Museum of Art. Early Ancient Glass: Core-Formed, Rod-Formed, and Cast Vessels and Objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 B.C. to A.D. 50. New York. Gutreich D. 2013. The Glass Finds. In D. Ben-Ami. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 265–289. Hachlili R. and Killebrew A.E. 1999. Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period (IAA Reports 7). Jerusalem. Harden D.B. 1935. Romano-Syrian Glasses with Mould-Blown Inscriptions. JRS 25:163–186. Harden D.B. 1936. Roman Glass from Karanis: Found by the University of Michigan Archaeological Expedition in Egypt, 1924−1929 (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series XLI). Ann Arbor. Hayes J.W. 1975. Roman and Pre-Roman Glass in the Royal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto. Isings C. 1957. Roman Glass from Dated Finds (Archaeologica Traiectina II). Groningen–Djakarta. Israeli Y. 1983. Ennion in Jerusalem. JGS 25:65–69. 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 I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 367–418. Israeli Y. 2010. Glass Vessels. In H. Geva. 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.

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

65

Israeli Y. 2011. Made by Ennion: Ancient Glass Treasures from the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection (Israel Museum Catalogue 573). Jerusalem. Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. 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. 411−460. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2002. The Glass Finds. In T. Abeles. Region VII: Survey and Excavations of Caves along the Eastern Escarpment of Jebel Qurunṭul. ‛Atiqot 41/1:126, 131−132 (Hebrew; English ‛Atiqot 41/2:110–111. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2005. The Glass Vessels from ‘En Gedi. ‘Atiqot 49:73*−82* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 138). 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–Early Roman Settlement—The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolf Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations (ANGSBA 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 1973–1978 Excavations V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem. Pp. 100–129. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2013b. The Glass Finds from the Palatial Fortress at Cypros. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1978 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. Herodium. Final Reports of the 1972–2010 Excavations Directed by Ehud Netzer I: Herod’s Tomb Precinct. Jerusalem. Pp. 396–408. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2016a. The Glass from the 1995 Excavations in Camp F at Masada: The Use of Luxury and Common Early Roman Glass in Military Context. Levant 48:63–78. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2016b. Glass Vessels. In D. Syon. Gamla III, 2: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989. Finds and Studies (IAA Reports 59). Jerusalem. Pp. 1–47. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2016c. Glass Vessel Use in Time of Conflict: The Evidence from the Bar Kokhba Refuge Caves in Judaea, Israel (135/136 C.E.). BASOR 376:29–62. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2016d. Nabataean Cultural Habits: The Glass Finds from Oboda. IEJ 66:70–95. Katsnelson N. 2006. The Glass Finds. In Y. Zelinger. Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. HA−ESI 118 (March 20). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=327&mag_id=111 (accessed February 17, 2010). 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*. Katsnelson N. 2016. The Courthouse Site: The Glass from Areas TB and TC. In M. Hartal, D. Syon, E. Stern and A. Tatcher. ‘Akko II: The 1991–1998 Excavations; The Early Periods (IAA Reports 60). Pp. 65−90.

66

YAEL GORIN-ROSEN

Kucharczyk R. 2007. Late Roman/Early Byzantine Glass from the Auditoria on Kom el-Dikka in Alexandria. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 17:45–53. Kucharczyk R. 2018. Come and Dine with me… Early Roman Luxury Glass Tableware from Berenike: New Evidence from the Harbor Area and Trash Dumps. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 26/2:147−166. Lazar I. 2003. Rimsko steklo Slovenije: The Roman Glass of Slovenia (Opera instituti archaeologici sloveniae 7). Ljubljana. Max Y. 2012. Glass Vessels from the Masada Excavations from Selected Contexts Dated End of First Century BCE to Beginning of Second Century CE. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. McNicoll A., Smith R.H. and Hennessy B. 1982. Pella in Jordan 1: An Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981 (2 vols.). Canberra. Meyer C.L. 1988. Glass from the North Theater Byzantine Church, and Soundings at Jerash, Jordan, 1982–1983. In W.E. Rast ed. Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1982–85 (BASOR Suppl. 25). Baltimore. Pp. 175−222. Meyer C. 1992. Glass from Quseir al-Qadim and the Indian Ocean Trade (SAOC 53). Chicago. Oliver A. 1984. Early Roman Faceted Glass. JGS 26:35–58. Oliver A. 1992. The Glass. In V. Karageorghis, O. Picard and C. Tytgat eds. La nécropole dʼAmathonte, tombes 113–367 VI: Bijoux, armes, verre, astragales et coquillages, squelettes (Études chypriotes XIV). Nicosia. Pp. 101–107. Price. J. 1985a. Early Roman Vessel Glass from Burials in Tripolitania: A Study of Finds from Forte della Vite and Other Sites Now in the Collections of the National Museum of Antiquities in Tripoli. In D.J. Buck and D.J. Mattingly eds. Town and Country in Roman Tripolitanis: Papers in Honour of Olwen Hacket) (Society for Libyan Studies Occasional Papers 2; BAR Int. S. 274). Oxford. Pp. 67–106. Price J. 1985b. Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial Vessel Glass at Berenice: A Survey of the Imported Tableware Found during Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi. In G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds eds. Cyrenaica in Antiquity (Society for Libyan Studies Occasional Papers I; BAR Int. S. 236). Oxford. Pp. 287–296. Price J. 2005. Glass from the Fort at Hod Hill in Dorset and Other Mid First-Century Hilltop Sites with Roman Military Occupation in Southern England. In Annales du 16e Congrès de l’AIHV (London 2003). Nottingham. Pp. 100–104. Ravagnan G.L. 1994. Vetri antichi del Museo vetrario di Murano. Venice. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2019. WWPE II. Rütti B. 1991. Die römischen Gläser aus Augst und Kaiseraugst (Forschungen in Augst 13/1, 13/2). Augst. Saldern A. von. 1980. Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis (Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monographs 6). Cambridge, Mass.–London.

CHAPTER 2: GLASS FINDS

67

Saldern A. von, Nolte B., La Baume P. and Haevernick T.E. 1974. Gläser der Antike: Sammlung Erwin Oppenländer. Hamburg–Cologne. Smith R.H. and McNicoll A.W. 1992. The Roman 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 (MA Suppl. 2). Sydney. Pp. 119–144. Smith R.W. 1957. Glass from the Ancient World: The Ray Winfield Smith Collection. Corning. Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects (Israel Museum Catalogue 447). Jerusalem. Stern E.M. 1995. Roman Mold-Blown Glass: The First through Sixth Centuries (The Toledo Museum of Art). Toledo, Ohio. Weinberg G.D. 1972. Mold-Blown Beakers with Mythological Scenes. JGS 14:26–47. 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. Weinberg G.D. and Stern E.M. 2009. Vessel Glass (Athenian Agora XXXIV). Princeton. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019a. The Cardo in Urban Context. WWPE I. Pp. 195–200. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019b. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115. Whitehouse D. 1997. Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass I. Corning, N.Y. Whitehouse D. 1998. The University of Ghent South-East Arabian Archaeological Project, Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates) I: The Glass Vessels. Leuven. Whitehouse D. 2000. Ancient Glass from ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) 2. Glass Excavated by the Danish Expedition. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11.1:87–128. Whitehouse D. 2001. Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass II. Corning, N.Y. Wight K.B. 1994. Mythological Beakers: A Re-examination. JGS 36:24–55. 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. Winter T. 2010. The Glass Vessels. In J. Seligman. Naḥal Ḥaggit: A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the Southern Carmel (IAA Reports 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 155–168. Winter T. 2012. Glass Vessels from the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods at Khirbat Burnaṭ (Southwest). ‘Atiqot 69:141–146. Winter T. 2017. The Glass Finds from the Byzantine Monastery in Naḥal Qidron, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 89:101–106.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 3

Glass Finds from the 2017 Excavation Season Natalya K atsnelson

Introduction All the glass finds discussed in this chapter were discovered in excavations carried out at the site during 2017, in which small sections of walls, pavements and installations were dismantled and excavation penetrated below them––enabling the secure dating of the finds (see Foreword).1 The glass finds presented here comprise a small but important contribution to the more extensive Roman and Byzantine glass assemblages discussed in Chapter 2. As with the previously studied material, most of the finds derive from the Stratum XII fills in the ‘Roman refuse dump’, sealed below the Cardo pavement and dated to 75–125 CE (see Foreword; Chapter 2). These fills contained residual pieces of the Second Temple period (first century BCE–first century CE), together with later finds from the Early Roman period (late first–early second centuries CE). Glass vessels from this period are so rare in Jerusalem that every new discovery is worthy of publication. The glass vessels of the later Roman and Byzantine periods (late fourth–seventh centuries CE; Strata X–VIII) were very fragmentary; nevertheless, they provide an important addendum to the previously studied assemblage, due to their secure contexts below dismantled floors. The present assemblage includes glass vessels (Figs. 3.1–3.7), architectural objects (windowpanes and tesserae; Fig. 3.8), small objects (inlays and beads; Figs. 3.9– 3.11) and glass production debris (Fig. 3.12). The finds are presented in catalogue form, according to their stratigraphic context and typology. Most of the vessels have counterparts in the previous assemblages (see Chapter 2), while others are slightly different or completely new forms. The list of loci from the 2017 excavations is presented at the end of the book (see Appendix 2), and a plan of the relevant loci is found in the Foreword (Plan 6).

Stratum XII: Late Hellenistic–Early Roman Glass Vessels This assemblage consists of glass specimens assigned to the last half of the first century BCE–first quarter of the second century CE. As in the previous excavations, most of these fragments originate in the well-stratified Stratum XII fills below the paving of the Eastern

I wish to thank Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, the director of the excavations, for inviting me to study these glass finds. Thanks are also due to Brigitte Ouahnouna for sharing with me information on the small finds. The drawings are by Carmen Hersch and the photos by Clara Amit. 1

70

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Cardo. The majority are simple blown vessels of common Early Roman types, as well as several cast bowls. A few fragments of decorated luxury vessels belong to rarer, probably imported vessels. The cast and blown vessels predating 70 CE are well known in Jerusalem, while glass wares of the period between the First Jewish and Bar Kokhba Revolts (70–132 CE) have appeared only randomly in archaeological excavations in the Old City. The latter however, are widely distributed at contemporary sites in Judea. Some of the parallels are found primarily in the western Roman provinces (see discussion, Chapter 2). Pre-Blown Vessels This category comprises six poorly-preserved, monochrome cast bowls belonging to three types––grooved, linear-cut and ribbed––that were very common in the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. Conical Bowl with an Internal Groove (Fig. 3.1:1). This yellowish brown bowl is characterized by a thick rounded rim, ground at the top, and a horizontal wheel-cut groove on the interior below the rim. This piece was found in a quarry fill under the western sidewalk of the Cardo. Two small rim pieces of similar yellowish and greenish cast bowls were found in the Roman dump (L2091, B2017946, B2017950; not illustrated). Similar bowls were revealed in the previous excavation (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.1:1–3, with further references therein). No. 1. L2040A, B2017705. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Yellowish brown glass. heavy silver weathering, iridescent film, pitting. Slanting, rounded rim with polishing marks on the interior. Thick walls with horizontal groove on the interior below the rim. Walls taper downward. Shallow Bowl with an Internal Groove (Fig. 3.1:2). This light bluish fragment, distinguished by a pointed rim, ground at the top and polished on both sides, represents a well-known type of linear-cut bowl (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.1:4, 5). This fragment originated in a sealed fill below the flagstones of a wide staircase that was dismantled (Weksler-Bdolah, forthcoming). No. 2. L100A, B2017104. Cast bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Yellowish brown glass. Silver weathering, iridescence, pitting, bubbly. Slanting, rounded rim polished on both sides. Thick walls with shallow horizontal groove on the interior below the rim. Walls polished on the interior. Cast Bowls with Rib Decoration (not illustrated). Two very small greenish blue and yellowish green body fragments decorated on the exterior with vertical ribs were found in the Roman dump (L2091, B2017950, B2017955). They represent another common type of cast bowls not noticed in the previous excavation. They provide additional evidence that these three types of cast bowls occurred in Jerusalem simultaneously from the late first

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

71

2 1 0

4

Fig. 3.1. Cast bowls.

century BCE to the early first century CE, some continuing as late as the destruction of 70 CE (Israeli 2014:290, Pls. 11.1–11.4). Free- and Mold-Blown Vessels from the Roman Refuse Dump All the fragments of this group were found in the fill of the Roman refuse dump (Loci 2087A–2091A), and securely dated to 75–125 CE. Small Shallow Bowl with a Double Fold in the Base (Fig. 3.2:3). A complete profile of this type, with a rounded, flared rim, a low, thin curving wall and a double fold where the wall meets the base, complements three examples from the previous excavations, of which only the bases were preserved (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.3:16–18, with further references therein). No. 3. L2091A, B2017950. Bowl. Small fragment of rim, wall and base. Yellowish green glass. Light and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Flaring, rounded rim. Thin curving wall. Beginning of double-fold tubular base. Bowl with an In-Curving, Out-Folded Rim (Fig. 3.2:4). Bowls with this rim design are uncommon in Early Roman contexts in Israel, and thus it is important to note their appearance in the securely dated fill of the Roman dump. Gorin-Rosen noted that open vessels with such in-curving rims are more characteristic of the western provinces of the Roman Empire (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.3:19, with further references therein). No. 4. L2088A, L2017938. Bowl. Small part of rim and wall. Unclear light color. Black and silver, enamel-like weathering and severe pitting. In-curving rim, folded outward and thickened. Beginning of thin wall. Bowls with Crimped Trails Applied on the Rim (Fig. 3.2:5, 6). Bowls of this type comprise one of the most distinctive glass forms that occur widely in Israel, mainly in contexts dated to the period between the two Jewish revolts. In comparison to the fine examples from the previous excavation (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.3:12–15, with further references therein), only three poorly preserved fragments are presented here. Nevertheless, they are worthy of note, considering their well-defined context and historical significance.

72

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Fragment No. 5 displays a simple folded rim with a carelessly tooled applied trail. Fragment No. 6 is distinguished by a delicate, rounded and widely flared rim. Only traces of the plain, tapering edge of its applied trail are preserved. An additional, very small, bright greenish blue fragment of a bowl with a rounded rim is decorated with an extremely thin trail that is tooled with fine vertical ribs (L2091, B2017949, not illustrated). It has a very close parallel in the Cave of Drachmas (Cave IV/6) in the Judean Desert, dated to 135/136 CE (Jackson-Tal 2016: Fig. 11:1). No. 5. L2091A, B2017950. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Almost colorless. Dark and silver weathering, severe pitting. Flaring, out-folded rim. Tapering, unevenly tooled trail with diagonal ribs applied horizontally on the rim’s edge. Thin wall. No. 6. L2091A, B2017948. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Almost colorless. Black, enamel-like weathering and severe pitting. Flaring, rounded rim. Remnants of tapering trail applied horizontally on the rim’s edge. Thin wall. Bowl/Jar with a Double Fold Below the Rim (Fig. 3.2:7). This vessel is contemporary with the bowl possessing a double-fold tubular base (above). Deep and shallow versions of the type have been discovered in large numbers in Israel, particularly in refuge caves and other Early Roman contexts, e.g., Jerusalem and Herodium (Jackson-Tal 2016:40, 42, Figs. 9:7–10; 10, with further references therein). However, the thin, rounded rim splaying outward to form a delicate ledge, and the probable deep, S-shaped profile, are rare. This form could have originated in the western Roman Empire, as similarly shaped jars are seen at Colonia Augusta Rauracorum at Augst in Switzerland, where they are dated to 80–200 CE (Fünfschilling 2015: Tafel 58: Nos. 6097– 6099). It is also possible that this rim belongs to a carchesium (chalice), resembling an example, probably from Cyprus or Rome, that was discovered in the Burnt House in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, dated prior to 70 CE (Israeli 2010:228, G26, G27). No. 7. L2091A, B2017944. Bowl/Jar. Small fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass with greenish blue tinge. Black enamel-like and silver weathering, severe pitting. Flaring, rounded rim. Thin S-shaped wall with horizontal double-fold below the rim.

4 3

0

5

6

7

Fig. 3.2. Blown bowls/jars from the Roman dump.

4

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

73

Plain Beaker with a Cut-Off Rim (Fig. 3.3:8). This fragment with a delicate flared rim and the beginning of a thin tapering wall, belongs to a small beaker of unclear form. Its fine workmanship and fabric suggest an Early Roman date. Among comparable examples are two delicate plain beakers found previously in the Roman dump (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.5:30, 31). No. 8. L2091A, B2017959. Beaker. Rim fragment and beginning of wall. Colorless glass with bluish tinge. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Fine fabric. Slightly flaring, cut-off and unworked rim (D 7 cm). Thin, tapering, slightly curving wall. Cylindrical Beaker with Wheel-Cut Linear Decoration (Fig. 3.3:9). This example belongs to another common type of Roman beaker with a cut-off rim. Its vertical walls are decorated with abraded horizontal lines. Several similar beakers with in-curving rims and slight variations in the decoration were found previously in the Roman dump (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.5:32–34, with further references therein, including beakers from Shu‘afaṭ dated to 70–135 CE, which are very similar to the fragment presented in Fig. 3.3:9). No. 9. L2091A, B 2017947. Beaker. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass with greenish tinge. Black enamel-like and silver weathering, severe pitting. Flaring, cut-off and ground rim. Thin, vertical walls decorated with horizontal abraded lines below the rim and farther down the wall. Arcaded Beakers (Fig. 3.3:10, 11). These two fragments are among the most interesting examples of early blown glass found in the current excavations. Two additional fragments of very small size were collected in the same context (B2017943, B2017963; not illustrated). Beakers of this type are known mostly in the western provinces of the Roman Empire, dated to the first–early second centuries CE. Similar fragments of colorless clear glass were also revealed in the previous excavations in the Roman dump (Chapter 2: Fig. 2.6:39–41, with further references therein). There, Gorin-Rosen notes that the limited distribution of the arcaded beakers in the eastern Mediterranean in comparison to their extensive military distribution in the western provinces, may point to an association between this type and the Roman legions. No. 10. L2091A, B2017963. Beaker. Upper and lower parts. Clear colorless glass. Black enamel-like and silver weathering, iridescent film and pitting. Flaring, cut-off and polished rim (D 8 cm). High-quality workmanship. Thin walls tapering down and curving toward the bottom. Wall decorated with protruding vertical ribs forming contiguous panels with partly rounded and partly horizontal tops (three preserved) and uneven, curved bottoms. Beginning of a probable footed base. No. 11. L2091A, B201750. Beaker. Small fragment of rim and wall. Clear colorless glass. Black enamel-like weathering, iridescent film and pitting. High-quality workmanship.

74

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Flaring, cut-off, polished rim (D 8 cm). Thin wall decorated with protruding vertical ribs forming contiguous panels with rounded tops (two preserved). Beaker with Mold-Blown, Almond-Shaped Decoration (Fig. 3.3:12, 13). These two greenish fragments decorated with three-tiered knobs likely belonged to different beakers. Two additional small, greenish and colorless body fragments with traces of similar knobs (B2017951, B2017955, not illustrated) and two very small adjoining fragments of a yellowish brown beaker (B2017100) were found in the same context (L2091A; not illustrated). The latter two pieces preserve remnants of a cut-off rim, a thin straight wall and a mold-blown decoration of a plain knob. The beaker’s fine fabric is covered with heavy crust of iridescent weathering. This type represents the earliest blown vessels in the present assemblage. It was common throughout the Roman Empire, occurring no later than 100 CE. Several examples of similar beakers were discovered in the previous excavations in the Roman dump (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.8:48–51, with further references therein). A small mold-blown body fragment decorated with an exceptionally large almond-shaped design like that on No. 12, was found in an unstratified fill at Yavne (Gorin-Rosen 2015: Fig.1). Fragment No. 13 is of special interest, as it differs from other examples known in Israel in the additional horizontal ridge above the bottom. Such versions of beakers with motifs of almond-shaped knobs combined with linear patterns were particularly common in western Europe. They are known from numerous legionary camp sites, e.g., Vindonissa, Vitudurum and Augs in northern Switzerland (Stern 1995:104, with further references therein), Augsburg in Germany (Rottloff 1996: Fig. 2:2, 3) and Nijmegen in the Netherlands (Lith 1996: Fig. 3:b). This may indicate that our beaker was also the product of a western glass workshop, and perhaps brought to Jerusalem by the Roman army, along with other luxury wares, for example, the arcaded beakers discussed above. As in the previous excavations in the Roman dump, the present excavations also revealed mold-blown vessels with other motifs (L2091A, B2017955; not illustrated), but unfortunately, they were too small to clearly identify the relief designs. No. 12. L2091A, B2017951. Beaker. Small fragment of wall. Almost colorless glass with greenish tinge. Silver weathering, iridescent film and severe pitting. Thin wall curving slightly downward, decorated with large, protruding, three-tiered knob. No. 13. L2091A, B2017953. Beaker. Small fragment of wall. Light greenish glass. Silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Thin lower wall decorated with two protruding, three-tiered knobs from the lowest row above the base. Mold-blown horizontal ridge below.

76

NATALYA KATSNELSON

No. 14. L2091A, B2017944. Bottle. Fragment of rim and beginning of neck. Colorless glass with greenish blue tinge. Flaring, out-folded rim. Cylindrical neck. Jugs/Bottles with a Double-Folded Rim (Fig. 3.4:15, 16). These fragments represent characteristic Roman vessels, whose rims are folded out, downward and then upward. Three additional rims of similar design were found in the same context (B2017703, B2017951, B2017955; not illustrated). One small fragment is remarkable for its clear, colorless glass of fine quality. Several comparable rims were collected in the previous excavation (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.10:61–64, with further references therein). No. 15. L2091A, B2017943. Bottle/jug. Part of rim. Colorless glass with greenish tinge. Black enamel-like and silver weathering, iridescence and pitting. Double out-folded rim, first downward and then upward. Rounded edge. No. 16. L2087A, B2017934. Part of rim and neck. Greenish glass with yellow tinge. Silver weathering and iridescence. Double out-folded rim, first downward and then upward. Remnants of a possible handle attached to the neck and rim. Globular Bottle with Linear-Cut Design (Fig. 3.4:17). This fragment is decorated with a thin abraded line and a groove that were wheel-cut around the body. Parallels include a fragment of a round bottle from the Cave of Horror (Barag 1962: No. 18) and a complete globular bottle from a Late Hellenistic–Early Roman burial cave at Ha-Gosherim (Ovadiah 1999: Fig. 3:4); the latter has a double-folded rim similar to that in Fig. 3.4:16). No. 17. L2089A, B2017966. Bottle. Small body fragment. Colorless glass. Black enamellike and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Quite thick, curving wall decorated with a band of a horizontal incision and a groove. Bottle with a Pear-Shaped Constricted Body (Fig. 3.4:18). This small or medium-sized cosmetic bottle is characterized by a deep constriction in the middle of the body. Most of the local parallels come from burial caves dated to the first–early second centuries CE. A similar bottle was found in the previous excavations in the Roman dump (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.10:59, with further references therein). No. 18. L2091A, B2017955. Bottle. Fragment of lower body. Colorless glass with greenish blue tinge. Black and silver weathering, iridescence and severe pitting. Curving wall with horizontal constriction at the top.

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

77

Bottle/Beaker with Body Tapering Downward (Fig. 3.4:19). The complete form of this free-blown specimen is unclear. The fragment is distinguished by its straight, flaring wall that thickens at the junction with the simple concave base. The fine greenish fabric with an iridescent film is characteristic of the Roman period. Among possible parallels is a complete beaker with a rounded rim in the Corning Museum of Glass, dated to the first– second centuries CE (Whitehouse 1997:109, Cat. No. 163), or it could be the lower part of a bottle or flask. No. 19. L2091A, B2017954. Bottle/Beaker. Fragment of body and base. Greenish glass. Black enamel-like weathering on the base, interior and part of body, iridescent film, bubbly. Fine shiny fabric. Straight wall tapering downward, thickening at the junction with the concave base.

14

15 16

17

18

0

19

4

Fig. 3.4. Blown bottles from the Roman dump.

Roman Free-Blown Vessels from Various Loci The vessels of this category are dated to the mid-first–early second centuries CE. Fragment Nos. 20–23 were discovered in sealed earth and gravel fills in quarries below flagstones of the western sidewalk of the Cardo (see Foreword: Plan 6). A Hadrianic coin (117–138 CE) was found nearby, in a similar fill in a quarry below the western sidewalk (see Bijovksy 2019: Cat. No. 35).

78

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Fragment No. 24 was retrieved while dismantling the foundation of the sixth-century mosaic floor in the eastern portico of the Cardo and probably is residual in Byzantine Stratum X; No. 25 comes from the Roman dump. Bowl with a Splayed-Out, Rounded Rim (Fig. 3.5:20). Bowls with a similar rim occurred in Israel from the Early Roman period onward, and the vessel’s fabric and its fine design are characteristic of this period. Similar bowl fragments appeared in various contexts in Judea, dated to 70–135/136 CE, as well as in other parts of the country (Jackson-Tal 2016:37, Fig. 8:1–3). No. 20. L2040A, B2017701. Bowl. Small fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass. Black enamel-like and silver weathering, iridescent film and pitting. Flaring, rounded rim. Thin tapering wall. Deep Bowl or Beaker with a Rounded Rim (Fig. 3.5:21). This fragment is distinguished by the upright rounded rim and the thin, nearly vertical wall. Similar vessels were discovered in the Cave of Horror and at Wadi ed-Daliyeh in the Judean Desert, both dated to the first third of the second century CE (Barag 1962:210, Fig. 3.3; Weinberg and Barag 1974:104, Pl. 39:5–7). The fine fabric of this fragment supports an Early Roman date. No. 21. L2025A, B2017705. Small fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass. Black enamel-like and silver weathering, iridescent film and severe pitting. Upright, rounded rim. Thin vertical wall, tapering slightly downward. Small Bowl with a Low Solid Base (Fig. 3.5:22). This is the earliest fragment in this category. Small bowls or cups with a similar disc-like base occurred mainly in the second half of the first century CE. They were found in the Burnt House in Jerusalem, dated to the mid-first century CE (Israeli 2010:224, G12–G14, and see further references there to the City of David, ‘En Boqeq and Qumran) and at Herodium, in contexts of the end of the First Jewish Revolt (Jackson-Tal 2015b:401, Pl. 9.11:15, 16). No. 22. L2040A, B2017701. Bowl. Two fragments of base and beginning of wall. Bright greenish glass. Dark yellow weathering and iridescent film. Disc-shaped base, slightly concave in center. Thin wall flaring outward. Jug with a Ridged Strap Handle (Fig. 3.5:23). This fragment is the lower part of a thick, wide handle that preserves the beginning of 11 sharp, lengthwise ridges or ribs. Handles of similar design, attached vertically from the shoulder to just below the rim, are characteristic of glass containers used for the transport and storage of liquids. This jug type was widespread in the Roman Empire and is well known from many Judean sites dated to 70–135 CE (Jackson-Tal 2016:50–51, Figs. 16:5; 17, and see further references therein, including a complete jug from the Cave of Letters). Most of these jugs have a double-folded rim like a fragment previously discovered in the Roman dump (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.10:64).

80

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Late Roman and Byzantine Free-Blown Vessels from Various Loci Most of these glass vessels were discovered in the course of wet-sieving earthen fills of Strata X–VIII, and are very fragmentary. The majority are made of a colorless thin-walled fabric with a greenish or bluish hue, and represent a limited repertoire of common versions of simple bowls, beakers, wineglasses, bottles and oil lamps that are discussed below in chrono-typological order. In addition, several fragments of windowpanes and small mosaic glass tesserae of different colors were scattered in different areas, mainly in Byzantine– Early Islamic fills. Most of the forms occur locally between the late fourth and the seventh centuries CE, with only minor changes in fabric and decorative motifs. Their dates correlate with the later remains of the monumental Cardo uncovered in both the previous and current excavations (see Foreword; Weksler-Bdolah, forthcoming). Late Roman–Early Byzantine Periods These fragments present the earliest glass vessels recovered in the mixed earthen fills of Strata X–VIII excavated in the northern part of the Iron Age building during the present excavations (see Foreword: Plan 6). They are all common local types of the late fourth– early fifth centuries CE, though rarely published from living contexts in Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that the present excavations did not yield glass finds characteristic of the third–fourth centuries CE (Stratum XI) which were relatively numerous in the previously excavated glass assemblage (see Chapter 2: Figs. 11, 12). Vessel with a Trail-Wound Base (Fig. 3.6:26). Bowls and bottles with this base were widely distributed throughout Israel, especially in the central coastal plain (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:88–90, Fig. 7). Among the few published examples from Jerusalem is a base fragment recovered in a disturbed fill of the Nea Church (Brosh 2012: Pl. 15.4: G51, and see further references therein to Area A in the Jewish Quarter and an occupied cave on the Mount of Olives). No. 26. L1712A, B201720. Bowl(?). Small fragment of base. Light greenish blue glass. Light weathering, iridescent film and pitting. Base splaying outward, formed by three coils of trail. Vessel Decorated with an Applied Blob (Fig. 3.6:27). This small colorless body fragment decorated with an oval-shaped, cobalt-blue blob may belong to a bowl or a conical beaker with a cut-off rim that was probably used as an oil lamp. Such vessels often display decoration combining wheel-cut grooves, incisions and applied blobs in contrasting blue or turquoise colors. Similar vessels are known mostly from contexts of the late fourth century CE (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:90–93, Fig. 8:2, and see further references therein). Finds of this type in the Jerusalem area are rare.

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

81

No. 27. L1711A, B 201719. Bowl/beaker/beaker-shaped oil lamp. Small fragment of wall. Colorless glass with cobalt blue blob. Light and silver weathering, iridescence. Thin convex wall decorated with applied oval-shaped blob. Beaker with a Solid Base (Fig. 3.6:28). Cylindrical beakers of this class, often with a characteristically thin trail applied on the body below the rounded rim, represent another very common glass form of the fourth century CE (Gorin-Rosen and Katsnelson 2007:93, Fig. 8:3–9, and see further references therein). The few examples from living contexts in Jerusalem include base fragments excavated in a Late Roman–early Byzantine structure in the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Gutreich 2013: Fig. 12.4:67–70). No. 28. L1712A, B201720. Beaker. Fragment of base and beginning of wall. Light greenish glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescent film and pitting. Thin wall. Low solid base.

