Sepphoris I: The Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris (Sepphoris Excavation Reports) 9781575062693, 1575062690

Citation preview

The Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris

S e p p h o r i s E x c avat i o n R e p o rt s Volume I

Edited by Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers, with contributions by Marva Balouka, Anna de Vincenz, and the editors

The Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris

The Pottery from Ancient Sepphoris

Edited by

Eric M. Meyers and

Carol L. Meyers with contributions by Marva Balouka, Anna de Vincenz, and the editors

Winona Lake, Indiana E isenbrauns 2013

© 2013 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The pottery from ancient Sepphoris / edited by Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers ; with contributions by Marva Balouka, Anna de Vincenz, and the editors.      pages  cm. — (Excavation reports ; volume 1) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57506-269-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Sepphoris (Extinct city)—Antiquities.  2.  Pottery, Ancient—Israel—Sepphoris (Extinct city)—Catalogs.  3.  Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel—Sepphoris (Extinct city)  4.  Israel—Antiquities.  I.  Meyers, Eric M.  II.  Meyers, Carol L. DS110.S43P68 2013 933′.45—dc23 2013009254

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

Contents List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers 1.  Description of This Volume   1 2.  History of Occupation; Chronology   6 The Persian Period: 5th–4th Centuries b.c.e.  6 The Late Hellenistic Period: Second to First Centuries b.c.e.  7 The Roman Period: First to Fourth Centuries c.e. (363)  8 The Byzantine–Early Islamic Period: Late Fourth (post-363) to Seventh Century c.e.  10 3.  Notes for the Reader   11 Chronological Designations on the Plates   11 Editors’ Comments  12 Chapter 2.  Roman Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   13 Marva Balouka 1.  Historical Background  13 2.  The Roman Pottery of Sepphoris   16 3.  Typology  19 Cooking Wares  20 Closed Cooking Pots (CP)  21 Small Cooking Pots (SCP)  25 Open Cooking Pots (Casseroles) (OCP)  27 Open Cooking Pot Lid (CPL)  31 Galilean Bowls (GB)  32 Small Cooking Jars (SCJ)  34 Cooking Jugs (CJG)  34

Storage Jars (SJ)   35

Hellenistic–Early Roman Storage Jars (HSJ)  37 Roman Storage Jars (SJ)  37 Pithos 41 Amphorae 41

Pouring Vessels  42

Amphoriskoi (AMP)  42 Jugs ( JG)  42 Juglets ( JT)  45

Kraters, Basins, Mortaria, and Locally Made Bowls and Cups   46 Kraters (KR)  46 Basins (BS)  47

vi

Contents Mortaria 48 Locally Made Bowls (BL) and Cups  49

Imported Red-Slip Bowls   50

Eastern Terra Sigillata (ETS)  50 Late Roman Red-Slip Ware  50 African Red-Slip Ware (ARSW)  50 Cypriot Red-Slip Ware (LATE ROMAN ‘D’W)  51 Varia 51

Lids  52 Miscellanea  53 Ceramic Incense Shovels and Pateras   53 Incense Shovels  54 Pateras 55 Incense Shovel and Patera Lids  55 Discussion 55

Chapter 3.  Additional Roman Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Eric M. Meyers 1.  Early Roman–Middle Roman Period   130 2.  Late Hellenistic–Middle Roman Period   131 3.  Middle Roman-Late Roman Period   131 4.  Late Hellenistic-Middle Roman Period   131 Chapter 4.  Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Anna de Vincenz 1.  Eastern Sigillata A Wares and Other Hellenistic and Early Roman Fine Wares (pls. 41–42)   142 Introduction  142 Eastern Sigillata A Wares (pl. 41)   143 Other Imported Fine Wares (pl. 42)   144 Conclusion  146 2.  Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Shops (pls. 43–51)   146 Introduction  146 The Pottery  146 Conclusion  155 3.  Additional Byzantine and Early Islamic Pottery from Various Loci and from Cistern 85.1195 and Locus 85.4120 (pls. 52–54)   156 Introduction  156 Pottery from Various Loci (pl. 52)   156 Vessels from Cistern 85.1195 (pl. 53)   158 Vessels from Locus 84.4120 (pl. 54)   161 4.  Additional Late Roman–Byzantine Fine Wares from Various Loci (pls. 55–57)   162 Introduction  162 African Red-Slip Bowls and Plates (pl. 55)   162

Contents

vii

Cypriot Red-Slip Bowls and Plates (pl. 56)   164 Late Roman C, Egyptian Red-Slip, and Other Fine Wares (pl. 57)   166 Conclusions  167 5.  Comments on Sherds with Incised or Painted Menorahs by Carol L. Meyers  167 Description  167 Discussion  169 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

List of Illustrations Figure Figure 1.  Sepphoris: Western Summit (Area Locator Plan) . . . . . . . . . .   3

Charts Chart 1.  Pottery Plates: Dates, Vessel Types, and Areas Represented . . . . 4–5 Chart 2.  Vessel Types and Abbreviations (for Chapter 2) . . . . . . . . . . .   20 Chart 3.  Fine Ware Designations and Abbreviations (for Chapter 4) . . . . 143

Plates See Chart 1 for a list of all pottery plates

Photos Photo 1.  The excavation on the western summit during the 1989 season, looking east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 Photo 2.  Assemblage of Roman-period pottery types . . . . . . . . . . . . .   17 Photo 3.  Cooking pot (CP5a) of the Late Roman–Byzantine period . . . . .   25 Photo 4.  Small cooking pot (SCP2) of the Middle–Late Roman period . . .   26 Photo 5.  Open cooking pot (OCP1a-b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   28 Photo 6.  Galilean bowl (GB1b) of the Middle–Late Roman period . . . . .   32 Photo 7.  Storage jars of the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods . . .   36 Photo 8.  Jug ( JG1) of the Early Roman period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   43 Photo 9.  Jug ( JG1) of the Early Roman period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   43 Photo 10.  Jug ( JG3b) of the Middle Roman period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   45 Photo 11.  Jugs from Cistern 85.1195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

viii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers

1.  Description of This Volume In many ways, one might view the publication of the pottery from a large and important site such as Sepphoris as a major breakthrough. Given its urban character and the enormous quantity of material culture, especially ceramics, recovered in the excavation of the site by several expeditions, the sheer quantity of material seems overwhelming. In the face of so much material, the present volume is an attempt to provide a large and representative corpus of pottery as analyzed by experts who have been studying the ceramics for decades. We hope that making these materials available will contribute to research on the history of the Galilee and indicate something of the riches of Sepphoris itself, a site that has been excavated for nearly three decades by numerous teams—from Duke University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv University, and the University of South Florida, in addition to a 1931 season by the University of Michigan. 1 Although the pottery presented in this volume comes from only one of the projects that have excavated at the site, this corpus is probably representative of the range of ceramic materials recovered by all the expeditions. This is particularly true for the Roman period pottery from our excavation areas on the western summit, mainly from domestic contexts. The later materials (Byzantine and Islamic), however, might be slightly less representative of the site as a whole since they come from an area where bedrock rises steeply, where modern disturbances were extensive, and where only small amounts were recovered from domestic units. Each of the contributors to this volume has benefitted from the extensive work done in the Galilee in the recent past. 2 The first part of the presentation—Chapter 2, 1.  For a history of excavations at the site, see Weiss 1993: 1325; 2008: 2029. 2.  Note, however, that the pottery analysis in chaps. 2–4 was completed before the appearance of the Nabratein corpus (Meyers and Meyers 2009a).

2

Introduction

Roman Pottery, by Marva Balouka—is organized typologically and is based on securely dated loci and their contexts. Some of her work has been used to date the House of Dionysos, located on the western summit adjoining the theater (Balouka 2004: 35–46). That building, with its splendid mosaics, was originally excavated by the Duke and Hebrew University expedition known as the Joint Sepphoris Project ( JSP). Ms. Balouka worked in the field and also served as registrar and office manager in Jerusalem in that initial phase of work. Even after the teams of the two universities separated in 1990, she continued to work for Duke’s newly named Sepphoris Regional Project (SRP) as ceramic consultant. She has been teaching Roman period ceramics for years at the Hebrew University. We are extremely grateful to her for her contributions over a long time. Anna de Vincenz was invited to assist in the publication of some of the later (Byzantine–Islamic) ceramic materials, which are the areas of her particular expertise. Her work comprises Chapter 4: Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares. In addition to her work on this part of the corpus, she assisted in an essential way with the organization of all the ceramics for permanent storage (as we shall explain), and we are very appreciative of her work in this regard, too. Most of the pottery presented in this volume was stored in the laboratory space rented by the SRP at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (AIAR) in Jerusalem for many years. Before the analysis of the Byzantine and Islamic wares was complete, the AIAR had the good fortune to receive funding for renovations that necessitated our vacating the laboratory space. We were asked to remove SRP materials so that the improvements to the facility could proceed in a timely way. Consequently, Ms. de Vincenz supervised the transportation of all the materials, ceramic and otherwise, to the Israel Antiquities Authority in Beth Shemesh. Transfers of excavated materials normally take place only after their publication is complete. In this case, however, because of our need to vacate the AIAR laboratory, the transfer took place in advance of the completion of final publication. In the process of sorting through the boxes of sherds and artifacts that had been stacked up on one another in the AIAR over the course of many seasons of field work, Ms. de Vincenz and the excavators discovered some items that had been inadvertently omitted from standard processing procedures. Proper drawings of these pieces, or new drawings in some cases, were prepared and added to the group of forms to be published. Some of the more interesting of these ceramic items are briefly summarized by E. Meyers in Chapter 3, Additional Roman Pottery, as a supplement to Balouka’s work, which had already been completed at that time. Other items among these rediscovered vessels were added to Vincenz’s chapter in this volume. In other words, logistical matters have to some degree influenced the way we have proceeded to final publication of the ceramic forms. 3 This volume is intended to be a comprehensive study of the ceramics from the western summit; however, some additional ceramic data will accompany the publication of the stratigraphic analysis.

3.  The reader should also be aware that, because of the time lag between writing and publication, the bibliographical references do not include the most recent scholarship.

Introduction

3

Figure 1.  Sepphoris: Western Summit (Area Locator Plan).

For an overview of the sequence of materials presented in this volume, the reader is urged to consult Chart 1 (Pottery Plates: Dates, Vessel Types, and Areas Represented—pp.  4–5), which provides a list of all the pottery plates, in order, with accompanying information for each plate about the chronological range of the vessels shown, the type(s) of vessels shown, and the area on the western summit from which the vessels came. In addition, the reader is urged to refer to fig. 1 for the location of the Dionysos building (House of Dionysos), the theater, and other areas of excavation mentioned in this book. This volume is the first of a number of volumes planned for the full presentation of the JSP and SRP excavations at Sepphoris. We hope the decision to begin with a publication of the ceramics will prove to have been a good one and that this volume will be useful on its own and also to readers of the subsequent volumes planned for the Sepphoris Excavation Reports series. We are grateful to Jim Eisenbraun for his attentiveness to all matters technical in the preparation of this volume for publication. We also are appreciative of the assistance provided by Jenny Hirtz in preparing some of the Keys to the Plates. In

Introduction

4

Chart 1.  Pottery Plates: Dates, Vessel Types, and Areas Represented* NB:  The chronological designations for Plates 1–36 represent the dominant period for the items on the plate; however, it is important to note that some of the forms may originate earlier or continue into later periods. For Plates 37–55, chronological periods separated by a hyphen means that some of the forms on that plate continue across periods; and chronological periods separated by “and” means that the forms on that plate represent several different chronological periods. The reader is referred to the discussion of the forms in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 for information about the chronological range of forms.

Plates

Period(s) Represented on Plate

Vessel Type(s)

Areas

1:1–32

Hellenistic Period

85.3

2:1–19 3:1–13 4:1–9 5:1–24

Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.)

6:1–13 7:1–14 8:1–22 9:1–27 10:1–10 11:1–24 12:1–19 13:1–13 14:1–11 15:1–16 16:1–16 17:1–10 18:1–6 19:1–8 20:1–12

Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman–Late Roman Period Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.)

cooking pots, storage jars, juglets, jugs, unguentaria, bowls, krater (?) cooking pots storage jars storage jars strainer jugs, jugs, amphoriskoi, funnel, cup, unguentaria, amphorae (?) jugs, juglets kraters, bowls, cups, stands/jars cooking pots, jars, & jugs cooking pots, Galilean bowls storage jars jugs, juglets, amphoriskoi kraters cooking pots cooking jars, cooking jugs cooking pots Galilean bowls storage jars storage jars storage jars storage jars

21:1–13 22:1–14 23:1–11 24:1–13 25:1–16 26:1–16 27:1–6 28:1–14 29:1–15

Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman–Late Roman Period Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Late Roman–Byzantine Period Late Roman–Byzantine Period

30:1–15 Late Roman–Byzantine Period

jugs, amphoriskoi jugs, juglets, bottles kraters, basins bowls, lids, jars storage jar lids, jug lids amphoriskoi, amphorae bowls cooking pots cooking pots, cooking jars, cooking jugs, lid storage jars

85.1, 85.3 85.1, 85.3, 94.1 85.1, 85.3 84.1, 85.1, 85.3

85.1, 85.3 85.1, 85.3 84.1, 85.3 84.1, 85.1, 85.3 84.1, 85.1, 85.3 84.1, 85.1, 85.3 84.1, 85.1, 85.3 84.1, 95.1 84.1, 95.1 84.1, 95.1 84.1, 95.1 84.1, 84.2 84.1 84.1 84.1, 84.2, 85.1, 86.1 84.1, 84.2 84.1 84.1 84.1 84.1 84.1 84.1 84.1, 84.2 84.1, 84.2 84.1, 84.2

Introduction Plates

Period(s) Represented on Plate

31:1–11 Late Roman–Byzantine Period 32:1–14 33:1–3 34:1–10 35:1–9 36:1–8 37:1–9

Late Roman–Byzantine Period Late Roman Period (300–363 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) Early Roman–Middle Roman Period

38: 1–7 Late Hellenistic–Middle Roman Period 39:1–8 Middle Roman–Late Roman Period 40:1–15 Late Hellenistic–Middle Roman Period 41 Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Eastern Sigillata A and Other Fine Wares 42 Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Knidian Grey Ware, Cypriot and Western Sigillata, West Slope, Pompeian Red 43:1–24 Byzantine Period: Late Roman Fine Wares 44:1–13 Late Roman and Byzantine Periods 45:1–10 Byzantine Period 46:1–20 Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Periods 47:1–16 Byzantine–Early Islamic Period 48:1–15 Byzantine Period 49:1–13 Byzantine–Early Islamic Period 50:1–8 Early Islamic Period: Red-Painted Vessels 51:1–9 Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods 52:1–9 Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods 53:1–27 Byzantine Period: Vessels from Cistern 85.1195 54:1–8 Early Islamic Period: Vessels from 84.4120 55:1–9 Late Roman and Byzantine Periods: African Red Slip Wares

5

Vessel Type(s)

Areas

kraters, basins, mortarium, pithos, storage jar lid bowls, cup zoomorphic vessel incense shovels pateras incense shovel lids, patera lids bowl, bowl lids, lid

84.1, 85.1

cooking pots, Galilean bowl cooking jugs, jugs, table amphorae juglets, juglet/vase bowls, jugs

84.1, 84.2 84.1 84.1, 95.1 84.1, 84.2 84.1, 84.2 84.1, 84.2, 85.1, 85.3. 95.1 84.2, 85.1,85.3, 95.1 84.1, 84.2, 85.1, 85.3 84.2, 85.1, 85.3, 94.1, 95.1 84.1, 85.3

bowls, closed vessel, mold-made 84.1, 85.3 vessel

platters, bowls

84.1, 84.4, 84.5

bowl, kraters basins, pithoi cooking pots, casseroles, lids, baking trays storage jars, amphorae jugs, juglets, perfume bottle lids (or stoppers?) bowl, jugs/jars, jars

84.1, 84.5 84.1, 84.4, 84.5 84.1, 84.4, 84.5

miscellaneous bowl, cooking jug, jugs, jars, lantern, basin, bread stamp jugs

84.1, 84.4, 84.5 75.1, 84.1, 84.2, 84.4, 86.1 85.1 (cistern)

bowl, jars, jugs

84.4

bowls, plates

84.1, 84.2, 85.3

84.1, 84.4 84.1, 84.4, 84.5 84.1, 84.4 84.1, 84.5

   * Plates 1–36 appear in Chapter 2 (by Marva Balouka); Plates 37–40 appear in Chapter 3 (by Eric Meyers); and Plates 41–57 appear in Chapter 4 (by Anna de Vincenz).

6

Introduction

addition we thank two of our Duke University graduate students for their help: Ben Gordon, for reorganizing the database and making many valuable suggestions about the presentation; and Lauren McCormick, for collating and checking the bibliography.