26

28

27 0

0

1

4

Fig. 3.6. Blown vessels of the Late Roman–early Byzantine periods.

Late Byzantine Period Glass wares of this period are represented here by simple local forms and motifs that appeared in Israel primarily during the fifth–seventh centuries CE, and even later. A wide range of similar types are found at various sites in Jerusalem and its close vicinity. In the present excavations, the fragments were scattered in mixed Byzantine–Early Islamic fills (Strata X–VIII; see Foreword: Plan 6): No. 29 in a water channel sealed below a Byzantineperiod pavement; No. 30 in the fill in Miqveh 2022; No. 31 in an Early Islamic water channel; Nos. 32, 34–36 in the fills in and above the northern part of the Iron Age building; No. 33 in accumulations inside a hewn installation; No. 38 during dismantling of W811; and Nos. 37, 39, 40 below Byzantine pavements.

82

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Bowl with an Out-Folded Rim (Fig. 3.7:29). This wide, thickened, out-folded rim probably belonged to a deep bowl or a bowl-shaped oil lamp. The shape and fabric date this vessel to the Byzantine period. Another version of a similar bowl was found in the sixth–seventhcentury CE monastery in Naḥal Qidron (Winter 2017:101, Fig. 1:1, and see further references therein to sites in Jerusalem). No. 29. L98A, B201796. Bowl/oil lamp. Two small fragments of rim. Light greenish glass. Milky-yellow and silver weathering, iridescence. Upright, thickened, out-folded rim with a wide hollow. Beakers/Wineglasses (Fig. 3.7:30, 31). The complete shapes of these two fragments are unclear. They have flared, rounded rims and thin walls tapering downward. Parallels from the Jerusalem area came from a Late Roman–early Byzantine structure in the Giv‘ati Parking Lot, where they were identified as beakers (Gutreich 2013:278, Fig. 12.4:71, 72), and the sixth–seventh-century CE monasteries located north of Damascus Gate and on Mount Scopus (Winter 2019: Figs. 5.1.1:1; 5.5.2:8, 9), where they were identified as wineglasses with a tall body. No. 30. L315A, B2017316. Beaker/wineglass. Small fragment of rim and wall. Almost colorless glass. Black and silver weathering, iridescent film. Flaring, rounded rim. Thin vertical wall tapering downward. No. 31. L112A, B2017126. Beaker/wineglass. Fragment of rim and wall. Light bluish glass. Yellow and silver weathering, iridescence. Black impurities. Widely flaring, rounded rim. Thin vertical wall tapering downward. Wineglass/Oil Lamp/Bottle (Fig. 3.7:32). This fragment has a thin rounded rim, and the wall tapers slightly downward. A reliable reconstruction of the complete form is difficult–– it could have been the upper part of a wineglass, a stemmed oil lamp or a bottle with a wide, cylindrical neck. This wide variety of vessel types sharing similar basic shapes is particularly characteristic of the local glass wares at the end of the Byzantine and the very beginning of the Early Islamic periods. The quality of the fabric supports this date. No. 32. L1703A, B201730. Wineglass/oil lamp/bottle. Fragment of rim and wall. Colorless glass with bluish tinge. Milky-yellow and silver weathering, iridescence. Bubbly, spirals of blowing. Slightly flaring, rounded, thickened rim. Thin tapering wall.

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

83

Wineglass with a Hollow Ring Base (Fig. 3.7:33). This fragment belongs to another wellknown local Byzantine type that occurred from the fifth century CE until the Umayyad period. A similar base with a hollow beaded foot was found in the previous excavations at the site (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.12:82, and see further references therein to sites in Jerusalem). Among other examples excavated in the Jerusalem area are fragments from Area D of the Nea Church (Brosh 2012: Pl. 15.4: G52), the sixth–seventh-century CE monasteries in Naḥal Qidron (Winter 2017: Fig. 1:3, 4) and north of the Damascus Gate (Winter 2019: Fig. 5.1.1:2, 3, 5), and fifth to mid-eighth-century habitation contexts in the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Gutreich 2013: Fig. 12.6:95–97). No. 33. L318A, B2017341. Wineglass. Fragment of base. Light greenish blue glass. Light crust, iridescence and pitting. Pushed-in base with small hollow ring. Simple Bottles (Fig. 3.7:34–36). These fragments belong to plain, medium-sized bottles. The first two are characterized by a thin, upright, rounded rim and a cylindrical neck. The third example displays a globular or bulbous body with a concave base. All of the fragments were found in the same context and some could belong to the same vessel. Similar plain bottles, often made of low-quality glass, were widely distributed during the Byzantine period, varying in form and size. Examples from settlement, burial and ecclesiastic contexts in Jerusalem are dated to the fifth–seventh centuries CE (see Gorin-Rosen 1999:208–209, Fig. 1:9, 10; Winter 2019:39, Type BTrr, with further references therein). Nos. 34–36. L1707A, B201724. Bottles. Three fragments: rim, neck, wall and base. Almost colorless glass with bluish green tinge. Yellow weathering and iridescent film. Bubbly. Upright, rounded rim. Cylindrical neck. Thin, curving wall. Concave base. Bottle(?) with a Pinched Trail Design (Fig. 3.7:37). A small, colorless body fragment decorated with a pinched, bifurcated pattern including a turquoise trail may belong to a bottle. Vessels with similar decoration began to appear in the region during the Byzantine period and were particularly common during the seventh–eighth centuries CE. Several examples were found in the Jerusalem area, for example in a fifth–sixth-century tomb at Bethany, and in late Byzantine monasteries north of Damascus Gate, on Mount Scopus and in the Kathisma church complex (Winter 2019:46, Type BTpt, Fig. 3.2.4/2, with further references therein). No. 37. L94A, B201796. Bottle(?). Small fragment of wall. Colorless glass with greenish tinge. Thin, turquoise trail. Milky and silver weathering, pitting. Thin, curving wall decorated with pinched, bifurcated trail design.

84

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Bottle with an Applied Wavy Trail on the Neck (Fig. 3.7:38). Bottles of different sizes decorated with applied trails in various patterns were widespread in the country from the late Byzantine to the Early Islamic periods. Bottles decorated with a wavy trail applied on the neck or the mouth occurred mainly in contexts of the seventh–eighth centuries CE. A few examples originate in sites in Jerusalem, as in the monastic complexes in Naḥal Qidron, north of Damascus Gate and on Mount Scopus, and in domestic contexts at Ramat Raḥel and in the Old City (Winter 2019:46–47, Type BTwt, Fig. 3.2.4/2, with further references therein). No. 38. L2085A, B2017967. Bottle. Small fragment of neck. Colorless glass with bluish tinge. Bright greenish blue trail. Iridescence. Shiny fabric. Neck decorated with applied wavy trail. Bowl-Shaped Oil Lamps (Fig. 3.7:39, 40). Two common types of vessels used for illumination were recovered. They were both widely distributed in Israel during the sixth– seventh centuries CE, but occurred at the site only in small numbers. The fragment with an out-folded rim and a handle (Fig. 3.7:39) belongs to a class of bowl- or beaker-shaped lamps with three handles attached around the rim. Similar fragments are well-known from most Jerusalem sites occupied in the sixth–seventh centuries CE (Winter 2019:53–54, Type LBBor, Fig. 3.2.6/1, with further references therein). Some of the lamps had a wick tube affixed to the vessel floor, like examples from the monastery on Mount Scopus (Winter 2019: Fig. 5.5.5:43, 47, 48). The stem fragment (Fig. 3.7:40) represents a lamp with a hollow tubular base. A similar fragment was found in the previous excavation (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.11:83, with further references therein to the Jerusalem International Convention Center and Khirbat Ṭabaliya, dated to the sixth–seventh centuries CE). Among other numerous and noteworthy parallels are fragments from late Byzantine monasteries in Naḥal Qidron (Winter 2017:104– 105, Fig. 1:9) and on Mount Scopus (Winter 2019: Fig. 5.5.6), and Byzantine–Umayyad habitation contexts in the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Gutreich 2013: Fig. 12.6:93, 94). No. 39. L104A, B201711. Oil lamp. Small fragment of rim, wall and handle. Greenish glass. Yellow and silver weathering, pitting. Upright, out-folded rim. Short uneven trail handle attached to the wall and the edge of the rim. No. 40. L100A, B 2017104. Oil lamp. Small stem fragment. Light bluish green glass. Yellow and silver weathering, pitting. Hollow stem base. Circular pontil mark underneath.

86

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Byzantine Glass Architectural Objects A small number of architecture-related glass remains were discovered at the site, including windowpanes and tesserae. Windowpanes (Fig. 3.8:41–43) Two common types of windowpanes appear in the assemblage: rounded and quadrangular. From among the finds, one fragment (No. 41) originated in a fill west of the Cardo, another (No. 42) below a Byzantine pavement, and No. 43 in a fill of a drainage channel (see Foreword: Plan 6; see also Weksler-Bdolah, forthcoming). Two rounded, bluish green windowpanes are characterized by thin folded rims and walls (Fig. 3.8:41, 42). The rim’s edge of No. 42 is coated in a thick layer of plaster–– probably remnants of a window frame or some other architectural element. A flat, greenish fragment (Fig. 3.8:43) is distinguished by a chipped-off, unworked rim and a thick wall, which are characteristic of quadrangular windowpanes with two rounded and two cut-off sides. A similar fragment was found in the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Gorin-Rosen 2005: Fig. 3:44). Windowpanes of both types were widely used in public and private constructions of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, particularly in buildings of a religious function or bathhouses (Winter 2019:85–86, Types WPer and WPqd, Fig. 3.5; see Table 3.5 for their distribution in Jerusalem). Among recently published examples are 110 fragments of quadrangular windowpanes discovered in the sixth–seventh-century monastery site in Naḥal Qidron (Winter 2017:105, Fig. 1:10, 11, with further references therein). No. 41. L3200A, B2017323. Windowpane. Small fragment of rim and wall. Pale greenish blue glass. Light and silver weathering, pitting. Folded-outward, thickened rim. Thin, flat wall. D ~ 24 cm. No. 42. L90A, B201790. Windowpane. Small fragment of rim, wall and plaster. Greenish glass. Silver weathering and pitting. Folded-outward rim. Remains of plaster around the edge. Diameter unclear. No. 43. L2055A, B2017821. Windowpane. Fragment of rim and wall. Greenish glass. Light and silver weathering. Thick rim unevenly broken with sharp edges. Thick, flat, broken wall. Preserved L 5 cm, W 4.8 cm, uneven thickness (2–4 mm). Tesserae (Fig. 3.8:44) Glass mosaic tesserae were found in the earthen fills in the northern part of the Iron Age building, and above it (see Foreword: Plan 6). The tesserae consist of several small glass mosaic tesserae of blue, turquoise, opaque green and colorless glass, most of which were broken (only two pieces are illustrated). Some of the poorly preserved translucent turquoise specimens may also have belonged to tiles (No. 44, right).

88

NATALYA KATSNELSON

is noteworthy that all the pieces except No. 45 were collected in the Roman dump, and four similar inlays were found in the same context during the previous excavations (see Chapter 2: Fig. 2.2:6–9, with further references therein to examples in Jerusalem). Among noteworthy Hellenistic parallels are some 30 pieces found at Maresha (Jackson-Tal 2019:250, Fig. 14.10:1–7), and 18 of various colors at Tel Qedesh, where they were discovered together with glass astragals (Erlich 2017: Fig. 6b), which strengthens their identification as gaming pieces (see Jackson-Tal 2015a:114, Type 1.5.2.3, with further references therein). No. 45. L2025A, B2017613. Inlay/gaming piece. Glass of unclear color. Dark yellow weathering. Small circular, convex on top, flat underneath. D 14 mm; H 6 mm. No. 46. L2091A, B2017946. Inlay/gaming piece. Deep blue translucent glass. Dark crust. Small, oval shaped, convex on top, flat underneath. D 16 mm; H 6 mm. No. 47. L2091A, B2017950. Two parts of an inlay/gaming piece. Yellowish green(?) translucent glass. White enamel-like weathering, pitting. Small circular, convex on top, flat underneath. D 18 mm; H 5 mm. No. 48. L2091A, B2017955. Glass of unclear color. Dark crust, silver iridescence. Small circular, convex on top, flat underneath. D 14 mm; H 6 mm. Glass Object Decorated with a Marvered Trail (Fig. 3.9:49) This enigmatic object was found in the Roman dump, and its function and precise date are unclear; it may be part of a plaque or a vessel. The fragment has a flattened shape with a preserved rounded edge. It is made of a dark translucent glass of unclear color, decorated with an opaque, white or yellow trail wound spirally and fused on both sides, and combed in a feather pattern on the top. Traces of a small, horizontal, interior hollow on one of the broken sides indicate that it was probably manufactured by folding and then tooled. Despite its poor state of preservation, the fabric and fine design of this unique object are characteristic of preblown glass. As no comparable examples of decorative plaques are known, it may have been the lower part of a rod-formed vessel or its production waste. A miniature bottle or implement in the Israel Museum with a solid, carinated body and a very small opening at the top, is dated to the sixth–fourth centuries BCE (Israeli 2003:49, Cat. No. 25) and may be a parallel.2 No. 49. L5230A, B2017131. Two adjoining parts of a plaque, vessel or vessel waste. Dark translucent glass of unclear color. Black enamel-like weathering, yellow patches, iridescence, decomposition of glass. White or yellow applied and marvered trail. Max. Th 12 mm; preserved L 37 mm.

2

I am grateful to Yael Gorin-Rosen for noting this possibility.

90

NATALYA KATSNELSON

None of these small beads can be dated with any certainty due to their simple, common forms and unstratified contexts. Among possible parallels are similar miniature, blue and green beads collected in Hellenistic–Early Roman levels at Tel Anafa (Larson 2018:99–100, BD 13, 18, 20, 24). No. 50. L1703A, B201736. Complete, miniature barrel-shaped bead. Deep blue translucent glass. Dark crust of weathering. D 8 mm; H 5 mm. No. 51. L108A, B2017120. Complete, miniature globular bead. Deep blue translucent glass. Dark crust of weathering. D 8 mm; H 8 mm. No. 52. L1709A, B201706. Complete miniature globular bead. Colorless glass. Silver weathering, iridescence. One end unevenly cut off. D 7 mm; H 6 mm. Miniature Lozenge-Shaped Bead (Fig. 3.10:53). This miniature bead was manufactured by folding hot glass around a metal rod and then flattening it. Its original color is unclear, due to the heavy crust of white enamel-like weathering. This bead was discovered in a Late Roman–Byzantine fill and is likely intrusive. A very similar bead was found in a Hellenistic–Early Roman context at Tel Anafa (Larson 2018:102, BD 34). No. 53. L102A, B201707. Complete, miniature lozenge-shaped bead. Glass of unclear color. White enamel-like weathering. Wound and flattened on both sides. Visible seams of folding. Small perforation. Dimensions: 8 × 8 × 3 mm. Small, Elongated, Hexagonal Bead (Fig. 3.10:54). This cylindrical bead has a hexagonal cross section. It is made of translucent, highly weathered glass, probably deep blue in color. Faceted beads in a variety of colors and sizes were common during the Roman and Byzantine periods. Parallels are known mostly from burial sites of long-term use, e.g., Samaritan tombs of the third–seventh centuries CE at Tel Baruch (Jackson-Tal 2015a:114, Fig. 1.76:3, 4) and a Byzantine burial cave at Ḥorbat Gores in Jerusalem (Solimany, Winter and Vincenz 2006: Fig. 5:4). No. 54. L5201A, B2017101. Elongated, hexagonal bead. Deep blue(?) glass, translucent. Black enamel-like weathering. L 12 mm. Cylindrical, Trail-Decorated Bead (Fig. 3.10:55). This exceptional bichrome bead (partly preserved) was found in the Roman dump. Its original color is concealed by heavy weathering. It was made by the technique of winding, and adorned with a spirally wound trail in white or yellow that was dragged in a festoon pattern. An additional trail of a similar color was applied around one of the preserved ends. Beads with similar trail decoration occurred from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic periods. Based on its context, this example can be dated prior to 125 CE. Similar cylindrical,

92

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Glass Melon-Shaped Bead (Fig. 3.11:56). The single glass example of this type is complete, with only small pieces missing around the perforation. It is distinguished by the wide, cylindrical perforation and relief pattern of densely set, uneven ribs. Melon-shaped beads of true glass are rarely identified in local contexts, in comparison with the more common examples of faience and frit. Four glass examples of purple or uncertain color were found in Hellenistic–Early Roman levels at Tel Anafa (Larson 2018:103, BD 36–38, with further references therein to Rhodes and other eastern Mediterranean sites). No. 56. L5201A, B2017101. Complete melon-shaped bead, chipped ends. Deep blue translucent glass. White weathering, iridescence. Wide, asymmetrical opening. Sixteen pronounced, unevenly set, vertical ribs. D 15 mm; H 11 mm. Faience and Frit Melon-Shaped Beads (Fig. 3.11:57–62). Most of the examples are of faience; six pieces were identified as frit. Both the faience and frit beads display severely weathered, glazed fabric of bluish, greenish or unclear hues. The differentiation between the materials was determined by visual examination under a microscope,3 and may not be definitive. Broken frit examples display a horizontal constriction in the middle of the perforation, probably the mark of winding, or of another tooling method (Fig. 3.1:59–61). Melon-shaped faience beads are known in the Levant from the Late Bronze Age onward. In the previous excavations, 44 faience beads of various shapes were discovered (52% of the bead assemblage): 33 from Iron II, 5 from Roman and 6 from later contexts (Brigitte Ouahnouna, pers. comm.). In Israel, beads identified as faience or frit occurred mainly in the first–early fifth centuries CE, and the differentiation between these two vitreous materials is not clearly indicated in most publications. Parallels were found in Roman and early Byzantine tombs at Akeldama in Jerusalem (Winter 1996:114–115, Fig. 7.2:17) and Tel Barukh in Samaria (Jackson-Tal 2015a:113, Fig. 1.78:1–3), and two examples of light blue faience at Herodium, in contexts dated from the end of the First Revolt onward (Jackson-Tal 2015b:406, Pl. 9.III:25, 26). No. 57. L2089A, B2017966. Complete, rounded melon-shaped bead. Faience. Remains of bluish green glaze around ends. Yellowish core. Dark spots of weathering. Severely pitted. Carelessly shaped. Conical perforation. Thirteen ribs. D 12 mm; H 10 mm. No. 58. L2091A, B2017951. Complete melon-shaped bead and small fragments of two others. Faience of unclear color. Strongly weathered. Carelessly shaped. Conical perforation. Complete bead has 12 unevenly spaced ribs. D 8 mm; H 11 mm.

3

I am grateful to Adrian Varnai-Ganor, the glass restorer, for conducting this analysis.

94

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Glass Production Debris (Fig. 3.12) A small amount of glass production debris found at the site includes a curved, convex fragment, probably a moil (No. 63), small uneven chunks of raw, greenish blue glass (Nos. 64–66), possible recycling shreds (No. 67), and small, unevenly shaped, globular drops (Nos. 68–70). Although none of these pieces are mixed with any clear debris of a glass kiln, they raise the possibility of glass working in the vicinity. The moil is direct evidence for glass blowing, while the thin, flat, deformed shred is probably windowpane production waste, and the small drops could be bead production waste. The characteristic fabrics of these pieces, and a few small vessel fragments discovered together with some of the chunks (L1707A), suggest industrial debris of the Late Roman–Byzantine periods; however, the small drops originated in the Early Roman fills of the quarries and thus predate 125 CE. To date, the only evidence of glass production in Jerusalem is limited to the debris from two workshops excavated in the Jewish Quarter: one from the midfirst century BCE (Israeli and Katsnelson 2006) and the other from the Crusader period (Brosh 2012:404–406). However, data for intensive glass production during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods is known from other regions in Israel, particularly in the north and along the central coastal plain (Gorin-Rosen 2019:236–237, with further references therein). No. 63. L1704A, B201705. Fragment of moil. Colorless glass with bluish tinge. Silver weathering, bubbly, black impurities. Unevenly cut rim and curving, convex sides of uneven thickness. D 20 mm. No. 64. L1707A, B201715. Three small broken chunks with uneven triangular sections. Greenish blue glass. Iridescence. Found with small rim and body fragments of blown vessels and broken colorless tesserae (not illustrated). No. 65. L220A, B201943. Two small chunks of raw glass coated with burnt plaster (or severely heated limestone). Greenish blue glass. Iridescence. Dimensions: 11 × 28 × 35 mm; 12 × 21 × 24 mm. No. 66. L106A, B2017114. Small chunk and stone inlaid with raw glass. Greenish blue glass. Iridescence. Dimensions: 9.5 × 16.4 × 17.5 mm; 11 × 18 × 19 mm. No. 67. L2055A, B2017821. Two elongated, flattened shreds, broken and heated. Greenish blue glass. Yellow-silver crust, iridescent film, pitting. Unevenly shaped with partly rounded and partly cut-off edges. Indented surface. Dimensions: 23 × 36 mm; 24 × 48 × 5 mm. No. 68. L1705A, B201706. Two small drops of uneven shape and one miniature, spherical drop. Glass of small drops of unclear color; globular drop of dark blue translucent glass. Grayish weathering.

95

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

No. 69. L2040A, B2017700. Miniature, unevenly shaped globular drop. Dark blue, translucent glass. Grayish weathering. Small circular indentation on surface. D 8 mm; H 6 mm. No. 70. L5230A, B2017131. Miniature, unevenly shaped globular drop. Deep blue, translucent glass. Grayish weathering. Two small circular indentations on surface. D 8 mm; H 6 mm.

63 0

64

1

65 0

66

2

67 0

1

2

0

68 0

2

69

0

1

70 0

1

Fig. 3.12. Glass production debris.

Summary and Conclusions This addition to the assemblage of glass finds from the earlier seasons of excavations at the Western Wall Plaza presents vessels and small objects that are generally dated to the first–seventh centuries CE, and most of the vessel types are similar to those of the previous excavations (see Chapter 2). The very fragmentary cast bowls and most of the small glass, frit and faience objects are the earliest vitreous finds dating from the late first century BCE to the early first century CE. The remainder of the Early Roman corpus consists of plain or simply decorated blown vessels, along with a few examples of fine, high-quality tableware, probably imported. The latter, and some of the vitreous beads, support the evidence for the presence of the Roman army in the vicinity. The majority of these finds were revealed in the sealed context of the Roman dump (Stratum XII), dated to 75–125 CE, and thus their particular significance.

96

NATALYA KATSNELSON

The small glass corpus of common Byzantine vessels, windowpanes and mosaic tesserae, originating in secure stratigraphic contexts dating to the late fourth–seventh centuries CE, is testimony to the latest occupation phases of the Cardo. The large variety of small vitreous objects of types not found in the previous excavations, including an enigmatic, pre-blown object possibly dating to the fourth–sixth centuries BCE or earlier (Fig. 3.9:49), numerous beads of faience and frit, as well as minor, but significant, finds of glass production debris, are worthy of special note.

R eferences Barag D. 1962. Glass Vessels from the Cave of Horror. IEJ 12:208–214. Bijovsky G. 2019. Coins of the Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. WWPE I. Pp. 165–193. Brosh N. 2012. Glass Objects from the Cardo and the Nea Church. In O. Gutfeld. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 V: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T); Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 400–425. Erlich A. 2017. Happily Ever After? A Hellenistic Hoard from Tel Kedesh in Israel. AJA 121:39– 59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.3764/aja.121.1.0039.pdf?ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_ search_aggregated%2Ftest&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa56c6e9fd4f188449ba0eb65b6a8a027 (accessed August 13, 2019). Fünfschilling S. 2015. Die römischen Gläser aus Augst und Kaiseraugst: Kommentierter Formenkatalog und ausgewählte Neufunde 1981–2010 aus Augusta Raurica; Fundkatalog und Tafeln (Forschungen in Augst 51). Augst. Gorin-Rosen Y. 1999. Glass Vessels from Ras Abu Ma‘aruf (Pisgat Ze’ev East A). ‘Atiqot 38:205– 214. 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. 2015. Glass Vessels from Yavne. ‘Atiqot 81:35*–37*. Gorin-Rosen Y. 2019. The Glass Vessels from Khirbat Burin. ‘Atiqot 94:219–240. Gorin-Rosen Y. and Katsnelson N. 2007. Local Glass Production in the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Periods in Light of the Glass Finds from Khirbat el-Ni‘ana. ‘Atiqot 57:73–154. Gutreich D. 2013. The Glass Finds. In D. Ben-Ami. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givʻati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 265–289. Israeli Y. 2003. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts (Israel Museum Catalogue 486). Jerusalem. Israeli Y. 2010. Glass Vessels. In H. Geva. 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. 2014. Glass Vessels from Stratum 3, Area J. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 288–301.

CHAPTER 3: GLASS FINDS FROM THE 2017 EXCAVATION SEASON

97

Israeli Y. and Katsnelson N. 2006. Refuse of a Glass Workshop of the Second Temple Period from Area J. 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. 411– 460. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2015a. Beads, Pendants and Inlays. In O. Tal and I. Taxel. Samaritan Cemeteries and Tombs in the Central Coastal Plain: Archaeology and History of the Samaritan Settlement Outside Samaria (ca. 300–700 CE) (Ägypten und Altes Testament 82). Münster. Pp. 108–116. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2015b. The Glass Finds from the Area of Herod’s Tomb. In R. Porat, R. Chachy and Y. Kalman. Herodium. Final Reports of the 1972–2010 Excavations Directed by Ehud Netzer I: Herod’s Tomb Precinct. Jerusalem. Pp. 396–408. Jackson-Tal E.R. 2016. Glass Vessel Use in Time of Conflict: The Evidence from the Bar Kokhba Refuge Caves in Judaea, Israel (135/136 C.E.). BASOR 376:29–62. Jackson-Tal R.E. 2019. The Glass Finds. In I. Stern. Excavations at Maresha Subterranean Complex 169: Final Report Seasons 2000–2016 (ANGSBA XI). Jerusalem. Pp. 235–262. Katsnelson N. Forthcoming. The Glass Finds from Binyene Ha-Umma (Crowne Plaza Hotel) (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Larson K.A. 2018. Personal Adornment: Glass, Stone, Bone, and Shell. In A.M. Berlin and S.C. Herbert eds. Tel Anafa II, iii: Decorative Wall Plaster, Objects of Personal Adornment and Glass Counters, Tools for Textile Manufacture and Miscellaneous Bone, Terracotta and Stone Figurines, Pre-Persian Pottery, Attic Pottery, and Medieval Pottery (Kelsey Museum Fieldwork Series). Ann Arbor. Pp. 79–136. Lith S.M.E. van. 1996. Some Mould Blown Flavian Glass from Nijmegen. In Annales du 13e Congrès de l’AIHV (Pays Bas 28 août–1 septembre 1995). Lochem. Pp. 129–138. Ovadiah R. 1999. A Burial Cave of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods at Hagoshrim. ‘Atiqot 38:33*–47* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 223–224). Rottloff A. 1996. Zwei bedeutende Fundkomplexe römischer Gläser aus Augusta Vindelicum– Augsburg. In Annales du 13e Congrès de l’AIHV (Pays Bas 28 août–1 septembre 1995). Lochem. Pp. 163–174. Rütti B. 1988. Beiträge zum römischen Oberwinterthur—Vitudurum 4: Die Gläser (Berichte der Züricher Denkmalpflege. Monographien 5). Zurich. Solimany G., Winter T. and Vincenz A. de. 2006. A Burial Cave from the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in Ḥorbat Gores, the Gonen Quarter, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 54:87*–94* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 161–163). Stern E.M. 1995. Roman Mold-Blown Glass: The First through Sixth Centuries (Toledo Museum of Art Catalogue). Toledo, Ohio. Weksler-Bdolah S. Forthcoming. Jerusalem, the Old City and the Western Wall Plaza. HA–ESI. Weinberg G.D. and Barag D. 1974. Glass Vessels. In P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp eds. Discoveries in the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh (AASOR 41). Cambridge, Mass. Pp. 103–105. Whitehouse D. 1997. Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass I. Corning. Winter T. 1996. Jewelry and Miscellaneous Objects. In G. Avni and Z. Greenhut. The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem (IAA Reports 1). Jerusalem. Pp. 109–116.

98

NATALYA KATSNELSON

Winter T. 2017. The Glass Finds from the Byzantine Monastery in Naḥal Qidron, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 89:101–106. Winter T. 2019. Lucid Transformations: The Byzantine–Islamic Transition as Reflected in Glass Assemblages from Jerusalem and Its Environs, 450–800 CE (BAR Int. S. 2946). Oxford.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 4

Chalk Artifacts Shua Kisilevitz

Introduction Chalk artifacts were found throughout the Western Wall Plaza excavations, all in strata later than the Early Roman (Second Temple) period in which they originated. The majority of these artifacts were found in the Roman refuse dump, a fill inside a quarry below the northern section of the Roman Cardo’s eastern portico, which is attributed to the Roman Tenth Legion, c. 75–125 CE (see Foreword: Plan 3; Weksler-Bdolah 2019:40–44). The chalk artifacts were strewn in the ash and earth layers of the refuse dump along with corresponding pottery of the Early Roman period, which amounts to 20% of the total pottery assemblage found in the fill (see Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019:246); a small number of chalk artifacts also occurred in Byzantine and Islamic-period walls and fills throughout the site.1 The location of the excavation on the northeastern slope of the Second Templeperiod’s Upper City (the present-day Jewish Quarter), in proximity to the Temple Mount and to installations uncovered in the present excavations attributed to the Second Temple period (Weksler-Bdolah 2019:17–28), suggests that the stone artifacts discussed here may have originated in those locations. Thus, the cited parallels are primarily from neighboring sites within Jerusalem: the City of David (Cahill 1992), the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983; Reich 2003; Geva 2006, 2010, 2014), excavations near the Temple Mount (Macalister and Duncan 1926; Mazar 1971; Magen 2002), the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013), as well as production sites (quarries and workshops) such as Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbrod 2008) and Ḥizma (Magen 1988, 2002). White and grayish-black (bituminous) chalk was used in the production of stone vessels and artifacts during the Second Temple period. Both types of chalk are readily available on the eastern ridge of Jerusalem, where Senonian chalk of the Menuḥa Formation is exposed (Gibson 1996:10; Reich 2003:266; Gill 2019). These artifacts, also known as Jerusalem stoneware (Geva 2014:274), were produced using two techniques. Some were lathe-turned to create a smooth surface, frequently leaving visible striations and/or a ridged decoration. Vessels formed on a lathe also required further manual processing, such as carving on the interior of the large vessels, or finishing some of the small vessels, such

During the 2017 season, in the course of local probes conducted throughout the site (see Foreword), fragments of five chalk vessels were identified, including: the base of a hand-carved basin in a Strata X–IX fill (L100A, B2017104), the base of a mug in a Stratum XII fill (L2040A, B2017704), and body fragments of a large bowl, a krater (qalal) and a large basin found while dismantling Stratum XII W811-W812 (L5230A, B2017131). 1

100

SHUA KISILEVITZ

as lids; the use of a lathe enabled mass production. Other artifacts, mainly mugs, bowls and basins, as well as larger objects such as tables and ossuaries, were hand-carved with a hammer and chisel. Magen (2002:1) asserts that chalk-vessel workshops must have existed in Jerusalem, probably in shops along the main street of the city that passed through the Tyropoeon Valley at the foot of the Western Wall. These workshops would have received their raw material from the nearby quarries in the form of blocks from which they fashioned the objects. A trial excavation near the Golden Gate suggested the presence of such a workshop (Reich and Shukron 1998).

The Artifacts The finds presented here include fragments of 25 chalk vessels (Table 4.1), as well as two cores, five tables, an ossuary, a carved architectural fragment, and two unidentified artifacts. Table 4.1. The Chalk Vessels Vessel Lathe-turned bowls

No.

%

5

20

Large lathe-turned kraters (qalal)*

10

40

Unidentified lathe-turned (goblets?)

2

8

Lids and stopper

4

16

Hand-carved bowls

2

8

Hand-carved mugs Total

2

8

25

100

*Five additional large qalal body fragments found at the site are not presented here as they may belong to the same vessel/s.

Lathe-Turned Artifacts Bowls (Fig. 4.1:1–5) Bowls with a Triangular Rim (Fig. 4.1:1, 2) Two bowl fragments have an external protrusion just beneath the rim that creates a groove and a slightly triangular rim profile. Both are well-polished and feature lathe striations on the outer rim and below the groove. Similar bowls were found in the City of David (Cahill 1992: Fig. 15:4–6, Photos 122, 123), the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2010: Pl. 5.10:6) and Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbrod 2008: Fig. 20.12:9–11). Hemispherical Bowls (Fig. 4.1:3, 4) Two fragments of deep hemispherical bowls are well polished both inside and out. This type is characterized by a simple inverted rim with one or two striations around the exterior

101

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

2

1

3

5

4

6

7

0

10

Fig. 4.1. Small, lathe-turned vessels. No.

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Bowl with triangular rim

XII

8156

81258

2

Bowl with triangular rim

XII

8148

80944.1

3

Hemispherical bowl

XII

8148

80944.2

4

Hemispherical bowl

X

4253

42135

5

Large shallow Bowl

XII

8152

81052

6

Goblet(?)/practice core(?)

XII

8125

80929

7

Goblet(?)

XII

8153

81066

just beneath the rim. The form may have derived from pottery and wooden forms (Cahill 1992:203). While only two fragments of this type were found, it is very common in the Jerusalem area and similar bowls were found in the City of David (Cahill 1992:202–203, Fig. 16:2–6, Photo 132), the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Fig. 8.3:1; Geva 2010: Pl. 5.10:7–9), Mount Scopus (Amit, Seligman and Zilberbrod 2008:332, Fig. 20.13:5–7), the Temple Mount (Magen 2002:69–71, Figs. 3.13:1–3; 3.14) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.2:13, 14). Large Shallow Bowl (Fig. 4.1:5) The single fragment of this type is well-polished both inside and out and has a flaring triangular rim decorated with an incised line, and a small ridge encircling the bottom of the wall. Similar bowls were found in the City of David (Cahill 1992: Fig. 15.9–22, Bowl Type F), the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2010: Pl. 5.10:13–15, Photo 5.4), the eastern slope of the Western Hill in Jerusalem (Magen 2002: Fig. 3.5:5), the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: Figs. 3.5:4; 3.7) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.2:8).

102

SHUA KISILEVITZ

Goblets(?) (Fig. 4.1:6, 7) These two objects were well formed on a small lathe and decorated with ridges, and could have been the stems of goblets. That in Fig. 4.1:6 is made of very soft chalk and has a square indentation at the top, which might be the pivot of the lathe and is common in cores; therefore, this object could also be a practice core. Kraters (Qalals) (Figs. 4.2, 4.3) These large, lathe-turned, barrel-shaped stone vessels have been defined as jars (Cahill 1992:207; Reich 2003:266) or kraters (Magen 2002:38–39, 80–90; Geva 2014:276), and are commonly accepted to be the qalal vessel mentioned in the Mishna2 (Magen 2002:88; Amit, Seligman and Zilberbrod 2008:335), perhaps imitating the bronze calyx krater (Magen 2002:88). All of the qalal fragments presented here are of the barrel-shaped krater type, with a wide, open mouth and an internal groove intended for the placement of a lid (apart from Fig. 4.2:6). The rim profile is either quadrangular, at times stepped, with a triple-ridged decoration on the exterior (Fig 4.2:1–4), or triangular with a flat top (Fig. 4.2:5, 6). The short neck ends in a clear carination at the shoulder, below which the walls descend to a second carination ending in a concave trumpet base (Fig. 4.3:3, 4). The interior of the vessel was hollowed out manually, leaving visible chisel marks (Fig. 4.3:4). The decoration is limited to lathe-incised lines and ridges, and sometimes small triangular handles protrude from a slightly raised, chiseled band encircling the vessel (Fig. 4.3:1). The handles are purely decorative, as they are too small to have served any functional purpose. In some cases (Figs. 4.2:3, 4, 6), the interior exhibits signs of erosion below the rim, perhaps a chemical reaction caused by the substance it held (Reich 2003:267). A body fragment with a drilled hole (Fig. 4.3:2) may indicate mending of the vessel, or repurposing after it had fractured. These vessels are found throughout Jerusalem, as in the City of David (Cahill 1992: Figs. 18:3, 10–12; 19.8:9, Photos 183, 184, Type I.b.i), the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.2:1–4, 5, 14; Geva 2006: Pl. 9.2.1, 2, 4, 9; 2010: Pls. 5.7; 5.8:4–6, termed jars; 2014: Pl. 10.2:2, 3), Robinson’s Arch, Chamber IV (Magen 2002: Figs. 3.34:1; 3.35, Type I.2.B.i, Form 1), the Temple Mount southwestern corner (Magen 2002:80–88, Figs. 3.34:2; 3.36; 3.41:1–5, Type I.2.B.i, Form 1) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.3:2, 4, 5). Lids and Stopper (Fig. 4.4:1–4) Two small lid fragments made of grayish chalk (Fig. 4.4:1, 2) belong to a type of circular lid with a tapering knob handle in the center. A mushroom-shaped knob handle (Fig. 4.4:3)

2

For a detailed discussion of the origin of the term qalal, see Reich 2003:265.

103

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

1

2

3

4

5

6 0

10

Fig. 4.2. Krater (qalal) rims. No.

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Stepped quadrangular rim

XII

8158

81246

2

Stepped quadrangular rim

XII

8125

80917

3

Stepped quadrangular rim

XII

8144

81088

4

Regular quadrangular rim

XII–X

W614

61714

5

Triangular flat-topped rim

XII

8132

80772

6

Triangular flat-topped rim

XII

8121

80647

105

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

1

2

3

5

4

6 0

10

Fig. 4.4. Lathe-turned objects. No.

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Lid

XII

5299

52249

2

Lid

XII

8155

81171

3

Lid

IX

610

5868

4

Stopper

XII

8053

80197

5

Core

XII

8154

81103

6

Core

XII

8148

81148

Cores (Fig. 4.4:5, 6) Two cylindrical cores bear striation marks and indentations on the top where the raw material was attached to the lathe. While cores are typically found at production sites (Magen 2002:13, 32–38, Figs. 1:14; 2:24–28b), they have also been found in small numbers in Jerusalem, as in the City of David (Cahill 1992: Figs. 17.15–17; 17.24, Photos 171–173, wasters), the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2010: Pl. 5.11:9–11, Photo 5.6) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.6:11, 12), and may have been used as stoppers for ceramic vessels (Geva 2010:174).

Hand-Carved Vessels Bowls (Fig. 4.5:1, 2) Only two fragments of hand-carved bowls were found, representing the two main types of chisel-cut bowls: a hemispherical bowl with a plain, slightly pointed rim (Fig. 4.5:1), and a squat, flat-based bowl with straight sides (Fig. 4.5:2). Both types find parallels in the City of David (Cahill 1992:212–213, Fig. 20.9, 10) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.1.5, 6).

106

SHUA KISILEVITZ

Mugs (Fig. 4.5:3–6) Mugs constitute the most common type in the hand-carved, chalk-vessel repertoire (Cahill 1992:210; Reich 2003:268). They are barrel-shaped containers in various sizes with pronounced chisel marks, primarily on the exterior, and one or two rectangular lug handles with a central perforation. Vessels of this type were found in the City of David (Cahill 1992: Fig. 20:5), the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.3:11; Geva 2006: Pl. 9.1:10, 11, 15; 2010: Pl. 5.4:1–4, Photo 5.3), the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.2:1–3) and Ḥizma (Magen 2002: Fig. 2.33:8, 9). The base in Fig. 4.5.3 is disk like, as opposed to the typical plain base, and is probably a flaw, although a similar disk base appears on a bowl from Ḥizma (Magen 2002: Fig. 2.42:3, Form 2).

2

1

3

4

5

6 0

10

Fig. 4.5. Hand-carved bowls and mugs. No.

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Hemispherical bowl

IX

8060

80223.2

2

Bowl with flat base

XII

5332

52413

3

Mug

XII

8148

81253

4

Mug

XII

8104

80504

5

Mug

IX–VI

5221

51637

6

Mug

XII

8121

80646

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

107

Additional Stone Artifacts Tables (Fig. 4.6) Two types of tables are characteristic of the Second Temple-period assemblage: round delphica tables and rectangular monopodium tables. Chalk tables, mainly fragments, have been found throughout the vicinity of Jerusalem and discussed at length (e.g., Avigad 1983:167–173; Cahill 1992:215; Magen 2002:101; Peleg-Barkat 2008; Geva 2010:179– 182). Five table fragments—one of the round type and four of the rectangular type—were recovered from the present excavations. Round Table (Fig. 4.6:1) The only example of a round, lathe-turned tabletop originally supported by a tripod from the present excavations is a fragment made of gray, bituminous chalk, broken and burnt. A complete table of this type was found in the Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1983:168–169, Photo 188), and fragments in the City of David (Cahill 1992:215, Fig. 21:6), the Temple Mount (Magen 2002:96, Figs. 3.58; 3.59) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.8). Rectangular Tables (Fig. 4.6:2–5) Rectangular tables consisted of a rectangular, hand-carved tabletop, often with carved decoration along three sides (Magen 2002:103), that stood on a single pedestal (monopodium) comprised of a base, a column-like leg, and a capital. In the present assemblage, four fragments of rectangular tables were found: a carved border of a tabletop (Fig. 4.6:2), two column-like leg segments (Fig. 4.6:3, 4) and a pedestal base (Fig. 4.6:5). The carved border is decorated with a composite meander pattern creating a swastika motif. This is a common decorative pattern on tabletops during the first century CE (Geva 2014:278, and see references therein), with parallels found in the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2010: Pl. 5.17:1) and the Temple Mount (Magen 2002: Figs. 3.64:7; 3.66:f). As only a piece of the border of the table was recovered, its original thickness is unknown. The two leg fragments originated out of context and were worn and fractured and reworked for secondary use. The bottom of a lathe-turned pedestal leg (Fig. 4.6:3) was partially finished by hand. Its lower part, broken at the meeting point with the base, had been intentionally rounded in later use. Column-like pedestal legs were found in the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2006:227–228, Pl. 9.6:1) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Fig. 9.7:4). The top of a lathe-turned pedestal leg (Fig. 4.6:4) has a square, hand-carved depression in the top into which a protrusion from the tabletop was attached. The fragment is very worn and chipped, and haphazard chisel marks that defaced the fluting on its exterior, along with a hole drilled through its central axis, indicate that it was reworked for secondary use. Similar fragments were found in the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2014: Pl. 10.3:4, 5) and the Temple Mount (Magen 2002:110, Figs. 3.72:1–4; 3.73:b, c; 3.74:b; Pl. 15). The corner of a square, hand-carved pedestal base has well-fashioned, circular scalloping above it (Fig. 4.6:5). Similar fragments were found in the City of David (Cahill 1992: Fig 21:10, 11) and the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2006:227–228, Pl. 9.6:2).

108

SHUA KISILEVITZ

2 1

3

4

5 0

10

Fig. 4.6. Table fragments. No.

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Border of round tabletop

XII

W812

81310

2

Border of rectangular tabletop

XII

8147

80934

3

Bottom of pedestal leg

Unknown

4

Top of pedestal leg

I

244

4030

5

Base of pedestal leg

XII

8156

81245

109

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

Ossuary (Fig. 4.7:1) Stone ossuaries are common finds in Second Temple-period stone repertoires,3 usually decorated with carved or incised geometric designs interspersed with floral, geometric, and architectural motifs (Rahmani 1994:25). A small ossuary wall fragment (9 × 11 cm, 2.5–2.8 cm thick), found at the bottom of the Roman dump, has a well-smoothed exterior and a hand-chiseled, geometric pattern forming a border. A similar pattern adorns an ossuary from Yavne (Rahmani 1994: Pl. 132:876).

1

2

4

3 0

10

Fig. 4.7. Miscellaneous hand-carved chalk artifacts. No.

Type

Stratum

Locus

Basket

1

Ossuary fragment

XII

8187

81411

2

Architectural element

XII

8107

80624

3

Debitage?

XII–IV

402

4245

4

Unidentified

XII

8075

80344

For a recent attempt to link the appearance of the chalk vessels and stone ossuaries, and to attribute them to a common social and cultural milieu, see Altshul 2015:1–5. 3

110

SHUA KISILEVITZ

Carved Architectural Fragment (Fig. 4.7:2) The only architectural fragment from the Roman dump is a free-standing series of volutes carved of soft chalk. Rough chisel marks are visible on all sides except the facade, which was smoothed, indicating that only the facade was meant to be seen. The material, the typical pronounced chisel marks, and the context in which it was found, suggest that it dates to the Second Temple period, and may have been part of latticework, perhaps on a window. Unidentified Objects (Fig. 4.7:3, 4) Two hand-carved chalk objects could not be identified. One, found in fills containing finds from the Roman to early Ottoman periods, has a ragged profile and a drilled hole in the center and may be debitage (Fig. 4.7:3). The other, found in the Roman refuse dump, is the corner of a quadrangular object with a shallow depression on one side, the beginning of a protrusion on the reverse side, and is worked and smoothed on all six surfaces (Fig. 4.7:4). This object may have been a lid of a straight-sided bowl, a stand, or perhaps a book holder.4

Discussion The chalk objects presented here are typical of the Second Temple period in Jerusalem and have been widely discussed (e.g., Magen 1988, 2002; Cahill 1992; Gibson 2003; Reich 2003; Geva 2010, 2014). Their distribution attests that they are characteristic of late first century BCE–first century CE Judean settlements, with Jerusalem as the focal point of both their manufacture and consumption (Magen 2002:148–173). The use of chalk vessels in the Second Temple period is thought to have derived from religious and ritual regulations (Magen 2002:138–147; Reich 2003:263–265; Amit, Seligman and Zilberbrod 2008:320−321), as stone vessels are impervious to impurity according to Jewish law (halakhah; Mishna: Kelim 10, 1; Oholoth 5, 5; Parah 5, 5; Yadayim 1, 2). Although few and fragmentary, the finds encompass the main types typical of both lathe-turned and handcarved vessels of the period, with the majority lathe-turned. The meager amount of stone production waste negates the presence of a stone-vessel industry at the site. The bulk of the chalk artifacts originated in the Roman dump, and may have originally been in use at the site or its immediate vicinity, or more likely were simply debris from Second Temple-period structures situated in the Upper City that was thrown into the quarry along with the legion’s trash. While their exact provenance is unclear, they add to the evergrowing corpus of stone vessels and artifacts of the Second Temple period in Jerusalem.

4

The latter was suggested by Leah Di Segni.

CHAPTER 4: CHALK ARTIFACTS

111

R eferences Altshul A. 2015. Stone Vessels, Ossuaries and King Herod: Changes in Material Culture at the End of the Second Temple Period. Eretz-Israel 31:1–5 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 182*). Amit D., Seligman J. and Zilberbrod I. 2008. Stone Vessel Production Caves on the Eastern Slope of Mount Scopus, Jerusalem. In Y.M. Rowan and J.R. Ebeling eds. New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts. London–Oakville. Pp. 320−342. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. 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. Geva H. 2006. Stone 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. 218−238. Geva H. 2010. Stone Artifacts. In H. Geva. 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. 154−212. Geva H. 2014. Stone Artifacts from Areas J and N. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad 1969–1982 VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 272–287. Gibson S. 1996. Tell el Ful and the Results of the North-East Jerusalem Survey. In A. Faust ed. New Studies on Jerusalem 2 (Proceedings of the Second Conference, November 28th 1996, Bar Ilan University). Ramat Gan. Pp. 9*−23*. 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. Chrupacta eds. One Land—Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao. Loffreda OFM (SBF Collectio Maior 41). Jerusalem. Pp. 287−308. Gil D. 2019. Bedrock Geology and Building Stones in the Western Wall Plaza Excavations and the Jerusalem Area. WWPE I. Pp. 209–249. Hadas G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ‘En Gedi (‘Atiqot 24). Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp.1*−8*). Macalister R.A.S. and Duncan J.G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923−1925: Being the Joint Expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the “Daily Telegraph” (PEFA IV). London. Magen Y. 1988. The Stone Vessel Industry in Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Magen Y. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Ḥizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount (JSP 1). Jerusalem. Mazar B. 1971. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount: Second Preliminary Report, 1969−1970 Season. Eretz-Israel 10:1−34 (Hebrew).

112

SHUA KISILEVITZ

Peleg-Barkat O. 2008. A Stone Table from the Late Second Temple Period in the Hecht Museum Collection. Michmanim 21:21–28 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 23*–24*). Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. Reich R. 2003. Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969−1982 II: The Finds from Area A, W, and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 263−291. Reich R. and Shukron E. 1998. Jerusalem, the Golden Gate. ESI 18:87. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2019. WWPE II. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115. Zilberstein A. and Nissim-Ben Efraim N. 2013. The Stone Vessels and Furniture of the Early Roman Period. In D. Ben-Ami. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 213–228.

114

DONALD T. ARIEL

present example from the Western Wall Plaza is No. 13), and an additional 13 have been documented since my 2012 article, but remain unpublished. The overwhelming majority of these fragments were recovered from within the confines of Jerusalem’s First Wall, including the present example. Three size groups of depressions have been noted among Judean flan molds: 20–21 mm, 13–15 mm and 9–12 mm in diameter (Ariel 1990:116–117). The depressions in the flan mold from the Western Wall Plaza, 11–12 mm in diameter, belong to the smallest size group. This mold would have produced flans roughly the size of coins struck in the Jerusalem mint during the first century BCE.

R eferences Amiran R. and Eitan A. 1970. Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968–1969 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 20:9–17. Ariel D.T. 1990. Excavations at the City of David Directed by Yigal Shiloh, II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Ariel D.T. 2003. Flan Molds from the Temple Mount Excavations. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports II: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 115–119. Ariel D.T. 2006. Coins. 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. 192–217. Ariel D.T. 2010. Coins. In H. Geva. 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. 236–247. Ariel D.T. 2012. Judean Perspectives of Ancient Mints and Minting Technology. INR 7:43–80. Ariel D.T. 2013. The Coins. In D. Ben-Ami. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givʻati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 237–264. Ariel D.T. 2014. A Group of Flan-Mold Fragments from Area N. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 VI: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 266–271. Ariel D.T. 2017. The Coins from Areas Q and H. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 VII: Areas Q, H, O-2 and Other Studies; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 252–262. Ariel D.T. and Bijovsky G. 2018. The Numismatic Evidence and the History of Sepphoris. In E.M. Meyers, C.L. Meyers and B.D. Gordon eds. The Architecture, Stratigraphy, and Artifacts of the Western Summit of Sepphoris 2 (Duke Sepphoris Excavation Reports III). University Park, Pa. Pp. 485–587. Schauer Y. 2010. Mint Remains from Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem. INR 5:99–107. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 6

Fresco Fragments Silvia Rozenberg

In the Roman refuse dump uncovered in the Early Roman quarry beneath the Eastern Cardo on the northeastern side of the excavations (see Foreword: Plans 3, 4; Weksler-Bdolah 2019:40–44), a number of fresco fragments were retrieved that display a high standard of workmanship. They are presented below in catalogue form: all measurements are in centimeters, presenting width × height.

Catalogue F1–F4 (Fig. 6.1). Four red fragments: one from L8165 (4.0 × 3.0), three from L8167 (8.5 × 6.0; 3.7 × 4.0; 4.7 × 3.4). F5 (Fig. 6.2). A red fragment from L8167 (5.5 × 5.0) with remains of an unclear black and grayish green design on the edge of the fragment. F6–F8 (Fig. 6.3). Three small black fragments from L8107 (each less than 1 cm wide). F9 (Fig. 6.4). A dark red fragment from L8167 (9.0 × 7.0) with vestiges of a wide black band (preserved to a width of 3.5). The black band preserves the remains of two lighter colored stripes (perhaps originally white), one adjacent to the red panel, the other at a distance of 1.2 cm on top of the black band. F10 (Fig. 6.5). A fragment from L8107 (11.0 × 10.5) with remains of alternating red and yellow panels separated by a black band (2.0) with a white stripe (0.5) on one side. F11 (Fig. 6.6). A white fragment from L8136 (2.6 × 3.4) with remains of a green band (0.5) and a black area preserved to a width of 1.2. F12 (Fig. 6.7). A white fragment from L8167 (3.5 × 2.5) with remains of a wide green area (preserved to a width of 1.7). F13–F15 (Fig. 6.8). Three slightly curved white fragments (from columns?) from L8107 (5.2 × 4.5; 4.0 × 3.8; 4.5 × 4.5) with remains of green curvilinear bands, perhaps representing leaves.

116

SILVIA ROZENBERG

0

1

Fig. 6.1. Red fragments from L8167.

0

1

Fig. 6.2. Red fragment from L8167 with a black and grayish green design.

0

1

Fig. 6.3 Three small black fragments from L8107.

CHAPTER 6: FRESCO FRAGMENTS

0

1

Fig. 6.4. Dark red fragment from L8167 with a wide black band and two lighter stripes.

0

1

Fig. 6.5. Fragment from L8107 with alternating red and yellow panels separated by a black band with a white stripe.

117

118

SILVIA ROZENBERG

0

1

0

Fig. 6.6. White fragment from L8136 with a green band and a black area.

0

1

Fig. 6.7. White fragment from L8167 with a wide green area.

1

Fig. 6.8. Slightly curved white fragment from L8107 with green curvilinear bands.

Discussion The standard of workmanship displayed by the fragments is relatively high (although inferior to that seen in Herodian examples; Rozenberg 2008:250–253): two or three layers of gray or white plaster were first applied as a subsurface, which was finished with a coat of fine, white lime plaster. This technique is less elaborate than that cited by Vitruvius, who recommends no fewer than six layers of plaster (De architectura VII, 3.5–7). The lower layers are relatively thick, 1.5–3.0 cm, with a coarse, irregular texture, sometimes incorporating gravel and reeds (Figs. 6.9, 6.10). The uppermost, painted layer is 0.3 cm thick and finer in texture, and seems to have been specifically prepared for fresco painting, as secco painting does not need several layers or such heavy plaster. The pigments, which were compatible with lime, also seem to have been prepared especially for use on a damp foundation. The red and yellow background paint formed a coat that was homogeneous in texture and color, and once absorbed into the plaster, could not be removed. The green and black paint, used for bands, were also uniform in texture and adhered strongly to the plaster. Only slight vestiges remain of white or light colored stripes that were painted on top of the

CHAPTER 6: FRESCO FRAGMENTS

0

119

1

Fig. 6.9. Plaster layers of a fragment, view of the back side.

0

1

Fig. 6.10. Plaster layer of a fragment with irregular, coarse texture, view of the side.

black bands. Most of the fragments were decorated with rectilinear bands or stripes, but a few bear remnants of curvilinear or floral motifs, which are poorly preserved and difficult to define. Black bands and white stripes painted over red and yellow backgrounds were probably frames or dividing bands between alternating colored panels. Red was the most common color preserved on the fragments, indicating the existence of large areas painted in this color. Various tonalities of red and a range of compound colors are mentioned by Vitruvius (De architectura VII, 5.8, 14.1); and Pliny (NH XXXV, 12.30, 13.31–32, 15.35, 26.44, 31.49; see also Barbet 1987:156–161; Béarat 1997b:27–30). These include rubrica and artificial rubrica (sinopia), natural brown-red ocher and red iron oxide (hematite) pigments, which were suitable for the fresco technique, and were the preferred colors in mural paintings of the Hellenistic–Roman periods. Different tonalities of red were also common in Herodian decoration, as seen at Jericho (Rozenberg 2008:263–265), Masada (Yadin 1971:79, 82; Foerster 1995: Pls. 2:a; 3:b, c; 4:b), Herodium (Corbo 1989: Color Pls. I:2; II:1), Sebaste (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942:32, 42, Pl. XLIX.1; Rozenberg 2008: Ill. 430) and Omrit (Rozenberg 2011: Figs. 05.10–05.15), but they are usually more brilliant and intensive than the examples illustrated here.

120

SILVIA ROZENBERG

The yellow color used in alternating panels with red, usually made from earths colored by iron oxides and hydroxides was much utilized in Roman frescos (Vitruvius, De architectura VII, 7.1; Pliny, NH: XXXIII, 56.158–160; XXXV, 12.30). It was also a common color in Herodian frescos in the Land of Israel, essentially as a background color in wide and narrow panels and socles. Again, the Herodian examples are darker and more brilliant than the color in the Cardo fragment (Rozenberg 2008:260–262). The combination of alternating red/purple-red and yellow panels was popular during the Herodian period in the Land of Israel, as for example in Herod’s Second Palace at Jericho (Netzer 2001:182, Ills. 264, 265; Rozenberg 2008: Ill. 362), the northwestern bathhouse of the summit palace at Cypros (Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004:251, Ills. 289, 290, Pl. XV), Apodyterium XXVII in Herodium (Corbo 1989:46, Color Pl. II:1), the city stadium in Sebaste (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942:34, 41, Fig. 13, Pl. XLIX:1), the first and second layers of in-situ decoration in the palatial mansion in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Rozenberg 2008: Ill. 444), the earlier Herodian decoration of a house in Sepphoris (Viloshni 2004:51–52, Pl. 1), a house in Yodefat (Aviam 2000:19), and the fragments from Omrit (Rozenberg 2011:63). Similar red and yellow panels also appear at Petra in a bath complex south of the gateway, dated to the end of the first century BCE (Barbet 1995: Figs. 2, 3), and on the interior walls of the Great Southern Temple complex from the first century CE (Joukowsky 1999:217), attesting to the continued use of this combination in the Second Temple period. This color combination was also common in Italian examples of the Second Style (first century BCE), as in houses in Stabiae (Camardo, Ferrara and Longobardi 1989: Fig. 1) and Pompeii (Kraus and Matt 1975: Fig. 294),1 and it remained popular in later examples, as in Fourth Style designs (first–second centuries CE) in Ephesus and Ostia (Strocka and Vetters 1977: Figs. 42, 71; Baldassarre et al. 2002:282). The green color on the small white fragment in Fig. 6.8 seems to be Creta Viridis, a green earth (terra verte) pigment containing glauconite or celadonite, which was probably imported (Béarat 1997a; Rozenberg 2008:270–271). Green was a popular color in the Land of Israel from the Hellenistic period onward: at ‘Akko and Tel Anafa it was used both as a background color and for frames and details (Gordon 1977:44, 47, 55; Segal and Porat 1997:87). Wide bands of green were also common in Herodian and Second Temple-period fragments, as at Herodium (Corbo 1989: Color Pls. I:2; II:1, 2), Jericho (Rozenberg 2008: Ills. 214–217), Sebaste (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942:34; Rozenberg 2008: Ill. 431) and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Rozenberg 2003: Pls. 11.1:3, 4; 11.2:5). At Cypros and Omrit, the green color was used for large areas (Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004:257, Ill. 278). On the fragments from the Eastern Cardo, green was apparently used to color narrow bands or divisions between larger panels, as was common in many examples throughout the Roman world. If the slightly curved fragments are indeed from columns, the

This combination was also known in the provinces, e.g., the Roman villa at Ptolemais in Cyrene, dated to the mid-first century CE (Kraeling and Mowry 1962: Fig. 61). 1

CHAPTER 6: FRESCO FRAGMENTS

121

green curvilinear bands can be understood as parts of a plant with lanceolate leaves, as in some examples from the first century CE.2 Black was used in wide bands as a framing or separating device, and there are only a few small black fragments attesting to its use in large areas. According to ancient texts, most of the black pigments (atramentum) were made from carbon, but one kind was composed of iron oxide and another of burnt ivory (elephantinum).3 As black pigment had to be used with glue to make it compatible with lime, it was usually painted in a secco technique and not in true fresco. Nevertheless, Vitruvius affirms that it was used for mural painting (De architectura VII, 10.1–4; Pliny, NH XXXV, 12.30, 25.41–43, 50). On the Cardo fragments, black was used in a fresco technique and probably ground and mixed with size, as at Jericho and Pompeii (Augusti 1950a:327; 1950b:189; 1967:108– 110; Gettens and Stout 1966:104–105; Rozenberg 2008:271–272). It seems that despite its unsuitability for fresco painting, black was a common color for decoration in the Roman period. In the Land of Israel, black was used for large areas in Herodian examples, as at Jericho (Rozenberg 2008: Ills. 492, 503, 515, 517, 520), Masada (Avi-Yonah et al. 1957:47, Fig. 16:i–i, ii–ii; Yadin 1971:44, 46, 136–137; Foerster 1995: Pls. II:a, b; III:b, c; IV:a, b; 10–11, 12:a, c, Fig. 25), and Cypros (Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004:257, Ills. 279, 303, 305, Pl. XV). Black bands appear at Herodium (Corbo 1989: Color Pl. I:1), in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Rozenberg 2003: Pls. 11.1:2, 4; 11.2:5), and at Sebaste (Rozenberg 2013:166–223). In summary, the fragments from the Roman dump feature remnants of square and rectangular colored panels similar to those known during the Second Temple period in the Land of Israel. The fragmentary nature and heterogeneity of the preserved material and the differences in the quality of the execution, prevent a clear determination of style and date. On the one hand, the technique and the smooth colors are reminiscent of Herodian work, but the hues and rectilinear motifs are of lesser quality than those of Herodian examples. On the other hand, the fragments differ from the less-elaborate examples of the later Roman period in Israel. It seems therefore, that the fragments should be related to the Second Temple period in the first century CE.