2.  History of Occupation; Chronology Pending a final stratigraphic report of all the areas, this section is intended to give the reader an overview of the history of occupation of the western summit as we have come to understand it based on the material remains uncovered by the JSP and SRP. More than a millennium of human habitation is represented by the artifacts and structures discovered on the western summit and the city as a whole (Meyers and Meyers 1997; Weiss 2008). However, the several different religious or ethnic groups that inhabited the site are not necessarily represented in all parts of the site and in every period. Recent research into the ethnic makeup of the site, with animal bones serving as indicators of ethnicity (Grantham 2007: 279–90), indicates that the western summit, which had been occupied by Jews from late Hellenistic times until the great earthquake of 363 c.e., underwent a major ethnic shift in the Byzantine period (E. Meyers 2008: 156–58). As already noted, rebuilding in the Byzantine period, much of it in areas where bedrock is close to the surface, and the accompanying reconfiguration of space have made it very difficult to achieve an accurate phasing for the late fourth through seventh(?) centuries. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Byzantine-period pottery recovered on the western summit reflects the obvious prosperity of the community evident in the lower city, with its extensive cardo and decumanus and its stunning mosaics in the Nile Festival building and the synagogue. Nonetheless, we believe that this presentation of ceramic materials from the western summit can serve as a helpful and reasonably accurate guide to all the work that has been done at the site. The chronological horizons that have been identified in materials excavated on the western summit are described in the following sections.

The Persian Period: Fifth–Fourth Centuries b.c.e. The importance of the Persian period at Sepphoris was first noticed when a black-glazed red-figure rhyton was discovered on the western edge of the summit (Eisenberg 1985: 31–32; Dayagi-Mendels 1996b: 162–63). A number of Attic blackglazed sherds as well as several small limestone incense burners (Dayagi-Mendels 1996a: 164–65) typical of the period were found in our excavations. In addition, a fragment of a stone vessel with two lines of cuneiform, discovered by the University of Michigan excavations in 1931, has now been identified as an Achaemenid royal inscription that probably dates to the late fifth or early fourth century b.c.e. (Stolper 1996: 166). The unusual character of these remains has led the excavators to suggest that there was probably a small administrative center or lookout post at Sepphoris

Introduction

7

ca. 400 b.c.e., presumably related to the activities of Greek traders (Meyers and Meyers 2009b). Most of the black-glazed ware recovered on site consists of body sherds and thus offers little typological information; hence, these sherds are not presented in this volume.

The Late Hellenistic Period: Second to First Centuries b.c.e. The full extent of occupation on the western summit in the Late Hellenistic period is still not known; we hope that further excavation will clarify the situation. While a number of imported pieces (pls. 41 and 42) and everyday wares (pl.1) suggest the presence of occupants in the second century b.c.e., it is difficult to identify any locus as being only from this period, except possibly in the large structure thought to be a fort (85.3) on the highest part of the summit and also in the large domestic unit to its west (84.1). However, based on the late-second-century b.c.e. date of the Hebrew script on an ostracon discovered on the western summit (Naveh 1996: 170), 4 in addition to the presence of a significant amount of Late Hellenistic pottery, we propose a date in the late second century b.c.e. for the appearance of the Jewish population at Sepphoris. Judging from the size of the fort and especially its well-built foundations, a garrison of troops and a population to support them must have been present at Sepphoris from ca. 100 b.c.e. onward. However, because extensive expansion and rebuilding in the Roman period have obscured much of this earlier level, it is nearly impossible to assess the extent of the Late Hellenistic settlement on the summit. This brings us to the question of when and how to date the end of the Hellenistic period and the beginning of the Roman period. From a purely political perspective, the logical date would be 63 b.c.e., after Pompey’s invasion of the land, or when Gabinius made Sepphoris into an administrative center in 57 b.c.e. Historical data have also led many Israeli scholars to date the start of the Roman period with the reign of Herod the Great (37 b.c.e.), who more than any other figure contributed to bringing Palestine and Judea into the cultural orbit of Rome. The difficulty of deciding when the Late Hellenistic period ends and the Roman period begins is underscored in Balouka’s study. She maintains that the Early Roman phase of ceramic production can be clearly identified in this corpus only at the turn of the Common Era. This reflects what all archaeologists understand—namely, that political changes do not necessarily affect material culture in any immediate way but that change must be viewed in a much larger and longer framework. The several momentous political events that shaped the history of Galilee in the midfirst century b.c.e. might suggest a more dramatic shift in the material culture than what has actually been found in the excavated materials. Let us then provisionally conclude with Balouka that the end of the Hellenistic period and the concomitant beginning of the Roman period at Sepphoris can be dated to the very end of the first century b.c.e. according to the ceramic record. Perhaps a careful analysis of the 4.  The Hebrew letters form a Greek word referring to the “manager” or “overseer” of the Jewish community.

8

Introduction

stratigraphic situation in key places in all the Sepphoris excavations will ultimately enable us to describe this transition more precisely.

The Roman Period: First to Fourth Centuries c.e. (363) The Roman period is surely the era in which Sepphoris becomes the “ornament of all Galilee,” as Josephus referred to it (Ant. 18.27). The question through the years of excavation was: when did the major renovations and building occur? Did it occur during the reign of Herod Antipas (4 b.c.e.–39 c.e.), as Josephus indicates? Or later? Did Antipas build the theater, as some maintain? Or was it built after the Great Revolt? In other words, what was Sepphoris like in the first century c.e.? These questions, which have been debated for decades, have been posed in part as a result of interest in understanding Jesus’ origins in Galilee and the extent to which the Hellenization of Sepphoris, not far from Nazareth, provided the milieu for his early life and may thus have influenced the form and content of his teachings. We can only say that the pottery attributed to the pre-70 c.e. era, the first phase of Early Roman according to Balouka’s analysis, does not contribute in any major or direct way to this discussion. Establishing the ceramic chronology, however, does make it easier to determine which remains date to the first century and which do not. Balouka has chosen to take 70 c.e., the last year of the Great (First) Revolt, as the date for the beginning of a second phase of Early Roman (Early Roman 2), which lasts until the Second War with Rome in 135 c.e. This careful typological distinction allows scholars to realize that the repertoire of Early Roman forms expanded significantly at the time of the Great Revolt. This expansion can surely be attributed to the marked demographic shift that affected all Judea and Galilee as a result of the changed political situation after 70 c.e., brought about by the First Revolt. With so many newcomers to the north of the country, it is no wonder that markets expanded and some southern ceramic types were introduced in the north. The Herodian lamp, for example, usually identified with the south but already found in northern sites before 70 c.e. (Adan-Bayewitz et al. 2008), had an extended life in the north, lasting into the second phase of the Early Roman period. Balouka does not include terracotta lamps in her pottery analysis, and the lamps from Sepphoris are scheduled for publication in a future volume. However, continued appearance of Herodian lamps in the north after 70 may represent the influence that the Judeans had when they came to Galilee. The demographic shift that began with the First Revolt culminated in the Second Revolt, the Bar Kochba war (132–135 c.e.), which provides a fitting place for Balouka to mark the end the Early Roman 2 phase of ceramic development. The expansion and evolution of pottery forms and of distribution mechanisms continued unabated into the Middle Roman period, with the main Galilean production centers being Kefar Hananiah and nearby Shikhin. The Middle Roman period, which has the longest duration according to Balouka’s analysis (135–ca. 300 c.e.), represents in many ways the floruit of the development of Roman Sepphoris into a Jewish center of learning and presumed home of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, who was responsible for the editing and promulgating

Introduction

Photo 1.  The excavation area on the western summit during the 1989 season, looking east.

9

10

Introduction

of the Mishnah during this crucial era. The pottery from this period, especially the household wares (many of which are from the Kefar Hananiah workshop), is stunning in its beauty and variety, more so than the household pottery from virtually any other site in the Land of Israel of this period. In addition, ceramic incense shovels and pateras, apparently unique to Sepphoris (see chap. 2, pp.  54, 57, 124–29), are found in domestic contexts during this period and provide a glimpse of the lifestyle of the occupants of these buildings: they were apparently people who utilized these artifacts to improve the air quality in their homes if not also to serve as reminders of temple times in the past. Whether they point to a priestly presence or not is a matter for further discussion. The last, or Late Roman, phase of Roman-period occupation at Sepphoris continues until 363 c.e., as represented in the material culture. Balouka has used critical loci from the 363 destruction debris to help us understand this last Roman phase, which falls mostly after the definitive historical event of the early fourth century, when Constantine the Great made Christianity the official religion of the empire in the East. Nonetheless, as we have already said, changes in material culture—such as both pottery and architecture—occur gradually over a long period of time and are not necessarily in synchrony with political or historical shifts. Hence, the material remains at the site show continuity in the fourth century until the disruption caused by the great earthquake of 363 c.e. That event, when the superstructures of many buildings collapsed at once, produced a layer of debris that covered and preserved much of what existed at the time of the cataclysm. That disastrous earthquake, which preserved much of the House of Dionysos and its mosaic nearly intact, has made it possible for Balouka to isolate this final phase of the Roman period. Nonetheless, as can be observed in the presentation of the Byzantine pottery in chap. 4, there are indications of some continuity even after 363. Although the earthquake did not bring about a complete break from the past, it provides a surprisingly reliable division point.

The Byzantine–Early Islamic Period: Late Fourth (post-363) to Seventh Century c.e. Both Balouka and Vincenz note in their contributions to this book that the latest periods represented on the western summit do not allow for a detailed history of this major period of occupation at the site. However, excavations in the lower city of Sepphoris indicate the presence of religious edifices (at least one church and one synagogue), as well civic buildings (including markets and baths), in the centuries after the Roman period ended. The lower city has yielded outstanding remains, including inscriptions and magnificent mosaics in addition to monumental architecture, from this lengthy period, and the reader is advised to consult the reports of the other expeditions to Sepphoris (listed in Weiss 1993 and 2008) for that material. Nonetheless, the ceramic data presented here by Vincenz fills out an important picture of the changed nature of Sepphoris in late antiquity after 363 c.e. Like Balouka, she has taken into account the destruction debris and especially the accumulation above it in identifying and classifying the Byzantine pottery. The pottery

Introduction

11

shown on the plates in chap. 4 illustrate some very distinctive changes in the ceramic traditions after 363 c.e. For example, the reddish bag-shaped storage jars turn more squat and gray and often have painted white swirls on them, the necks on many of the jars are much thicker, and the wares in general are simply different. Vincenz also presents some very distinctive pieces from the Early Islamic period. However, in the treatment here she has been unable to offer many new refinements in the chronology of either the Byzantine or Islamic ceramics. These chronological horizons are presented in the plates, and we are hopeful that they are useful in understanding the remains not only from the western summit excavations but also from other parts of ancient Sepphoris.

3.  Notes for the Reader Chronological Designations on the Plates It is worth restating here how difficult it is to make categorical statements regarding the chronology of the evolution of certain ceramic forms. Even after more than a century of attempts to establish a ceramic typology for the Roman and Byzantine periods, the results are still at times somewhat imprecise. Establishing when a particular form arises and/or disappears can be problematic. This is especially so because transitions between material culture periods do not always align with shifts in historical epochs. In this regard, the reader is advised to consult the note under the heading of Chart 1 on p.  4. This note explains the designations of the periods represented on the plates. Several examples will help to illustrate what is meant. In the case of Early Roman cooking pots on pl.  2:1–13, Balouka notes that the bulk of the examples of her form CP2 (Adan 4A) 5 occur pre-70 c.e. (Early Roman 1) but that the form is still found (see pl. 8:1–3), albeit in smaller amounts, in the Early Roman 2 period (70–135 c.e.). However, her text (p.  21) indicates that the form continues until the “mid-second century,” somewhat beyond the end date of Early Roman 2. That is, Balouka argues that the popularity of the form is greater in the earlier, rather than later, part of the Early Roman period and that its appearance does not have an abrupt terminus. The reader is therefore urged always to consult the text for the most detailed treatment of the duration of a particular form of a vessel. For the later materials, several illustrations can be provided. Some of the Late Roman types discussed by Balouka continue into the Byzantine period. For example, the sherds shown on pl.  31:1–3 and some of those on pls. 29–30 and 32 extend from the Late Roman into the Byzantine period; the caption for those plates—“Late Roman–Byzantine Period”—reflects this situation. Similar examples can be found in the chapter by Vincenz. Only the baking trays on pl. 46 (pl. 46:19–20) are clearly 5.  CP is the abbreviation for Cooking Pot; and “Adan” refers to typological designations established by Adan-Bayewitz (1993). The abbreviations used in Balouka’s analysis can be found in Chart 2: Vessel Types and Abbreviations (for Roman Pottery, chap. 2) on p. 19.

12

Introduction

dated to the Roman period; the other items on that plate come from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. Thus, the designation of this plate includes all three periods (Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic). Plate 44 presents some forms that occur in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, yet not all kraters (such as nos. 8–10 on pl. 44; cf. pl. 31:3–5) can be pinned down to a precise date in either the Late Roman or Byzantine period. The occurrence of a few sherds in a chronological context different from the major period of use of a specific vessel type should not undermine the reliability of a typological study based on materials recovered through sound stratigraphic excavation and method. Establishing ceramic typology, as a careful reading of any ceramic analysis will attest, entails a certain amount of chronological flexibility.

Editors’ Comments In a number of places in chaps. 2 and 4, the editors have inserted comments to explain, supplement, or discuss the work of the authors of those chapters. These additions appear in italic type and are introduced by “Editors:”.

CHAPTER 2

Roman Pottery Marva Balouka

1.  Historical Background Both historical sources and archaeological remains testify to the uninterrupted existence of a city at the site, from the Hellenistic until the Early Islamic periods. Before the Bar Kochba revolt (132–135 c.e.), the city was called “Diocaesarea,” a name attesting to the special relationship between its inhabitants and the Roman emperor. The extent of involvement of the inhabitants of Sepphoris and other Galileans in the Bar Kochba revolt is unclear. We do know, however, that following the suppression of the revolt in Judea, the Jewish population in Galilee grew considerably and Sepphoris became a rabbinic center, attracting sages from all parts of ancient Palestine. Toward the end of the second century c.e, R. Judah Ha-Nasi and the Patriarchate moved from Beth Sheʿarim to Sepphoris, thus further enhancing the city’s status and prestige. Sepphoris was known as a Jewish city that maintained good relations with the Roman authorities. The city consists of an upper city on the summit of the hill (the acropolis) and a lower city on the flat area to the east and southeast of the summit. Following considerable population growth and an improved standard of living in the second century c.e., the city grew and expanded farther east. Beginning some time in the first century c.e., the upper city could no longer rely solely on the rainwater collected in cisterns for its water supply, and hence an aqueduct was built to convey spring water from er-Raineh (east of the city) to Sepphoris’s subterranean reservoir hewn out of bedrock 1.5 km east of the city, and from there, via channels and aqueducts, to the city itself. A large water reservoir was also quarried in the upper city. The city continued to develop and prosper until the mid-fourth century c.e. (Weiss and Netzer 1996a: 31–35). Christian sources tell us that Sepphoris was set ablaze and completely destroyed during the suppression of the Gallus revolt in 351/352 c.e. (Herr 1985: 64–66; Geiger 1982: 202–12; Rosenfeld 1997: 90–92; Avi-Yonah 1976: 176–81). The fourth–fifth Author’s note: I would like to thank Hani Davis for translating this chapter.

14

Roman Pottery

century church father Jerome notes that many cities were razed by fire, including Dio­caesarea: The Jews seized weapons for a rebellion after they had killed the soldiers at night. Gallus quashed them. He murdered many thousands of people, and even small children; and, their cities—Diocaesarea, Tiberias, Diospolis, and many others— went up in flames. ( Jerome, Chronicon ad ann. 355 [PL 27, col. 501]; Donalson 1996: 46)

The revolt is not mentioned in Jewish sources. However, the Jerusalem Talmud speaks of a certain Ursicinus, Gallus’ general-in-chief, who “burned a Torah scroll of the people of [nearby] Sennabris”; it also mentions a ruse perpetrated by the Jews of Sepphoris that was ultimately foiled and led to their submission to Gallus (y. Meg. 3, 4, 74a; y. Yebam. 16, 3, 15c; y. Soṭah 9, 3, 23c). Although the entire episode of the revolt remains obscure, it is possible that the Christian sources exaggerate the outcome of its suppression. Theophanes (eighth–ninth century c.e.) mentions the destruction of Diocaesarea (Chronographia 5843); and Socrates Scholasticus (Church History 2.33) and Sozomenos (Church History 4.7.5) report that Gallus quelled the Jewish revolt in Diocaesarea. Whatever the historical reality might have been, in the long run, it appears that the so-called Gallus Revolt and its suppression did not affect the status of the Jews in Galilee. Several Christian sources (e.g., Ephrem, Gregory Naziazenus, and the Church Fathers Rufinus, Socrates, Theodoretus, and Sozomenus; see Brock 1977: 276, 283– 86; M. Stern 1980: 2.510–11; Geiger 1982: 213–17) and one pagan source (Ammianus Marcellinus, in Geiger 1982: 215; M. Stern 1980: 2.507; Avi-Yonah 1976: 198–207) describe the Jews’ attempt to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem in 363 c.e. and suggest the reasons for the cessation of their work. These sources indicate that the emperor Julian II granted the Jews permission to rebuild their temple and apparently even sent them financial aid. The building project in all probability had commenced but was aborted suddenly because of some natural disaster, perhaps an earthquake. The Christians perceived this natural phenomenon to have been an act of divine intervention resulting in the termination of the Jews’ plan to rebuild the temple. Various legends recount this story, which served primarily as an omen and sign to the Christians that would realize Jesus’ prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem as well as justify the prohibition against building on the Temple Mount. Some of the sources reporting this incident in Jerusalem also mention other places in Palestine that were affected at the same time. The discovery of a letter found in MS Harvard Syriac 99, copied in 1899 and first published by Brock (1976; 1977), has shed new light on an earthquake that occurred at that time, noting that it affected wide areas of fourth-century Palestine, including Jerusalem. The letter is attributed to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem at that time, who appears to have sent it “to my beloved brethren, bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church of Christ in every district.” 1 The letter describes the events in detail: the Jews who wished to rebuild the temple; the earth tremors; and the fire that erupted and killed 1. On the basis of various considerations, Brock concludes that the letter in all probability was not written by Cyril himself but by another hand some time after his death (386 c.e.), around 400 c.e.; see Brock 1976: 105–7; 1977: 274, 280–83.

Roman Pottery

15

both Jews and Christians (Brock 1977). After the dramatic narrative of these events in Jerusalem, Cyril lists 23 cities that were hit by the earthquake. The letter closes with the exact date of the earthquake: Monday, 19 Iyar 674 (according to the Seleucid calendar), in the reign of Alexander the Great (= May 19, 363 c.e.). Some other sources (e.g., Chronicon anonymum ad annum 724; Agapius of Mabbug [PO, VII, 4, p. 581]; Brock 1977: 279) list a similar number of sites (21 or 22) disturbed by the earthquake. These sources give the impression that the earthquake was felt throughout ancient Palestine, leaving signs of destruction from Galilee in the north all the way to Petra in the south, and from the coast in the west as far as Transjordan in the east (Balouka 1999). Amiran, Arieh, and Turcotte (1994), among others, relying on Brock’s publication of Cyril’s letter, reach a similar conclusion. Cyril specifically mentions Sepphoris and its suburbs (chora) as having been completely demolished by the earthquake of 363 c.e. The archaeological finds indicate that the city had only one, not two, destruction layers. And, indeed, the stone debris and other signs of destruction found throughout the site seem to exhibit damage caused by a natural catastrophe rather than the destruction caused by a battle (Strange 1996: 117; Weiss and Netzer 1996c: 81; Talgam and Weiss 2004: 17, 29). The plans of the houses and narrow streets that characterize the Roman city on the western summit did not undergo any significant changes until the earthquake (Weiss and Netzer 1996a: 29). Stone debris from walls and other architectural features are evidence of the destruction caused by the earthquake, as are remnants of soot and ash found inside structures from the Late Roman period. Remains of the city’s Byzantine levels are preserved primarily on the southern part of the residential area. The houses built after the earthquake were constructed on a different axis and in a slightly different manner than the earlier ones (Hoglund and Meyers 1996: 41–42). Considerable destruction also occurred in the House of Dionysos on the eastern side of the acropolis. Debris was found in situ in many rooms on the northern side of the building, and there is evidence that the inhabitants of the Byzantine period dug beneath floor level at its southern end to clear the remains of destruction (Talgam and Weiss 2004: 27–29). The destruction level on the northern side of the building yielded rich remains, including coins that helped determine the date of the destruction. None of the coins postdates 363 c.e. The majority date to the reign of Constantius II (351–361 c.e.); the latest coin (from L 85.2092) dates to Julian II (361–363 c.e.) and reinforces the supposition that the destruction was caused by the earthquake, not the suppression of the Gallus Revolt. 2 The streets paved in the Roman period continued to be used in the Byzantine period, but following the earthquake, changes were made in the city-plan. The status of the summit declined as it was converted into an industrial area with pottery and glass workshops as well as other kinds of shops; consequently, the lower city gained prestige (Weiss and Netzer 1996c: 81–82). 2.  The coins were identified by Donald T. Ariel. I would like to thank Zeev Weiss for allowing me to use these data.

16

Roman Pottery

The archaeozoological finds are also indicative of the change in the city during the transition from the Late Roman to Byzantine periods. Bones of sheep, goats, and fowl were discovered in the Roman levels of the residential quarter on the western side of the summit (Hoglund and Meyers 1996: 42), and the absence of pig bones in these levels is notable (Grantham 2007: 284–87). In contrast, the Byzantine levels yielded a large quantity of pig bones, perhaps attesting to an ethnic or religious change in the area after the earthquake of 363 c.e. This predominantly Jewish city in all probability became a heterogeneous urban area of gentiles and Jews in the second half of the fourth century.

2.  The Roman Pottery of Sepphoris Most of the pottery in daily use in ancient Palestine was produced by the same methods and appeared in the same forms over an extended time. Vessel shapes usually changed slowly and gradually, sometimes through the influence of external factors (such as imported vessels) as well as because of local stylistic modifications or the availability of new techniques. Often, after a period in which the ideal form of a vessel is maintained, there is a period of noticeable decline in its careful production; thus, certain slightly degenerative signs in the vessel—in ornamentation or in rim and handle shape, for example—may be discerned. Roman-period pottery in Palestine exhibits regional characteristics: the ceramic repertoire from each region has distinctive forms and uses local clays. Every region probably had several pottery workshops, each with its own distinct production techniques and traditions. The forms of the vessels produced in each workshop underwent gradual changes, evolving from an ideal type to a related, later form. Most of the Roman-period pottery vessels discovered at Sepphoris were locally produced in Galilee and were typical of this region. According to literary sources, 3 cities such as Sepphoris and Tiberias had a number of markets; and there were apparently separate markets for each type of commodity: a basket market, a food market, a pottery market, etc. The rural population of Galilee produced various goods and used the city’s marketplaces to sell their products. Almost all of the cooking ware used in Sepphoris throughout the Roman period until the mid-fourth century c.e. probably came from one workshop, in Kefar Hananiah, located between Upper and Lower Galilee some 30 km north of Sepphoris. 4 The intrusion of different cooking wares produced in other, new, workshops is noticeable only at the end of the Late Roman period (mid-fourth century c.e.). With the waning of activity in the Kefar Hananiah workshop, these new wares became predominant in the Byzantine period. Another vessel group discovered at 3.  Editors: For a summary of the rabbinic materials dealing with manufacturing centers and markets, see Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 23–41, 228–49. 4.  It is possible that some vessels may have come from other Galilean workshops, such as the one at Shikhin, which produced vessels identical to those made at Kefar Hananiah. The provenance of the Sepphoris vessels has not yet been determined.

Roman Pottery

17

Photo 2.  Assemblage of Roman-period pottery types.

Sepphoris, comprising storage jars, pouring vessels ( jugs and juglets), and kraters, was produced at Shikhin, ca. 2 km north of Sepphoris. A workshop that operated during at least part of the Roman period was recently identified at the site, which flourished primarily between the first and fourth centuries c.e. (Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman 1990; Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992; Strange, Groh, and Longstaff 1994; Strange, Groh, and Longstaff 1995). These two groups of vessels—those from Kefar Hananiah and Shikhin—account for the bulk of the local pottery vessels used in Sepphoris until the mid-fourth century c.e. The rest of the vessels from this period probably came from smaller or more distant workshops that have yet to be securely identified. Sepphoris’s chief imports in the Roman period were red-slipped bowls known as Eastern Terra Sigillata (ETS) and Late Roman Ware (LATE ROMAN W), as well as a few mortaria and amphorae. Because relatively few amphorae were found at the site, it is difficult to determine whether Sepphoris was their original destination or whether they arrived there as a secondary destination containing some other product. In this chapter, I will describe and classify the Sepphoris ceramics that date from the Early Roman period until the end of the Late Roman period (mid-first century b.c.e.–363 c.e.). The Sepphoris assemblage is similar to assemblages from other sites in Galilee; its importance lies in the fact that most of the pottery chosen for publication was

Roman Pottery

18

discovered in a clear stratigraphic context. Most of the vessels from Sepphoris are thus solidly dated without recourse to comparable or parallel finds from other sites. The parallels mentioned below come primarily from nearby sites, such as Khirbet Shemaʿ, Meiron, Capernaum, Jalame, and Shikmona. 5 In addition, I will refer to the comprehensive studies of the pottery from Kefar Hananiah (Adan-Bayewitz 1993; 2003). The pottery presented here comes only from the residential area on the western summit, which was excavated in areas 84.1, 84.4, 85.1, and 85.3 6 and contained domestic structures as well as some public space 7 built at the beginning of the Early Roman period, sometimes on top of the dwellings from the Hellenistic period. Internal modifications made during the years of their occupation are visible within the structures themselves. However, the plan of the residential area, with its narrow streets, exhibited signs of great continuity and expansion until the earthquake of 363 c.e., which probably caused the remains of massive destruction—stone tumble as well as soot and ash—that is visible in several places. The coins and pottery discovered in this destruction material support dating it to the earthquake. The Roman period at the site comprised three levels:

•  Early Roman Period: On the basis of the building and renovation stages alone, • 

• 

this period may be subdivided into two periods: Early Roman 1 (0–70 c.e.; pls. 2–7) and Early Roman 2 (70–135 c.e.; pls. 8–12). Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.; pls. 13–27). A large quantity of pottery was discovered in water cisterns from the residential area (mainly in Area 84.1). At a certain point, these cisterns ceased to be used for storing water and were used for dumping refuse. The materials found in most of the cisterns include many large restorable ceramic forms as well as lamps and glass vessels but very few, if any, coins. A general analysis of the ceramic assemblages from the cisterns indicates that they date to the Middle Roman period (mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e.). The lamp type most frequently found in the cisterns, and especially Cistern 84.1068, is the Roman decorated discus-type lamp, dating from the second to the end of the third centuries c.e. The bottom of the debris levels in the cisterns yielded Herodian and northern Darom lamps together with potsherds from the Early Roman period (L 84.1068.17; L 84.1068.18) and should probably be associated with the original period of their use as water cisterns—that is, the Early Roman 2 level. As expected, lamps typical of the fourth century c.e. (e.g., Beth Sheʿarim [ovoid] lamps and bilanceolate lamps) are absent from the assemblages in the cisterns. Late Roman Period (300–363 c.e.; pls. 28–33). The pottery assemblage found in the earthquake destruction level at Sepphoris, dated both by the historical sources and archaeological finds (vessels, lamps, and coins) to 363 c.e., was

5.  References to the specific publications of these sites appear below. Editors: Many parallels can also be seen in the ceramic corpus from Nabratein, which appeared after Balouka completed this chapter; see Meyers and Meyers 2009a. 6.  These areas were excavated between 1985 and 1989 by a joint expedition under the direction of Eric Meyers, Ehud Netzer, and Carol Meyers ( JSP) and since 1991 under the sole direction of Eric and Carol Meyers (SRP). 7.  Excavations in 85.3 uncovered remains of a large building, probably a fort built in the Late Hellenistic or Early Roman period that continued until 68 c.e. in the First Revolt; see E. Meyers 2002.

Roman Pottery

19

Chart 2.  Vessel Types and Abbreviations Amphora Amphoriskos (AMP) African Red-Slip Ware (ARSW) Basin (BC) Open Cooking Pot (OCP) Open Cooking Pot Lid (CPL) Pithos Small Cooking Jar (SCJ) Small Cooking Pot (SCP) Storage Jar (SJ)

Juglet ( JT) Krater (KR) Late Roman ‘D’ Ware (LATE ROMAN ‘D’W) Bowl (BL) Cooking Jug (CJG) Cooking Pot, Closed (CP) Eastern Terra Sigillata (ETS) Galilean Bowl (GB) Hellenistic Storage Jar (HSJ) Jug ( JG)

rather uniform in its composition and reflects the last occupation level before the destruction. This is corroborated by the absence of vessel types that were generally prevalent in subsequent periods at the site.    The Late Roman assemblage includes vessels typical of the period (first half of the fourth century c.e.), including those produced in nearby workshops as well as vessels produced in other workshops. The latter began to appear in the mid-fourth century and continued to be used in the fifth century. The assemblage also contains vessels that are characteristic primarily of the midfourth century and thus were used for a shorter time. The presence of earlier and later vessels together characterizes the transition from one period to the next (from the Roman to the Byzantine periods). This pottery existed for a limited time and is typical of the transition from the end of the Late Roman period to the beginning of the Early Byzantine period (ca. mid-fourth century c.e.).

The vessels are described typologically (cooking wares, storage jars, pouring vessels, kraters, basins, mortaria, bowls, cups, lids, and miscellanea), with an emphasis on evolution of form over time. This study of the pottery from Sepphoris is based on the stratigraphic context of all the sherds and vessels chosen for presentation. Because analyzing the ceramic materials in relation to their chronological relevance is the main contribution of this study of the Sepphoris assemblage, we have organized the pottery plates by period. The pottery is drawn at a scale of 1:5, except for the examples shown on pls. 34–36, which are presented at a scale of 2:5. 8 Each plate bears a label designating the chronological period and date of the forms presented. In several instances—when the forms extend over several periods—the dates are not specified.

3. Typology In Chart 2 (above), each vessel is given a descriptive name (type), accompanied by its abbreviation: for example, Open Cooking Pot (OCP). Appended to the 8.  The drawings were prepared by Chana Netzer and Irena Lidsky; the plates were prepared by Irena Lidsky and Mika Sarig.

20

Roman Pottery

abbreviation is a vessel type number and, usually, a lowercase letter representing vessel subtype. Types or subtypes reflecting chronological differences are indicated by a number or letter: the lower number or earlier alphabetized letter generally represents the earlier type (e.g., OCP1a is earlier than OCP1b; OCP1 is earlier than OCP2, etc.).

Cooking Wares Most of the cooking vessels discovered at Roman-period Sepphoris were produced in the pottery workshop at Kefar Hananiah. The workshop, which has been studied and excavated by Adan-Bayewitz (1993), was one of the two Galilean settlements noted in rabbinic literature as pottery-production centers during the Roman and Early Byzantine periods. According to these sources and Adan-Bayewitz’s comprehensive study, the workshop at Kefar Hananiah was concerned primarily with the production of diverse cooking vessels that were carefully made from well-levigated clay. The vessels are well fired and usually have a reddish hue and a metallic sound that attest to their high quality. These vessels were distributed to all the settlements in Galilee and to some settlements in the Golan throughout the entire Roman period, mainly from the first century c.e. to mid-fourth century c.e. 9 They were almost the only cooking vessel in use in Galilee at this time. 10 Only in the mid-fourth century c.e., in loci attributed to the 363 c.e. destruction at Sepphoris, do we find new types of cooking vessels that were not present in the earlier levels. These vessels, having a different form and made of a different type of clay, are evidence that new workshops sprang up in other areas in this period and began to market their wares in Sepphoris and elsewhere. 11 These cooking vessels are common throughout the Byzantine period and were already being produced at the end of the first half of the fourth century c.e. With the establishment of new workshops, the prestige of the Kefar Hananiah workshop probably declined; its productivity began to wane so much so that production slowed toward the second half of the fourth century. In the mid-fourth century, there was a noticeable attempt at Kefar Hananiah to imitate one of the new cooking pot forms (Adan Type 4E; see below, Type CP4a from Sepphoris)—perhaps a result of an attempt to survive in the newly competitive market; this form was apparently the last vessel type produced at Kefar Hananiah. The time of the earthquake destruction at Sepphoris marks a transition, a shift in preference for cooking vessels produced at Kefar Hananiah to vessels manufactured in other workshops in Western Galilee. The earthquake thus may have had an impact on the decline of the Kefar Hananiah workshop: perhaps the workshop was 9.  According to Adan-Bayewitz (2003: 15–16, 21), they were produced from the second half of the first century b.c.e. until the first half of the fifth century c.e. 10.  Nevertheless, other potters’ workshops may have produced identical vessels that cannot always be distinguished from Kefar Hananiah cooking pots. 11.  Examination of the clay has demonstrated that these vessels have a composition different from that of the Kefar Hananiah vessels and they thus must originate in other geographical regions.