See, for example, the engaged columns in the parapet of the peristyle in the House of Menander (I.10.4) in Pompeii (Ling and Ling 2005:90, Figs. 44–46). On the appearance of lanceolate leaves in the Herodian period, see Foerster 1995: Pl. VIb; see also the decoration on the upper part of the wall in the burial cave at Giv‘at Seled, dated to the first century CE (Kloner 1991: Color Plate). Columns decorated with leaves appear also in wall paintings from the first century CE, for example, on the column in the eastern wall of Exedra g in the House of the Gilded Cupids (Seiler 1992: Fig. 176). 2

On the scientific analysis of black examples, see Ling 1991:209. Béarat (1997b:25ff.; Fuchs and Béarat 1997:186) identifies three types of black: soot, charcoal and bone black. 3

122

SILVIA ROZENBERG

R eferences Augusti S. 1950a. La tecnica dell’antica pittura parietale pompeiana. In A. Maiuri ed. Pompeiana: Raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi di Pompei (Biblioteca della Parola del passato 4). Naples. Pp. 313–354. Augusti S. 1950b. Sulla tecnica della pittura pompeiana. Bollettino d’Arte 35:189–191. Augusti S. 1967. I colori pompeiani. Rome. Aviam M. 2000. Yodefat – 1997. HA–ESI 112:18*–19*. Avi-Yonah M., Avigad N., Aharoni Y., Dunayevsky I. and Gutman S. 1957. The Archaeological Survey of Masada 1955–1956. IEJ 7:1–60. Baldassarre I., Pontrandolfo A., Rouveret A. and Salvadori M. 2002. Pittura romana: Dall’ellenismo al tardo-antico. Milan. Barbet A. 1987. Qu’attendre des analyses de pigments? In F. Delamare, T. Hackens and B. Helly eds. Datation-caractérisation des peintures pariétales et murales (PACT 17). Ravello. Pp. 155–169. Barbet A. 1995. Les caractéristiques de la peinture murale à Pétra. In K. ‘Amr, F. Zayadine and M. Zaghloul eds. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan V. Amman. Pp. 383–389. Béarat H. 1997a. Les pigments verts en peinture murale romaine: Bilan analytique. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier eds. Roman Wall Painting: Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation (Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996). Fribourg. Pp. 269–288. Béarat H. 1997b. Quelle est la gamme exacte des pigments romains? Confrontation des résultats d’analyse avec les textes de Vitruve et de Pline. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier eds. Roman Wall Painting: Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation (Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996). Fribourg. Pp. 11–34. Camardo D., Ferrara A. and Longobardi N. 1989. Stabiae: Le ville. Castellammare di Stabia. Corbo V. 1989. Herodion I: Gli edifici della reggia-fortezza (SBF Collectio Maior 20). Jerusalem. Crowfoot J.W., Kenyon K.M. and Sukenik E.L. 1942. Samaria-Sebaste I: The Buildings at Samaria. London. Foerster G. 1995. Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965; Final Reports. Art and Architecture. Jerusalem. Fuchs M. and Béarat H. 1997. Analyses physico-chimiques et peintures murales romaines à Avenches, Bösingen, Dietikon et Vallon. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier eds. Roman Wall Painting: Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation (Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996). Fribourg. Pp. 181–191. Gettens R.J. and Stout G.L. 1966. Painting Materials: A Short Encyclopedia. New York. Gordon R.L. 1977. Late Hellenistic Wall Decoration of Tel Anafa. Ph.D. diss. University of Missouri. Columbia. Joukowsky M.S. 1999. The Brown University 1998 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple. ADAJ 43:195–222. Kloner A. 1991. A Burial Cave from the Early Roman Period at Giv‘at Seled in the Judean Shephelah. ‘Atiqot 20:159–163.

CHAPTER 6: FRESCO FRAGMENTS

123

Kraeling C.H. and Mowry L. 1962. Wall Decoration in the Villa. In C.H. Kraeling. Ptolemais: City of the Libyan Pentapolis (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications XC). Chicago. Pp. 225–236. Kraus T. and Matt L. von. 1975. Pompeii and Herculaneum: The Living Cities of the Dead. New York. Ling R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge. Ling R. and Ling L. 2005. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii II: The Decorations. Oxford. Netzer E. 2001. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Netzer E. and Laureys-Chachy R. 2004. Stratigraphy and Architecture. In E. Netzer. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations II: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–285. Pliny, NH. Pliny the Elder. Natural History, Books XXXIII–XXXV (H. Rackham trans.; Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, Mass. 1952. Rozenberg S. 2003. Wall Painting Fragments from Area A. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 302–328. Rozenberg S. 2008. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho; Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations IV: The Decoration of Herod’s Third Palace at Jericho. Jerusalem. Rozenberg S. 2011. Wall Painting Fragments from Omrit. In J.A. Overman and D.N. Schowalter eds. The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report (BAR Int. S. 2205). Oxford. Pp. 55–72. Rozenberg S. 2013. Interior Decoration in Herod’s Palaces. In S. Rozenberg and D. Mevorach eds. Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey (Israel Museum Catalogue 597). Jerusalem. Pp. 166–223. Segal I. and Porat N. 1997. Composition of Pigments from the Hellenistic Walls in Acre. In H. Béarat, M. Fuchs, M. Maggetti and D. Paunier eds. Roman Wall Painting: Materials, Techniques, Analysis and Conservation (Proceedings of the International Workshop, Fribourg 7–9 March 1996). Fribourg. Pp. 85–91. Seiler F. 1992. Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI 16, 7.38) (Häuser in Pompeji 5). Munich. Strocka V.M. and Vetters H. 1977. Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos VIII/1). Vienna. Viloshni N. 2004. The Wall Paintings of Sepphoris in the 2nd and 3rd century CE. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Vitruvius, De Architectura (F. Granger trans.; Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, Mass. 1962. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115. Yadin Y. 1971. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. London.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 7

Groundstone Objects Brigitte Ouahnouna

A small assemblage of seven groundstone objects was recovered from Stratum XII, six in the Roman refuse dump, sealed beneath the Eastern Cardo and dated to c. 75–125 CE (see Foreword; Weksler-Bdolah 2019:40–44), and a single item below the Cardo’s western sidewalk (Fig. 7.1:4). The groundstone objects are here defined, following Clark (1988:83), as “all the artifacts produced by the process of pecking, grinding, abrading and polishing”. While certain studies have attempted to develop and implement a classificatory nomenclature (Kraibill 1977; Wright 1992; Hovers 1996), there is still considerable variance from report to report: for example, ‘pestles’ in one report (Lederman 1999:95) may be called ‘pounders’ (Wright 1992:70; Rosen 1996; Ilan 1999:103), ‘weights’ or ‘grinding tools’ (Zertal 1986– 1987:148–149) in others. The Objects (Fig. 7.1) Pestles (Fig. 7.1:1–5) Pestles, as defined here, are generally small and rounded, suitable to be held in the palm of the hand. They were made of a variety of materials and used primarily for hammering and crushing, for example, to crush olives in the olive-oil industry. In Jerusalem, stone pestles dated to the Roman period have been found in the excavations in the Jewish Quarter (Geva 2006: Pl. 9.3) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Pl. 16.2:2–8), among others. Tripod Bowls (Fig. 7.1:6, 7) Stone tripod bowls are well known in the Levant and Aegean, mainly from the Bronze Age (Buchholtz 1963; Avitsur 1976:71–73), but have been found at sites dated up until the Byzantine period. Such bowls are often called ‘footed bowls’ (Hovers 1996:177, Fig. 27) or ‘tripod mortars’ (Geva 2006: Pl. 9.1). Basalt is the most common material for producing these objects, which, as a rule, are well made and carefully finished. Some variations can be seen in the shape and length of the leg in relation to the body of the bowl (Hovers 1996:177). Tripod bowls were recovered in Roman-period contexts in Jerusalem in the Jewish Quarter (Reich 2003: Pl. 8.5:7; Geva 2006: Pl. 9.1:4) and the Giv‘ati Parking Lot (Zilberstein and Nissim Ben Efraim 2013: Pl. 16.1:2–4), as well as in the Roman mansion at ‘Ein ezZeituna farther to the north (Glick 2006: Fig. 12:2, 3), at Caesarea Maritima along the coast (Patrich 2008: Nos. 20–34) and at ‘En Gedi to the south (Hadas 2005: Fig. 21).

CHAPTER 7: GROUNDSTONE OBJECTS

127

R eferences Avitsur S. 1976. Man and His Work: Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Buchholtz H.-G. 1963. Steinerne Dreifußschalen des ägäischen Kulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen zum Osten. Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 78:1–77. Clark J.E. 1988. The Lithic Artifacts of La Libertad, Chiapas, Mexico: An Economic Perspective (Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 52). Provo. Dalman G.H. 1933. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina III: Von der Ernte zum Mehl: Ernten, Dreschen, Worfeln. Sieben, Verwahren, Mahlen (Schriften des deutschen Palästina-Instituts 6). Gütersloh. Geva H. 2006. Stone 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. 218–238. Glick D. 2006. A Salvage Excavation at ‘Ein ez-Zeituna in Naḥal Iron. ‘Atiqot 51:31–69. Hadas G. 2005. Excavations at the Village of ‘En Gedi: 1993–1995. ‘Atiqot 49:41*–71* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 136–137). Hovers E. 1996. The Groundstone Industry. 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. 171–192, 195–203. Ilan D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Kraibill N. 1977. Pre-agricultural Tools for the Preparation of Foods in the Old World. In C.R. Reed ed. Origins of Agriculture. The Hague. Pp. 485–521. Lederman Z. 1999. An Early Iron Age Village at Khirbet Raddana: The Excavations of Joseph A. Callaway. Ph.D. diss. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. Patrich J. 2008. The Stone Objects. In J. Patrich. Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN; Final Reports I: The Objects. Jerusalem. Pp. 334–365. Reich R. 2003. Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments. 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. 263–292. Rosen S.A. 1996. Flint Implements. 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. 257–267. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115. Wright K. 1992. A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18/2:53–81. Zertal A. 1986–1987. An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982– 1987. Tel Aviv 13–14:105–165. Zilberstein A. and Nissim Ben Efraim N. 2013. The Stone Objects. In D. Ben-Ami. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv‘ati Parking Lot) I (IAA Reports 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 309–320.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 8

Metal Objects Guy D. Stiebel

Introduction A small number of metal objects were unearthed in the Roman refuse dump, which comprised layers of earthen fill dumped into an Early Roman (Second Temple-period) stone quarry and sealed by the construction of the Cardo during Hadrian’s reign (first third of the second century CE; see Weksler-Bdolah 2019:40–44). The dump contained a varied assemblage of material culture, including abundant ceramics (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019) and glass finds (see Chapters 2, 3), as well as animal bones (see Chapter 11). However, the number of metal finds is strikingly low: only seven items were recovered, six made of a copper-alloy and one of iron. A military component within the Roman dump was determined by the pottery assemblage, which consists of ‘military-style’ wares that were produced in the Legionary kilnworks revealed in the excavations at the Jerusalem Crowne Plaza Hotel (Binyene HaUmma), with parallels throughout the Roman Empire (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019).1 Moreover, the discovery of three Latin-inscribed military bread stamps (see Chapter 9) clearly indicates a Roman military origin for much of this discarded refuse, and the high percentage of pig bones is a well-attested component of the Roman military diet (see Chapter 11). While the possibility that the refuse material could have been brought from a distance should not be ruled out, more and more evidence marks the area southwest of the Temple Mount as the focus of Roman military activity (Stiebel 1999; Weksler-Bdolah 2009).

The Catalogue (Fig. 8.1) The small assemblage presented here comprises a copper-alloy fibula (brooch), handle(?) and hinge, three copper-alloy rings and one iron knife. Only two rings are intact, whereas the rest of the items are damaged. It should be noted that none of these objects manifests any clear military affinities. No. 1. Copper-alloy fibula (L8137, B80818) Dimensions: L 43+ mm; W 6 mm; pinhead D 8 mm.

For the chronological marker of the unstamped roof tiles that were produced at Binyene Ha-Umma, see Levi and Beeri 2010:127. 1

130

GUY D. STIEBEL

The bow of a much-corroded copper-alloy fibula. Both military and non-military (civil) fibulae are well attested in Roman Palestine; however, the fragmentary state of this object negates a more precise classification. No. 2. Copper-alloy handle(?) (L8125, B80841) Dimensions (of large fragment): L 34+ mm; W 8 mm. Three fragments of a copper-alloy handle or buckle-like item. Both ends of the object appear to be looped. No. 3. Copper-alloy hinged item (L8144, B80923) Dimensions: L 34 mm; W 19 mm; pinhead D 4 mm. Two small, identical, copper-alloy triangles that are hinged by means of a small copperalloy pin. The function of the item is unknown. No. 4. Copper-alloy ring (L8122, B80696) Dimensions: D 23–23.5 mm; Th 4 mm. Corrosion caused the inner curve of the ring to swell. No. 5. Copper-alloy ring (L8107, B80986) Dimensions: D 23 mm; Th 6 mm. No. 6. Copper-alloy ring (L8107, B80655) Dimensions: D 18 mm; Th 4 mm. The function of these three copper-alloy rings (Nos. 4–6) is unclear. Nonetheless, it should be noted that very similar rings were unearthed in large numbers in Oecus 458 (known as the ‘Throne Room’) in the nucleus of the Western Palace at Masada, and identified as curtain (aulaeum) rings (Foerster 1995:165–166, and see references therein). No. 7. Iron knife (L8144, B80923) Dimensions: L 169 mm; W 31 mm. A backed iron knife, of which only the blade has survived. Corrosion caused a somewhat dented edge. The lack of the tang and any indication of its original position prevents a definitive classification. Nonetheless, the moderately arched back that tapers fairly evenly toward the tip, and the slightly convex edge indicate that the knife belongs to either Type 15 or Type 18b of Manning’s classification (1985:115–117). The large size of the blade favors the former (for Type 15 parallels, see Manning 1985: Q48; for Type 18, see Manning 1985: Q54).

132

GUY D. STIEBEL

The near absence of metal finds in the Roman dump in the Western Wall Plaza indicates, first and foremost, that a meticulous selection of the dumped material took place in order to prevent the disposal of metal. Re-use and recycling played an important role in both civil and martial Roman metal production (Stiebel 2007:251–252; forthcoming), particularly in lands that were poor in metal resources, such as Palestine. In fact, scrap metal was imported into Roman Palestine from abroad (Tosefta Baba Meẓia 3, 1) and, according to the Mishna, metal was recycled from wheel tires, sheet metal, plating, and from the bases, rims and handles of utensils (Kelim 11, 3). The Mishna further notes that recycled utensils were produced from shavings/chippings (‫)שחלת‬, scrapings/filings (‫)גרדת‬, cut-up/shattered parts (‫)קצצת‬, metal scraps (‫גרוטי‬/‫)גרוטים‬,2 broken utensils, nails, and nails that were produced from (recycled) utensils. The phenomenon of collecting metal scrap and vessels is well illustrated by the discovery of such a collection in Fatimid Tiberias (Hirschfeld and Gutfeld 1999; Hirschfeld et al. 2000). A similar discovery of scrap iron was perhaps found in Storeroom 140 at Masada (Netzer 1991:46), where a concentration of hundreds of iron nails and an iron hoop was recovered among the debris of the fallen walls.3 The celebrated pit uncovered in the Roman camp of Inchtuthil comprised nine cart tires along with some ten tons of unused nails of various sizes, estimated at one million in number (Richmond 1961:160). This find appears to represent a deliberate concealment of valuable scrap iron upon abandonment of the fortress by the Roman army, in an evidently successful Roman attempt to deny the highly valuable iron from the local Britons.4 All of the above examples demonstrate the value of metal and explain the efforts made to avoid the accidental discard of metal objects. Most of the items that we do find in such dumps appear to be damaged. This selection process elucidates, in this author’s opinion, the very small number of metal artifacts in the Roman dump uncovered in the Western Wall Plaza excavations and their condition.

2

For this term, which was adopted from the Greek, see Heijmans 2013:82.

This concentration appears to reflect the dismantling activities that took place during the time of the revolt, which intensified towards its end; however, its stratigraphic position may hint at a Byzantine date. 3

4

Regarding the value of iron among Britons, see Herodian, Histories 3:14, 7.

CHAPTER 8: METAL OBJECTS

133

R eferences Angus N.S., Brown G.T. and Cleere H.F. 1962. The Iron Nails from the Roman Legionary Fortress at Inchtuthil, Perthshire. Journal of Iron and Steel Institute 200:956–968. Bishop M.C. and Coulston J.C.N. 2006. Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (2nd ed.). Oxford. Clarke S. and Jones R. 1994. The Newstead Pits. Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5:109–124. Foerster G. 1995. Masada V: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965; Final Reports. Art and Architecture. Jerusalem. Heijmans S. 2013. Greek and Latin Loanwords in Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicon and Phonology. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary, pp. I–VIII). Herodian, Histories. Herodian of Antioch’s History of the Roman Empire from the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the Accession of Gordian III (E.C. Echols trans.). Berkeley 1961. Hirschfeld Y. and Gutfeld O. 1999. Discovery of a Fatimid Period Bronze Vessel Hoard at Tiberias. Qadmoniot 118:102–107 (Hebrew). Hirschfeld Y., Gutfeld O., Khamis E. and Amir R. 2000. A Hoard of Fatimid Bronze Vessels from Tiberias. Al-‘Usur al-Wusta 12:1–7, 27. Levi D. and Beeri R. 2010. Excavations in the Crown Plaza Hotel (Binyanei Ha’uma). In D. Amit, O. Peleg-Barkat and G.D. Stiebel eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region. Collected Papers IV. Jerusalem. Pp. 119–129 (Hebrew). Manning W.H. 1972. Ironwork Hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain. Britannia 3:224–250. Manning W.H. 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum. London. Netzer E. 1991. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965; Final Report. The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem. Pitts L.F. and St. Joseph J.K. 1985. Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress Excavations 1952–65 (Britannia Monograph Series 6). London. Richmond I.A. 1961. Inchtuthil. JRS 51:160–161. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2019. WWPE II. Stiebel G.D. 1999. The Whereabouts of the Xth Legion and the Boundaries of Aelia Capitolina. In A. Faust and E. Baruch eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 5 (Proceedings of the Fifth Conference, December 23rd 1999, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan. Pp. 68–103 (Hebrew). Stiebel G.D. 2007. Armis et litteris—The Military Equipment of Early Roman Palestine in Light of the Archaeological and Historical Sources. Ph.D. diss. University College London. London. Stiebel G.D. Forthcoming. Arms, Men and Society in Roman Judaea. London.

134

GUY D. STIEBEL

Weksler-Bdolah S. 2009. The Relations between the Eastern Cardo of Jerusalem and the 10th Roman Legion, in Light of the Western Wall Plaza Excavations. In D. Amit, G.D. Stiebel and O. PelegBarkat eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region. Collected Papers III. Jerusalem. Pp. 19–27 (Hebrew). Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 9

Three Military Bread Stamps Leah Di Segni

Three stone bread stamps, two complete and one broken, were discovered in the Roman refuse dump below the Eastern Cardo (Di Segni and Weksler-Bdolah 2012; WekslerBdolah 2019:40–44). The centuria symbol at the beginning of the inscription of the two complete stamps identifies them as a well-known military type used to stamp bread baked by a soldier-baker for the specific unit to which he was assigned. The broken stamp lacks the edge where the centuria symbol would have been engraved, but its shape and the type of inscription leave no doubt as to its identification as a military bread stamp. The Bread Stamps No. 1. L8113, B80498 (Fig. 9.1). Stone stamp, handle and back broken; L 8.5 cm, H 3.5 cm high, Th 1.5–2.3 cm. Two-line inscription in mirror script. References: Di Segni and Weksler-Bdolah 2012:24*–26*, No. 1; CIIP I.2:59–60, No. 755. (Centuria) Amati(i) (Opus) C(aii) Antoni(i) (Century) of Amatius. (Work) of Caius Antonius. No. 2. L8123, B81042 (Fig. 9.2). Stone stamp with a rectangular pierced handle; L 5.8 cm along upper edge, 6 cm along lower edge; H 4.8 cm on left side, 4.6 cm on right side; Th 1.7 cm, 3.5 cm including handle. Two-line inscription in mirror script; the two last letters in Line 1 are in ligature. References: Di Segni and Weksler-Bdolah 2012:26*–27*, No. 2; CIIP I.2:61, No. 757. (Centuria) Caspe(rii) (Opus) Canin(ii) (Century) of Casperius. (Work) of Caninius. No. 3. L8144, B81076 (Fig. 9.3). Broken stone stamp. Preserved L 3.5 cm , H 3.2 cm, Th 2.2–2.3 cm. Two-line retrograde inscription with letters in mirror script except for the N in Line 1. References: Di Segni and Weksler-Bdolah 2012:27*–29*, No. 3; CIIP I.2:65, No. 762. - - PONI - - VTO (or - -NTO) Perhaps [(Centuria). Co]poni(i) or [. A]poni(i) or [Pom]poni(i) (Opus) [ . S]uto(rii) or [. A]nto(nii) (Century) of [Co]ponius (or [A]ponius, or [Pom]ponius). (Work) of [S]utorius or [A]ntonius.

136

LEAH DI SEGNI

a

b

c

d 0

1

Fig. 9.1. Bread Stamp No. 1: (a) the stamp impression; (b) the engraved mirror image; (c) the upper side; (d) the long side.

CHAPTER 9: THREE MILITARY BREAD STAMPS

a

137

b

c 0

1

Fig. 9.2. Bread Stamp No. 2: (a) the stamp impression; (b) the engraved mirror image; (c) the upper side and handle.

a

b

d

c

e

f 0

1

Fig. 9.3. Bread Stamp No. 3: (a) the stamp impression; (b) the engraved mirror image; (c) the upper side; (d, e) the long sides with a groove, possibly for a handle; (f) the profile of the broken side.

138

LEAH DI SEGNI

If only one or two letters are missing at the beginning of the names, they were most likely preceded by an abbreviated praenomen. In all three stamps, both the name of the centurion and that of the soldier-baker can be identified as nomina gentilicia. In one case (No. 1, Line 2) the name of the soldier is preceded by his praenomen, abbreviated to its initial as is the rule in Latin inscriptions. Roman citizens in the Republican period were identified by two names, a praenomen, or personal name, of which no more than 16 were in use, and the name of the gens or clan, to which they belonged (nomen gentile or gentilicium). Toward the end of the Republican period, a third element was added, the cognomen or family name. Of these tria nomina that distinguished the Roman citizen, the individual part was at first the praenomen, while the nomen was common to all the clan and the cognomen to all the male members of the same family. Later, however, the cognomen became the individual part of the tria nomina, while the praenomen lost importance and was often omitted. Thus, the form of a Roman name in an inscription is a good indicator of its date, as the use of praenomen and nomen without cognomen came to an end before the end of the first century CE, while the omission of the praenomen became common in the late second century and especially in the third. In the three bread stamps from the Roman dump, the absence of the cognomen points to a date no later than the end of the first century CE. Other military stamps, not all for bread, were found in Jerusalem, none unfortunately in an archaeological context. They were collected and published in CIIP I.2:60–65, Nos. 756, 758–760, 762. Nearly all contain cognomina, indicating a later date than those from the Roman dump. A possible exception is No. 758, which may be a bread stamp of the same type as the three presented here, that is, with the nomen gentile of the centurion (Centuria) Vitel(li), and the praenomen and nomen of the baker M(arci) Acui. ‘(Work) of Marcus Acuius’.1 A comparison of the six names on the stamps from the Roman dump with the names of centurions incised on the siphon of the High-Level Aqueduct to Jerusalem near Bethlehem (Di Segni 2002:41–47) is significant. Of the 23 names that appear there (some of them twice), four consist of a nomen gentile alone, eight of a nomen and a cognomen, ten of a cognomen alone, and one, exceptionally, of a praenomen and a cognomen. There is no example of identification by praenomen and nomen, and the use of the cognomen as the principal, or only, identifying tag appears in 19 of the 23 cases. This evidence indicates a definite change that can only be explained in chronological terms. The siphon is commonly dated to the second or third century CE, based on the assumption that the development of

The editor of this item in CIIP, W. Eck, is unwilling to accept Acuius as a nomen, as it is attested only once, in CIL VI, 3148. He also hesitates to interpret the stamp as a bread stamp, which it most certainly is if the reading (Centuria) Vitel(li) / M. Acui is correct. As an alternative, Eck suggests that MACVI may be the cognomen of Vitellius, in which case the stamp was made to mark some object as the property of the centurion Vitellius Macuus—an unattested cognomen. The origin of this stamp is uncertain and it may not have come from Jerusalem. 1

CHAPTER 9: THREE MILITARY BREAD STAMPS

139

Aelia Capitolina required the conveying of large quantities of water into the city.2 Two military bread stamps firmly dated to the third century were found at Kefar ‘Othnay, in a house used by the Roman army just outside the camp of the Sixth Legion at Legio near Megiddo. They bear the nomen and cognomen of three soldiers (one a centurion) and the cognomen of a centurion (Tepper and Di Segni 2006:29–30). The change in the manner in which Roman citizens chose to identify themselves, which was not yet attested in the stamps from the Roman dump, but well advanced in the siphon of the High-Level Aqueduct, appears completed at Legio. This confirms the early date of the stamps from the Roman dump, before the time when the cognomen became the most usual way of personal identification.

R eferences Amit D. 2002. New Data for Dating the High-Level Aqueduct, the Wadi el-Biyar Aqueduct, and the Herodian Aqueduct. In D. Amit, J. Patrich and Y. Hirschfeld eds. The Aqueducts of Israel (JRA Suppl. S. 46). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 253–266. CIIP I/2: H.M. Cotton, L. Di Segni, W. Eck, B. Isaac, A. Kushnir-Stein, H. Misgav, J. Price and A. Yardeni eds. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae I/2: Jerusalem 705–1120. Berlin– Boston 2012. CIL VI: Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Inscriptiones urbis Romae. Berlin 1876–1933. Di Segni L. 2002. The Water Supply of Roman and Byzantine Palestine in Literary and Epigraphical Sources. In D. Amit, J. Patrich and Y. Hirschfeld eds. The Aqueducts of Israel (JRA Suppl. S. 46). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 37–67. Di Segni L. and Weksler-Bdolah S. 2012. Three Military Bread Stamps from the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, Jerusalem. ‛Atiqot 70:21*–31*. Mazar A. 2002. A Survey of the Aqueducts to Jerusalem. In D. Amit, Y. Hirschfeld and J. Patrich eds. The Aqueducts of Israel (JRA Suppl. S. 42). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 211–244. Tepper Y. and Di Segni L. 2006. A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century CE at Kefar ‘Othnay (Legio): Excavations at the Megiddo Prison 2005. Jerusalem. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

It has been suggested that the High-Level Aqueduct was built by Herod and crossed the valley between Bethlehem and Jerusalem on an arcade. The siphon later replaced the arcade (Amit 2002:253–256) and is most likely no earlier than the foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Similar siphons were laid in the second and third centuries CE in aqueducts at Ḥammat Gader, Hippos and Tiberias (Mazar 2002:227–229). 2

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 10

A Military Stamp Impression of the Roman Tenth Legion from the 2017 Excavation Season Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah A fragment of a clay brick (max. preserved dimensions 9 × 9 cm, 4.4 cm thick) impressed with a rectangular stamp of the Roman Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis), was discovered in the 2017 excavation season in the fill of an ancient quarry (Fig. 10.1). This is the first example of such a find in the Western Wall Plaza excavations. In the past, dozens of fragments of ceramic bricks and roof tiles were uncovered in the excavated area, especially in the Roman refuse dump below the eastern portico, but none of them were impressed with the Legion’s stamp (see Weksler-Bdolah 2019: xii). The stamped brick was discovered in a quarry located in the northwestern part of the excavated area, against the southern wall of the Iron Age structure (W620, L2040A; see Foreword: Plan 6; Chapter 1: Plan 1.1: Area 1). The quarry lay along the path of the Cardo’s western sidewalk and was intentionally filled-in during preparatory work for the paving of the Cardo (Stratum XIIB). The sidewalk’s paving stones at this spot had been robbed in antiquity, but the fill remained undisturbed. The stamped brick was found in Fill 2040A, c. 1 m below Fill 5332 of the main excavation, and the latest ceramics in these fills comprised several legionary products, together with sherds of late Second Temple tradition (dated 75–125 CE; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019:232–234, Group 3). The brick is made of coarse, light colored, pinkbrown clay containing a large quantity of white and gray grits. The stamp consists of an incised rectangular frame (max. preserved length 7.5 cm, 3.5 cm high) with four letters preserved in relief: LEGX (2.2–3.0 cm high, 1.0–1.6 cm wide). The carving of the stamp is well executed, and the letters are relatively straight. In the E, the two upper horizontal lines are perpendicular to the vertical line, while the bottom line slopes slightly downward. The E is somewhat smaller than the L, and the G is slightly larger than the L. Above the X is a short horizontal line. Due to the worn face of the brick, it cannot be determined with certainty if there is a point of separation between the G and the X. It is likely that additional letters at the end of the impression, F, FR or FRT, completed the familiar formula of Legio X Fretensis. 0 5 This stamped brick can be added to the well-known group of stamped bricks, roof tiles and water pipes, from Fig. 10.1. Brick stamped (L2040A, with the impression of Jerusalem and its environs (see, e.g., Geva 2003; Adler B2017705) the Roman Tenth Legion: LEGX (scan by Avshalom Karasik). 2011). Clays and marls of the Moẓa Formation constitute the

142

SHLOMIT WEKSLER-BDOLAH

raw materials from which these building materials were produced at the Tenth Legion’s military kilnworks at Binyene Ha-Umma. Studies of ceramics from the military kilnworks have revealed that the raw materials were mixed and prepared according to a consistent, identifiable recipe, which also corresponds to the appearance of the brick from the present excavation (Geva 2003:406; Cohen-Weinberger, Levi and Be’eri 2020; Anat CohenWeinberger, pers. comm.). The impression discussed here can be assigned to Barag’s variants IIe (LEGXF) or IIg (LEGXFR), or Adler’s variant IIj (LEGXFRT; see Barag 1967; Adler 2011). It is noteworthy that this formula also appears on the round stamp impressions of the Roman Tenth Legion on bricks and roof tiles, which are usually considered earlier than the rectangular stamps. Barag suggested that the variant LEG.X.F was in use from 70 CE until the second century, while the later variant LXFRE was in use from the late second century onward (Barag 1967:181). His dating is supported by our findings in the Western Wall Plaza, where all but one of the building materials discovered in sealed contexts and dated to 75–125 CE, were unstamped (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2019:xii–xiii, 6), and the single example, presented here, was impressed with the apparently early variant LEGX[F..]. Accordingly, it can be proposed that in the early Hadrianic reign (Stratum XIIB in the present excavations), the custom of stamping military building materials in Jerusalem had already begun, but was still relatively rare.