Roman Pottery

21

damaged or destroyed and, at the same time, its competitors were outside outside the range of the earthquake. The discussion of the cooking wares produced at Kefar Hananiah is based primarily on Adan-Bayewitz’s study and his typological categories. In our discussion of Sepphoris cooking pots, the vessel type from Kefar Hananiah will appear in parentheses (e.g., = Adan 3A) alongside the name of the vessel type according to the Sepphoris typology. Closed Cooking Pots (CP) Four types of closed cooking pots and four types of small cooking pots (to be discussed separately) were recovered from Roman-period Sepphoris. Usually only one type of cooking pot was used in each period. Each had its own typological development that is generally indicative of chronological differences. The Hellenistic cooking pot, with a simple everted rim and neck was made of a dark brownish-black clay (CP1; see pl. 1:1–4, 16–17) and serves as a prototype for the Early Roman cooking pot (CP2). CP2 (= Adan 4A) (pls. 2:1–13; 8:1–3).  The inner face of the rim of these globular, slightly squat cooking pots is grooved, the neck is straight or slightly everted, two loop handles extend from the rim to the shoulder, the base is rounded, and the walls are thin. The maximum diameter of the vessel is located in the middle of the body. The pots come in assorted sizes. This type appears at Sepphoris only in the Early Roman levels, dating from the first to mid-second centuries c.e. It clearly appears as the predominant closed cooking-pot form in loci attributed to Early Roman 1 (early first century c.e.–70 c.e.) and in much smaller quantities in Early Roman 2 from the probes beneath the floors in the House of Dionysos (see also Balouka 2004: 35, pl. 1:1–3). Parallels: This is one of the first types produced at Kefar Hananiah, probably when the workshop was first established. Adan-Bayewitz dates it—on the basis of many from Capernaum, Khirbet Shemaʿ, the Ginossar boat, and Jotapata—from the mid-first century b.c.e. to the mid-second century c.e. (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 124–26; Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997: 142, fig. 12:12). Proposed date: mainly first century c.e. to early/mid-second century c.e. CP3 (= Adan 4B–D).  The globular cooking pot produced at Kefar Hananiah evolved in form over time. Its division into three subtypes (CP3a–c) exhibits the vessel’s typological and chronological (early to later) differences (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 126–32). CP3a (= Adan 4B) (pl. 8:4–11).  These globular cooking pots have a flat and flaring rim with two distinct grooves. The neck is often everted, and a groove or incision appears on the shoulder, beneath the neck. Two loop handles extend from the rim to the shoulder. The base is rounded and sometimes pointed (see also the differences between subtypes CP3a and CP3b; Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 126–28). Adan-Bayewitz dates this type from the mid-first to mid-second centuries c.e. Potsherds of this type discovered at Gamla attest to the production of the vessel

22

Roman Pottery

before 67 c.e., when Gamla fell. Potsherds were also found in a number of assemblages at Capernaum that date from the mid-first to mid-second centuries c.e. A complete pot of this type was discovered at Gevaʿ (Tell Abu-Shusha; see Israel Antiquities Authority No. 81-2075). A complete specimen and sherds of this type were discovered at Sepphoris only in Early Roman levels, especially in loci dated to the second half of the first until the mid-second centuries c.e. (Early Roman 2). The floor of Cistern 84.1068.18 contained only one CP3a sherd, together with Herodian and northern Darom lamps. Additional sherds were found in the probes under the floors of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 35, pl. 1:4). It does not appear in Early Roman 1 loci. Proposed date: mid-first to mid-second centuries c.e. CP3b (= Adan 4C) (pl. 13:1–5).  This was the most common cooking pot in the second and third centuries c.e. It is very reminiscent of CP3a, and the differences between the two forms reflect the chronological evolution of the pot. The CP3b examples have a globular body, a short and straight neck, and a rim that is flatter and narrower rim than that of CP3a and is incised with two less-pronounced grooves. The two handles extend from the rim to the shoulder and usually lack the groove encompassing the shoulder that is typical of the earlier subtype. There often is ribbing on the lower part of the body and the base. This type of pot appears in various sizes, from small to large, ranging in diameter from 7–15 cm and in height from 9.2–16.25 cm. Dozens of complete pots and rim sherds of this subtype were discovered at Sepphoris. They always appear in assemblages postdating the Early Roman period. Subtype CP3b replaces CP3a; and a transition type having differences that are less pronounced than those between the two subtypes also is found. A large quantity of CP3b pots was discovered in the cistern assemblages dating to the Middle Roman period. This pot does not appear at all in assemblages from Sepphoris’s fourthcentury destruction level (363 c.e.). It is still difficult to determine with certainty when the production of this subtype ceased; however, its appearance in only small quantities, and especially in sherds dating to the first half of the fourth century, underscores the fact that it was replaced by subtype CP3c. Parallels: Adan-Bayewitz presents a large selection of parallels from all over Galilee and the Golan and dates this form to the early second to mid-fourth centuries c.e. (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 128–30). This late date was determined primarily on the basis of the appearance of this type at Beth Sheʿarim (Zeid Farm), which was destroyed in the mid-fourth century (351/352 c.e.) according to the excavators (Avigad 1955: 209–11, fig. 3:12), and in assemblages from Jalame pre-dating 351 c.e. ( Johnson 1988: 195–96 [CP Form 12]). Proposed date: mid-second to early fourth centuries c.e. CP3c (= Adan 4D) (pl. 28:1–7).  This globular cooking pot usually has a short and straight neck. The rim is simple and sometimes everted (pl. 28:1–5) or flat but not grooved (pl. 28:6–7). The shoulders slope downward and have a slight carination beneath the loop handles. There is a carination between the body and the flat

Roman Pottery

23

or pointed base. The walls are usually thicker than those of the earlier subtypes. The clay is well levigated and has an orange to brown-red hue. At Sepphoris, CP3c is completely absent from all the assemblages found inside the cisterns of the residential area on the western summit that are dated from the second to third centuries c.e. This subtype was found in the destruction debris related to the 363 c.e. earthquake and was in use in the occupation level that preceded it (e.g., L 84.1056, 84.1150, 84.1195, 84.1209 [from Area 84.1]; see Balouka 2004: 40, pl. 3:1). Based on the finds from Sepphoris, it may be concluded that CP3c did not appear before the early fourth century c.e. and that it was probably used primarily during the first two-thirds of that century. (This pattern corresponds with the material from Meiron, noted below). Parallels: Adan-Bayewitz presents a large number of parallels for this subtype, noting that it is common in fourth-century c.e. assemblages (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 130–32). Adan-Bayewitz dates this type from the end of the third or early fourth century c.e. to the early fifth century c.e. See Capernaum Type A6 from the fourth to early fifth centuries (Loffreda 1974: 32, fig.  3:3-9); Migdal, together with coins dating from the mid-third to early fourth centuries (Loffreda 1976: 338–41, fig. 9:3, 7); Meiron, 30 specimens of this pot, apparently used for bailing water, from the floor of C-6 = Cistern 3 12 (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: 98–100, pl. 6.1–3). On the basis of coins and lamps discovered in the cistern, it probably ceased to be used when Meiron was abandoned toward the second third of the fourth century (perhaps because of the earthquake of 363). 13 This is one of the last vessel types produced in the Kefar Hananiah workshop. Proposed date: First two-thirds of the fourth century c.e. CP4a (=Adan 4E and C4B) (pl. 28:8–12).  These large cooking pots, which have a long, straight or slightly inverted neck, have ribbing on the shoulder, the upper half of the body, and the base (at times also along the neck). The rim has a triangular section created by a ridge on its outer face. Large loop handles extend from the rim to the shoulder. The base is round and at times pointed in the center. This cooking pot has a different shape than the CP3a–c cooking pots that were popular at Kefar Hananiah throughout the Roman period. It appears concurrently in the clay characteristic of Kefar Hananiah as well as in a clay having a different texture. Adan-Bayewitz’s examination of clay samples (1993: 132–33, 162–64) demonstrates that a small quantity of these cooking pots was indeed produced at Kefar Hananiah (Adan Type 4E), but most of them (termed the “competing form” by AdanBayewitz) were produced in other workshops located in areas having clay of varying consistency. These other workshops have not yet been identified conclusively 14 and 12.  Editors: The numbers assigned to the cisterns and other underground categories will be different in the final publication of the excavations; the equivalents to the numbers used in this volume will be listed there. 13.  Two coins were discovered in the cistern—one Tyrian and the other from 330–335 c.e. The lamps from the cistern are degenerative Roman lamps with a decorated discus and are dated to the end of the third or early fourth century. Moreover, these pots were also discovered in Cistern C-2 at Meiron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pl. 6.1). 14.  See above, n. 6 (p. 18).

24

Roman Pottery

also produced additional cooking vessels that have no parallels at Kefar Hananiah (see, e.g., types OCP3a-b and CP5). Adan Type 4E, which was produced at Kefar Hananiah, is indistinguishable by form alone from the similar Adan Type C4B. Adan-Bayewitz suggests dating the Kefar Hananiah vessel from the early fourth to early fifth centuries c.e. and Type C4B from the end of the fourth to the end of the sixth centuries c.e. The many specimens of Type CP4a from Sepphoris begin to appear primarily in the debris of the 363 c.e. destruction level and are most common in the Byzantine levels. This type, albeit with modifications (= CP4b, which will not be discussed here), continues into the Early Islamic period. 15 This cooking pot, I believe, exhibits the first signs of the waning of the Kefar Hananiah workshop. It reflects a different typological style of larger and more crude cooking vessels that begin to appear with frequency in the Byzantine period, and therefore it is improbable that it was produced at Kefar Hananiah before first being produced in the competitive workshops. I maintain that this cooking pot was produced in one of the new workshops and that, with its appearance in the marketplaces and as a result of the competition between workshops, the potters from Kefar Hananiah sought a way to survive by trying to reproduce this new cooking pot form. They produced the identical Adan Type 4E, which seems to have been the last vessel-type produced there and is worthy of being called the “competing” or “imitating” type. It was widespread in northern Israel throughout the Byzantine period. The evidence from Sepphoris attests that this type began to appear only in the mid-fourth century (before 363 c.e.) and continued to be used throughout the Byzantine period, together with Types CP5 and OCP3 (Balouka 2004: 40, pl. 3:2; AdanBayewitz [2003: 19–20] accepts the refinement). Parallels: At Jalame it appears in assemblages from 351–383 c.e. onward ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-34:526–30, Form 1; and the parallel vessels cited by Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 132–35); at Capernaum, Type C2 is prevalent from the Late Roman period onward (Loffreda 1974: fig. 10:1–3; 1982: fig. 4). Proposed date: mid-fourth to sixth, perhaps seventh, centuries c.e. CP5.  This holemouth cooking pot has a globular body and no neck. The upper part of the vessel’s body is ribbed. Two large loop handles extend from the rim to the shoulder. The shape of the rim varies, thus signaling the major difference between the various subtypes. These cooking pots were produced in the new workshops that began production in the mid-fourth century c.e. and continued to do so for the larger part of the Byzantine period. We shall trace the vessel in the period following its first appearance. It was common primarily in Galilee; many sherds of this vessel-type were discovered in Sepphoris in fourth-century c.e. destruction debris and Byzantine contexts but not earlier (see Balouka 2004: 40, pl. 3:3–6). 16 15.  Editors: See the discussion of cooking pots in Vincenz’s contribution to this volume, “Chapter 4. Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares,” pp. 150–51. 16.  Editors: See Vincenz in this volume, “Chapter 4. Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares,” pl. 46:1–4.

Roman Pottery

25

Photo 3.  Cooking pot (CP5a) of the Late Roman–Byzantine period.

CP5a (pl. 29:1).  This cooking pot has a wide, everted, and furrowed ledge-rim with an average diameter of 14.8 cm; the diameter varies with the size of the vessel. This vessel-type begins to appear at Sepphoris in the fourth-century c.e. destruction materials and becomes more common in the Byzantine period. Editors: See below, pl. 46 in chap. 4. Parallels: Capernaum, Type C4, from the Late Roman period (fourth century) until the Early Byzantine period (Loffreda 1974: fig. 10:7–9); Jalame, Form 10, Variant 2, from the fourth century c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-39:587–90). The Khirbet Shemaʿ excavation report notes that this vessel may have originated in Transjordan because most of its parallels, dating from the early fifth to sixth centuries, come from that region (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: pl. 7.18–19). Proposed date: mid-fourth to sixth (?) centuries c.e. CP5b (pl. 29:2–3).  This similar holemouth cooking pot has a wide, flat, everted, and occasionally upturned rim. This type first appeared in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris at Sepphoris and continued to be used in the Byzantine period; see below, pl. 46 (pp. 184–86). Parallels: At Jalame, Form 11 dates to the period when the glass workshop was active (351–383 c.e.) and also earlier ( Johnson 1988: fig.  7-39:591–98). This vessel type was also found at Khirbet Shemaʿ (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: pl. 7.18:27, 28). Proposed date: mid-fourth to sixth (?) centuries c.e. Small Cooking Pots (SCP) Although these small vessels in their form look like small cooking pots, they were not always made of cooking ware, and it is not certain if they were all used

26

Roman Pottery

Photo 4.  Small cooking pot (SCP2) of the Middle–Late Roman period.

for cooking. They were uncommon in Galilee, and some are reminiscent of similar vessels in southern Israel. SCP1 (pls. 8:16–17; 15:1–4).  This small globular pot was not produced from cooking-pot ware; the clay is pinkish-light brown, with many large white grits. Soot marks were found on only one specimen (pl. 15:3). The form is squashed toward the base; and it has a triangular rim, a long and convex neck, and two handles extending, at times diagonally, from the rim to the shoulder. The lower part is ribbed. The vessels are about 7.4 cm high. These pots are quite common at Sepphoris, especially in the cistern assemblages from the Middle Roman period; but several specimens (pl. 8:16–17) resembling earlier variations were found in an Early Roman context. Parallels: At Jalame, these are called “Nabatean vessels” and are dated, on the basis of parallels, to no later than the second century c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-4:60, 65). Proposed date: early second to third centuries c.e. SCP2 (pls. 15:5–9).  This small holemouth globular vessel is squashed toward the base, and it has an inverted triangular rim and a lid device, no neck, and two handles extending from the rim to the body. The shape of the base varies; it can be pointed, flat, or rounded. The clay is light brown, greenish, or gray; soot marks are visible on some of the vessels. Two of the vessels exhibiting soot marks on the base (pl. 15:5, 9) contained a yellowish substance with a strong odor; laboratory tests revealed it to be calcium. This type is common in Sepphoris, already appearing in Early Roman 2 but especially in the assemblages from the residential area on the western summit that are dated to the Middle Roman period (second to third centuries c.e.). It was also found in the probes under the floor of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 35, pl. 1:5). Proposed date: second to third centuries c.e.

Roman Pottery

27

SCP 3 (pl. 15:10).  This vessel features a simple rim, convex neck with a cinched waist at its base, mild carination above the rounded and ribbed body, one loop handle running from the rim to the body, and a small ring base. It is an uncommon form, with no known parallels. Proposed date: second to third centuries c.e. SCP4 (pls. 8:12; 15:11).  A simple, mildly everted, triangular rim, two loop handles, and a slightly pointed base characterize this form. It has many white grits and soot marks; and it is similar to SCP2, except with an everted rim and no lid device. No parallels were found for this uncommon form. Proposed date: early second to third centuries c.e. SCP Varia (pl.  8:13–15).  Made from cooking-pot ware, this vessel contains white grits, exhibits soot marks, and was found in Early Roman 2 contexts. Proposed date: first century to mid-second century c.e. CP Varia (pl. 15:12–16).  The shape of this holemouth pot resembles a cooking pot, but it was produced from buff ware and contains white grits. It has an inverted cup-shaped or simple rim, a straighter neck, and a globular, crudely ribbed body. No soot marks are visible. Parallels: Similar vessels were found at ʿAvdat (Negev 1986: 86, 697–99). Proposed date: second to third centuries c.e. Open Cooking Pots (Casseroles) (OCP) The open cooking pots (casseroles) are characterized by a wider rim diameter than the closed cooking pots, enabling a larger assortment of dishes to be cooked in them. OCP1 (= Adan 3).  This cooking pot was first produced in the Kefar Hananiah workshop and underwent modifications over time. Its division into two subtypes represents the typological and chronological differences. Like the rest of the vessels produced at Kefar Hananiah, this one also common in Galilee and the Golan. OCP1a (= Adan 3A) (pls. 1:5; 2:14–19; 9:1–6).  This relatively deep, open cooking pot with rounded shoulders and a rounded base has two loop handles extending from the rim to the shoulder. Its ledge rim, horizontal or upturned, is sometimes furrowed and is usually 1.5–2.0 cm wide. OCP1a appears only in Early Roman contexts at Sepphoris and is always accompanied by Herodian and northern Darom lamps. This type precedes OCP1b. Parallels: On the basis of its appearance in dated assemblages from Tel Anafa, Gamla, Capernaum, and Meiron, Adan-Bayewitz dates this type from the mid-first century b.c.e. to the mid-second century c.e.; see the description and parallels in Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 111–19. Proposed date: mid-first century b.c.e. to first third of second century c.e. OCP1a-b (pl. 9:7–10).  Toward the end of the Early Roman period (mid-second century c.e.), a transitional type appears at Sepphoris, signaling a change that would occur in the open cooking pot. The pot’s shoulder is less rounded and more cari-

28

Roman Pottery

Photo 5.  Open cooking pot (OCP1a-b).

nated, and the vessel becomes shallower. In some cases, when the vessel is very large, four loop handles were added to afford a better grip of the vessel; see, for example, the OCP1a-b vessel, having a diameter of 35.25 cm shown on pl. 9:9. OCP1b (= Adan 3B) (pl. 13:6–9).  This form is a wide and shallow open cooking pot with a sharply carinated shoulder and a rounded base, sometimes pointed in its center. Its ledge rim (1.0–1.5 cm), usually horizontal and at times furrowed, is narrower than that of Type OCP1a. Two loop handles extend from the rim to the shoulder. The pot’s maximum diameter is in the rim’s aperture, and it is generally wider than Type OCP1a. The largest example of this form discovered to date at Sepphoris has four loop handles and a maximum diameter of 41 cm. This is one of the most common cooking vessels in Galilee, especially in the second and third centuries c.e. Large quantities OCP1b were found at Sepphoris, especially in the Middle Roman period materials from cisterns in Loci 84.1068, 95.1016, 84.1094, and 84.1179. It is completely missing from Early Roman contexts, and therefore its production probably did not precede the mid-second century c.e. Only a small number of OCP1b sherds come from fourth-century contexts, indicating that it was no longer the dominant type (a few sherds of this type were found in the destruction debris of the House of Dionysos; see Balouka 2004: 40, pl. 3:7–8). Adan-Bayewitz’s dating is based solely on the appearance of small, isolated sherds from the fourth century. In my estimation, they do not conclusively attest to the continuation of OCP1b’s production in this period. Parallels: This type appears in the vessel assemblages at Horvat Hazon (second to third centuries c.e.), Capernaum, Jalame, and Meiron (see also Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 119–24). According to Adan-Bayewitz, it began to appear in the early second century and continued to be produced until the third quarter of the fourth century c.e. Proposed date: mid-second to early/middle fourth centuries c.e.

Roman Pottery

29

OCP2.  This cooking pot is in the shape of an open bowl. It is uncommon at Sepphoris, where only a few sherds were found. OCP2a (pl. 9:11–13, 15).  A triangular rim with an internal gutter characterizes this carinated bowl. The example shown on pl. 9:15 has a horizontal groove beneath the rim. This type was found in Early Roman contexts at Sepphoris. Proposed date: first to second centuries c.e. OCP2b (pls. 9:16; 13:12).  This carinated bowl has a ledge rim and a depression on its exterior, beneath the rim. Most of the sherds of these two types at Sepphoris came from an Early Roman context, and one sherd of OCP2b came from a Middle Roman locus. Parallels: Casserole 1A at Horvat ʿAqav is dated there, by other parallel vessels, from the first to second centuries c.e. (Calderon 2000: 95–96, pl.  III:46–47); at Jalame a similar vessel is dated very generally as preceding the workshop—that is, before 351 c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-25:394–96 [carinated bowls, Form 2]). Proposed date: first to second centuries c.e. OCP2c (pl. 9:14).  The clay composition of this form is similar to that of OCP2b, but it lacks the carinated shoulder of that form. Horizontal grooves appear on the body’s surface. Parallels: Reminiscent of Casserole 1B from Horvat ʿAqav (Calderon 2000: 95– 96, pl. III:46–47). Proposed date: first to second centuries c.e. OCP3 (pl. 9:17–18).  This form is a shallow, open cooking pot with a ledge rim and walls curving toward the base. The loop handle sits vertically on top of the rim or is turned diagonally upward. Only a few rim sherds of this vessel were found at Sepphoris, suggesting that it is an uncommon form; and no parallels were found. The two sherds shown on pl. 9:17–18 were found in Early Roman contexts, and another one was discovered in an assemblage dating from the second to third centuries c.e. Proposed date: end of the first/early second to the third centuries c.e.? OCP4 (pl. 9:19).  This casserole has a wide ledge rim and walls sloping toward the base. The few examples of this type found at Sepphoris came from an Early Roman 2 context (end of the first to the early second centuries c.e.). Parallels: Casserole Type 2 from Horvat ʿAqav is dated there and at Tel Mevorakh from the first to second centuries c.e. (Calderon 2000: 95–96, pl. III:51–52). OCP5 (pls. 13:13; 29:5).  This wide, open cooking pot is uncommon in Sepphoris and has limited distribution in Galilee, where it is found in the Sepphoris– Nazareth (Lower Galilee) region. Its rim is wide and sometimes slightly everted, with two prominent grooves. The shoulder is sharply carinated, the walls are sloped, and its two horizontal handles lie on top of the carination. Parallels: At Jalame, this type is divided into several subtypes of carinated bowls; all are dated before 351 c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-25:403–8 [Forms 7–10]). At Naza-

30

Roman Pottery

reth, cooking bowl Type 4 is undated (Bagatti 1969: fig. 226:5). At the Zeid Farm (Beth Sheʿarim), it was found in an assemblage dating from the third until the first half of the fourth centuries c.e. (Avigad 1976: Ill. 3:15). OCP5 represents a combination of several cooking vessels. The rim is reminiscent of the rim of Galilean bowl GB1b (see below, GB1b); the carinated shoulder is similar to that of OCP1b; and the horizontal handles resemble the style that was to become popular in Galilee from the mid-fourth century onward (see below, OCP6). I suggest a date for this vessel in light of these typological features and the known dated parallels, and because the single sherd of this type found in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris. Proposed date: end of the third century c.e. and, especially, the first two-thirds of the fourth century c.e. OCP6 (pl. 29:4).  The open cooking pot shown on pl. 29:4 has a thickened rim, outward-sloping ribbed walls, and a flat base. Although few of the examples from Sepphoris were found in dated assemblages, the one presented here comes from the 363 c.e. destruction debris. OCP7.  The wide-open cooking pot appeared occasionally already in the Roman period and became common throughout ancient Palestine, primarily in the Byzantine period. In its initial stage, it was a small, rather shallow type; and it developed into a deeper vessel toward the end of the Byzantine period and in the Early Islamic period. It was apparently produced in a number of different workshops and from various clay compositions mixed with grits and sometimes sandy material. Its rim is cut (shaved) and inverted, and its two loop handles are horizontal and slightly upturned. OCP7a (pls. 9:20–21; 13:10–11).  The pot and handles of this early variant of the open cooking pot are smaller and more delicate than later examples. In Sepphoris, this form is quite rare in the Early and Middle Roman periods. Parallels: At Horvat ʿAqav, this form is called Casserole Type 3 and, on the basis of parallels from Shikmona, ʿAroer, and Jericho, is dated from the end of the first to the beginning of the second centuries c.e. (Calderon 2000: 95–97, pl. III:53). OCP7b (= Adan C3A) (pl. 29:6–8).  This open cooking pot is characterized by a carination in the middle of the body beneath the horizontal handles, and the typical base is rounded or pointed in its center (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 156–59). This open cooking pot begins to appear at Sepphoris, together with Types CP4a and CP5a, only in the site’s 363 c.e. destruction debris and later but not earlier (Balouka 2004: 40, pl. 3:9). This type, too, belongs to the Cooking Pot group that began to penetrate the Galilean market, including Sepphoris, in the mid-fourth century c.e. (e.g., Khirbet ʿUsa; see Getzov et al. 1998: Ill. 33:1–3, from Strata 7 and 8, dating from the second third of the fourth century c.e. on). In ceramic terms, it marks the beginning of the Byzantine period. Parallels: At Jalame this cooking pot is called “Casserole Form 1” and is dated to the time when the glass workshop was active (351–383 c.e.; Johnson 1988: fig. 7-43:631–34); nevertheless, it seems to have appeared earlier and also contin-

Roman Pottery

31

ued afterward. At Capernaum, Type C5 began to appear in the Late Roman period and was a common vessel in the Byzantine period (i.e., from the fourth century onward; Loffreda 1974: fig. 11:1–5). At Meiron, it began to appear in Stratum IV (before 363 c.e.) and was common in Stratum V (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pl. 8.4:5–13). Proposed date: mid-fourth to at least fifth centuries c.e. OCP7c (pl. 29:9).  The open cooking pot shown on pl. 29:9 has a sloped wall and carination between its walls and flat base. It is less common than the preceding type but appears at the same sites in similar assemblages. This vessel type was found at Sepphoris in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris and on top of it (Balouka 2004: pl. 4:12–16). Parallels: At Jalame, this vessel type was concurrent with the activity of the glass workshop ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-43:636). At Meiron, it appeared in Strata IV and V— that is, it began to appear before 363 c.e. and continued into the Byzantine period (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pl. 8.4:1–4). At the Zeid Farm (Beth Sheʿarim), it appeared from the third to first half of the fourth centuries c.e. (Avigad 1976: Ill. 3:14). Proposed date: mid-fourth to at least fifth centuries c.e. Open Cooking Pot Lid (CPL) CPL (pl. 29:10).  The lid has a shape similar to the shallow, open cooking pot placed upside-down. It is made of sandy, coarse, brown clay. The rim is cut and often combed with straight or wavy geometric lines. A small button handle, sometimes with a hole in its center to allow steam to escape, appears in the center of the lid. The lid matches the OCP7. 17 Like the pots, some of the lids were produced in the Khirbet ʿUsha workshop (Getzov et al. 1998: 22–23, pl. 33:13). Sherds of cooking pot lids were discovered in Sepphoris from the mid-fourth century (destruction debris) onward (Balouka 2004: 42, pl. 3:10). Editors: See below, pl. 46:17–18 in chap. 4. Parallels: At Jalame, the lids are dated to the fourth century; according to Johnson (1988: fig.  7-44:639–50), they also appear before and after the activity in the workshop. At Capernaum, they begin to appear toward the end of the fourth century and during the fifth; Loffreda (1974: fig. 11:3 [Type C9]) dates them to the Late Roman period onward, especially the Byzantine period, but is more precise in his dating in a later article (1982: fig. 4:9). The Meiron examples are dated to the period between 250 and 750 c.e. (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pls. 8.4, 14, 26). Proposed date: mid-fourth to at least fifth centuries c.e.

17.  Two examples from Nessana of these open cooking pots and lids were made from a single piece (Wolff 1997). This discovery may indicate the way in which these vessels were produced: before firing, the pot was separated from the lid with a knife or some other sharp object. See Israel Antiquities Authority No. 94-1004.

Roman Pottery

32

Photo 6.  Galilean bowl (GB1b) of the Middle–Late Roman period.

Galilean Bowls (GB) (= Adan 1A–1E) This is one of the most common cooking vessels at Sepphoris and in Galilee generally (which led E. Meyers to give it the name “Galilean” bowl; Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: 170). At Capernaum, Loffreda calls these vessels “piatti/tegame”: “plates/frying pans.” This vessel indeed functioned either as an open cooking pot or as a substitute for a frying pan, 18 and it may have been used for serving as well. Most of the bases that were found bear soot marks, indicating that they were placed directly on the fire just like any other cooking vessel. All these bowls were probably produced at Kefar Hananiah and are discussed in detail by Adan-Bayewitz (1993: 87–109). For the sake of convenience, I will use Adan-Bayewitz’s typology, which divides these bowls into five types. I will emphasize primarily the dating of the bowls from Sepphoris. GB1a (= Adan 1A) (pls. 9:22–24; 16:1–4).  This small handleless cooking bowl has a simple rim with one groove. The wall is mildly sloped; and the base is flat, at times slightly pointed in its center. There could be ribbing on the interior and exterior walls and on the base. The bowl size is almost uniform. The average rim diameter is 16 cm, and the average height of the vessel is 3.8 cm. According to Adan-Bayewitz (1993: 88–91), this is the earliest Galilean bowl and is to be dated to the last third of the first century c.e. (before 67 c.e., according to the Gamla finds, where this vessel appeared in small quantities) until the end of the third century c.e. GB1a bowls appear at Sepphoris together with GB1b bowls, primarily in secondto third-century assemblages in cisterns that were converted into garbage dumps. This type of cooking bowl began to appear in the Early Roman 2 level, from the end of the first to the beginning of the second centuries c.e. It appears in L 85.1100 together with GB1b in an assemblage dated to the mid-second century c.e. Proposed date: last third of the first to the end of the third centuries c.e. GB1b (= Adan 1B) (pls. 9:25–27; 16:5–10).  This is the most common of the five types of the Galilean bowl. It has a simple or thickened rim with two distinct grooves and two small loop handles attached to the rim. The walls are mildly sloped, and the base is usually flat. Ribbing could appear on the interior and exterior walls as well as on the base. 18.  The vessel generally considered a frying pan has a long handle, enabling a comfortable grip. That feature is missing in this form.

Roman Pottery

33

This bowl-type begins to appear at Sepphoris only in Early Roman 2 contexts, toward the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, and then only as a variant with one handle or with two larger loop handles; it appears in its more typical form primarily in the cistern assemblages of the mid-second and third centuries, together with GB1a. A few sherds of this vessel type come from fourth-century loci and destruction debris, although in smaller quantities than those of types GB1c–e. It is not known whether it continued to be produced in this period. Parallels: This type is common primarily in second-to-third-century assemblages at Horvat Hazon (Bahat 1974: 165–67, fig. 4:2, 4), Shikmona (Elgavish and Banai 1977: pls. XVI:128–29; XVII), Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: 38 [Type A12; 135–300 c.e.]), Meiron (where Stratum IV [250–365] yielded only eight sherds of this type in contrast to 300 sherds of GB3e), and elsewhere, often together with GB1a but in larger quantities. Adan-Bayewitz (1993: 91–97) dates it, on the basis of many parallels, from the end of the first or early second to the mid-fourth centuries c.e. Proposed date: early second to early fourth centuries c.e. GB1c, GB1d, GB1e.  All three Galilean Bowl types may be considered sub­ variants of one type. In all three, the rim is thickened and elongated, the walls are sloped and ribbed on their interior, the base is flat, and there are small protruding degenerate handles. The types are distinguished from each other by the number of grooves appearing on or missing from the rim. GB1c (= Adan 1C).  This Galilean bowl is characterized by one groove on the rim. It is not a common type and appears contemporaneously with GB1d. This was not a common type at Sepphoris, and the few sherds found there come from the cistern assemblages dated from the mid-second to third centuries c.e. Parallels: At Capernaum, Type A13, from the third century c.e.; at the Zeid Farm (Beth Sheʿarim), from the third to mid-fourth centuries c.e. (Avigad 1976: Ill. 3:9– 11); at Migdal and elsewhere, from the mid-third to the end of the fourth centuries c.e. (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 98-100). Proposed date: mid/end of the third century to the fourth century c.e. GB1d (= Adan 1D) (pl. 16:11–13).  This bowl type has two grooves on the rim. It, too, was less common; and Adan-Bayewitz dates it from the mid-third to the end of the fourth centuries c.e. This type, too, was uncommon at Sepphoris; only a small quantity was found in the cistern assemblages dated from the mid-second to third centuries and in the destruction level (Balouka 2004: 42, pl. 3:11). Proposed date: from the mid-/end of the third century to the second half of the fourth century c.e. GB1e (= Adan 1E) (pl. 16:14–16).  This bowl variant is the most common of the last three subtypes. The rim is simple, with a round or square lip and no grooves. A depression and ridge are sometimes found beneath the rim. This type was common at Sepphoris mainly in the fourth century, but a small quantity was also found in some earlier cistern assemblages. Of all the Galilean

34

Roman Pottery

bowls, this type was predominant and is virtually the only one found in the site’s fourth-century c.e. destruction debris (see also Balouka 2004: 42, pl. 3:12). Parallels: This type appears in assemblages from the end of the Roman period at Capernaum (A15), from 300–450 c.e. (Loffreda 1974: fig. 5:21–23). At Meiron, it comes from Strata IV and V, dated by the excavators from the end of the third to the beginning of the fifth centuries c.e. (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: 54, 123, pl. 8.1:1–37). At Jalame, it is dated to the fourth century c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-23, Var. 5). Adan-Bayewitz (1993: 103–9) maintains, on the basis of the finds from Meiron and Capernaum, that this bowl-type began to appear in the mid-third century and continued to be used until the early fifth century c.e. This is one of the last vessel types produced in the Kefar Hananiah workshop before the termination of its activity. Proposed date: from the mid-third century to the second half of the fourth century c.e. Small Cooking Jars (SCJ) The small cooking jar is a kind of cooking pot with a very narrow neck, similar in diameter to the neck of the cooking jug. It has two loop handles on the shoulders and no strainer or spout. It was probably used to heat water. SCJ1 (= Adan 5A) (pls. 8:19–21; 14:1–3).  This small jar has a flat, inverted rim and a short cylindrical neck. The globular and ribbed body is reminiscent of the CP3b body. These vessels, which are less common than the cooking pots, were found in Sepphoris in Early Roman 2 and Middle Roman levels. They probably were produced in the Kefar Hananiah workshop (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 135–39). Parallels: An intact small cooking jar of this type was found in the vessel assemblage at Horvat Hazon, where it is dated from the second to third centuries c.e. (Bahat 1974: fig. 4:11). Proposed date: early second to third centuries c.e. SCJ2 (= Adan 5B) (pl. 29:11–12).  The type has a “hooked” or thickened everted rim. The neck is narrow; the body is globular but carinated toward the base. It is less common in the Roman period than in the Byzantine period (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 139–41). Most of the specimens found at Sepphoris are not securely dated. One sherd (pl. 29:12) comes from fourth-century c.e. destruction debris. Parallels: Similar small jars were found in Cistern 3 (C-6) at Meiron, where they are dated to the first half of the fourth century c.e. (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pls. 6.2:4–9; 6.4:7–11). Proposed date: from fourth to early fifth (?) centuries c.e. Cooking Jugs (CJG) These jugs were made from the same ware as the cooking pots and were probably used to heat water or other liquids. The mouth is usually wide, and the neck