R eferences Adler N. 2011. Stamp Impressions of the Tenth Legion from the Temple Mount Excavations. In E. Mazar. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar; Final Reports IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina (Qedem 52). Jerusalem. Pp. 319–332. Barag D. 1967. Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis. Eretz-Israel 8:168–182 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 73*). Cohen-Weinberger A., Levi D. and Be’eri R. 2020. On the Raw Materials in the Ceramic Workshops of Jerusalem, before and after 70 C.E. BASOR 383:33–59. Geva H. 2003. Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis. In Geva H. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 405–422. Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2019. WWPE II. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. Foreword. WWPE II. Pp. ix–xiii.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 11

Faunal R emains Liora Kolska Horwitz with a contribution by Omri Lernau

Introduction This report presents the results of a detailed examination of 855 bones recovered from the fills of the Roman refuse dump sealed beneath the eastern portico of the Eastern Cardo (dated 75–125 CE; see Weksler-Bdolah 2019:40–44). These bones are a random sample constituting nearly half of the faunal assemblage from the site. The remaining material was examined in a cursory fashion to ensure that: (a) no other species were represented; (b) the relative proportions of the identified species were consistent with those in the fully analyzed portion of the assemblage; and (c) the butchery and other taphonomic features resemble those already encountered. No deviations were found from the fully analyzed material.1

Methods All sediments from the site were dry-sieved, and a large portion of the material was wetsieved, ensuring maximal retrieval of small-sized bones and bone fragments. Consequently, it can safely be assumed that the bones available for study are as reliable a representation as possible of what was initially deposited, given factors such as post-depositional diagenesis and breakage. As most of the bones were covered with mud, they were quickly washed in water, and in some cases gently brushed to remove the adhering sediment. They were then laid out on trays to dry, in the shade, before being analyzed. Bone identification was based on morphological comparison with material from the comparative collections held in the National Natural History Collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where this assemblage is curated. Measurements taken on bones and teeth follow the standards outlined by Driesch (1976). Sheep and goats were differentiated based on morphological criteria set forth by Boessneck, Müller and Teichert (1964) and Halstead, Collins and Isaakidou (2002). When such a separation was not possible, the two species were combined into a single sheep/goat category. Bones that could be identified as

Special thanks to Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah for entrusting me with the fauna from the Western Wall Plaza excavations, and to her and her colleagues, Shua Kisilevitz and Brigitte Ouahnouna, for their invaluable assistance. This paper was originally submitted in October 2015 and has undergone minor updates since. The bones originated in Loci 8053, 8075, 8104, 8107, 8113, 8116, 8128, 8137, 8138, 8144, 8145, 8147, 8148, 8152, 8155, 8158, 8162, 8165, 8167. 1

144

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

to skeletal element, but not to species, were categorized according to body size: mediumsized mammals (goat, sheep, pig) and large mammals (cattle, equid). The age profiles of sheep, goat, cattle and pig were assessed using epiphyseal bone fusion rates, dental eruption stages (Silver 1969) and dental attrition (Payne 1973; Grant 1982). The relative frequencies of the different species were calculated from the total number of identified bones (NISP). In addition, the minimum number of individuals (MNI) for each species was estimated based on the highest number of elements from one side. The skeletal elements are grouped into seven body-part categories that reflect primary (meat-rich) versus secondary (slaughter-refuse) butchery cuts, with slaughter refuse comprising the feet (phalanges), lower fore- and hindlimbs (metapodials, carpals, tarsals), cranium (skull, mandibles, isolated teeth), and the meat-rich elements comprising the trunk (vertebrae, sternum, ribs), upper hindlimb (pelvis, femur, tibia, fibula, patella, calcaneus, astragalus) and upper forelimb (scapula, humerus, ulna, radius). Taphonomic parameters were scored for each bone: location, number and type of butchery marks (cut, chop, saw mark, etc.), animal-derived damage (pitting, striations, puncture holes, gnaw marks, etc.) and burning (scored by color; Lyman 1994).

Preservation The bones from the Roman dump were relatively well preserved and many were complete. This, despite the fact that the majority were scorched or burnt (Fig. 11.1), which renders them more friable and more likely to fragment (Stiner et al. 1995; Kalsbeek and Richter 2006). The wholesale burning, and the varying colors, which is a reflection of the intensity of the heat or proximity to the flames, would seem to indicate that much of the refuse was burnt after being deposited—a common hygienic measure. The presence of charcoal in the

a

b

c

d

Fig. 11.1. Burnt bones: from left to right: light brown, unburnt (a); red-brown (b); black (c); white calcined (d).

145

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

matrix, and the completeness of even the burnt bones, suggests that the fills were burnt in place.

R esults The relative species frequencies are summarized in Table 11.1. Five taxa of domestic mammals were identified, as well as chicken and fish (grouper). In addition, many of the remains could only be identified to the level of genus (Ovis/Capra), class (Aves) or to body-size category. The most frequent remains derive from the traditional triad of Near Eastern herd animals—caprines, cattle and pig—with the addition of domestic fowl, a typical dietary supplement at Roman and Byzantine sites in the region (e.g., Broshi 1986; Horwitz, Tchernov and Dar 1990; Lev-Tov 2003; Bouchnik, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004). Overwhelmingly, the most common taxon was pig, with caprines second, followed by chicken, cattle and donkey. The unidentified bird bones (primarily shaft fragments) are likely to represent chicken, which would increase the proportion of this taxon to over 10% of the identified bones. Some 4% of the remains could only be identified to body size.

Table 11.1. Frequency of Taxa Species

NISP

%

MNI

11

2.2

2

9

1.8

2

Sheep/Goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus)

65

13.2

4

Cattle (Bos taurus)

15

3.0

2

Pig (Sus scrofa)

304

61.5

8

9

1.8

2

Chicken (Gallus gallus f. domestica)

35

7.1

3

Bird (Aves sp.)

22

4.5

3

0.6

4

0.8

Sheep (Ovis aries) Goat (Capra hircus)

Donkey (Equus asinus)

Fish (Epinephelus sp.) Large mammal Medium-sized mammal

17

3.4

Total identified

494

100.0

Total unidentified

361

Total Bones

855

23

146

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

Based on proportional representation, the majority of the medium-sized mammals may be attributed to pigs, and the majority of the large mammals to cattle rather than donkeys. Pig Pigs constitute the most common species (61.5%), representing over three times as many bones as those of the next most common species—sheep and goat. This quantity is a unique phenomenon and quite unusual for faunal assemblages from Israel. Even at Philistine sites, noted for their high pig frequencies (Hesse 1990; Horwitz et al. 2017), none contain such high proportions. For example, in the Iron I strata at Tel Miqne, the highest frequency of pigs is 24% (Lev-Tov 2000), while at Ashqelon they comprise only some 10% of the Iron I aunal remains, which is still considered highly significant when compared to other Iron I sites (Finkelstein 1997). The only site in Israel to yield a comparably high frequency of pig bones is Roman Caesarea (57.8%; see Horwitz and Studer 2005: Table 1a). At the time, Caesarea was the largest Roman harbor in the eastern Mediterranean and an urban metropolis, and from c. 60 CE, it served as the seat of the Roman procurators of Provincia Judaea and the headquarters of the Tenth Roman Legion. Another site in the southern Levant to yield such an unusually high frequency of pig bones (69.6%; see Horwitz and Studer 2005: Table 1a) is Umm Qeis (ancient Gadara) in northern Jordan, one of the cities of the Decapolis. At this site, too, a Roman garrison was stationed after the Jewish Revolt in 66 CE. At the site of the International Convention Center (Binyene Ha-Umma) in Jerusalem, where a ceramic workshop of the Tenth Roman Legion was discovered, the highest pig frequencies were 29% in the Herodian period and 22% for mixed Roman-Byzantine deposits (Horwitz, Goldfus and Arubas, in press). Considering that a workshop area would not be expected to produce large quantities of food debris, the pig-bone frequencies are remarkably high. For comparison with other sites in Jerusalem, the City of David in the Early Roman period contained no pig remains at all (Horwitz 1996); nor did the City of David dump (Bouchnik, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004, 2006; Bouchnik et al. 2006) or the Second Temple-period ‘Burnt House’ (Horwitz and Lernau 2010). The frequencies from the present excavations do not appear to be related to sample size, as the City of David faunal assemblage is of similar size (NISP = 972) and both are far larger than either phase from the Jerusalem International Convention Center (NISP = 97 and 98 bones respectively). These data suggest that extremely high pig frequencies from southern Levantine sites are a hallmark of Roman dietary debris, and more specifically, of the presence of the Roman army. The domestic status of the pigs from the Roman refuse dump is difficult to establish with any certainty based on the accepted archaeozoological size criteria (Rowley-Conwy, Albarella and Dobney 2012), as the immature animals in the Roman dump assemblage were almost as large as modern-day immature wild boar from Israel (Fig. 11.2). However, as most of the bones lack fused epiphyses and molar teeth are few and mainly represent unerupted tooth germs, a comprehensive metric analysis could not be undertaken. The fact that the vast majority of the pigs in this assemblage (and in the other pig-rich sites)

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

147

Fig. 11.2. An unfused pig calcaneum from the Roman dump (left), compared to a young wild-boar calcaneum from modern-day Israel.

were immature, points to domesticated piglets raised for meat. A high proportion were slaughtered by 1 year of age, while another group was slaughtered by c. 2 years of age. Today, pigs are slaughtered at c. 6 months for steaks, and 12 months for bacon, but these are modern, improved breeds that grow at faster rates than those of Roman times (see, e.g., Webster 1985; Russell 1986; Bayer, Lossau and Feldmann 2003). Clearly, the age profile for pigs in the present assemblage indicates that piglets were slaughtered for meat and were not being kept for reproduction, as also borne out by the numerous butchery marks on the bones (see below). The skeletal elements represent all parts of the pig carcass, signifying access to whole animals, i.e., fresh meat, rather than standardized joints that would be expected if the meat was preserved. Over half the body parts (60%) represent choice, meat-rich elements of the trunk and upper fore- and hindlimbs, while the remaining 40% represent elements poor in meat, such as the lower fore- and hindlimbs, feet and crania (Fig. 11.3). The cranium, which contains the brain and tongue, is consumed and classified as a meat-rich element in some societies, as are fat depots and organ meats, bone marrow, and even stomach contents, peritoneal fluid and blood (O’Dea et al. 1991; Kuhnleini and Soueida 1992), which leave no trace in the archaeozoological record. If we assume that the brain was consumed, then this swine assemblage was overwhelmingly dominated by consumption refuse comprising meat-rich body parts rather than primary slaughter refuse (feet and lower limbs). The butchery marks indicate a standardized form of carcass division, including halving the carcass through the skull and the vertebral column (slicing vertebrae through their centrum; Figs. 11.4, 11.5). Portions were removed from numerous long bones by

148

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ 100% 90% 80% 70%

Feet Lower hindlimb Lower forelimb Cranial Trunk Upper hindlimb Upper forelimb

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Pig

Sheep/goat

Cattle

Fig. 11.3. Body-part distributions for pig, sheep/goat and cattle.

Fig. 11.4. The left side of a pig skull that was halved.

Fig. 11.5. Butchery damage: halved pig vertebral bodies (cut vertically through the centrum).

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

149

chopping through the bone at an angle, which may imply that meat was bought or portioned out by weight rather than by specialized cuts or techniques of meat removal such as muscle stripping (see, e.g., Cope 1999, 2004). This type of butchery left clear, straight, sharp edges on the bones, characteristic of the use of a large cleaver or chopping tool. Most likely, the carcass or meat joints were rapidly divided up while lying on a hard surface, almost as in a modern industrial mode, rather than being more carefully dismembered while hung, as is traditional in local Palestinian and Bedouin societies (e.g., Klenck 1995; Cope 2004). Sheep/Goat Contrary to most Roman faunal assemblages in Israel, in which sheep and goat are the most common taxa, in the present case they comprise only 17.2% of all identified remains. The number of bones that could be identified to the species level is statistically insignificant (Table 11.1). The sheep/goat remains contain a mixture of adult and immature animals, although the absence of complete jaws limits precise age attribution for the adults. All the skeletal elements of the carcass are represented, implying access to whole animals and consumption of fresh meat (see Fig. 11.3). However, in contrast to pigs, only some 35% of the sheep/ goat assemblage was comprised of meat-rich elements (trunk, upper fore- and hindlimbs). However, if cranial parts are included, there is a preponderance of prime cuts (70%). Evidence of butchery was found on the sheep/goat bones, including filleting marks (Fig. 11.6). Overall, the butchery pattern resembles that observed on the pigs, suggesting a similar method of butchery for these similar-sized animals.

Fig. 11.6. Butchery damage (filleting marks) on the distal shaft of a sheep metacarpal.

150

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

Chicken Chicken is a common species in Roman faunal assemblages from Israel and, as with fish, is considered to have served as a cheaper source of protein than red meat (Broshi 1986). The chicken remains from the present assemblage indicate that they were small and relatively gracile, and both hens and cocks are represented. One instance of spur removal may represent the presence of a capon (castrated rooster; Fig. 11.7). The Roman dump also yielded a sizeable sample of unidentified bird remains (Aves sp.), the vast majority of which can probably be attributed to chicken.

Fig. 11.7. Removal of a spur in a male chicken (left), compared to a specimen that still retains its spur.

Cattle Surprisingly few cattle remains were present in the assemblage (3%; see Table 11.1), which stands in contrast to the assemblage from the neighboring City of David, where they comprised close to 30% of the Early Roman fauna (Horwitz 1996). The cattle remains include both adult and immature animals, although the small sample precludes further analysis. While cattle body-part representation seems to be overwhelmingly comprised of meat-rich elements (see Fig. 11.3), again the small sample limits interpretation. Evidence of butchery resembles that for pigs and sheep/goats (Fig. 11.8).

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

151

a

b

Fig. 11.8. Butchery marks on (a) a cattle pelvis acetabulum that had been sliced in half; (b) a cattle scapula with the glenoid sliced in half.

Donkey Several equid bones were recovered from the Roman dump, mostly dental remains. Seven teeth deriving from the same locus probably represent a single adult animal, identified as a donkey based both on the small size of the teeth and their morphology (following Davis 1980). Fish Omri Lernau Four fish vertebrae derive from the Roman dump. Three found together in L8159 are posterior vertebrae of Serranidae, genus ‘groupers’, Epinephelus sp., a marine fish originating in the Mediterranean Sea; this specimen was fairly large, c. 40 cm long. The fourth fish vertebra is too fragmentary to be identified.

Discussion In his seminal article on the Roman military diet, Davies (1971) analyzed both textual and archaeological sources, including faunal remains excavated at British and German Roman military sites dating from Augustan times to the third century CE. He concluded that grains, mainly wheat, barley and oats, but also spelt and rye, were central to their diet, as they were for the rank and file inhabitants of the Roman Empire. Indeed, for most people living in the Roman Empire, cereals and other plant foods were the staples, with little meat, and this was also the case in Palestine (Broshi 1986; Dar 1995). Poultry and fish constituted the main sources of animal protein rather than red meat from mammals. However, as noted by Garnsey (1999:6), food in Rome was “distributed and consumed in accordance with the differences and hierarchies that exist in the society”. Thus, the wealthy in Rome would

152

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

have consumed more expensive types of fish and poultry, as well as more red meat than the populace, and it is feasible that this would have been the case in Palestine as well. Roth (1991) notes that dining for the Roman army was regulated and limited to two meals a day. Army rations throughout the empire were primarily composed of cereals, further supplemented with cheese, a variety of pulses, vegetables, fruit, wine, beer, olive oil, salt and meat, especially bacon (see, e.g., Davies 1971; Knights et al. 1983; King 1984, 1999; Bowman, Thomas and Adams 1990; Roth 1991; Garnsey 1999:125; Richardson 2004). Thus, in contrast to the civilian populace, the consumption of meat by the Roman military was commonplace. Indeed, Garnsey (1999:17) states that the army consumed large quantities of freshly slaughtered meat when available (as in Britain), but salted and dried meat in Egypt, implying that in Egypt, fresh meat was either unavailable in large enough quantities to supply the troops, or the army chose not to risk its consumption in such a hot climate. In the Republican period, Scipio in 134 BCE and Numidicus in 109 BCE decreed that the troops could eat their meat either roasted or boiled (Davies 1971). These decrees may be interpreted in two ways: the first is that they signify efforts to maintain food hygiene and keep the army healthy under field conditions where meat easily spoiled; the second accords with the Roman concept of culture versus barbarism, and that through cooking “the transition from nature to culture is achieved” (Garnsey 1999:124). This dietary data concerns Roman soldiers stationed in Europe or Egypt and its relevance to those located in the Levant is questionable, given differences in cultures and herding practices, including which animals were raised locally. Analyses of food remains recovered during excavations of Roman garrisons along the Arabian limes (Toplyn 1994), clearly demonstrate the presence of both cereals and meat in the soldiers’ diet. Surprisingly, the Arabian limes garrisons yielded low frequencies of pigs (less than 4%), which Toplyn (1994:651) explained as a subsidiary food, with sheep and goats being the primary meat sources since the garrisons were manned by ‘indigenous ethnic Arabs’ who did not eat pork. The present author’s opinion is that a more likely explanation for the low pig numbers at these sites is the arid conditions that would have precluded pig keeping by local populations. In Roth’s (1991) study of the logistics of the Roman army during its campaign in Palestine, he claims that provisions were collected locally through taxes, compulsory sale and requisition, while cereals were issued to the army in the form of regular rations. In Roth’s opinion (1991:185, 240), the Roman army in Palestine did indeed consume meat, and he cites Josephus, who recorded that during the siege of Jerusalem, meat was brought in from ‘Syria and the adjoining provinces’, which Roth interprets as including Egypt and other regions. Moreover, he notes that after the fall of Jerusalem, Titus sacrificed a vast number of oxen whose meat was distributed to the troops for a banquet, implying that provisions for the army (and one assumes that this included both cereals and animals for slaughter) were requisitioned from the local populace (Roth 1991:238). This is corroborated by the textual studies and the archaeological evidence from the excavations at the Western

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

153

Wall Plaza and the Jerusalem International Convention Center, which demonstrate that Roman troops stationed in Palestine, and in Jerusalem in particular, had access to fresh meat and were not rationed with preserved meat. Can one assume, then, that the animals represented in the dump deposits were obtained locally or imported? While this is impossible to determine based on their morphology, ancient DNA analysis of two pig bones from the present assemblage (Meiri et al. 2013) reveals that they were domestic animals with a European haplotype. This implies that they were probably local pigs, as at this time pigs from neighboring regions (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt) still had a predominantly Near Eastern haplotype (i.e., Arm 1T or Y1). Moreover, the archaeozoological data clearly attests that whole animals were slaughtered, based on the presence of all body parts, including those poor in meat, rather than only selected, standardized limbs/joints. While these animals could have been imported into the region ‘on the hoof’ (alive), as Roman supply networks could handle the movement of large numbers of livestock, even over great distances (see Halpern 1999), the exploitation of local herds seems more feasible. The minimum number of individual pigs in just under half of the identified fauna from the Roman dump assemblage, is eight. As such, the total number of pigs represented in the midden would probably be double this, or slightly more, i.e., 16–20 individual animals. This number of animals could easily be derived from a single herd, as evidenced by ethnographic studies of subsistence farmers; for example, farmers in the Pacific who raise unimproved pig breeds, keep an average of two to four sows who give birth c. 1.5 times a year to an average of 6.8 live births per farrow (Ochetim 1993). In Kenya, mean numbers of pigs kept by subsistence farmers are 3.6, in Nigeria 3 and in Vietnam 6. In all cases, very few farmers kept boars (Kagira et al. 2010). Thus, the quantity of pig remains reflects both the dietary preferences of the consumers, as well as the availability of sufficient quantities of pigs in the region. Safrai (1994:172–173) cites Talmudic and other texts that deal with pig breeding and selling in Roman Palestine to support the claim that Jews probably raised pigs, even if their consumption by Jews was negligible (see Horwitz and Studer 2005). There were many economic incentives to pig raising. Pigs are omnivorous and so keep the environment clean, can be kept around a homestead, are rapid breeders of many young, and their meat was clearly favored in Roman Palestine (the price of pork was higher than beef at 10 maneh as opposed to 8 maneh; see Sperber 1978). Thus, it can be proposed that sufficient pigs (as well as other livestock) were available locally to supply the Roman army in Jerusalem. To conclude, the faunal assemblage from the Roman refuse dump beneath the Eastern Cardo has provided a surprising window into the subsistence and economy of the Roman military in Palestine. Notably, the high pig frequency sets it apart from contemporaneous local archaeozoological assemblages, which may imply the presence of Roman soldiers (rather than local mercenaries), as they preferred pork to other meat, or that irrespective of where they were stationed, troops in the Roman army were provisioned with similar foods.

154

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

R eferences Bayer W., Lossau A. von and Feldmann A. 2003. Smallholders and Community-Based Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. In Community-Based Management of Animal Genetic Resources (Proceedings of the Workshop Held In Mbabane, Swaziland, 7–11 May 2001). Rome. Pp. 1–12. Boessneck J., Müller H.-H. and Teichert M. 1964. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné). Kühn-Archiv 78:1–129. Bouchnik R., Bar-Oz G. and Reich R. 2004. Animal Bone Remains from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In E. Baruch and A. Faust eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 10 (Proceedings of the Tenth Conference, December 30th 2004, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan. Pp. 71–80 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 50*). Bouchnik R., Bar-Oz G. and Reich R. 2006. Faunal Remains from the Late Second Temple Period: A View from the Village of Burnat and Jerusalem City Dump Assemblages. In E. Baruch and A. Faust eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 12 (Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference, December 28th 2006, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan. Pp. 109–122 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 16*). Bouchnik R., Bar-Oz G., Shukron E. and Reich R. 2006. More Bones from the City Dump of Jerusalem from the Late Second Temple Period. In E. Baruch, Z. Greenhut and A. Faust eds. New Studies on Jerusalem 11 (Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference, March 30th 2006, BarIlan University). Ramat Gan. Pp. 175–185 (Hebrew; English summary, Pp. 40*–41*). Bowman A.K., Thomas J.D. and Adams J.N. 1990. Two Letters from Vindolanda. Britannia 21:33– 52. Broshi M., 1986. The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory Notes. Israel Museum Bulletin 5:41–56. Cope C. 1999. Faunal Remains and Butchery Practices from Byzantine and Islamic Contexts (1993– 94 Seasons). In K.G. Holum, A. Raban and J. Patrich eds. Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard, and Other Studies 2 (JRA Suppl. S. 35). Portsmouth, RI. Pp. 405–418. Cope C. 2004. The Butchering Patterns of Gamla and Yodefat: Beginning the Search for Kosher Practices. In S.J. O’Day, W. van Neer and A. Ervynck eds. Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity (Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002). Oxford. Pp. 25–33. Dar S. 1995. Food and Archaeology in Romano–Byzantine Palestine. In J. Wilkins, D. Harvey and M. Dobson eds. Food in Antiquity. Exeter. Pp. 326–335. Davies R.W. 1971. The Roman Military Diet. Britannia 2:122–142. Davis S.J.M. 1980. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Equid Remains from Israel. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 70:289–312. Driesch A. von den. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Peabody Museum Bulletin 1). Cambridge, Mass. Finkelstein I. 1997. Pots and People Revisited: Ethnic Boundaries in the Iron Age I. In N.A. Silberman and D. Small eds. The Archaeology of Israel. Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (JSOT Suppl. S. 237). Sheffield. Pp. 216–237. Garnsey P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

155

Grant A. 1982. The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne eds. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (BAR British S. 109). Oxford. Pp. 91–109. Halpern J.M. 1999. The Ecological Transformation of a Resettled Area, Pig Herders to Settled Farmers in Central Serbia (Šumadija, Yugoslavia) during the 19th and 20th Centuries. In L. Bartosiewicz and H.J. Greenfield eds. Transhumant Pastoralism in Southeastern Europe: Recent Perspectives from Archaeology, History and Ethnology (Series Minor 11). Budapest. Pp. 79–98. Halstead P., Collins P. and Isaakidou V. 2002. Sorting the Sheep from the Goats: Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of Adult Ovis and Capra. JAS 29:543–553. Hesse B. 1990. Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production. Journal of Ethnobiology 10/2:195–225. Horwitz L.K. 1996. Faunal Remains from Areas A, B, D, H and K. In D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Y. Shiloh IV: Various Reports (Qedem 35). Jerusalem. Pp. 302–317. Horwitz L.K., Gardeisen A., Maeir A.M. and Hitchcock L.A. 2017. A Brief Contribution to the Iron Age Philistine Pig Debate. In J. Lev-Tov, P. Hesse and A. Gilbert eds. The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology (Archaeobiology 2). Atlanta. Pp. 93–116. Horwitz L.K., Goldfus H. and Arubas B. In Press. Herodian, Roman and Byzantine Animal Remains from the Site of Binyanei Ha’umah (The International Convention Center), Jerusalem. In G. Bar-Oz and L.K. Horwitz eds. Archaeozoology of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. Horwitz L.K. and Lernau O. 2010. Animal Remains. In H. Geva. 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. 290–299. Horwitz L.K. and Studer J. 2005. Pig Production and Exploitation during the Classical Periods in the Southern Levant. In H. Buitenhuis, A.M. Choyke, L. Martin, L. Bartosiewicz and M. Mashkour eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East VI (Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southeastern Asia and Adjacent Areas, August 30–September 1 2002, London) (ARC-Publicaties 123). Groningen. Pp. 222–239. Horwitz L.K., Tchernov E. and Dar S. 1990. Subsistence and Environment on Mount Carmel in the Roman-Byzantine Period to the Mediaeval Periods: The Evidence from Kh. Sumaqa. IEJ 40:287–304. Kagira J.M., Kanyari P.W.N., Maingi N., Githigia S.M., Ng’ang’a J.C. and Karuga J.W. 2010. Characteristics of the Smallholder Free-Range Pig Production System in Western Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42/5:865–873. Kalsbeek N. and Richter J. 2006. Preservation of Burned Bones: An Investigation of the Effects of Temperature and pH on Hardness. Studies in Conservation 51/2:123–138. King A.C. 1984. Animal Bones and the Dietary Identity of Military and Civilian Groups in Roman Britain, Germany and Gaul. In T.F.C. Blagg and A.C. King eds. Military and Civilian Roman Britain: Cultural Relationship in a Frontier Province (BAR British S. 136). Oxford. Pp. 187– 217.

156

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

King A. 1999. Diet in the Roman World: A Regional Inter-Site Comparison of the Mammal Bones. JRA 12:168–202. Klenck J.D. 1995. Bedouin Animal Sacrifice Practices: Case Study in Israel. In K. Ryan and P.J. Crabtree eds. The Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 12). Philadelphia. Pp. 57–72. Knights B.A., Dickson C.A., Dickson J.H. and Breeze D.J. 1983. Evidence Concerning the Roman Military Diet at Bearsden, Scotland, in the 2nd Century AD. JAS 10:139–152. Kuhnleini H.V. and Soueida R. 1992. Use and Nutrient Composition of Traditional Baffin Inuit Foods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 5/2:112–126. Lev-Tov J. 2000. Pigs, Philistines and the Ancient Animal Economy of Ekron from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II. Ph.D. diss. University of Tennessee. Knoxville. Lev-Tov J. 2003. ‘Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed…?’ A Dietary Perspective on Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine. In S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg eds. Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie des Neuen Testaments (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 42). Tübingen. Pp. 420–446. Lyman R. Lee. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge. Meiri M., Huchon D., Bar-Oz G., Boaretto E., Horwitz L.K., Maeir A.M., Sapir-Hen L., Larson G., Weiner S. and Finkelstein I. 2013. Ancient DNA and Population Turnover in Southern Levantine Pigs—Signature of the Sea Peoples Migration? Nature-Scientific Reports 3:3035 (DOI: 10.1038/srep03035). Ochetim S. 1993. Traditional Pig Farming in the South Pacific: Problems and Opportunities for Increasing Productivity. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 6:347–360. O’Dea K., Jewell P.A., Whiten A., Altmann S.A., Strickland S.S. and Oftedal O.T. 1991. Traditional Diet and Food Preferences of Australian Aboriginal Hunter-Gatherers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 334/1270:233–241. Payne S. 1973. Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Aşvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:281–303. Richardson A. 2004. Granaries and Garrisons in Roman Forts. OJA 23:429–442. Roth J. 1991. The Logistics of the Roman Army in the Jewish War. Ph.D. diss. Columbia University. New York. Rowley-Conwy P., Albarella U. and Dobney K. 2012. Distinguishing Wild Boar from Domestic Pigs in Prehistory: A Review of Approaches and Recent Results. Journal of World Prehistory 25/1:1–44. Russell N. 1986. Like Engendʼring Like: Heredity and Animal Breeding in Early Modern England. Cambridge. Safrai Z. 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London–New York. Silver I.A. 1969. The Aging of Domestic Animals. In D. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs eds. Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research (2nd ed.). London. Pp. 283–302. Sperber D. 1978. Roman Palestine 200–400: The Land. Crisis and Change in Agrarian Society as Reflected in Rabbinic Sources. Ramat Gan.