Roman Pottery

35

narrows toward the center; sometimes a strainer was added. The handle extends from the neck to the shoulder, allowing for a comfortable grip when pouring. Some of the jugs have a small spout. CJG1 (= Adan 6A) (pl. 14:4–7).  This cooking jug has a “hooked” rim and a conical neck widening downward. A loop handle extends from the neck to the shoulder, and a spout is located opposite the handle (at a 180° angle). All the sherds of this vessel at Sepphoris were found in cistern assemblages. Adan-Bayewitz (1993: 142–43) dates this vessel-type from the early to approximately mid-second century. Proposed date: mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. CJG2 (=Adan 6B) (pls. 8:22; 14:8–11).  This cooking jug has a wide “hooked” rim. A strainer with several holes appears at the base of the neck. A spout is located at a 90° angle from the handle. The body is decorated with horizontal incisions running across it. At Sepphoris, it is found in Early Roman loci and in cistern assemblages. Parallels: This is not a very common vessel type. Adan-Bayewitz (1993: 143–44) dates it, on the basis of a few parallels, from the early second to the end of the third/ early fourth centuries c.e. It was found in the Horvat Hazon assemblage from the second to third centuries (Bahat 1974: fig. 4:15); examples from Jalame are dated to the fourth century c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-45:683). Proposed date: second to third/early fourth (?) centuries c.e. CJG2-3 (pl. 29:13–15).  These cooking jugs have a “hooked” rim, a narrow cylindrical neck tapering at its base, a handle extending from the neck to the shoulder, and a spout at a 90° angle from the handle. They look like a combination of two other cooking jugs (CJG2 and CJG3). All the cooking jug sherds discovered in fourth-century c.e. destruction debris at Sepphoris are of this type, which may be a transitional form characteristic of the first half of the fourth century c.e. (Balouka 2004: 42, pl. 3:13–14). CJG3 (= Adan 6C).  This cooking jug has a more rounded rim; the neck is narrow; its aperture is narrow at the base; its walls are thicker than those in its preceding variants; and it has no strainer. This form begins to appear at Sepphoris around the mid-fourth to early fifth centuries c.e., but most of the sherds came from an undated context and therefore are not presented in the plates of the Roman pottery in this chapter. Parallels: At Capernaum, it is found in contexts dating to the end of the fourth and part of the fifth centuries c.e. (Loffreda 1974: fig.  3:13–15 [Type A8]; 1982: fig. 4:10 [with revised dating]). Adan-Bayewitz (1993:144–46) dates it from the early fourth to early fifth centuries c.e.

Storage Jars (SJ) Most of the jars from Sepphoris are of the bag-shaped type, which was the most common jar in Israel in the Roman–Byzantine periods. These forms were produced

36

Roman Pottery

Photo 7.  Storage jars of the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.

at various workshops throughout the country and were distributed primarily in local markets. However, they were also discovered at sites abroad: for example, in the Athenian agora and at Corinth ( Johnson 1988: 213–14; Adan-Bayewitz 1986: 95–96; Peacock and Williams 1986: 191–92). The jars were used to store a variety of contents. At Jalame, they tend to be viewed as water-storage jars ( Johnson 1988: 214), at Caesarea for the storage of white wine (Riley 1975: 26–29). At Meiron they were discovered, with their contents still inside them, in Room F (perhaps a storeroom) of the Patrician House (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: 60–68). All the jars of this type have a barrel-shaped body resembling a bag widening toward the base, a medium-sized neck with a ridge at its base, two loop handles on the shoulders, and a rounded base. Ribbing (prominent tracks of the potter’s wheel) is usually visible on part of the body’s surface and on the base. The clay appears in various shades of orange-red to brown and black. The vessels are well fired, and the ware has a metal ring (see Zemer 1977: 71–74 for their distribution and date). The jars are distinguished from each other primarily by the shape of the rim, although there are also differences in the thickness of the wall, the color of the clay, the presence or lack of carination on the shoulder, and other details. Scholars often tend to consider all the bag-shaped jars as belonging to one group without acknowledging their typological differences. Therefore, the dating is quite broad; and the parallels noted in the literature are at times generalized.

Roman Pottery

37

We have divided the bag-shaped jars from Sepphoris into a number of subtypes and date them by their stratigraphic context and by parallels from other sites. This division enabled us to distinguish among the earlier types of bag-shaped jars characteristic of the first century c.e., types of jars representative of the second to third centuries c.e., those that began appearing only in the fourth century, and yet others (which are beyond the purview of this report) that began to surface only in the fifth century and later. The jars from the first century b.c.e. and first century c.e. still have a narrow and more elongated (“sausage-shaped”) body, and in this regard they resemble the Hellenistic jars. Toward the second century c.e., the jars began to assume a bag shape that widens downward. Hellenistic–Early Roman Storage Jars (HSJ) HSJ1a-b (pls. 1:6–7, 19–21; 3:8–9); HSJ1c (1:8, 22–24; 3:1–7).  These were the most dominant types among the storage jars in the Hellenistic period throughout the land and continued to be found during the first two-thirds of the first century c.e. (Guz-Zilberstein 1995: figs. 6.35–6.37:1–2 [bag shaped jars: JR1a–c]). These two types feature an elongated body with rounded shoulders. They are made of light gray clay and have thickened, everted rims. Roman Storage Jars (SJ) SJ1 (pl. 4:1–9).  This is essentially the first Roman jar from Sepphoris. It has a narrow and elongated, “sausage-shaped” body. The neck is long, mildly everted, and ribbed along its entire length. The rim is simple and everted. A depression and a prominent ridge beneath it are visible below the neck. Two loop handles sit on the rounded shoulder. The body is ribbed and the base is pointed. This jar was common primarily in northern Israel in the Early Roman period. At Capernaum, it is dated from the end of the first century b.c.e. to the mid-first century c.e. (Loffreda 1982: fig. 2:2–3). It is also present in the vessel group found with the boat at Ginossar and is dated to the first two-thirds of the first century c.e. (Adan-Bayewitz 1999: fig.  11:9–10). Díez Fernández (1983: 135 [T.1.3]) also dates this jar from 63 b.c.e. to 70 c.e., based on parallels from southern Israel. At Sepphoris, it is common primarily in assemblages from Early Roman 1 loci (Balouka 2004: 37, pl. 2:1–2). Proposed date: end of the first century b.c.e. to the second third of the first century c.e. SJ2 (pls. 3:10–12; 17:1–10); SJ3 (pls. 10:1–4; 18:1–6); Doubtful: SJ2 or SJ3 (pl. 10:5– 8).  These two jar types are distinguishable only if a sherd including the vessel’s shoulder is preserved. They are both bag-shaped jars with two large loop handles on the shoulders, a rounded base, and ribbing on the body. Both have an everted rim (either rounded or triangular), at times with an interior gutter, and a ridge at the base of the neck. The first jar type (SJ2) has rounded shoulders with no carination; its body is narrow and more elongated than that of SJ3. This form is a continuation of the Hellenistic and Early Roman jars (HSJ1a-c, SJ1; see pls. 3, 4). The second jar

38

Roman Pottery

type (SJ3) has a carinated shoulder, and its barrel-shaped body is wider than that of SJ2. A horizontal white band often encompassed the body of both jar types. These were the most common storage jars in Sepphoris and the north in the Middle Roman period. They were popular at Hammat Tiberias, Tiberias, Capernaum, Horvat Hazon, Meiron, Nabratein, Susita, Gamla, ʿEn Nashut, and Dabiyyeh (Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman 1990: 91–92, fig.11:9–10; Strange, Groh, and Longstaff 1995: 180–87). These vessels were also found in Early Roman contexts at Caesarea, Horvat ʿAqav, and throughout the entire country (Calderon 2000: 91–92 [Type 1A]). Adan-Bayewitz’s Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) has identified Shikhin as the workshop in which these two types were produced (Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman 1990: fig. 3:3; Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992: fig. 5:5). Shikhin, renowned in the second century c.e. as a barrel (= jar) workshop, lies very close to Sepphoris and sold its wares in the Sepphoris marketplaces (see below for other vessels from Shikhin). At Sepphoris, SJ2, with the rounded shoulders, begins to appear already in the first century c.e. From the second century c.e. onward, the two types appear together in the same loci and were used simultaneously until the end of the third or beginning of the fourth centuries c.e., undergoing a few changes over time. Sherds of these jar types were present in small quantities in the destruction loci of the House of Dionysos and are almost entirely absent from the destruction debris of the residential area on the western summit (Balouka 2004: 37, 42, pl. 2:3–4). Thus, they were uncommon in the mid-fourth century and probably no longer in use in this period. Parallels: At Jalame, both jars were common; on the basis of the parallels (all from northern Israel), they are dated from the second to fifth centuries c.e. ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-51:762–72). At Horvat Hazon, SJ3—with the carinated shoulders— was discovered in an assemblage from Cistern 1, which is dated entirely to the second to third centuries c.e. (Bahat 1974: fig. 3:1–3) mainly on the basis of parallels; but a roof tile of the Roman Sixth Legion was discovered at the site. At Caesarea, Variant B is dated generally, on the basis of the entire assemblage, from the first to fourth centuries c.e. (Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986: 172, fig. 2:4–6); the lower the ridge begins between the neck and the shoulder, the later the date of the jar. At Capernaum, Type A1 (which parallels SJ2 at Sepphoris) was initially dated by Loffreda (1974: fig. 1:1–2) from 63 b.c.e. to 135 c.e.; but he later revised the dating of this type from the second half of the first century b.c.e. to the early first century c.e. (Loffreda 1982: fig. 3:1–3, 5). Capernaum Type A2, which parallels SJ3, is dated from 135 to 450 c.e. At Horvat ʿAqav, Type 1A is dated—based on parallels throughout country—from the end of the first century b.c.e. to the mid-second century c.e. (Calderon 2000: 91–92, pl. I:1–8). Proposed dates: SJ2: first to the end of the third centuries c.e. (perhaps early fourth century c.e.). SJ3: second to the end of the third/early fourth centuries c.e. SJ4 [SJ4a (pl. 19:1–6); SJ4b (pl. 30:1–4)].  This jar has a folded rim and a ridge at the base of the neck. Its average rim diameter is 9.1 cm. Two loop handles rest on the rounded shoulder. The body is wide and bag-shaped, the base is slightly pointed

Roman Pottery

39

on its bottom, and almost the entire body and base of the vessel are ribbed. A horizontal white band often encompasses the body of the jar, as was often characteristic of the jars produced at Shikhin. Two subtypes may be discerned: an early variant and a late one. The rim of the earlier jar (SJ4a) is meticulously shaped and is more pointed than the later one (SJ4b), which is rounded and sometimes everted. This jar is quite common in the north; for the most part, no distinction was made between the two subtypes. The early variant was found in Sepphoris’s residential area in assemblages dated from the second to third centuries c.e.; the late variant was discovered in the fourthcentury c.e. destruction debris. A number of jar sherds of the early variant were found beneath the floor of the House of Dionysos (Area 86.1; Balouka 2004: 37, pl. 2:5), and many sherds of the late variant emerged from its destruction materials (Balouka 2004: 42, pl. 4:1). Parallels: At Capernaum, Type A3 is dated from the Middle to Late Roman periods (135–450 c.e.; Loffreda 1974: fig. 1:4). At Tel er-Ras (Nablus), the jars are dated from the second half of the third to the first half of the fourth centuries c.e., before 363 c.e. (Bull and Campbell 1968: fig. 10:2–10, 12, 14). At Caesarea, Type IA is dated from the end of the first to the fourth centuries c.e. (Bar-Nathan and Adato 1986: fig. 2:1–3); according to Blakely (1988: fig. 7:1–2), they are to be dated from the second to fourth, and perhaps early fifth, centuries c.e. At Khirbet Shemaʿ, this type is dated from the third to early fifth centuries c.e.; and most of the sherds come from a third-to-fourth-century c.e. context (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: pl. 7.20:17– 31). At Jalame, it appears in the fourth century ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-51:773–77). A similar jar was produced in the Uzza workshop in Levels 8–9, between 310 and 410 c.e. (Avshalom-Gorni 1998: 57–58). Proposed dates: SJ4a: third to the early fourth centuries c.e. (?) SJ4b: first two-thirds of the fourth century c.e. SJ5 (pl. 19:7–8).  This wide bag-shaped jar has a thick wall. The clay is yelloworange, the rim is simple and mildly inverted, the neck is ridged, two loop handles rest on the shoulders, and the base is flattened. This type was uncommon at Sepphoris; it was discovered in small numbers in Middle Roman period contexts. Proposed dates: mid-second to third centuries c.e. SJ6 (pl. 20:1–4).  This wide-mouthed bag-shaped jar has a thickened rim, either flat or everted. Its neck is short and has a ridge at its base; two loop handles rest on the shoulders; and the base is convex. This type was found in small quantities in some Middle Roman period cistern assemblages. Proposed date: mid-second to third centuries c.e. SJ7 (pl. 20:5–12).  This wide-mouthed bag-shaped jar features a grooved ledge rim, a short neck, and a prominent ridge at its base. Two loop handles rest on the

40

Roman Pottery

shoulders. Some of the neck sherds are decorated with a white-painted band or with drips of white paint on the rim (cf. the painted bowls/lids [pl. 24:3–10]; these vessels were probably produced at the same time and in the same workshop). Small numbers of these jars were found at Sepphoris in the cistern assemblages dated to the Middle Roman period, in the probes beneath the floor of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 37, pl. 2:6), as well as in a number of undated loci. Proposed date: mid-second to the third century c.e. SJ8 (pl.  30:5–7).  This jar type, which is made of reddish-brown clay, has a thickened rim with a diamond-shaped section and an average diameter of 8.4 cm. A ridge is visible at the base of the neck. Only a few sherds of this jar type were found at Sepphoris. On the basis of its parallel to Meiron (where intact jars of a similar type were discovered), it can be assumed that this jar is carinated on the shoulder and has a bag-shaped body, with its maximum width at the base. The Sepphoris examples of this jar come from the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris (Balouka 2004: 42, pl. 4:2–4). This type is very rare in earlier loci, and only a few sherds appear in later contexts. Parallels: This jar was very common at Meiron, in loci of Stratum IV dated from 250 to 365 c.e. (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: figs. 3.22, 3.25, 3.26). In Room F of the Patrician House, which in all probability functioned as a storeroom, about 19 bag-shaped storage jars (A–S) were found. The jars from L. 4040 were buried beneath a heavy layer of debris (L 4037), and most of them were almost fully restorable. They were discovered together with 5 coins dated no later than the first half of the fourth century c.e. Level V, found above the debris, yielded 33 coins from the mid-fourth century c.e. and one from 364 to 375 c.e. The excavators offer several explanations for the site’s abandonment and partial destruction, which occurred, they believe, ca. 363 c.e. (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: 160–61; see also the discussion of the pottery at Meiron by Balouka 1999: 35, 75 [SJ6]). The jars were discovered with their original contents, which included various food items such as wheat, ful (fava) beans, and walnuts. These vessels differ slightly from one another, but the importance of the assemblage lies in the fact that they were all used in the same storehouse at the same time and contained a number of different commodities (grains, legumes, and nuts). Of all the jars at Meiron, Jars A, B, J, N, and O mostly resemble this jar type from Sepphoris. Similar jars come from the second half of the fourth century c.e. at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: 214–19). According to Díez Fernández (1983: 140 [T.1.8:90–92]), these jars were in use primarily from the mid-third to mid-fourth centuries c.e. At Sumaqa, this jar is parallel to Jar LATE ROMAN 5b (Dar 1999: 268). A similar type of jar was possibly produced in the Uzza workshop of Level 8, between 310 and 330 c.e. (Avshalom-Gorni 1998: 55–56, fig. 3:3–5 [Type 1.3.1]). Proposed date: ca. second third of the fourth century c.e. SJ9 (pl. 30:8–11).  This storage jar has a flat, slightly everted rim and a short neck with a ridge slightly above its base. Two loop handles sit on the jar’s carinated

Roman Pottery

41

shoulders. A horizontal white band encompasses the vessel’s body. The average diameter of the rim is 8.2 cm. This jar was common in fourth-century c.e. destruction materials of the western summit and the House of Dionysos but was quite rare in other loci at the site. The time of its use seems to have been short. No parallels were found (Balouka 2004: 43, pl. 4:5–6). Proposed date: ca. second third of the fourth century c.e. SJ10 (pl.  30:12–15).  The rim of this vessel, which is elongated, folded, and slightly everted, is reminiscent of the rim shape of Jar SJ4; however, the rim of this jar is wider, averaging 11.5 cm. The neck is shorter than that of SJ4, and its base is ridged. Two loop handles rest on the shoulders, which are not carinated. Ribbing is prominent over the entire surface of the vessel. This bag-shaped jar is made from a good metallic clay. The walls are black and the core is red. 19 Sherds of this jar were found in Sepphoris’s fourth-century c.e. destruction debris (Balouka 2004:43, pl.  4:8–9). Intact jars of this type, with a white-painted decoration on the body, were found in the levels above the destruction debris of the House of Dionysos. Parallels: Jalame, fourth century c.e. (e.g., Johnson 1988: fig. 7-53:810). Proposed date: mid-fourth to fifth centuries c.e. SJ11 (pl. 10: 9–10).  This small jar or amphora has a thickened, everted rim and two handles running from the rim to the globular body. Parallel: A small amphora of bright brownish clay from cistern 319 in Shikmona is dated there to the second century c.e. (Elgavish and Banai 1977: 42, pl. VI:34). Proposed date: end of the first to the beginning of the second centuries c.e. Pithos (pl. 31:11) The very large storage jar shown on pl. 31:11 is made of crude, gritty clay. Its material and mode of production are reminiscent of the handmade basins. The rim has two grooves, the neck is short and wide, and two large handles extend from the shoulder downward. Good parallels were not found. Sherds of this vessel were found in Sepphoris’s fourth-century c.e. destruction debris. Proposed date: second half of the fourth century c.e. Amphorae (pl. 26: 10–16) Only a few imported amphora sherds, all coming from loci dated to the second and third centuries c.e., were found at Sepphoris. The sherds represent amphorae of various types that cannot be identified with certainty owing to the small size of the fragments. Nor can it be said that a single specific type was characteristic of Sepphoris in this period. It is possible that these vessels reached Sepphoris in secondary use and without their original contents. The paucity of imported amphora sherds contributes to the notion that the majority of vessels at Roman Sepphoris were locally produced rather than imported. 19.  The color of the clay and core is greatly influenced by the firing temperature and also by the placement of the vessel in the kiln. Therefore, many color variations are possible.