CHAPTER 11: FAUNAL REMAINS

157

Stiner M.C., Kuhn S.L., Weiner S. and Bar-Yosef O. 1995. Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of Archaeological Bone. JAS 22/2:223–237. Toplyn M.R. 1994. Meat for Mars: Livestock, Limitanei, and Pastoral Provisioning for the Roman Army on the Arabian Frontier (A.D. 284–551). Ph.D. diss. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. Webster A.J.F. 1985. Differences in the Energetic Efficiency of Animal Growth. Journal of Animal Science 61, Supplement 2:92–103. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 12

R adiocarbon Dating of the Roman R efuse Dump and the Eastern Cardo Elisabetta Boaretto During the excavations in the Western Wall Plaza (see Foreword), samples of charcoal and seeds were collected in the field for radiocarbon dating.1 The samples were separated from the associated sediments in the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute, dry sieved when necessary, and analyzed with Fourier Transform Infrared Analysis to determine the initial state of preservation. The samples were pre-treated to remove environmental contaminants according to the procedure presented in Yizhaq et al. (2005) and Boaretto et al. (2009), and than they were graphitized. The 14C concentration was measured by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at the Tucson AMS Radiocarbon Laboratory (Arizona). The uncertainty in the determination of radiocarbon content includes the errors derived from the sample preparation and measurements in the two laboratories. Of the samples collected, eight were selected for radiocarbon dating based on their context and quality. Data concerning the samples and the radiocarbon results are presented in Table 12.1. The 14C ages are reported in conventional radiocarbon years BP (before present = 1950) in accordance with international convention (Stuiver and Polach 1977). All calculated 14C ages were corrected for fractionation to ensure that the results are equivalent with the standard δ13C value of -25‰ (wood). Calibrated ages in calendar years were obtained from the calibration tables in Reimer et al. (2020) by means of OxCal v. 4.2.4 of Bronk-Ramsey© version 2020 (see also Bronk-Ramsey 1995, 2001). The samples originate in three loci: L8300, L3500 and L3510 (see Foreword: Plan 4). Locus 8300 is from the burnt sediments in the Roman refuse dump. The samples were taken from a 3 m high section on the northern side of the dump, where it was sealed below the pavement of Street 8020 (Plan 12.1; Fig. 12.1). Loci 3500 and 3510 were c. 30 cm thick sediments lying on bedrock and sealed below flagstones on the western side of the Eastern Cardo’s carriageway (Figs. 12.2, 12.3). The flagstone above L3510 was intact, while that above L3500 had been disturbed and broken in antiquity, probably during the Early Islamic period, when several others in its vicinity were robbed (see Weksler-Bdolah 2019:84).

The associated sediments were also analyzed, the results of which will be presented elsewhere.

1

160

ELISABETTA BOARETTO

Table 12.1. Radiocarbon Dating of Charcoal and Seed Samples from below the Eastern Cardo Sample RTK

Provenance

Type

14

C Age ±1σ Year BP

Calibrated Age ± 1σ Range 68.2% Probability

Calibrated Age ± 2σ Range 95.4% Probability

δ13C ‰ PDB

6192

L8300, B83016

Charcoal

1980 ± 55

40 BCE (14.3%) 10 BCE 1 CE (43.8%) 85 CE 95 CE (10.1%) 120 CE

100 BCE (3.7%) 70 BCE 60 BCE (91.8%) 210 CE

-24.5

6197

L8300, B83008

Seeds

1920 ± 50

65 CE (68.2%) 200 CE

30 BCE (2.1%) 20 BCE 10 CE (93.4%) 230 CE

-23.3

6196

L8300, B83010

Seeds

1945 ± 55

10 CE (60.2%) 130 CE 140 CE (5.4%) 160 CE 190 CE (2.6%) 200 CE

45 BCE (95.4%) 220 CE

-23.9

6193

L8300, B83014

Charcoal

2040 ± 55

145 BCE (1.8%)140 BCE 110 BCE (62.3%) 30 CE 45 CE (4.1%) 60 CE

195 BCE (0.6%) 190 BCE 180 BCE (94.8%) 120 CE

-22.2

6195

L3500, B35001

Charcoal

106.0 ± 0.7 pmc

Modern post-bomb

6194

L3500, B35003

Charcoal

1280 ± 50

665 CE (67.0%) 775 CE 795 CE (1.2%) 800 CE

655 CE (70.0%) 780 CE 785 CE (25.4%) 880 CE

-24.6

6190

L3500, B35007

Charcoal

1895 ± 50

80 CE (9.0%) 100 CE 110 CE (59.2%) 215 CE

10CE (95.4%) 245CE

-22.6

6191

L3510, B35100

Charcoal

1890 ± 50

80 CE (7.0%) 100 CE 110 CE (61.2%) 220 CE

15 CE (95.3%) 250 CE 300 CE (0.2%) 305 CE

-24.5

-28.0

The radiocarbon dates obtained correspond well with their stratigraphic sequence (Fig. 12.4): Locus 8300: The four samples show a wide calibrated range. Two samples, RTK 6192 and RTK 6193, are from charcoal, and due to the ‘old wood effect’ could be older than the actual charring time. Therefore, their range should be regarded as a terminus post quem for the accumulation of material in L8300. Samples RTK 6196 and RTK 6197 are charred seeds, which are short-lived samples and therefore preferable for interpreting the date of accumulation of the refuse material in L8300. As the date range of the Roman refuse dump is 75–125 CE, based on the archaeological data, it is possible to exclude the calibrated range prior to 75 CE. Thus, the accumulation in L8300 most probably took place between 70 and 200 CE. Locus 3500: The dates of the three samples in this locus vary greatly. The carbon content of RTK 6195 is above the natural level, meaning that it originated in a tree ring that grew in the past 60 years, after the atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s (Hua, Barbetti and Rakowski 2013; Ehrlich, Regev and Boaretto 2021). Sample RTK 6194 dates to the Early Islamic period and RTK 6190 to the Roman period. Such variability in dates within a 30 cm thick layer indicates significant disturbance, and therefore the in-situ context is in doubt.

CHAPTER 12: RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE ROMAN REFUSE DUMP

163

Fig. 12.4. Probability distribution of the calibrated ranges of the samples.

R eferences Boaretto E., Wu X., Yuan J., Bar-Yosef O., Chu V., Pan Y., Liu K., Cohen D., Jiao T., Li S., Gu H., Goldberg P. and Weiner S. 2009. Radiocarbon Dating of Charcoal and Bone Collagen Associated with the Early Pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan Province, China. Proceedings of National Academy of Science 106/24:9595–9600. Bronk-Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37/2:425–430. Bronk-Ramsey C. 2001. Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43/2A:355–363. Ehrlich Y., Regev L. and Boaretto E. 2021. Discovery of Annual Growth in a Modern Olive Branch Based on Carbon Isotopes and Implications for the Bronze Age Volcanic Eruption of Santorini. Scientific Reports 11:1–11 Hua Q., Barbetti M. and Rakowski A.Z. 2013. Atmospheric Radiocarbon for the Period 1950–2010. Radiocarbon 55/4:2059–2072.

164

ELISABETTA BOARETTO

Reimer P.J., Austin W.E.N., Bard E., Bayliss A., Blackwell P.G., Bronk Ramsey C., Butzin M., Cheng H., Edwards R.L., Friedrich M., Grootes P.M., Guilderson T.P., Hajdas I., Heaton T.J., Hogg A.G., Hughen K.A., Kromer B., Manning S.W., Muscheler R., Palmer J.G., Pearson C., Plicht J. van der, Reimer R.W., Richards D.A., Scott E.M., Southon J.R., Turney C.S.M., Wacker L., Adolphi F., Büntgen U., Capano M., Fahrni S.M., Fogtmann-Schulz A., Friedrich R., Köhler P., Kudsk S., Miyake F., Olsen J., Reinig F., Sakamoto M., Sookdeo A. and Talamo S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62/4:725–757. Stuiver M. and Polach H.A. 1977. Discussion: Reporting of 14C Data. Radiocarbon 19/3:355–363. Yizhaq M., Mintz G., Cohen I., Khalaily H., Weiner S. and Boaretto E. 2005. Quality Controlled Radiocarbon Dating of Bones and Charcoal from the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47/2:193–206. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

Part 3 Finds from Other Contexts

Locus

1711A

1711A

1216A

103A

99A

103A

Cat. No.

1

2

3

4

5*

6

201709/2

201701

2017109/1

12040

201719/11

201719/10

Basket

1.56

10.26

12.61

0.64

0.76

0.89

Weight (g)

19

17

23

16

10

11 × 13

Diam. (mm)

0

¯

0

Axis

Obliterated

SELEUCID Uncertain

Reverse

Same

Star

COL NEAPOLIS She-wolf suckling twins Romulus and Remo; above, Mt. Gerizim

[DN THE]ODO[SIVS PF AVG] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

CONCOR–DIA AVGGG Constantinopolis seated facing, holding globe and scepter; in ex.: CONSA

LATE ROMAN Theodosius I (379-395 CE)

[IMP CE VIB TRIB GALLO AVG] Head r., radiate

Trebonianus Gallus? (251-253 CE)

COL AEL CA COM She-wolf suckling twins Romulus and Remo; in ex.: uncertain symbol

ROMAN PROVINCIAL Elagabalus (218-222 CE) [IMC MA A[NTONINVS] Head r., laureate

Same

[---] Anchor within circle

HASMONEAN Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE), Prutah

Obliterated

Obverse

Coins bearing an asterix appear in Fig. 14.1

Catalogue

378–383

Same

80/79 BCE onward

2nd c. BCE

Date (CE)

Constantinople

Neapolis

Aelia Capitolina

Same

Jerusalem

‘AkkoPtolemais?

Mint

Pierced. RIC X:223, No. 43b

Cf. CHL:62, No. 233

Meshorer 1989:100, No. 119

Same

TJC:210, group L7–16

Serrated

References and Notes

166906

166905

166908

166291

166299

166298

IAA No.

170 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

Locus

1711A

311A

1740A

1711A

99A

103A

318A

103A

99A

103A

Cat. No.

7

8

9

10

11*

12

13

14

15

16*

2017109/6

201701

201709/10

2017336

2017109/3

201701

201719/27

2017740/1

2017311

201719/19

Basket

0.41

0.30

0.30

1.80

0.32

0.35

0.87

1.37

0.96

1.27

Weight (g)

9

8

7

14

10

10

9

13

11

11 × 13

Diam. (mm) ¯

Axis

Same

Blank

Monogram?

Obliterated

[GLORIA ROMANORVM] Three emperors stg. facing, the one in the center is smaller. Mintmark illegible

Bust facing, crowned with pendilia

Obliterated

Bust facing, crowned with pendilia

# within double circle

Same

a

Justinian I (527–565 CE), Nummus

Upper part of ‘P’ is off flan

# details illegible.

BYZANTINE Uncertain, Pentanummium imitation No inscription. Bust r.

Same

Blank

Same

[---] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Obliterated

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

Uncertain

Reverse

Catalogue (cont.)

[---] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Obverse

538-542

Same

534-539

522-540

Same

Same

c. 450– 550

4th c.

402–408

378-383

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Carthage

Ashqelon?

Mint

Bijovsky 2012:237

Same

Bijovsky 2012:233–235

Bijovsky 2012:291297

Same

Cast. Bijovsky 2012:153–156

166297

Cf. LRBC II: 102, Nos. 2801-04

166910

166907

166909

166295

166909

166904

166301

166911

166300

IAA No.

Cf. LRBC II: 101, Nos. 2729–31

References and Notes

CHAPTER 14: COINS FROM THE 2017–2018 EXCAVATION SEASONS

171

Locus

1740A

318A

318A

318A

Cat. No.

17*

18*

19

20

20173275

2017326/2

2017326/1

2017740/2

Basket

4.91

0.73

0.80

3.52

Weight (g)

16

13 × 16

16 × 20

19

Diam. (mm)

.

Axis

Reverse

+CART[IS CIVITAS] Cross pattée within circle of dots

Arabesque

‫…عز نصر ه صرب مصر سنة‬

‫…صرب مصر‬

Uncertain, Manghir

‫سلطان سليمان شاه بن سليم شاه‬

OTTOMAN Sulayman I (926–974 AH = 1520–1566 CE), silver Akçe

Stylized profile crowned head r.

MEDIEVAL Anonymous, Bléso-Chartrain type immobilisée, silver denier

m above, cross; to l.: N

ARAB-BYZANTINE 1 Anonymous, Follis Imperial figure stg. facing, holding globe with cross and long cross

Obverse

Catalogue (cont.)

17th– 18th c.

c. second half 12th c.

647-670

Date (CE)

Misr

Misr

Chartres (France)

Jund Filastin

Mint

Very worn

Pierced. Cf. Srećković 2003:129, Nos. 1–2

Attributed to Thibaut V (1152-1191). Glücksmann and Kool 1995:97

¼ cut from older follis. SICA 1:Type E

References and Notes

166294

165597

166296

166912

IAA No.

172 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY

CHAPTER 14: COINS FROM THE 2017–2018 EXCAVATION SEASONS

173

R eferences Bijovsky G. 2012. Gold Coin and Small Change: Monetary Circulation in Fifth–Seventh Century Byzantine Palestine (Polymnia: Numismatica antica e medievale. Studi 2). Trieste. Bijovsky G. 2019. Coins of the Hellenistic and Byzantine Periods. WWPE I. Pp. 165–193 CHL: Y. Meshorer, G. Bijovsky and W. Fischer-Bossert. Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum (Ancient Coins in North American Collections 8). D. Hendin and A. Meadows eds. New York 2013. Glücksmann G. and Kool R. 1995. Crusader Period Finds from the Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 26:87–104. LRBC II: R.A.G. Carson and J.P.C. Kent. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498. In Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498. London 1965. Pp. 41–114. Meshorer Y. 1989. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Israel Museum Catalogue 301). Jerusalem. RIC X: J.P.C. Kent. The Roman Imperial Coinage X: The Divided Empire and the Fall of the Western Parts, AD 395–491. London 1994. SICA 1: S. Album and T. Goodwin. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean 1: The Pre-reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period. Oxford 2002. Srećković S. 2003. Akches: Süleyman I Kanunî: 926–974 AH. Belgrade. TJC: Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem– Nyack, N.Y. 2001.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Chapter 15

Molluscs Henk K. Mienis

The archaeomalacological assemblage discussed here originated mainly in the Roman refuse dump and on or below Byzantine floors of the Eastern Cardo (see Weksler-Bdolah 2019).1 Material and Methods The majority of the shells was found during sieving of the excavated sediments, and only a few items were collected in the field. Identification was carried out in the National Mollusc Collection of the Hebrew University. Most of the items could be identified on the spot, but in some cases the fragments were compared with more complete specimens in the collection. Results The material comprised a mixture of gastropods and bivalves. Twelve different species could be recognized.

Gastropoda Family Cypraeidae Naria spurca (Gmelin, 1791) L8107, B80986: one complete shell. Family Muricidae Bolinus brandaris (Linnaeus, 1758) L8113, B80497: one damaged shell with a small man-made hole in the body whorl. Hexaplex trunculus (Linnaeus, 1758) L8113, B80572: one complete shell; L8121, B80626: one burnt complete shell; L8122, B80685: one complete shell; L8125, B80865: one burnt part of the body whorl consisting chiefly of the columella.

I wish to thank the excavator, Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, for entrusting me with the discussed material, and my colleague Oz Rittner of Tel Aviv University for providing me with a photograph of the polished Tridacna. 1

176

HENK K. MIENIS

Family Helicidae Helix engaddensis Bourguignat, 1852 L6213, B61697: three small fragments of the body whorl; L8107, B80605: one fragment of the columella of a very large shell. Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma (Mousson, 1854) L4253, B42135: two small fragments.

Bivalvia Family Glycymerididae Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758) L4192, B42085: one valve; L8159, B81114: one valve. Family Pteriidae Pinctada margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) L4253, B42135: one small part of the ventral margin. Family Ostreidae Ostrea edulis Linnaeus, 1758 L8104, B80419: one valve; L8144, B81073: one valve. Family Unionidae Potamida littoralis semirugata (Lamarck, 1819) L4253, B42135: one small fragment of the posterior end. Family Mutelidae Chambardia rubens arcuta (Cailliaud, 1823) L491, B4984: two large umbonal fragments of which one is partly disintegrated; L4273, B42210: one tiny fragment of the ventral margin; L6213, B61697: one tiny disintegrated fragment; L8162, B81120: one large fragment of the ligament area. Family Cardiidae Tridacna maxima (Röding, 1798) L8137, B80822–80823: three fragments of a single valve of which the scales of the ribs have been removed and the ribs have been carved smooth. Family Donacidae Donax trunculus (Linnaeus, 1758) L4253, B42135: one valve slightly damaged near the ventral margin and one fragment;

177

CHAPTER 15: MOLLUSCS

L6213: two complete specimens, one valve broken into two pieces and six various tiny fragments. Discussion Origin of the Material The material arrived at the site from five different geographical areas (Table 15.1). Shells from the Mediterranean Sea were represented by the largest number in species and specimens. Table 15.1. Geographical Origin of the Shells Category Land snails Freshwater bivalves

Origin

Species

Jerusalem area

Helix engaddensis Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma

4 2

Jordan River catchment

Potamida littoralis semirugata

1

Nile River

Chambardia rubens arcuta

5

Mediterranean Sea

Naria spurca Bolinus brandaris Hexaplex trunculus Glycymeris nummaria Ostrea edulis Donax trunculus

1 1 4 2 2 11

Red Sea

Pinctada margaritifera Tridacna maxima

1 1

Marine molluscs

No. of items

Distribution in Time The studied material was recovered from reliable Roman and Byzantine loci, therefore it is possible to divide the finds according to the archaeological/historical periods (Table 15.2). Although almost twice as many fragments were recovered from Byzantine than Roman loci, those from the Roman period comprised slightly more varied species. Table 15.2. Archaeological Distribution of the Shells Species

Roman

Byzantine

Naria spurca

1

-

Bolinus brandaris

1

-

Hexaplex trunculus

4

-

Helix engaddensis

1

3

Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma

-

2

Glycymeris nummaria

1

1

Pinctada margaritifera

-

1

Ostrea edulis

2

-

Potamida littoralis semirugata

-

1

Chambardia rubens arcuta

1

4

Tridacna maxima

1

-

Donax trunculus

-

11

12

23

Total (N = 35)

178

HENK K. MIENIS

Exploitation of the Shells Due to the small sample (n = 35), only general interpretations as to possible uses of the shells can be offered. Food The following shells belong to edible species: the land snails Helix engaddensis and Levantina spiriplana hierosolyma, the freshwater mussels Potamida littoralis semirugata and Chambardia rubens arcuta, and the marine bivalves Ostrea edulis and Donax trunculus. Donax trunculus has been reported especially from Byzantine and Early Islamic sites (Mienis 1992a, 1992b, 1994, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2005) and due to their perfect preservation and signs of damage along the ventral margins, they were interpreted as the inedible leftovers of Donax dishes. However, in the current case, it is impossible to state with certainty that the people living near the Eastern Cardo were eating molluscs during the Byzantine period. Ornamental Use Among the 12 species of molluscs recovered during the excavation, three species of bivalves are characterized by an attractive interior of mother-of-pearl: the true motherof-pearl Pinctada margaritifera from the Red Sea and two species of freshwater mussels: Potamida littoralis semirugata from the Jordan River catchment area and Chambardia rubens arcuta from the Nile River in Egypt. The mother-of-pearl of the two freshwater species is much softer and more brittle than that of the marine species; however, it cannot be ruled out that all three species were exploited for the production of ornaments. A single damaged shell of Bolinus brandaris from the Mediterranean Sea shows a man-made hole in the body whorl and may have been used as a pendant. The three fragments of the giant mussel Tridacna maxima from the Red Sea, recovered from the Roman dump (L8137; Fig. 15.1), reveal that the heavy scales on the exterior of the shell had been removed and the outer surface polished in exactly the same manner as several fragments of the closely related Tridacna squamosa, recovered during excavations in the City of David (Mienis 1992b). However, the latter originated in fills of the Hellenistic and Persian periods, while another fragment, with incised figures on both the interior and exterior of the valve, was found in a Hellenistic context (Mienis 1992b). Conclusions Although the sample from the Roman and Byzantine strata of the Eastern Cardo is small, it can be determined that the 12 species of molluscs reached Jerusalem from five different areas: the local vicinity of Jerusalem, the Jordan River catchment area, the Nile River in Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Thus, contacts existed with those areas during the Roman and Byzantine periods.

CHAPTER 15: MOLLUSCS

179

1

2

Fig. 15.1. (1) Large fragment of a Tridacna maxima valve with polished exterior (W 13 cm); (2) modern Tridacna maxima valve from the Gulf of Aqaba showing the original sculpture of the exterior (TAU MO 41566; photograph: O. Rittner).

It is possible that the larger, local land snails like Helix and Levantina were consumed, and perhaps two species of bivalves from the Mediterranean Sea: Ostrea edulis and Donax trunculus. Only two shells show clear signs of manipulation: the Bolinus brandaris, which may have been converted into a shell pendant, and the Tridacna maxima from the Red Sea, whose exterior was completely polished, although there is no further indication of its intended use. The bivalve shell fragments with a pearly interior; Pinctada margaritifera, Potamida littoralis semirugata and Chambardia rubens arcuta, from the Red Sea, Jordan River and Nile River respectively, offer strong indications that such material was exploited for ornamental purposes.

180

HENK K. MIENIS

R eferences Mienis H.K. 1992a. Molluscs. In A. De Groot and D.T. Ariel eds. 1992. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh III: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem. Pp. 122–130. Mienis H.K. 1992b. Molluscs from the Excavations of a Byzantine Church at Pisgat Ze’ev, Jerusalem, Israel. Soosiana 20:21–24. Mienis H.K. 1994. Donax trunculus from a Byzantine Site near Binyanei Ha’uma, Jerusalem. Levantina 80:12. Mienis H.K. 2004a. Notes on a Second Collection of Molluscs Recovered during the Excavations of Nessana. In D. Urman ed. Nessana: Excavations and Studies I (Beer-Sheva XVII). Be’er Sheva‘. Pp. 197–215. Mienis H.K. 2004b. Aquatic Molluscs. In P. Figueras ed. Ḥorvat Karkur ‘Illit: A Byzantine Cemetery Church in the Northern Negev; Final Report of the Excavations 1989–1995 (Beer-Sheva XVI). Be’er Sheva‘. Pp. 332–334. Mienis H.K. 2004c. The Molluscs of Nessana. In D. Urman ed. Nessana: Excavations and Studies I (Beer-Sheva XVII). Be’er Sheva‘. Pp. 165–196. Mienis H.K. 2005. Shells from the Emergency Excavation in the Begin-Quarter of Ramla, Israel. Triton 11:28–30. Weksler-Bdolah S. 2019. The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII–X). WWPE I. Pp. 29–115.

182

a round upper torus with straight margins (30 cm diam.; 3 cm high). The total height is 10 cm. The components of the base are crudely hewn with discernible short, uniform chisel marks; only the upper part is even and smoothed. No. 2. Column base (L255, B3613; Fig. 16.2) A column base made of gray marble with thick gray veins, of which only half is preserved. It is composed of a square plinth (32 × 32 cm; 4 cm high), a large, convex lower torus (32 cm diam.; 3 cm high), and a round upper torus with straight margins (25 cm diam.; 1.5 cm high). The total height is 8.5 cm. The carving is of high quality and all of its parts are evenly smoothed.

0

10

Fig. 16.2. Column base.

No. 3. Column base (L255, B3612; Fig. 16.3) A column base made of red limestone (mizzi aḥmar) of which only half is preserved. It is composed of a square plinth (30 × 30 cm; 5 cm high), a large, convex lower torus (30 cm diam.; 3 cm high), and an upper torus with straight margins (23 cm diam.; 4.5 cm high). The total height is 12.5 cm. A rectangular groove (7 cm wide; 1.5 cm deep) was carved into one side of the base and was intended for the embedding of some architectural element. The carving is of high quality and all of its parts are smoothed.

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

0

183

10

Fig. 16.3. Column base.

No. 4. Column base (L255, B3615; Fig. 16.4) A column base made of white-gray marble with thin gray veins. It is composed of a square plinth (originally 52 × 52 cm; 5.5 cm high), a large, convex lower torus (44 cm diam.; 4 cm high), and a round upper torus with straight margins (33.5 cm diam.; 5 cm high). The total height is 14.5 cm. The carving is of high quality and the base is well smoothed. In a subsequent phase, the column base was transformed into the capping stone of a water reservoir. The center was removed (27 cm diam.), and the inner surface bears grooves caused by the ropes used to raise the water buckets. Two single holes and a pair of adjacent holes drilled in its upper face contain remains of metal, and probably served to support a rope and pully system. The base bears traces of white plaster. No. 5. Column base (W410, B40227, B40314; Fig. 16.5). A column base made of white-gray marble with thin gray veins, of which only half is preserved. It is composed of a square plinth (50 × 50 cm; 5 cm high), a large, convex lower torus (50 cm diam.; 5 cm high), a concave scotia (1 cm high), and a round, concave upper torus (6.5 cm high) with an incised groove in the middle. The total height is 17.5 cm. The carving is of high quality and the base is smoothed. In a subsequent phase, the column base was transformed into the capping stone of a water reservoir. The center was removed (27 cm diam.), and the inner surface bears traces of grooves caused by the ropes used to raise the water buckets. The base bears traces of white plaster.

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

185

No. 6. Column shaft fragment (W45, B31156; Fig. 16.6) A shaft fragment (31 cm high) of dark gray marble decorated with spiral fluting. The column is slightly elliptical in section (c. 11 cm diam.), carved with oblique, protruding and smoothed ridges (1.5 cm wide) and grooves (3 cm wide) to create a pattern of contrasting light and shade. It is smoothly finished. Spiral-fluted columns of various sizes and materials are known in the Roman and Byzantine periods, as well as in distinctively Christian contexts, of which the following examples may be noted: a hard, black stone column from the Monastery of Martyrius at Ma‘ale Adummim (Magen 2015:233, 0 10 Fig. 267.1); marble columns in the eastern and Fig. 16.6. Column shaft. western churches (the St. Nilus Church) in Mampsis (Negev 1988:96, 106, Fig. 9:11, Photo 121:111, 194, 195); and limestone columns from the chapel of the northern church in Reḥovot-inthe-Negev (Patrich 1988:120, Pl. IX, Ills. 181, 182, Nos. 41, 42). No. 7. Corinthian capital (W402, B40249; Fig. 16.7) A Corinthian capital made of limestone (c. 50 cm high; 21 cm lower diam.; abacus 25 × 25 cm). The capital was discovered in such a poor state of preservation that the carved parts are partly blurred and the volutes, helix and shape of the abacus are completely obscured. One row of acanthus leaves is attached to and envelopes the kalathos and develops toward the corners of the abacus. The acanthus leaves are flat and schematic, the lobe ribs are reduced, and a deeply carved inner spine represents the midrib. The leaves meet to form geometric spaces (rhombuses, triangles and drops), creating a contrast of light and shade. The capital was later reused and two grooves (6 cm wide) were carved into its sides that extend from the base to the top edge of the abacus (Fig. 16.7:c, d). Short, horizontal chisel marks can be discerned inside the grooves. These grooves were presumably intended to attach the capital to a structure or installation after it no longer served its original function. Traces of gray plaster on the face of the acanthus leaves attest to the change in function. This type of Corinthian capital with a row of acanthus leaves attached to a kalathos is known in the Byzantine period made of marble and limestone in various sizes and quality. Among the parallels are those in the church near the Winged Lions Temple in Petra (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001:211, Figs. 55, 56). Changes in the design of Corinthian capitals began in the Roman period, in the fifth century CE, when the naturalistic depiction of the acanthus leaves and the helix, which completely concealed the kalathos, was reduced to a more schematic depiction, and the meeting of the leaves created geometric spaces. During the Byzantine period, the geometric spaces became of equal importance with the vegetal designs (Kitzinger 1977:76–78).

186

a

b

c

d 0

20

Fig. 16.7. Corinthian capital.

Chancel-Screen Posts and Panel Chancel-screen posts and panels like the examples here were part of the screen systems that enclosed the liturgical areas of churches as well as synagogues in both the Byzantine and Umayyad periods. The Christian church was a place of assembly for the community and for the performance of Christian sacraments, the most central of which was the eucharist (eucharistia). In the early Byzantine church, importance was placed on separating the faithful who gathered in the nave, the galleries and the aisles, from the holy servants in the liturgical space, called the presbyterium. Thus, the area of the presbyterium was raised above the level of the nave, and bounded by a grand screen system that symbolically emphasized the boundaries between the sacred activity on the platform/bema, and the other parts of the church and the believers (Orlandos 1952:509–513, 560–584; Delvoye 1966; Johnson 1991; Habas 2009:100).

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

187

No. 8. Chancel-screen post (W100, B5725; Fig. 16.8) A chancel-screen post made of gray marble with gray veins. The post was found whole, but broken into two parts. It is a low chancel-screen post composed of a rectangular post (c. 100 cm high; two sides measuring 21.0–21.5 cm and 21–23 wide), topped by a slightly conical crown with a hole (3 × 4 cm) containing metal remains (Fig. 16.8:e). The front and back of the post are decorated with a pattern of concentric rectangular frames (Fig. 16.8:a, b) and 5 cm margins surround the frame pattern on all sides. The pattern begins 13 cm above the base (Fig. 16.8:a). A narrow horizontal groove was carved in the front and back, 3 cm from the upper edge. In the center of both lateral sides of the

a

b

c

d

e 0

20

Fig. 16.8. Chancel-screen post.

188

post is a vertical groove along its entire length (6.5–7.0 cm wide; 3 cm deep; Fig. 16.8:c, d) that terminates 3 cm below the upper edge and corresponds to the position of the narrow horizontal groove on the front and back. Remains of mortar and pottery sherds are visible in one of the grooves (Fig. 16.8:d). The post was embedded in a groove that was carved along the margins of the platform floor and thus the 13 cm between its base and the beginning of the pattern of concentric frames was sunken and hidden from view. The regular horizontal chisel marks near the base attest to the process of fixing it into the floor. Screen panels would have been inserted into the grooves on the sides of the post, corresponding in height to the narrow horizontal grooves on the front and back, 3 cm below the upper edge of the post, creating a uniform and harmonious horizontal screen. Similarly, this horizontal groove served to define the upper part of the post and an illusionary base for the crown (Habas 1994, I:163–164). From the location of the grooves on the chancel-screen post, it is possible to place the post in the center of one of the sides (south, west or north) of the chancel-screen system around the platform, rather than at a corner or at one of its entrances. The carving of the chancel-screen post is of high quality and the marble is finely smoothed. The back surface and part of the conical crown were severely eroded, which obscured some of the pattern and left the surface coarse and rough. Concentric rectangular frames in various versions comprise the most widespread design for decorating chancel-screen posts and appear on most of the posts that have been found in the Holy Land and throughout the Byzantine Empire, both in marble and local stone. This design follows the outline of the post, filling the empty space with a neutral pattern, thus emphasizing the chancel screens, which were carved with complex designs of symbolic religious significance, both in churches and synagogues (Habas 1994, I:165–170). Parallels for this pattern on posts with crowns were found in Israel in the northern church at Niẓẓana (the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus; Colt 1962:50, Pl. XIX:6; Habas 1994, II:7, No. and Fig. 7), the southern church at ‘Avedat (the Church of Saint Theodore; Habas 1994, II:19, No. and Fig. 38), and the monastery at Ẓur Natan (Ḥorbat Migdal; Matthews, Neidinger and Ayalon 1990:7, Fig. 5; Habas 1994, II:10–11, Nos. and Figs. 15, 16); in Transjordan in the complex at Mt. Nebo (Saller 1941, I:93, 293, 296, No. 157; II: Pl. 132.4, 5, 9; Habas 1994, II:35–36, Nos. and Figs. 76, 78; Acconci 1998:504–505, No. 86), at Khirbat el-Kursi in Amman (Piccirillo and Amr 1988:370, Figs. 20, 21; Habas 1994: II:34–35, Nos. and Figs. 74, 75), in the church at Shunat Nimrin (Piccirillo 1982:335, Pl. CIX:1, 2; Habas 1994, II:34, No. and Fig. 73), and the church adjacent to the Winged Lions Temple at Petra (Habas 1994, II:34, No. and Fig. 72; Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001:194–196, Figs. 4, 5). Chancel-screen posts with holes in the top of a spherical or conical crown containing metal remnants have been found throughout Israel, made of both imported marble and locally-made limestone, and presumably were the settings for expensive metal crosses. Holes with metal remnants also appear in two limestone posts of unknown provenance, which are currently in the courtyard of the Rockefeller Museum, and crosses were carved on their crowns (Habas 1994, I:162–163, II:4–5, Nos. and Figs. 1, 2). A similar phenomenon of holes in the crown containing traces of metal appears also on chancel-screen posts in synagogues, as at Susiya (Habas 1994, I:162–163, II:9, 40, Nos. and Figs. 12B, 84B).

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

189

No. 9. Chancel-screen post (L3058, B30557; Fig. 16.9) A small chancel-screen post made of gray marble with gray veins. Apart from the crown, the post was found complete (32 cm high; 12 cm wide). Two sides of the post are grooved (15 × 3.0–3.5; 11.5 × 3.0; 1 cm deep) and the other two sides are smooth. The missing crown, of which only the base can be discerned on the top of the post, had a diameter of 8 cm. The post was finely worked and evenly smoothed. The small dimensions of the post and the short grooves rule out its identification as part of a screen that enclosed a church presbyterium. The two grooves on adjacent sides attest to its use as a corner post of some architectural element of unclear nature.

0

10

Fig. 16.9. Chancel-screen post.

No. 10. Colonette (Surface fill, B3726; Fig. 16.10) A fragment of a small column or colonette (16 cm high; 11–12 cm wide) made of whitegray marble with gray veins. Two sides of the colonette are smooth and two sides are decorated with a pattern of concentric rectangular frames (1 cm wide) enclosing an inner, elongated, concave surface (2 cm wide). One side of the column was burnt causing the marble to crumble. Despite the concentric rectangular frames, which is the typical pattern of chancelscreen posts, the small size of the column and the absence of grooves on its sides rules out its identification as part of a screen surrounding a presbyterium.

192

While this type of post is uncommon in the Holy Land (Habas 1994, I:185–186), complete and broken examples made of imported marble have been found at a number of sites in the region, such as the monastery in the Bet She’an Valley (Habas 1994: II:89–90, No. and Fig. 179), at Caesarea (Habas 1994, II:88–89, Nos. and Figs. 176–178), in the St. Nilus Church (western church) in Mampsis (Negev 1988:104–106, Figs. 11.189, 11.190, Photos 127, 128; Habas 1994, II:90–91, Nos. and Figs. 180–181; 2009:101, Figs. 2.1, 2.2), in the church at Ostrakine in northern Sinai (Habas 2013b:1059, Fig. 13; 2016:295, Fig. 9:a, b), and in Transjordan, in the Church of the Bishop Sergius in Umm al-Rasas (Acconci 1994:298, No. 29) and the Chapel of Theotokos (mother of god) on Mt. Nebo (Acconci 1998:481, 507–509, 521–525, Figs. 31, 99–102, 142–144, Nos. 31, 99–102, 142– 144). However, it is much more common elsewhere in the Byzantine empire (Sodini and Kolokotsas 1984:31–44, 48–51), as in the Basilica of Suvodol in Macedonia, the cruciform church in Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima) in Serbia, the Basilica of the Bishop Euphrasius Complex in Poreč in Croatia, the church in Thassos in Greece, the Basilica of Camanopetra in Salamis in Cyprus, and the Church of St. John Studius, the Church of the Saints Sergius and Bacchus, and the Church of Kalenderhane Camii in Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey (Habas 2013b:1059, and see references therein). Varia No. 13. Marble relief with carved acanthus leaves (W546, B52016; Fig. 16.13). A fragment of a marble relief with carved acanthus leaves (11.2 × 16.1 cm). Two acanthus leaves are preserved that lack any interior carving of the ribs. At the meeting of the leaves, geometric spaces are formed (rhombuses, triangles and polygons). The acanthus leaves are smooth and the geometric spaces are coarsely hewn with discernible chisel marks.

0

10

Fig. 16.13. Marble relief.

No. 14. Lintel in secondary use (L9547, B9565; Fig. 16.14) A Byzantine lintel made of red limestone (mizzi aḥmar) with Christian symbols (32 × 127 cm; 51 cm high). The surface of the lintel is smooth and in the center is a relief carved by a local artist. The lintel was found incorporated in secondary use in a Muslim installation dated to the ninth–fourteenth centuries CE. The secondary use severely damaged the relief, but left the frame and the central medallion untouched, as they had been preserved by a

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

193

layer of plaster. Based on parallels, such as a chancel-screen panel from the Monastery of Lady Mary in Bet She’an (Scythopolis; FitzGerald 1939:3, Photo 3, Fig. 5), a medallion with a Maltese cross (34 × 34 cm) and lilies (fleurs de lis) between its arms can be reconstructed in the center of the lintel. The border of the medallion (5 cm wide) is smooth and its carved margins have a V-shaped cross section. The arms of the cross widen outward from the center and the ends are concave and tangential to the medallion. The lilies are

a

b

c

d

Fig. 16.14. Byzantine lintel.

194

composed of a large central petal (8–9 cm wide) and two half petals attached to the cross and separated by a shallow incision. A number of stonemason’s guidelines are visible on the right of the medallion, in the center of the right cross arm and in the middle of the lily’s central petal. The surface of the stone and the design are on the same plane, and the design protrudes c. 1.5 cm from the recessed and coarsely hewn background. Some details of the motifs are missing, such as the internal spine of the cross’s arms and the petals, and the combination of the smoothed and carved elements that are customary in stephanostaurion (wreath) compositions on imported marble reliefs (Habas 1994, I:60–63, 81–81; see Habas 2009:102–104 for detailed discussion and references). The Christian symbols had been hidden behind a layer of plaster that covered the surface of the lintel until revealed during archaeological excavation. The location of the lintel in a well-dated installation indicates a date for the effacement no earlier than the Abbasid period (Habas 2013a:66–67, Figs. 5, 6). No. 15. Shallow bowl/tray (L5246, B51794; Fig. 16.15) A fragment of a shallow bowl/tray (6.5 × 7.0 cm; wall 1.6 cm wide; base c. 1 cm thick) made of ivory-white marble. The lower wall is concave, then becomes more bowl-like and tends slightly inward. The bowl is smooth and even. 0 10 Round, shallow bowls/trays of this type Fig. 16.15. Shallow bowl/tray. are known in the Byzantine period in both secular and religious contexts. Similar examples were found in the Mt. Nebo complex (Saller 1941:293–294, Cat. No. 66, Pl. 126.22; Piccirillo 1976:290; Acconci 1998:497, Figs. on p. 496, Nos. 76–78). No. 16. Round stone (W100, B5164; Fig. 16.16) A round stone made of gray marble (20 cm diam.; 15 cm high). The carving of the stone left ribbing despite the smoothing of the surface. A depression (9 cm diam.; 7 cm deep) was carved in the center and the edges were smoothed. It is presumed to be of Byzantine origin, although its function is unknown.

0

10

Fig. 16.16. Round stone.

CHAPTER 16: BYZANTINE STONE ELEMENTS, FURNITURE AND SMALL FINDS

195

R eferences Acconci A. 1994. L’arredo liturgico. In M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata. Umm al-Rasas Mayfa‛ah I: Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano (SBF Collectio Maior 28). Jerusalem. Pp. 290–313. Acconci A. 1998. Elements of the Liturgical Furniture. In M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata. Mount Nebo: New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997 (SBF Collectio Maior 27). Jerusalem. Pp. 468– 542. Colt H.D. 1962. Architectural Details. In H.D. Colt ed. Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine) 1. London. Pp. 48–50. Delvoye C. 1966. Bema. In Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst I. Stuttgart. Pp. 583–599. FitzGerald G.M. 1939. A Sixth Century Monastery at Beth-Shan (Scythopolis) (Publications of the Palestine Section of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania IV). Philadelphia. Habas L. 1994. The Relief Art of Chancel Screens in Churches and Synagogues in Palestine in the Byzantine Period: A Stylistic and Iconographic Study (3 vols.). M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Habas L. 2009. The Art of Imported Marble Chancel Screens and Its Influence on Local Production in the Churches of the Provinces of Palaestina and Arabia: A Case Study. In H. Oniz ed. SOMA 2008 (Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5–8 March 2008 (BAR Int. S. 1909). Oxford. Pp. 100–108. Habas L. 2013a. Contribution of Archaeological Finds from Jerusalem to the Dating of the Destruction of Christian Symbols during the Islamic Period. In G.D. Stiebel, O. Peleg-Barkat, D. Ben-Ami, S.Weksler-Bdolah and Y. Gadot eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region. Collected Papers VII. Jerusalem. Pp. 61–81 (Hebrew). Habas L. 2013b. Cultural Interrelations: Constantinople, Greece, Adriatic Coast, Egypt and Sinai in Light of the Church at Ostrakine in North Sinai. In L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini eds. SOMA 2012: Identity and Connectivity (Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012) II (BAR Int. S. 2581). Oxford. Pp. 1057–1067. Habas L. 2016. Imported Liturgical Furniture and Vessels from the “Island Church” at Ostrakine, North Sinai. In J. Patrich, O. Peleg-Barkat and E. Ben-Yosef eds. Arise, Walk through the Land: Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Land of Israel in Memory of Yizhar Hirschfeld on the Tenth Anniversary of his Demise. Jerusalem. Pp. 291–310 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 257*–258*). Johnson M.J. ed. 1991. Bema. In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I. New York–Oxford. P. 281. Kanellopoulos C. and Schick R. 2001. Marble Furnishings of the Apses and the Bema, Phase V. In Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski and R. Schick. The Petra Church (ACOR Publications 3). Amman. Pp. 193–213. Kitzinger E. 1977. Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th Centuries. London. Magen Y. 2015. Christians and Christianity V: Monastery of Martyrius (JSP 17). Jerusalem.

196 Matthews E., Neidinger W. and Ayalon E. 1990. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Zur Natan: 1989 and 1990 Seasons (Publication of the Texas Foundation for Archaeological and Historical Research). Houston, Tex. Negev A. 1988. The Architecture of Mampsis; Final Report II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (Qedem 27). Jerusalem. Orlandos A.K. 1952. Ἡ ξυλόστεγος παλαιοχριστιανική βασιλική της Μεσογειακής Λεκάνης (The Timber-Roof Early Christian Basilica of the Mediterranean Basin). Athens (Greek). Patrich J. 1988. Architectural Sculpture and Stone Objects. In Y. Tsafrir. Excavations at Rehovot-inthe-Negev I: The Northern Church (Qedem 25). Jerusalem. Pp. 97–133. Piccirillo M. 1976. Campagna archeologica nella basilica di Mosé Profeta sul Monte Nebo–Siyagha (1 luglio–7 settembre 1976). LA 26:281–318. Piccirillo M. 1982. A Church at Shunat Nimrin. ADAJ 26:335–342. Piccirillo M. and ‘Amr A. 1988. A Chapel at Khirbet el-Kursi–Amman. LA 38:361–382. Saller S.J. 1941. The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo I–II (SBF Collectio Maior 1). Jerusalem. Sodini J.-P. and Kolokotsas K. 1984. Aliki II: La basilique double (Études thasiennes X). Athens.

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Appendix 1

List of Loci and Walls (2005–2010 Excavation Seasons) (see Foreword: Plans 1–4)

LOCI Locus

Description

Stratum

Upper

Lower

Spolia item (column incorporated in a wall)

III

729.65

728.50

A3

100

Topsoil fill

I

736.00

734.00

A

102

Floor

II

733.35

85

Elevation (m)

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

A

116

Aqueduct

XIII

738.50

737.50

A

Plans 2.1, 3.2: southwest

150

Rock-cut elongated socket

XII–?

735.10

735.55

A

Section 2-2

155

Rock-cut sockets for anchoring beams

XII–?

736.90

737.10

A

Section 2-2

229

Fill on floor

IV

728.75

728.40

A2

244

Fill

I

730.00

728.60

A

245

Flagstone floor

III–II

728.44

255

Plaster Floor

II

730.10

728.74

A A

Bakery hall

257

Fill

II

728.26

727.30

A

264

Niche

XII

729.20

728.26

A

284

Fill

II–I

728.20

727.68

A

287

Fill

VI–IV

728.20

727.70

A

288

Fill

IV

728.98

728.57

A

298

Collapse

III

725.15

728.03

A

300

Water cistern

XI

726.60

721.30

A

Plan 3.3: south; Sections 3-3, 29-29, 30-30

310

Hewn cell

XII–X

732.60

732.10

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3; Section 1-1

311

Fill

VI–V

729.90

728.90

A

318

Hewn installation

X–IV (?)

732.10

319

Fill in Drainage Channel 514

XII–XI

727.60

725.70

A

361

Subterranean room

VI

727.12

726.90

A

Plan 3.3: southwest; Sections 2-2, 30-30

B Plan 3.2: south; Section 4-4

362

Rock-hewn channel

XI

727.06

726.98

A

363

Subterranean room

VI

727.25

727.18

A

Plan 3.3: south

371 (=373)

Channel

XII

726.40

726.25

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west

372

Fill in channel

VIII

726.47

726.32

A

Plan 3.2: Cardo, western sidewalk; Section 30-30

373

Channel

XII

726.47

726.17

A

Plan 3.2: Cardo, western sidewalk

374

Flagstones covering Cistern 300 (= L477)

XI

726.95

726.60

A

Plan 3.3: south

198 Locus

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

402

Rock-hewn room

XII–IV

729.65

727.57

A

Plan 3.3: west; Section 2-2

404

Rock-hewn room

XII–IV

731.30

728.00

A

Plan 3.3: west; Sections 2-2, 28-28

410

Fill

VI–IV

729.90

729.30

A

416

Fill under floor

VI

727.85

726.90

A

443

Fill in Drainage Channel 514

XII–XI

727.68

727.33

A

466

Plaster floor

VI

727.49

727.30

A

468

Cardo’s open sidewalk (=5338B)

XII

728.10

727.70

A

472

Drainage channel

VIII

S: 726.69 N:726.92

S:726.04 N:726.59

A

475

Drainage channel

XI

727.00

726.85

A

Plan 3.3: south

476

Drainage channel

XI

727.00

726.85

A

Plan 3.3: south

477

Cistern cover (= L374)

XI

726.95

726.60

A

Plan 3.3: south

482

Vertical rock-hewn gutter

XII

733.60

727.60

A

Plan 3.3; Section 2-2

490

Rock-hewn surface

XII

727.30

727.04

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west

491

Rock-hewn drainage channel

XII–X

727.60

727.30

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: southwest; Sections 3-3, 4-4

500

Unsealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.30

726.12

A

Plan 3.3: center

502

Rock-hewn surface

XII

727.70

727.47

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west; Section 2-2

514

Drainage channel

XII–XI

725.61

724.50

A

Plan 3.2: south; Sections 4-4, 30-30

516

Fill

IX

727.30

726.50

A

518

Vaulted installation

VI

727.75

723.30

A

525

Unsealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.38

726.18

A

Plan 3.3: center

526

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.40

725.98

A

Plan 3.3: center

536

Central drainage channel

XII

726.00

723.80

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: center

541

Fill

IX

726.50

726.45

A

545

Fill

VIII

726.82

726.59

A

547

Rock-hewn drainage channel

XII

726.09

725.81

A

550

Fill

IX–VIII

726.70

726.57

A

567

Floor

VIII

727.33

726.21

A

575

Fill

II

727.46

727.24

A

580

Floor

VI

726.37

726.09

A

581

Fill

VI

727.27

726/82

A

583

Fill

IX–VIII

727.01

726.00

A

586

Fill

IX

726.58

726.40

A

606

Fill

IX

726.57

726.13

A

610

Living surface

IX

726.67

726.13

A

Plan 3.2: south

Plan 3.3: south

Plans 3.2, 3.3: east

Plan 3.3: Cardo, western sidewalk

199

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Locus

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

611

Fill

IX

726.67

726.57

A

614

Fill

IX

726.40

726.25

A

619

Rock-hewn channel

XII–IX

726.36

726.30

A

Plan 3.3: Cardo, eastern edge

658

Severance channel

XII

726.39

725.77

A

Plan 3.2: east

662

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.99

725.83

A

Plan 3.3: center

703

Rock-hewn cell and fill

XII

731.15

~726.75

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: southwest

709

Flagstone pavement (above vaulted roof of Cistern 712)

X

726.52

726.34

A

Plan 3.3: south

710

Channel (above vaulted roof of Cistern 712)

X

726.40

726.32

A

Plan 3.3: south

712

Water cistern

X

726.32

~722.00

A

Plan 3.3: south; Sections 3-3, 33-33, 34-34

717

Infrastructure of Pavement 709

X

726.34

726.26

A

Plan 3.3: south; Section 3-3

720

Section of the Cardo flagstone pavement

XII

726.23

725.89

A

Plan 3.3: south

724

Channel (above Cistern 712)

X

726.34

726.18

A

Plan 3.3: south

2000

Room and fill

VI–III

736.00

735.00

C

2013

Mosaic floor

VI

736.53

735.41

C

2021

Plaster floor

VI

735.44

735.33

C

2022

Jewish ritual bath (miqveh)

XIII

735.47

733.35

C

Plan 3.2: west; Section 20-20

2050

Jewish ritual bath (miqveh)

XIII

C

Plans 1.1, 2.1, 3.2: west; Section 13-13

2075

Blockage of a channel in W600

VIII

730.50

729.70

E

3006

Rock-hewn room

XII–X

729.90

729.53

B

3046

Floor

III–II

727.95

727.87

B

3056

Fill

VI–III

729.50

728.58

B

3057

Possible part of hewn installation

XIII– XII?

736.00

734.00

B

3058

Collapse

VI–IV

730.64

728.00

A

3063

Water cistern

XI–IX?

3064

Floor

III

727.84

727.46

B

3070

Rock-hewn cell

XII

727.56

727.44

B

3075

Fill

III

728.75

728.15

B

3096

Installation

V

729.00

724.95

B

3097

Rock-hewn cell

XII

~731.50

~727.50

B

3107

Floor

IV

727.48

727.41

B

3108

Fill

IV

727.40

726.87

B

3110

Floor

X

727.43

727.32

B

3172

Fill

IX

726.44

726.33

B

B

Plan 3.3: northwest

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

Plan 3.3: western shops, entrance to Shop 5311 Plans 3.2, 3.3: west; Sections 2-2, 21-21

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west; Section 25-25

Plan 3.3: west

200 Locus

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

3200

Vault

VI

729.02

727.95

B

3220

Bedrock

XII

726.22

-

B

Plan 3.3: center

3224

Unsealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.54

726.46

B

Plan 3.3: center

3225

Unsealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.46

726.28

B

Plan 3.3: center

3226

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.54

726.23

B

Plan 3.3: center

3237

Unsealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.40

725.74

B

Plan 3.3: center

3238

Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.40

726.17

B

Plan 3.3: center

3240

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.68

726.39

B

Plan 3.3: center

3241

Unsealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.36

726.26

B

Plan 3.3: center

3242

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.37

726.02

B

Plan 3.3: center

3500

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.37

726.19

B

3510

Sealed Cardo infrastructure

XII

726.36

726.22

B

4005

Water cistern

III

729.80

726.85

D

4014

Floor

III

728.89

728.67

D

4042

Fill

VII

728.08

726.04

D

4072

Fill

III

728.89

727.41

D

4091

Floor

VI

728.44

728.22

D

4101

Floor

VI

728.56

728.35

D

4108

Flagstone pavement of a street

X, IX, VIII

725.56

725.12

D

Plan 3.3: southeast, southern street; Sections 30-30, 32-32, 35-35, 37-37

4126

Rock-hewn channel

XII

726.16

726.04

A

Plan 3.2: south

4140

Fill

VI

728.28

727.38

D

4148

Floor

IX

726.96

726.65

D

4162

Floor

X

726.79

4177

Mosaic floor

X

726.60

726.50

D

4183

Fill

IX

726.75

726.34

D

4185

Fill in quarry

XII

725.24

724.24

D

Plan 3.2: southeast (see WWPE II)

4192

Mosaic infrastructure (white plaster layer)

X

726.58

726.44

D

Plan 3.3: east

4213

Mosaic floor

X

726.60

D

Plan 3.3: east

4214

Sealed infrastructure

X

725.33

724.95

D

Plan 3.3: southeast, southern street

4221

Mosaic infrastructure (white plaster layer)

X

726.51

726.57

D

Plan 3.3: east

4224

Mosaic floor

X

726.50

-

D

Plan 3.3: east

4241

Mosaic plaster infrastructure

X

726.41

726.54

D

Plan 3.3: east

4252

Unsealed infrastructure

X

725.15

725.04

D

Plan 3.3: east, southern street

D Plan 3.3: east

201

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Locus

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

4253

Mosaic pebble infrastructure

X

726.49

726.29

D

Plan 3.3: east

4260

Fill in quarry under L4252

X

725.04

524.85

D

Plan 3.2: southeast (see WWPE II)

4261

Infrastructure for mosaic

X

726.36

726.30

D

Plan 3.3: east

4265

Infrastructure fill of Staircase Steps 9050

X

725.82

725.77

D

Plan 3.3: southeast

4271

Stone steps

X

726.25

725.18

D

Plan 3.3: southeast; Section 37-37

4272

Step infrastructure

X

725.84

725.76

D

Plan 3.3: southeast

4273

Sealed infrastructure

XII

725.15

724.87

D

Plans 3.2, 3.3: southeast

4274

Sealed fill in quarry

XII

725.12

724.24

D

Plan 3.2: southeast

4276

Heart-shaped plinth or column base

XII

727.38

726.29

D

Plan 3.3: southeast; Sections 29-29, 30-30

4300

Rock-hewn surface that serves as part of the foundation of the eastern portico

XII

726.40

-

D

Plans 3.2, 3.3: east

5000

Rock-hewn surface

XII

729.62

729.27

E

Plan 3.2: northwest

5002

Fill

III

730.62

730.28

E

5036

Floor makeup

VI

729.28

728.55

E

5061

Fill

III

728.96

728.40

E

5072

Plaster floor

III

727.74

727.48

E

5083

Fill

IX

728.22

727.73

E

5093

Flagstone pavement

VI

728.49

728.28

E

5107

Fill

VI

727.68

726.98

E

5133

Stone layer

XII

726.91

726.54

E

Plan 3.2: north

5137

Fill (mainly Iron Age)

XII

727.13

726.5

E

Plan 3.2: north (see WWPE II)

5139

Fill

VI

728.64

728.24

E

5143

Fill (mainly Iron Age) (= L6096)

XII

727.21

726.58

E

5148

Fill

VI

728.30

727.50

E

5153

Fill (containing mainly Iron Age material)

XII

726.49

724.77

E

5156

Fill

VI–III

728.30

727.41

E

5172

Stone layer

XII

726.68

726.36

E

Plan 3.2: center

5181

Flagstone of western portico

XII

726.77

726.45

E

Plan 3.3: north; Section 6-6

5187

Fill

IX–VI

728.32

727.70

E

5188

Drainage channel

VIII

727.91W 727.02E

726.47W 726.42E

E

5211

Fill

XIV

726.56

724.34

E (=F)

5214

Stone surface

VIII

727.49

726.89

E

5224

Fill

VI–III

730.25

728.43

E

5227

Rock-hewn room

XII–X

733.50

730.75

E

5236

Installation

VI–V

728.55

727.96

E

Plan 3.2: north (see WWPE II) Plan 3.2: north

Plan 3.3: northwest; Section 13-13

202 Locus

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

5246

Fill

IX

727.04

726.86

E

5248

Drainage channel

XII–X

727.18

726.43

E

5250

Fill above Cardo

IX

726.69

726.62

E

5251

Fill above rock

VI

727.41

726.18

E

5268

Fill above Cardo

VIII

726.78

726.38

E

5271

Stone blockage in an entranceway

VI–III

728.81

728.51

E

5272

Section of the Cardo flagstone pavement

XII

726.73

726.28

E

5275

Plaster floor

IX

727.02

726.82

E

5280

Fill

VI–II

730.40

728.73

E

5281

Fill

VIII

727.25

726.89

E

5283

Fill in quarry, and bedrock below the fill

XII

727.57

727.02

E

Plan 3.2: north

5291

Section of the Cardo flagstone pavement

XII

726.50

-

E

Plan 3.3: center

5292

Fill in quarry under step (= L5293, L5295)

XII

726.56

726.19

E

Plan 3.2: north

5293

Fill in quarry (= L5292, L5295)

XII

726.55

725.85

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north

5294

Fill

VI–III

728.73

728.36

E

5295

Fill in quarry (= L5292, L5293)

XII

726.07

724.02

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north

5297

Rock-hewn cell

XII

728.34

727.61

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north; Section 2-2

5298

Fill in quarry

XII

726.73

726.37

E

Plan 3.2: north

5299

Fill in quarry

XII

726.37

725.56

E

Plan 3.2: north

5308

Western sidewalk

XII

727.06

726.43

E

Plan 3.3: north; Section 13-13

5310

Fill above Cardo

VIII

726.93

726.34

E

5311

Rock-hewn cell

XII–IX

728.66

727.89

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north; Sections 2-2, 19-19

5316

Hewn installation

XII–X

728.24

727.07

E

Plan 3.3: north

5318

Fill in installation

XII–X

728.15

728.00

E

Plan 3.3: northwest

5320

Hewn installation

X–IX

728.20

727.78

E

Plan 3.3: western shops

5321

Hewn installation

X–IX

728.13

727.82

E

Plan 3.3: western shops

5326

Fill

XII

726.66

726.40

E

Plan 3.2: north

5332

Fill in quarry, under step, and bedrock below the fill

XII

726.43

725.37

E

Plan 3.2: north

5333

Intentional fill of plastered installation

XII

727.20

726.22

E

Plan 3.2: north

5336

Lower part of plastered installation

XIII

727.81

726.09

E

Plan 3.2: north; Section 19-19

5338

Western sidewalk, between Cardo and western portico, including Segments A–F

XII

726.98

626.06

E

Plan 3.3: north; Sections 4-4, 19-19, 23-23, 28-28–30-30

5339

Sealed fill of quarry, under Cardo’s step

XII

726.78

725.58

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north

Plan 3.3: west

Plan 3.3: north

203

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Locus

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

5340

Stone-built pilaster

VIII

729.59

728.22

E

5342

Stone-built pilaster

VIII

730.26

728.26

E

5343

Stone-built pilaster

VIII

729.39

728.29

E

5345

Stone-built pilaster

VIII

730.45

728.25

E

5347

Sealed fill of quarry, under Cardo’s step

XII

726.66

725.55

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north

5348

Rock-hewn surface

XII

727.53

-

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west

6003

Fill

VIII –VI

732.80

730.97

F

6011

Fill

XIV– XII

726.59

725.68

F

Plan 3.2: north

6014

Flagstones above Cistern 6170

XII

729.70

729.40

F

Plan 3.3: north; Sections 2-2, 8-8

6028

Rock-hewn surface of room and fill inside room

XII, VIII

729.73

728.93

F

Plans 3.2: northwest; 3.3

6036

Fill

VIII

726.87

726.66

F

6037

Cardo flagstone pavement

XII

726.76

726.35

F

Plan 3.3: north; Sections 4-4, 8-8

6039

Stone fill

XII

726.54

726.42

F

Plan 3.2: north (see WWPE II)

6046

Fill

XIV–XII

725.91

726.18

F

Plan 3.2, north

6051

Fill

X

727.80

727.30

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6056

Fill

VIII

728.48

727.33

F

6057

Stone pavement

VIII

729.99

729.45

F

6060

Stone pavement

VIII

729.59

729.24

F

6068

Rock-hewn channel

XII–X

729.39

728.94

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6070

Rock-hewn channel

XII–X

729.43

729.29

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6071

Rock-hewn channel

XII–X

729.47

729.15

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6073

Fill

XII

726.02

726.42

F

Plan 3.2: north

6080

Fill

IX

726.70

726.33

F

6081

Flagstone of western sidewalk

XII

727.16

726.85

F

Plan 3.3: north

6092

Fill

XII

726.00

725.84

F

Plan 3.2: north

6093

Fill

XII

726.15

726.30

F

Plan 3.2: north

6095

Fill

XII

726.19

726.51

F

Plan 3.2: north

6096

Fill (=5143)

XII

726.12

727.18

F

Plan 3.2: north

6097

Fill

XII

726.19

725.48

F

Plan 3.2: north

6110

Pillar base

X

727.34

726.44

F

Plan 3.3: north; Section 6-6

6112

Fill

IX

727.27

726.58

F

6125

Fill

IX

725.87

725.45

F

6130

Fill

XIV

727.72

725.60

F

6144

Drainage channel

XI–X

725.61

724.68

F

6153

Packed-earth floor

XIV

724.70

724.28

F

6170

Water cistern

XIII– XI

729.59

723.40

F

Plan 3.2: northwest

6199

Drainage channel

XII

728.60

728.80

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6202

Fill

XV

726.74

728.60

F

6204

Fill

X

727.50

727.36

F

Plans 3.2: north; 3.3: north

Plan 3.3: northwest

204 Locus

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

6205

Packed-earth floor

X

727.72

727.48

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6206

Fill

X

727.48

726.96

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6209

Crushed chalk layer

X

727.50

727.46

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6210

Fill

X

727.46

727.16

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6211

Crushed limestone fill

X

727.43

727.10

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6212

Foundation trench

X

727.40

726.78

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6213

Stone floor

X

727.59

727.44

F

Plan 3.3: northwest; Section 2-2

6216

Drainage channel

XIV

724.82

723.22

F

Plan 3.2: north

6220

Fill above rock inside cell

XII, X

727.48

726.36

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6221

Foundation trench?