42

Roman Pottery

Pouring Vessels Amphoriskoi (AMP) AMP1 (pl. 5:12–14).  This amphoriskos is an uncommon form. It has a simple rim, long neck, and two handles running from the neck to the shoulder. Parallels: Díez Fernández (1983: 144 [T2.2:135]) presents similar specimens from el-Makr and dates them to the second and third centuries c.e. All the specimens from Sepphoris date to the first century c.e. AMP2 (pls. 11:2; 21:7–9).  The clay and shape of this amphoriskos resemble Jug 1 (see below), but this type has two handles. The rim is rounded and everted, and the neck is conical and ridged beneath the rim. All the examples have an omphalos base and two handles extending from the ridge of the neck, or from below the ridge, to the shoulder. 20 An earlier variant, with a globular body (pl.  11:2), is from an Early Roman locus (first to early second centuries c.e.). The more common types (pl. 21:7–9), having a piriform body, appear from the mid-second to the end of the third centuries (Middle Roman period). AMP3 (pls. 11:3; 26:1–9).  These amphoriskoi were made from friable, poorly fired, yellowish-green clay; they have an everted cup-shaped rim, at times with a round or triangular section. Beneath the cup-shaped rim is a ridge, where the conical neck begins to widen downward. The neck sometimes has a small hole that may have been connected to the vessel’s function, either for storage or for pouring wine (see, e.g., pl.  26:3–6). Two handles emerge from the middle of the neck and run toward the shoulder. The body is piriform. The single base that has survived in an early locus (Early Roman 2) indicates that this type had an omphalos base. This type is common at Sepphoris, especially from the second to third centuries c.e. Parallels: This type was identified at Geva as an amphora that held wine, originating perhaps in Greece, where it is dated from the first to third centuries c.e. (Zemer 1988: 81, fig. 13). An intact vessel was discovered at Pella in Transjordan, where it is dated to the third century c.e. (Smith and Day 1989: pl. 45:15). Proposed date: end of first(?)/second to the third centuries c.e. Jugs (JG) JG1 (pls. 1:25–26; 6:1–4; 11:1; 21:1–6).  The rim of this jug-type is rounded and everted, the neck is conical and ridged beneath the rim, the body is piriform with an omphalos base, and a handle extends from the ridge of the neck, or from below it, to the shoulder. This was the most widely found jug at Roman Sepphoris. Its earlier variant, with a globular body (pl.1:25–26), appears in a Late Hellenistic locus. In the Early Roman period (first to early second centuries c.e.), it begins to assume a squashed globular form with an omphalos base. From the mid-second to the end of the third centuries (Middle Roman period), the body assumes a piriform shape. 20.  Despite the similarity to Jug 1, which was made in the Shikhin workshop, this particular vessel—according to Adan-Bayewitz’s NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis)—was not produced there.

Roman Pottery

Photo 8.  Jug ( JG1) of the Early Roman period.

43

Photo 9.  Jug ( JG1) of the Early Roman period.

This jug was produced in the workshop at Shikhin (Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992: 196, fig. 5:3). At Sepphoris, it begins to appear in loci of the Late Hellenistic period and continues into the Early Roman period. It is very common in assemblages dating to the second and third centuries but no later. Parallels: At Capernaum, this jug-type is dated to the Early and Middle Roman periods (first century b.c.e., probably until the third century c.e.). At Meiron and Jalame, it is in use until the fourth century (Loffreda 1974: fig.  4:6–10; Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pl. 8:1:13; Johnson 1988: fig. 7-45:668). Proposed date: first century b.c.e. to third century c.e. JG2 (pl. 5:9–11).  The everted rim of this vessel has a depression or interior thickness. The neck narrows toward the center and widens toward the shoulder; it sometimes has a thin groove. The handle emerges from the neck and extends toward to shoulder, and the walls are thin. This type is rare at Sepphoris, where it comes from Early Roman 1 contexts. Parallels: Díez Fernández (1983: 144 [T2.4:139]) presents a first-century c.e. parallel of this jug type from Beth Sheʿarim. At Yotapata, it was found in an Early Roman assemblage (before 70 c.e.; Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997: fig. 12:18). Proposed date: first two-thirds of the first century c.e. JG3a (pl. 5:16).  This jug-type has a wide “hooked” rim, a conical neck that widens toward the shoulder, and a slight carination on the shoulder. Its handle emerges from the rim and extends to the shoulder.

Roman Pottery

44

Only one sherd of this early jug was found at Sepphoris, and it was discovered in a first-century c.e. locus. JG3b (pl. 21:10–13).  This jug has an everted triangular rim. The neck is conical and has a sharp carination on the shoulder. The lower part of the body curves toward the omphalos base. The handle emerges from the rim and extends down toward the neck. This jug type is made of light brown clay. It is quite common at Sepphoris in Middle Roman assemblages, but practically no parallels for it are found elsewhere. According to Adan-Bayewitz’s analysis, this type was most probably produced in Shikhin (Adan-Bayewitz, personal communication). Proposed date: mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. JG4 (pl. 6:5–8).  This jug, which resembles Juglet 2b, has a simple everted rim and a sharp, sometimes downward-turning ridge on its conical neck. A handle extends from the ridge to the shoulder. The slightly squashed globular body is ribbed and has an omphalos base. Proposed date: first two-thirds of the first century c.e. JG5 — Strainer Jug (pl. 5:1–8).  This strainer jug is made of red clay similar to the material from which cooking pots were made, but it has no visible soot marks. The rim is everted and at times has a triangular section, the neck is ridged in its center, it has a strainer, and it has a ring base. The handle extends from the ridge on the neck to the carinated shoulder; beneath it is a spout positioned at a 90° angle from the handle. One of the intact vessels and the body sherd of another jug have a rouletted decoration on the lower half of the body (see pl. 5:1, 8; the latter is painted with a white stripe). These are uncommon vessels that have no parallels. At Sepphoris, they were found only in Early Roman contexts in first-century c.e. loci. Proposed date: first century c.e. JG6 — Trefoil Jugs JG6a (pl. 11:15–18).  This jug with a trefoil rim has a long and narrow or conical neck. The shoulders turn downward and terminate in a sharp carination, and the lower part of the body curves toward the base. The handle extends from the middle of the neck to the shoulder and is located on the opposite side of the jug’s mouth to facilitate pouring. The jug is found at Sepphoris in loci dating from the mid-first to mid-second centuries c.e. Parallels: A similar jug made of brown clay with a black core was found at Shikmona and dates to the Roman period (Elgavish and Banai 1977: pl. XII:103). JG6b (pl. 11:19-21).  This jug has a trefoil rim with a carinated ridge beneath it. The neck is conical and widens downward. The handle extends from the ridge to the shoulder. It is found at Sepphoris in loci from the mid-first to the mid-second centuries c.e.

Roman Pottery

45

JG6c (pl. 22:9–12).  The trefoil rim and spout of this jug is less pronounced than the preceding examples. The neck is conical and the body is globular. The handle extends from the neck to the shoulder. This jug-type is found in assemblages from the mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. Juglets ( JT) JT1 (pls. 6:9–13; 11:12–14).  This globular juglet features a cup-shaped mouth and a narrow neck. The handle extends from the rim to the body. The base is flat and the body is ribbed. Parallels: This is the most common juglet in Judea, especially in contexts dating from the First Revolt (66–73 c.e.); it is found in small numbers, also in Galilee, from the first century b.c.e. to the first century c.e. (Bar-Nathan 2002: 163–64, Ill. 103 [ J‑JT1A2]; Díez Photo 10.  Jug ( JG3b) of the Middle Roman period. Fernández 1983: 182–84 [T8.1]). Proposed date: first to early second centuries c.e. JT2a (pls. 11:22–24; 22: 6–8).  This juglet has a simple everted rim and a sharp ridge on the mildly conical neck, and the handle extends from the ridge to the shoulder. Its squashed globular or piriform body is ribbed, and its base is small and flat, with string marks indicative of the vessel’s detachment from the potter’s wheel. Parallels: These juglets were probably used as small containers for cosmetics, primarily in Galilee (Díez Fernández 1983: T8.2; this example dates from the second third of the first century b.c.e. to the mid-first century c.e., and T8.3 dates from the end of the first to the end of the third centuries c.e.). This juglet type was also found at Shaʿab (Aviam 1998:79–80, fig. 2:1) inside a burial cave together with a Roman discus lamp dated from the end of the second to early third centuries c.e. Proposed date: first to the end of the third centuries c.e. JT2b (pls. 11:7–11; 22:1–5).  This juglet resembles JG3 but is smaller. It has a wide, squat piriform body, a slightly conical neck, a simple everted rim, and a sharp ridge on the neck that often turns downward. The handle extends from the ridge to the shoulder. The body is ribbed and has a small, flat base or a ring base. According to Adan-Bayewitz, this juglet was produced in the workshop at Shikhin (Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992: 196, fig. 5:4). It was very common in Galilee.

46

Roman Pottery

This form was common at Sepphoris from the last third of the first century c.e. to the second and third centuries c.e. (Balouka 2004: pl. 1:11). Parallels: This juglet was found both in burial tombs, as at Nazareth (Feig 1990: fig. 9:2:3), and at settlements, such as Yotapata, from the Early Roman period (before 67 c.e.; Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997: 142, fig. 12:19). Diez Fernández (1983: T8.4) dates it from the end of the first century b.c.e. to the beginning of the third century c.e. It is also found outside of the region, at Jericho, Shikmona, Beth Shean, and other Early Roman sites (Bar-Nathan 2002: 164, Ill. 104 [Type J‑JT3B]). Proposed date: first to the end of the third centuries c.e.

Kraters, Basins, Mortaria, and Locally Made Bowls and Cups Kraters (KR) “Sepphoris Krater” KR1 (pls. 7:1–2; 12:1–8; 23:1–7; 31:2–4).  This carinated krater has an everted “hooked” rim that turns downward and then upward in several variations. The wall beneath the rim is slightly carinated, creating a depression between it and the rim that facilitates carrying the vessel (instead of handles). The complete vessels have a rounded base with three large “legs” resembling loop handles; these legs are almost identical to the loop handles on jars. The vessel’s wall is thick. The clay and its treatment resemble those of jar lids and SJ2–3 jars. Because this vessel is ubiquitous at Sepphoris, it was dubbed the “Sepphoris krater.” The frequency with which they were found at Sepphoris led to the conclusion that these kraters were produced nearby; and, indeed, Adan-Bayewitz’s clay tests established that they were made in the Shikhin workshop (Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992: 196, fig. 5:1). The vessel’s function is not clear. Judging by its size, shape, and crude appearance, it may have been used as an open storage vessel, not as a serving vessel. 21 This krater, which began to appear in Sepphoris already in the first century c.e., underwent a number of changes over time. The early, first century c.e. bowl probably continues the tradition of Hellenistic bowls with a thickened ledge-rim and rounded base, and it seems to have been made of a clay composition different from its prototypes (pls. 7:1–2; 12:1–2). The bowls from the end of the first to the beginning of the second centuries c.e. are characterized by a wide, flat ledge-rim terminating in a “hook” shape (pls. 12:3, 5–6). Over time (mid-second to the end of the third and early fourth centuries), the rim became extended and rounded downward, creating a depression for holding the vessel (pl. 12:4, 7–8; 23:1–7). In contrast, the late bowls (second third of the fourth century c.e.) have a degenerate rim with “hooked” ends that almost join the vessel wall, thus blurring or removing the carination and canceling the depression. Only bowl sherds with a degenerative rim (pl.  31:2–4) were found in the fourth-century c.e. destruction materials at Sepphoris (Balouka 2004: 37, pl. 1:7, 43, pl. 4:10–12); see also pl. 44:8–10 in chap. 4 below (p. 180). 21.  Editors: The possibility that these vessels were chamber pots should also be considered.

Roman Pottery

47

Parallels: At Jalame, this type of ca. mid-fourth century date was found scattered all over the site ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-30). At Khirbet Shemaʿ, sherds of this type came from T-17 (the miqveh) and SEII (the industrial and commercial area), rather than a domestic context, and thus perhaps had a public or commercial use; they are from Stratum IV (early fourth to early fifth centuries c.e.; Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: pl. 7.17:15–20). Other parallels are from Capernaum, 150–300 c.e. (not degenerate; Loffreda 1974: 42 [Type A18]), and Zeid Farm (Beth Sheʿarim), third to first half of the fourth century (Avigad 1976: ill. 3:4). Díez Fernández (1983: 178) dates the degenerate types (T21.4, T21.5) from the end of the third century to 365 c.e. KR2 (pl. 31:5).  A carinated krater, similar to KR1, has a ledge-rim ending in a “hook,” a slight carination beneath the rim, two horizontal loop handles on the vessel’s wall beneath the carination, and a combed decoration (bands of horizontal and wavy lines) on the exterior wall. This type is uncommon. One sherd was found in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris at Sepphoris. The combed decoration is more characteristic of vessels from the Byzantine period, but this was probably its first appearance. Proposed date: mid-fourth century c.e. KR3 (pl. 12:10–19).  This is a group of kraters and bowls of various shapes. Only rim and body sherds were recovered; there are no specimens of complete vessels. The rim or shoulder carination is decorated with thumb impressions. The rim is at times grooved and sometimes “hooked.” Some of the sherds are decorated with white stripes. These vessels appear in Early Roman 2 contexts at Sepphoris. Proposed date: end of the first to the beginning of the second centuries c.e. Basins (BS) Many basins—large pots with thick, outward-sloping walls and a flat base—of various types were found at Sepphoris. The clay, containing different-sized grits and sometimes also straw, is crude; its color is light, ranging between light pink and light orange to light brown. Some of the vessels have a slip on the interior, and some have it on the exterior. Some of the vessels were probably handmade. The various types are distinguished from each other primarily by the shape of the rim. BS1 (pl. 23:8–11).  This basin has a wide, flat, everted rim; beneath it, on the vessel’s exterior, is a slight depression. The light pink and orange fabric is gritty, and the surface of the vessel is light yellowish-green. According to the comprehensive survey and petrographic examination of Blakely, Brinkmann, and Vitaliano (1992 [Class 1]), these vessels were probably produced in Cyprus or on the northeastern coast of the Mediterranean region some time between the second and fourth centuries c.e. This conclusion was reached because the provenance of the clay was not indigenous to the region despite the fact that most of these basins were found in western Palestine.