X

727.09

726.61

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6222

Foundation trench?

X

726.93

726.40

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6223

Floor infrastructure

X

727.44

724.24

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

6224

Fill under floor

X

727.44

727.24

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

8007

Drainage channel (northern part of L472)

VIII

827.26

826.42

H

8008

Floor makeup

VIII

727.08

727.03

H

8014

Channel

VIII

726.52

726.19

H

8016

Mosaic

X

726.91

726.82

H

8018

Disturbed fill

I (Modern)

726.76

726

H

8020

Flagstone pavement (northern street or courtyard)

XII–IX, VIIIA

726.93 N 726.67 S

726.79 N 726.25 S

H

8021

Installation

VIII

726.12

725.43

H

8024

Floor

VIII

727.71

727.55

H

8027

Fill

VIII

726.97

726.72

H

8030

Fill

IX

726.39

726.08

H

8033

Fill

VIII

727.47

726.84

H

8034

Fill

VIII

726.83

726.09

H

8036

Fill

VIII

726.88

726.25

H

8037

Fill

IX–VIII

727.24

727.14

H

8038

Floor

VIII

725.95

725.60

H

8040

Mosaic plaster infrastructure

X

726.79

726.62

H

Plan 3.3: northeast

8042

Mosaic pebble infrastructure

X

726.75

726.40

H

Plan 3.3: northeast; Sections 11-11, 14-14

8046

Fill

IX–VIII

726.96

726.06

H

8047

Fill under mosaic

X

726.64

726.49

H

Plan 3.3

8048

Fill under mosaic

X

726.53

726.39

H

Plan 3.3 (see WWPE II)

8049

Disturbed fill

I (Modern)

726.09

725.47

H

8050

Burnt fill (black)

XII

726.39

726.13

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11; (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8051

Burnt fill (gray)

XII

726.36

726.20

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (WWPE II: Table 3.1)

Plan 3.3: northeast

Plan 3.3: northeast; Sections 10-10, 11-11

205

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Locus

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

8053

Burnt fill (yellowish)

XII

726.41

725.88

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Sections 14-14, 15-15 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8054

Manhole

XII

726.68

725.65

H

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northeast; Section 16-16

8055

Burnt fill (black)

XII

726.16

725.82

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Section 15-15; (WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8056

Crushed lime surface

XII

726.61

726.58

H

Plan 3.2: northeast

8057

Fill

IX–VIII

726.32

724.28

H

8059

Fill

XII

726.39

725.82

H

8060

Fill above Roman drainage channel

IX

726.61

725.90

H

8061

Disturbed fill

I (Modern)

726.18

725.43

H

8063

Disturbed fill

VIII

725.55

725.09

H

8065

Disturbed fill

1 (Modern)

727.47

726.27

H

8066

Fill

IX

726.20

726.03

H

8067

Cardo stone infrastructure?

XII

726.41

725.85

H

Plan 3.2: northeast

8068

Drainage channel

XII

725.90

725.16

H

Plans 3.2, 3.3; Sections 10-10, 11-11, 15-15, 16-16

8069

Installation

VIII

726.74

726.67

H

8075

Burnt laminar fill

XII

725.61

724.96

H

8077

Fill

VIII

726.53

726.31

H

8081

Fill

IX

726.43

726.19

H

8086

Mosaic plaster infrastructure

X

726.43

726.12

H

Plan 3.3: east

8090

Mosaic pebble infrastructure

X

726.61

726.51

H

Plan 3.3: east

8091

Fill under mosaic

X

726.51

726.44

H

Plan 3.3: east (see WWPE II)

8092

Crushed lime layer

X

726.49

726.41

H

Plan 3.3: east

8093

Burnt fill (laminar)

XII

726.41

726.25

H

Plan 3.2: east (see WWPE II)

8095

Fill

VIII

726.33

726.10

H

8100

Disturbed fill inside uncovered drain

IX

725.79

725.33

H

8101

Fill

XII

725.95

725.64

H

8103

Pilaster

VIII

726.38

724.73

H

8104

Burnt fill (black)

XII

726.18

725.16

H

8106

Fill

VIII

726.16

725.82

H

8107

Burnt fill (black) above surface (L8123)

XII

726.15

724.56

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (WWPE II: Table 3.1)

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (WWPE II: Table 3.1)

Plan 3.2: east Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11 (WWPE II: Table 3.1) Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Sections: 15-15, 16-16; (WWPE II: Table 3.1)

206 Locus

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

8108

Flagstones of the Eastern Cardo (employed as a general locus for its many sections of pavement)

XII

726.58

726.28

H

Plan 3.3: north; Sections 9-9–11-11, 16-16, 21-21

8109

Fill

XII

726.60

726.02

H

Plan 3.3: northeast

8110

Fill

VIII

725.94

725.16

H

Section 11-11

8111

Post-Byzantine drainage channel

?

726.15

725.91

H

8112

Disturbed fill

I (Modern)

725.54

724.44

H

8113

Burnt fill above surface

XII

725.68

724.28

H

8114

Pilaster

VIII

725.33

723.51

H

8115

Fill under ground surface at time of construction

XII

725.06

724.49

H

8116

Fill

XII

726.40

725.81

H

8119

Burnt fill abutting W812

XII

726.30

726.05

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8121

Burnt fill above ground surface at time of construction

XII

725.45

724.85

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8122

Burnt fill

XII

725.42

724.51

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Sections 14-14, 15-15 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8123

Ground surface at time of construction

XII

725.01

724.34

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Sections 14-14, 15-15, 16-16 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8124

Burnt fill

XII

725.27

725.17

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8125

Ground surface at time of construction

XII

725.04

724.52

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8126

Burnt fill (black)

XII

725.43

725.17

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8127

Burnt fill (laminar)

XII

725.79

725.40

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8128

Burnt fill (laminar)

XII

726.08

725.40

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8129

Fill in quarry

XIII–XII

726.26

725.92

H

Plan 3.2: east

8130

Burnt fill above living surface

XII

724.91

724.58

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8131

Fill under ground surface at time of construction

XII

724.69

724.26

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8132

Foundation trench

XII

724.69

722.59

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Sections 14-14, 15-15, 16-16 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8133

Fill under mosaic

X

726.65

726.53

H

Plan 3.3: northeast

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1) Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

207

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Locus

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

8134

Fill under mosaic

X

726.50

726.24

H

Plan 3.3: northeast

8135

Fill under mosaic

X

726.54

726.27

H

Plan 3.3: northeast (see WWPE II)

8136

Burnt fill

XII

726.52

726.05

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8137

Burnt fill

XII

726.50

724.38

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Section 11-11 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8138

Burnt fill

XII

725.77

724.13

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8139

Burnt fill

XII

724.70

724.54

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8140

Ground surface at time of construction

XII

724.71

723.99

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Section 17-17 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8141

Disturbed fill

IX–VIII

726.57

726.11

H

8144

Burnt layered fill (laminar)

XII

725.08

722.64

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Section 17-17 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8145

Burnt fill

XII

725.14

724.26

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8146

Fill under ground surface at time of construction

XII

724.54

723.95

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8147

Fill

XII

724.98

724.65

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8148

Fill in quarry

XII

724.49

722.99

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; 3.3; Sections 14-14–16-16 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8149

Intrusion in Roman dump

VIII–VI

725.12

723.71

H

Northeastern edge of excavation

8150

Burnt fill (black) above ground surface at time of construction

XII

724.99

724.64

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8151

Leveled layer above stone installation

XII

724.94

724.64

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8152

Fill

XII

723.90

723.35

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump, 3.3; Sections 11-11, 16-16 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8153

Burnt fill (laminar)

XII

723.90

723.31

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8154

Foundation trench

XII

723.72

723.08

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump, 3.3; Sections 11-11, 16-16 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8155

Fill under ground surface at time of construction

XII

724.82

723.61

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 11-11 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8156

Stone installation in quarry

XII

724.59

723.96

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; Sections 11-11, 14-14 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8157

Foundation trench

XII

724.25

723.83

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

208 Locus

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

8158

Stone fill

XII

723.39

722.90

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 17-17 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8159

Brown fill directly on rock in quarry

XII

724.19

723.36

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8160

Stone fill

XII

724.01

722.96

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8162

Brown fill directly on rock in quarry

XII

723.13

722.60

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Sections 14-14, 15-15 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8164

Foundation trench

XII

723.13

722.69

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8165

Burnt fill (laminar)

XII

722.64

722.47

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump Section 17-17 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8166

Foundation trench

XII

724.34

723.68

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8167

Fill in quarry

XII

722.34

721.84

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 17-17 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8170

Quarry

XIII

723.50

721.82

H

Plans 1.1, 2.1, 3.2: Roman dump; Sections 11-11, 14-14, 17-17 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8171

Fill under flagstone

XII

727.01

726.72

H

Northeastern street

8172

Fill under flagstone

XII

727.01

726.12

H

Plan 3.2: northeast (see WWPE II)

8173

Fill

XII

726.35

725.93

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8174

Burnt fill under Cardo (yellowish)

XII

726.52

725.97

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump; Section 10-10 (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8176

Fill

XII

725.84

725.68

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8177

Fill under Cardo

XII

726.28

725.85

H

Plan 3.2: north (see WWPE II)

8178

Drainage channel

XII

726.58

724.95

H

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north; Sections 9-9, 10-10

8180

Channel (part of 8178)

XII

725.43

724.19

H

Plans 3.2, 3.3: north (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8182

Burnt fill under Cardo (burnt)

XII

725.81

725.07

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8183

Fill under flagstone

XII

726.67

725.86

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8184

Plaster and stone surface

XII

725.78

725.71

H

Plan 3.2: northeast

8185

Fill under flagstone

XII

726.70

725.96

H

Plans 3.2: Roman dump; Section 10-10 (see WWPE II)

8187

Fill in quarry

XII

723.51

722.25

H

Plan 3.2: Roman dump (see WWPE II: Table 3.1)

8188

Fill in quarry

XII

724.55

722.88

H

Plan 3.2: northeast

8189

Intrusion in Roman dump

XII

723.80

723.40

H

Plan 3.2: northeast (see WWPE II)

209

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Locus

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plans in WWPE I; Sections in Plan 3.5

8300

General designation of accumulation in northern section of Roman dump, seen in Section 11-11 (includes all loci sealed under L8020: 8104, 8121, 8125, 8137, 8145, 8152, 8154, 8155)

XII

726.00

723.50

H

Plan 3.2; Section 11-11

9050

Stone staircase

X

726.41

725.62

I

Plan 3.3: southeast

9053

Floor

III–II

728.28

9075

Rock-hewn surface

XII

726.93

726.76

I

Plans 3.2, 3.3: southeast

9076

Rock-hewn steps

XII

726.74

725.71

I

Plans 3.2, 3.3: southeast; Section 37-37

9546

Section of the Cardo flagstone pavement

XII

726.19

725.87

I

Plan 3.3: south

9547

Foundation of W951

IX-VI

727.22

725.89

I

9580

Fill in quarry, against W958, disturbed

XIII–X

724.67

723.77

I

Plan 3.3: south

9583

Fill sealed directly under Cardo pavement

XII

725.52

725.30

I

Plan 3.2: south

9584

Fill sealed under cardo pavement

XII

725.30

724.63

I

Plan 3.2: south

9585

Fill sealed under cardo pavement

XII

724.63

724.38

I

Plan 3.2: south

9588

Quarry

XV–XIII

724.79

723.89

I

Plan 3.2: south; Section 38-38

I

WALLS Walls

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plan (Sections in Plan 3.5)

18

Built wall in vertically hewn cliff

IX or later

734.50

732.20

A

Plan 3.2: south; Section 2-2

19

Built wall in vertically hewn cliff

VIII or later

735.75

734.87

A

Section 2-2, center

45

Wall

XII

733.17

727.20

A

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest; Sections 3-3, 25-25

82

Arch

VI

731.33

727.38

A

84

Wall

IX–VIII

728.16

726.50

A

90

Wall

V

730.90

727.40

A

100

Wall (=W200)

IX

728.05

726.49

A

200

Wall

VI

736.19

733.35

C

210

Wall

IX

726.44

726.09

A

211

Wall

VIII

727.15

726.53

A

300

Hewn rock wall

XII

732.07

728.39

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

301

Hewn rock wall

XII

731.17

728.19

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

302

Hewn rock wall

XII

732.30

728.28

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest; Section 19-19

210 Walls

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plan (Sections in Plan 3.5)

304

Vertically hewn cliff (= W399)

XIII–X

736.00

734.00

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

306

Hewn rock wall

XII

734.00

729.54

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest; Section 12-12

307

Hewn rock wall

XII

734.24

729.54

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

308

Hewn rock wall (= W601)

XII

732.20

729.47

F

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

310

Hewn rock wall

XII

732.39

728.28

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest; Sections 3-3, 12-12

317

Hewn rock wall

XII

731.17

728.19

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

320

Hewn rock wall

XII

730.00

727.30

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west

321

Hewn rock wall

XII

727.25

728.00

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

322

Vertically hewn cliff

XII

732.07

728.39

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: west

325

Wall

XII

731.77

731.04

B

Plan 3.3: northwest; Section 2-2

398

Hewn rock wall

XII–X

736.00

734.00

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

399

Hewn rock wall

XIII–X

736.00

734.00

B

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

400

Outer wall

VI

729.28

726.44

D

401

Wall

IX–VI

727.77

727.29

D

402

Wall

IX–VI

728.62

727.63

D

410

Wall

IX–XIII

727.28

726.53

D

424

Hewn rock wall

XII

727.76

726.34

D

Plans 3.2, 3.3: east

457

Hewn rock wall

XII

726.85

726.35

D

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northeast

506

Reservoir wall

III

731.45

727.75

E

508

Wall

VI

729.31

727.80

E

510

Supporting wall

XII–X

728.57

726.79

E/F

Plan 3.3: northwest

518

Stepped supporting wall

XIV

727.26

724.47

E/F

Plan 3.2

521

Supporting wall

XIV

727.81

725.20

E/F

Plan 3.2

523

Building wall (including W557, W559)

VIII

730.16

726.98

E

524

Outer building wall

XIV

727.20

725.20

E/F

Plan 3.2

533

Hewn rock wall (= W566)

XII

730.40

727.58

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest; Section 3-3 (as W566)

546

Wall

IX

729.42

727.31

E

557

Outer wall of building

VIII

729.65

727.49

E

559

Outer wall of building

VIII

728.97

726.85

E

562

Wall

IX–VIII

727.98

727.22

E

566

Hewn rock wall (= W533)

XII

730.40

727.58

E

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest; Section 3-3

600

Wall

XII–X

732.19

729.20

F

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

601

Hewn rock wall (= W308)

XII

732.20

729.47

F

Plans 3.2, 3.3: northwest

603

Hewn wall

XII

730.22

728.88

F

Plan 3.2: northwest

604

Partition wall

XIV

726.55

722.83

F

Plan 3.2

605

Dividing wall

XIV

726.47

721.51

F

Plan 3.2

610

Dividing wall

XIV

726.50

722.01

F

Plan 3.2

211

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF LOCI AND WALLS

Walls

Description

Stratum

Elevation (m) Upper

Lower

Area

Plan (Sections in Plan 3.5)

611

Dividing wall

XIV

726.49

721.51

F

Plan 3.2

613

Dividing wall

XIV

725.78

721.51

F

Plan 3.2

614

Wall

XII–X

728.67

726.60

F

Plan 3.3: northwest

616

Pilaster

X

728.67

726.44

F

Plan 3.2: northeast

620

Outer building wall

XIV

726.60

722.01

F

Plan 3.2

624

Dividing wall

XIV

726.38

723.73

F

Plan 3.2

630

Facade wall of Shop 3006

XII–X

730.00

729.00

F

Plan 3.2: northeast

700

Built facade of southern Cell 703

III

731.00

729.00

A

Section 2-2

800

Wall

VIII

728.19

726.64

H

W802

Wall

VIII

727.21

726.64

H

Section 16-16

804

Supporting wall

XII

726.62

723.65

H

Plan 3.3; Sections 11-11, 16-16

805

Supporting wall

XII

726.51

725.57

H

Plan 3.3: northeast

806

Supporting wall

XII

726.51

725.45

H

Plan 3.2: northeast

810

Supporting wall

XII

726.68

725.81

H

Plan 3.2: northeast

811

Supporting wall

XII

725.27

721.82

H

Plans 3.2, 3.3: southeast; Sections 15-15, 16-16, 17-17

812

Supporting wall

XII

726.35

723.49

H

Plan 3.3: northeast; Sections 10-10, 11-11

951

Wall

VI

728.49

727.36

I

958

Supporting wall built into abandoned quarry

XIII or XII

725.62 (N) 724.46 (S)

723.64

I

Plan 3.2: south

999

Hewn rock wall

XII

727.61

726.48

I

Plans 3.2: southeast; 3.3

S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, 2021, Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations III (IAA Reports 67)

Appendix 2

List of Selected Loci (2017–2018 Excavation Seasons) (see Foreword: Plan 6)

Locus

Description*

Stratum

Elevation Upper

Lower

Area

90A

Fill (below L9050)

XII–X

D

94A

Fill (below L9050)

XII–X

D

98A

Water channel (below L9050)

X–VIII

D

99A

Dismantling of L9050

X

D

100A

Fill (below L9050)

X

D

102A

Fill (below L9050)

X

D

103A

Fill below Arch W91A (below L9050)

XII–X

104A

Fill (below L9050)

XII–X

725.29

725.12

725.46

725.00

D

106A

Dismantling of Wall (on top of L9050)

IX–VIII

108A

Fill

XII–X

D

112A

Fill in channel (below L472)

IX

I

220A

Fill on top of rock cliff, above aqueduct (L116)

XII–VIII

311A

Fill

XI–VIII

738

737

D

A C

315A

Fill in Miqveh 2022 (L310)

XIII–X

C

316A

Dismantling of plaster floor foundation

III–II

C

318A

Fill in hewn installation

X–IV (?)

C

1212A

Cardo flagstone raised during construction work

XII

726.08

725.78

I

1216A

Foundation layer sealed below Flagstone 1212

XII

725.78

725.70

I

1702A

Fill north of W170A (and W611)

XIV–VIII

F

1703A

Fill north of W170A (and W611)

XIV, X–VIII

727.26

725.89

F

1704A

Fill (north of W611)

XIV, X–IX

726.60

725.90

F

1705A

Fill (north of W601, W605)

XIV, X–VIII

726.86

725.40

F

1707A

Fill (north of W601, W605)

XIV, IX–VII

727.50

726. 09

F

1709A

Fill east of W170A

X–IX

725.53

725.13

F

1710A

Fill (above W605)

VIII–VII

726.64

725.98

F

1711A

Fill (north of W601, W605)

XIV, X–VI

727.50

726. 58

F

1712A

Fill (north of W601, W605)

XIV, X–VIII

726.14

725.95

F

1716A

Stoney fill (between W605, W611)

XIV

726.75

726.00

F

1740A

Fill collapsed from balk

XIV–VIII

F

2025A

Fill (below L5299)

XII

725.69

725.14

E

2040A

Fill (below L5332)

XII

725.43

724.33

E

2055A

Fill in channel

XIII–VIII

E

2077A

Dismantling of W600

XII–X

F

2085A

Dismantling of W811

XII

H

2087A

Stratified fill in the Roman refuse dump (immediately south of L8047, 8048)

XII

H

214

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF SELECTED LOCI (2017–2018 EXCAVATION SEASONS)

Locus

Description*

Stratum

2088A

Stratified fill in the Roman refuse dump (immediately south of L8047, 8048); white levels/floors?

2089A 2090A

Elevation

Area

Upper

Lower

XII

726.04

725.69

H

Dismantling of Islamic cistern

XII

726.28

724.70

H

Dismantling of mosaic floor foundation (L8090)

X

726.49

726.38

H

2091A

Stratified fill in the Roman refuse dump (immediately south of L8047, 8048)

XII

725.69

724.60

H

3200A

Fill (south of W600)

XII–VIII

F

3202A

Fill (south of W600)

XII–VIII

F

5201A

Fill in Roman refuse dump (Quarry 8170)

XII

H

5230A

Dismantling of W811

XII

H

* Locus nos. in brackets refer to 2005–2010 loci (see Appendix 1)

IAA R eports

No. 1 G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1996, 129 pp. No. 2 E. Braun, Yiftaḥ’el Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel, 1997, 249 pp. No. 3 G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant, Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds Excavations at Manaḥat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, 1998, 149 pp. No. 4 C. Epstein, The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan, 1998, 352 pp. + plans. Hardcover. No. 5 T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, 1998, 137 pp. No. 6 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev I: The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (Hebrew, English Summary), 1999, 396 pp. No. 7 R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, Jericho The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period, 1999, 202 pp. No. 8 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, 2000, 247 pp. No. 9 U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period The Archaeological Remains, 2000, 250 pp. No. 10 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (Hebrew, English Summary), 2000, 216 pp. No. 11 M. Hartal, The al-Ṣubayba (Nimrod) Fortress Towers 11 and 9, 2001, 129 pp. No. 12 R. Gonen, Excavations at Efrata A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, 2001, 153 pp. No. 13 E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Te’o A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Ḥula Valley, 2001, 227 pp. No. 14 R. Frankel, N. Getzov, M. Aviam and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, 2001, 175 pp. No. 15 M. Dayagi-Mendels, The Akhziv Cemeteries The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941–1944, 2002, 176 pp. No. 16 Y. Goren and P. Fabian, Kissufim Road A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site, 2002, 97 pp. No. 17 A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, 2003, 183 pp. No. 18 A. Golani, Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata, 2003, 261 pp. No. 19 H. Khalaily and O. Marder, The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh The 1995 Excavations, 2003, 146 pp. No. 20 R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II: The Iron Age and Persian Period (Hebrew, English Summary), 2004, 258 pp. No. 21 D. Stacey, Exavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods, 2004, 259 pp. No. 22 Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, 2004, 234 pp.

No. 23 S. Ben-Arieh, Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, 2004, 212 pp. No. 24 M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969), 2005, 320 pp. No. 25 M. Avissar, Tel Yoqne am Excavations on the Acropolis, 2005, 142 pp. No. 26 M. Avissar and E.J. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel, 2005, 187 pp. No. 27 E.C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna, Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel, 2005, 214 pp. No. 28 N. Getzov, The Tel Bet Yeraḥ Excavations, 1994–1995, 2006, 204 pp. No. 29 A.M. Berlin, Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2006, 181 pp. No. 30 R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz and Y. Paz, Bet Yeraḥ: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 1933–1986, 2006, 500 pp. No. 31 E. Yannai, En Esur ( Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, 2006, 308 pp. No. 32 T.J. Barako, Tel Mor The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960, 2007, 276 pp. No. 33 G. Mazor and A. Najjar, Bet She’an I: Nysa-Scythopolis The Caesareum and the Odeum, 2007, 316 pp. No. 34 R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982, 2007. In 2 parts. Part 1: Text, 410 pp.; Part 2: Plates, Plans and Sections, 332 pp. No. 35 A. Erlich and A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989–1996 Seasons, 2008, 208 pp. No. 36 G. Avni, U. Dahari and A. Kloner, The Necropolis of Bet Guvrin—Eleutheropolis, 2008, 238 pp. No. 37 V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli, Paneas I: The Roman to Early Islamic Periods Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H, 2008, 196 pp. No. 38 V. Tzaferis and S. Israeli, Paneas II: Small Finds and Other Studies, 2008, 256 pp. No. 39 Z. Greenhut and A. De Groot, Salvage Excavations at Tel Moẓa The Bronze and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, 2009, 363 pp. No. 40 M. Hartal, Paneas IV: The Aqueduct and the Northern Suburbs, 2009, 212 pp. No. 41 N. Getzov, R. Lieberman-Wander, H. Smithline and D. Syon, Ḥorbat Uẓa, the 1991 Excavations I: The Early Periods, 2009, 168 pp. No. 42 N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y. Gorin-Rosen, E.J. Stern, D. Syon and A. Tatcher, Ḥorbat Uẓa, the 1991 Excavations II: The Late Periods, 2009, 232 pp. No. 43 J. Seligman, Naḥal Ḥaggit A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the Southern Carmel, 2010, 277 pp. No. 44 D. Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla II: The Architecture, the Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989, 2010, 216 pp. No. 45 A. Kloner, E. Eshel, H.B. Korzakova and G. Finkielsztejn, Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons, 2010, 247 pp. No. 46 Y. Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project The Gazetteer, 2010, 360 pp. No. 47 Y. Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project Landscape of Settlement From the Paleolithic to the Ottoman Periods, 2011, 356 pp. No. 48 R. Bar-Nathan and W. Atrash, Bet She’an II: Baysān The Theater Pottery Workshop, 2011, 411 pp. No. 49 Y. Alexandre, Mary’s Well, Nazareth The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods, 2012, 180 pp.

No. 50 D. Ben-Shlomo, The Azor Cemetery Moshe Dothan’s Excavations, 1958 and 1960, 2012, 238 pp. No. 51/1 E.J. Stern, Akko I: The 1991–1998 Excavations, the Crusader-Period Pottery, Part 1: Text, 2012, 192 pp. No. 51/2 E.J. Stern, Akko I: The 1991–1998 Excavations, the Crusader-Period Pottery, Part 2: Plates, 2012, 172 pp. No. 52 D. Ben-Ami, Jerusalem, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv ati Parking Lot) I, 2013, 396 pp. No. 53 Y. Porath, Caesarea Maritima Volume I: Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings Part I: Architecture and Stratigraphy, 2013, 244 pp. No. 54 R. Greenberg, Bet Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound II: Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933–1986 Excavations, 2014, 316 pp. No. 55 E. Yannai and Y. Nagar, Bet Dagan, Intermediate Bronze Age and Mamluk-Period Cemeteries, 2004–2005 Excavations, 2014, 260 pp. No. 56 D. Syon, Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989, Finds and Studies, Part 1, 2014, 260 pp. No. 57 Y. Porath, Caesarea Maritima I: Herod’s Circus and Related Buildings Part 2: The Finds, 2015, 224 pp. No. 58/1 G. Mazor and W. Atrash, Bet She’an III: Nysa-Scythopolis The Southern and Severan Theaters, Part 1: The Stratigraphy and Finds, 2015, 288 pp. No. 58/2 G. Mazor and W. Atrash, Bet She’an III: Nysa-Scythopolis The Southern and Severan Theaters, Part 2: The Architecture, 2015, 382 pp. No. 59 D. Syon, Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989, Finds and Studies, Part 2, 2016, 380 pp. No. 60 M. Hartal, D. Syon., E. Stern and A. Tatcher, Akko II: The 1991–1998 Excavations, the Early Periods, 2016, 242 pp. No. 61 R. Greenberg, O. Tal and T. Da‘adli, Bet Yeraḥ III: Hellenistic Philoteria and Islamic al-Ṣinnabra, the 1933–1986 and 2007–2013 Excavations, 2017, 230 pp. No. 62 G. Mazor, W. Atrash and G. Finkielsztejn, Bet She’an IV: Hellenistic Nysa-Scythopolis The Amphora Stamps and Sealings from Tel Iẓṭabba, 2018, 196 pp. No. 63 S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, Jerusalem, Western Wall Plaza Excavations I: The Roman and Byzantine Remains Architecture and Stratigraphy, 2019, pp. 276. No. 64. R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Jerusalem, Western Wall Plaza Excavations II: The Pottery from the Eastern Cardo, 2019, 337 pp. No. 65 A. Golani, Ashqelon Barne a, The Early Bronze Age Site I: The Excavations, 2019, 353 pp. No. 66/1 D. Ben-Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets, Jerusalem, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv ati Parking Lot) II, Part 1: Stratum V The Byzantine Period, 2020, 271 pp. No. 66/2 D. Ben-Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets, Jerusalem, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv ati Parking Lot) II, Part 2: Strata IV–I The Early Islamic Period, 2020, 439 pp. No. 66/3 D. Ben-Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets, Jerusalem, Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv ati Parking Lot) II, Part 3: Complementary Studies of Various Finds, 2020, 282 pp. No. 67 S. Weksler-Bdolah and A. Onn, Jerusalem, Western Wall Plaza Excavations III: The Roman and Byzantine Periods Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts, 2021, pp. 236.