48

Roman Pottery

Many sherds of this type were found at Sepphoris, especially in mid-second and third-century contexts, including beneath the floors of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 39, pl. 1:9). Parallels: Jalame, second half of the fourth century; Shikmona, Roman period—that is, second and third centuries c.e.; Zeid Farm (Beth Sheʿarim), third to mid-fourth centuries ( Johnson 1988: fig.  7-31:488–93; Elgavish and Banai 1977: pl. XI:85, 87; Avigad 1955: fig. 3:8); very common at Caesarea (Blakely, Brinkmann, and Vitaliano 1992: fig. 2:5–29 [Class 1]). Proposed date: mid-second and third centuries (beginning of the fourth?) c.e. BS2 (pl. 31:7–8).  This basin has a simple rim, a slight depression in the wall beneath the rim, and a flat base. One of the common basins at Sepphoris, it is found in fourth-century c.e. destruction debris, in a Late Roman–Byzantine locus, and in several undated contexts at the site. Parallels: At Jalame, it is called Variant 11 and is dated to the third quarter of the fourth century ( Johnson 1988: fig.  7-32:511). At Capernaum, a similar type— Type D5—is dated to the Late Roman period—that is, ca. 300–450 c.e. (Loffreda 1974: fig. 14:12–14). Proposed date: second half of fourth to early fifth centuries c.e. (?). BS3 (pl. 31:9–10).  The ridge beneath the rim of this basin is decorated, for the most part with thumb impressions. This basin was common at Sepphoris, where it was found in fourth-century c.e. destruction materials. Parallels: At Jalame, this type has several variants (8–10; Johnson 1988: fig. 7-32:​ 507–10). However, it seems that there is no significant difference among them; all are dated to the third quarter of the fourth century c.e. At Capernaum, Type D4 is dated to the Late Roman period (Loffreda 1974: fig. 14:6–11). Proposed date: second half of the fourth century c.e. Mortaria (pl. 31:6) This large pottery mortarium has a very broad ledge-rim that slopes slightly downward, in the form of a gutter, to afford a comfortable grip of the vessel and to facilitate pouring of the crushed material. The base is flat, and the walls are thick and slope outward. The mortarium rim bears a potter’s stamp in Greek (the range of names is small), usually appearing in two rows within a rectangle. A number of identical stamps appear over the entire rim. 22 The clay is black-brown to orange-red and contains chalk and various grits, as well as tiny splints of glass. At Sepphoris, several sherds of this vessel were discovered in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris (Balouka 2004: 45, pl. 4:14). One sherd (pl. 31:6) from an undated locus bears the Greek stamp “Hermogenos,” a common name on these mortaria. Parallels: Hayes (1967: 337–47) has demonstrated that the place of production of these mortaria is Ras al-Basit in northern Syria (25 km southwest of the Orontes 2–4.

22.  The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, has a complete specimen exists; see Yisraeli 1971: pl. XXIV:​

Roman Pottery

49

River). Blakely, Brinkmann, and Vitaliano (1992: 203–4, fig.  3, 4:13–15 [Class 2]) conjecture that these mortaria may have been produced in the northeastern Mediterranean. The vessel distribution was very expansive: the Syrian coast, Israel, Egypt, Cyprus, and the Athenian agora. A number of mortaria were also found in the western Roman Empire. The vessels are very heavy and were apparently considered a high enough quality to warrant their being marketed widely. The date of these vessels, according to Hayes, cannot yet be fixed with precision but ranges from ca. the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth centuries c.e. At Caesarea, they are dated from the late second or third century to the second third of the fourth century (Oleson et al. 1994: 39, fig. 9: k28–k29 and the comprehensive bibliography there on mortaria; Blakely Brinkmann, and Vitaliano 1992: 203–4, fig. 3, 4: 13–15 [Class 2]). At Jalame, they were found in contexts of the third quarter of the fourth century on ( Johnson 1988: 180–81, Variant 3, fig. 7-29:476–77). Proposed date: third century c.e. to the second third of the fourth century c.e. Locally Made Bowls (BL) and Cups BL1 (pls. 1:13, 30, 31; 7:3–7).  These incurved-rim bowls have a string-cut base and lack a slip. Parallels: These were very common in Judea, especially at the end of the Hellenistic–Early Roman period (Guz-Zilberstein 1995: fig. 6.1:34–38, photo 6.3 [Bowl 8e]). BL2 (pl.  24:1–2).  This bowl has a thickened, folded rim; beneath it, on the vessel’s exterior, are two or three horizontal decorative grooves. This type was discovered at Sepphoris in a cistern assemblage that dates from the mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. This bowl is uncommon and does not seem to have many parallels from other sites. BL3 – Bowl/Lid Decorated with White Paint (pl. 24:3–10).  These sherds are from a bowl or lid with a “hooked” and grooved ledge-rim, and its walls are usually decorated with white paint drips. It is not always possible to determine whether a sherd was part of a bowl or lid. This form is very reminiscent of the jar type shown on pl.  2:6. 23 According to tests performed by Adan-Bayewitz, it was produced in the workshop at Shikhin (Adan-Bayewitz, personal communication). These vessels are common in second- and third-century contexts and may be unique to Sepphoris. Rouletted Cups (pl. 7:9–10).  This vessel is made of a thin, well-levigated orange fabric. The simple rim is slightly everted; the base is flat, with a slight protrusion in its center. Large parts of the exterior wall are slightly rouletted. The bottom of these cups exhibits soot marks, perhaps attesting to their use for burning incense rather than for drinking.

23.  Editors: We do not see much similarity to the form shown on pl. 2:6.

Roman Pottery

50

A few sherds of this type were found at Sepphoris in the probes beneath the floors of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 39, pl. 1:13–15); the two sherds presented here were found in Early Roman 1 contexts. Proposed date: first century c.e.

Imported Red-Slip Bowls Imported bowls of the Roman period are evident in the Eastern Terra Sigillata and the Late Roman Red-Slip wares found at Sepphoris. Eastern Terra Sigillata (ETS) (pl. 27:1–6) Very few sherds of these bowls were found. All were discovered in L. 84.1068, which is dated from the mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. They are not the typical types of Eastern Terra Sigillata found in Israel until the first century c.e. Proposed date: second and third centuries c.e. Late Roman Red-Slip Ware The term “Late Roman Fine Wares” (cf. Hayes 1972) denotes beautiful tableware made from well-levigated clay in shades of orange-red and bearing a shiny Red-Slip. Most of the Late Roman Red-Slip Ware discovered at Sepphoris came from the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris but no earlier (Balouka 2004: pl.  4:15–20). The forms are mainly of North African provenance and are labeled ARSW (African Red-Slip Ware); Hayes dates all of them to the third and fourth centuries c.e. Only isolated sherds of the early forms are found among the Cypriot Red-Slip Wares— LATE ROMAN ‘D’W (Late Roman D Ware)—which are usually dated to the second half of the fourth century c.e. and are more common in the fifth and sixth centuries c.e. at the latest. The classification of the forms follows the classification used in Hayes’s study. African Red-Slip Ware (ARSW) ARSW 58 (pl. 32:1).  This bowl has a flat base and sloped, concave walls. The everted rim is flat. Three grooves are visible on the floor. A slip covers the interior wall and upper part of the exterior wall. Sherds of this type were found in the fourth-century c.e. destruction materials of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 45, pl. 4:16). Proposed date: end of the third to the beginning of the fourth centuries c.e. ARSW 59B (pl. 32:2).  The shallow bowl shown on pl. 32:2 has a flat base and a wide, flat (ledge) rim. Its smooth walls are thicker than those of the earlier bowls. The slip on the interior is less shiny than on the upper part of the exterior. The rim is stepped; and the bottom of the vessel often has grooves and at times also a stamped decoration. Proposed date: 320 to 420 c.e.

Roman Pottery

51

ARSW 61A (pl. 32:3–4).  This large shallow plate has a flat broad base. Its walls are concave and terminate with an inverted rim having a triangular profile. The bottom has a stamped decoration and/or circular grooves. Sherds of this type were found also in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris of the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 45, pl. 4:19). Proposed date: 325 to 400/420 c.e. ARSW 67 (pl. 32:5–6).  This large bowl has a small, low, molded ring base. Its walls curve gradually toward the rim, creating a “terrace” that meets the “hooked rim.” The bottom usually bears a stamped decoration and circular grooves. This bowl is common in Sepphoris, mainly in the fourth-century c.e. destruction materials. Proposed date: 360 to 470 c.e. Cypriot Red-Slip Ware (LATE ROMAN ‘D’W) LATE ROMAN ‘D’W1 (pl. 32:8–10).  This bowl has a ring base and a flat bottom. Its walls are sloped, with a slight carination above the base, ending with a simple, thickened, inverted rim. It is undecorated but has a metallic Red-Slip. Many specimens of this type were found at Sepphoris, including in the fourthcentury c.e. destruction debris. Yet Hayes notes that the type is generally not very common. He dates this vessel from the end of the fourth century (or earlier) to the third quarter of the fifth century c.e. Proposed date: on the basis of the Sepphoris finds, it is possible to date this type earlier than does Hayes; it begins in the mid-fourth century c.e. Varia Deep Bowl (pl. 32:11–14).  This deep bowl has a low ring base, a flat bottom, and a slight carination above the base. The walls are usually straight or concave and slope outward; the rim has a triangular section. Found in considerable quantities in Sepphoris, especially in the fourth-century c.e. destruction materials throughout the site, this type is reminiscent in its form and clay composition to Cypriot Type LATE ROMAN ‘D’W1 but different from it in the rim and base. Parallels: These vessels are also very common at Jalame in the fourth century c.e.; and it is possible that the Sepphoris examples are a different type, perhaps from a provenance not published by Hayes. Johnson (1988: figs. 7-15; 7-16 [Form 9]) draws a parallel to Hayes’s LATE ROMAN ‘D’W 9. Proposed date: from the mid-fourth century c.e.(?). Cup/Bowl (pl. 32:7).  Several examples of this vessel have an irregular orangeRed-Slip and are decorated with punched circles and other incised decorations on the walls. The rim is thickened and convex, the walls are straight, and it has a ring base. Several such sherds were found in the fourth-century c.e. destruction materials at Sepphoris and are helpful in dating this type (Balouka 2004: 45, pl. 4:20).

52

Roman Pottery

Parallels: No precise parallel for this type could be found in Hayes’s study. Among his Types 183–197 are some kraters with similar features, but none is identical to it. Proposed date: mid-fourth century c.e. (?).

Lids LID1 (pl.  25:7–14).  This small lid that fits into a storage jar or a jug has a small button handle, relatively wide edges, and a simple rim. All of the Sepphoris examples were discovered in a cistern assemblage. Parallels: No parallels from other sites have been identified. Proposed date: mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. LID2 (pl. 25:15–16).  This lid is less common than LID1. Its button handle is less prominent; the wide edges of this type are missing. It is found in Middle Roman loci together with LID1. Proposed date: mid-second to the end of the third centuries c.e. LID3 (pls. 25:1–6; 31:1).  These lids resemble bowls with a small omphalos base that functioned as a handle. The walls are relatively thick. The interior walls are not smooth, and the exterior walls are sometimes smooth and sometimes have shallow ribbing. The reddish-light brown clay contains grits of various sizes and is very reminiscent of the clay from which the jars, especially Types SJ2 and SJ3, were made. They were probably not used as bowls but rather as lids for storage jars, and jar sherds were often found next to sherds of these lids. Several lids have holes drilled on the side of the rim before firing; these holes may have been used for tying the lid to the jar’s handle. The lids are almost uniform in size. There is a wide range of rims: some slope inward; some are cut, furrowed, or at times straight. We did not find any chronological differences in the rim typology; all variants of the lid often appeared in a single locus. Adan-Bayewitz’s examination of the clay of these lids indicates that they were produced near Sepphoris, in the workshop at Shikhin (Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman 1990: fig. 3:2; Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992: 196, fig. 5:2.). Large numbers of these lids were discovered at Sepphoris, primarily in Late Roman contexts, including the destruction debris of the entire site, including the House of Dionysos (Balouka 2004: 43, pl. 4:7). They are also found in assemblages from the Middle Roman period (second and third centuries c.e.). Parallels: At Jalame, all the jar lids (Variants 1 and 2) appear in assemblages preceding 351 c.e. ( Johnson 1988: 219–22). Díez Fernández (1983: 176 [T19]) cites examples solely from Sepphoris and the Zeid Farm (Beth Sheʿarim) and dates them from the early third to the mid-fourth centuries c.e. At the latter site (the Zeid Farm), the lids were discovered in Pits I and II and were dated as part of the assemblage from the third century c.e. to first half of the fourth century c.e. (Avigad 1976: ill. 3:13). Proposed date: mid-second to the fourth centuries c.e.

Roman Pottery

53

Miscellanea Unguentaria (pl.  5:17–20).  This vessel has a long, narrow neck, a piriform body, and a flat base. It was common throughout the country from the end of the first century b.c.e. until the first half of the first century c.e. (Díez Fernández 1983: 179 [T22.2]). Bottles (pl. 22:13–14).  This type of small bottle has an everted rim, at times with a slight thickening on its exterior, a narrow neck, and piriform body. It features crude ribbing on the surface of the entire vessel and has a small “button” base. The entire bottle is made of black/gray clay. This type was uncommon at Sepphoris. These two specimens were found in assemblages of the second and third centuries c.e. Parallels: Shikmona has yielded a similar but not identical vessel, made of brown clay, from the Roman period (Elgavish and Banai 1977: pl. XII:107). Díez Fernández (1983: 148 [T7.1, T7.2]) presents some examples of this type from Migdal and dates it from the first to early third centuries c.e. Zoomorphic Vessel of a Crouching Deer/Ram? (pl. 33:1–3).  Two body sherds of a mold-made ceramic zoomorphic vessel were discovered in the fourth-century c.e. destruction debris of Area 84.1. The clay is reddish-brown, and the sherds are decorated with a relief pattern reminiscent of dense curls. Parallels: Complete vessels of this type have been found at several sites in Israel. The most complete specimen comes from a fourth-century c.e. tomb at Shikmona. This hollow vessel is in the shape of a crouching deer. The filling hole is located on the animal’s back and looks like the neck of a juglet; next to it is a basket handle. The animal’s mouth functions as a spout for pouring liquid. The body of the vessel is decorated with a pattern resembling curly wool. According to Elgavish (1994: 138, fig. 144), the deer in this specimen was designed naturalistically and is reminiscent of the style of the Roman period, not later. An example was found in a pottery cache in Area D at Dor (E. Stern 1994: 302–4, pl.  V); and one was discovered at Apollonia (Roll and Ayalon 1989: 46, fig. 22). Proposed date: fourth century c.e. Stands/Jars (pl.  7:12–14).  These stand bases or jar-necks are decorated with thumb and reed impressions. They were found at Sepphoris in Early Roman 1 contexts. No parallels have been found for these objects.

Ceramic Incense Shovels and Pateras 24 Sherds of many pottery incense shovels and pateras, as well as their matching round and square lids, were discovered at Sepphoris. 24.  Editors: The author of this chapter (Balouka) completed her work before the appearance of E. Meyers’s article (2006) on this subject. In that article, Meyers interprets both forms of the incense shovel as having been used with dry ingredients in domestic contexts; yet he does not deny their priestly, symbolic significance. Thus Balouka and Meyers are actually very close in their analyses.

54

Roman Pottery

Incense Shovels (pl. 34) All the incense shovels are mold-made by pressure technique from thick, crude clay; they all have a gray core and a red-and-brown slip. Some of the incense shovels have soot marks on the floor and sometimes also on the rim. The incense shovel is composed of a handle and a square scoop (hollowed-out receptacle). The handle is hollow and elongated and sometimes slightly raised at its end; it has a small hole that seems to be connected somehow to the firing process (to prevent the vessel from exploding in the furnace). The edges of the shovel are slightly raised on three sides; the side farthest from the handle is not raised. The two corners of the shovel closest to the handle are sometimes decorated with a buttonlike relief. Some of the shovels (pl. 34:1, 5) are decorated in the center with a bas relief composed of two lines intersecting at right angles (X-shaped) and enclosed on three sides by a frame of two or three parallel lines. The edges of the shovel and the handle sometimes also bear lines in relief. The decoration was probably made with a stamp or roulette. Twenty-two incense shovel sherds were discovered at Sepphoris. Specifications: Average length of shovel: 12.50 cm. Average width of shovel: 12.50 cm. Average length, including handle: 22.50 cm. Sherds of a small variant (average width: 8–9 cm) were also found. Parallels: Ceramic incense shovels are unique artifacts and until now have been found only at Sepphoris. Already in the 1931 excavations (Waterman 1937), a piece of a red-painted pottery handle belonging to an incense shovel was found beneath one of the houses in a rock-cut hollow used as a storage cellar (Israel Antiquities Authority No. 31.157; Yeivin 1937: 33). Three mold-made sherds of a different kind of pottery incense shovel, decorated with a delicate relief with double volutes, were found in a potter’s storehouse in Gerasa and were dated there to the first–second centuries c.e. (Israel Antiquities Authority No. 38.1689, 38, 1688, 43.358; Iliffe 1945: 18, pl. VI:105). Bronze incense shovels are more common. Their shape is generally similar to the ceramic shovels: a square shovel with a handle in the form of a hollow pipe filled with insulating material (Yadin 1963: 50). Some of the bronze shovels have small cups in their corners that functioned as containers for various incenses. They are adorned with reliefs and engravings in a variety of decorative motifs. Most of the incense shovels that were discovered contained remains of a burned substance. It appears that the ceramic incense shovels are a simple imitation of the bronze ones. The hollow handle could be reminiscent of its bronze counterpart, and the button-like decorations in the corners of the shovel are perhaps an imitation of the small cups (Yadin 1963: incense shovel no. 3, figs. 11 and 12). In addition, the linear decorations on the walls of the shovel are reminiscent of the ornamentation sometimes appearing on bronze incense shovels, where they are engraved (Yadin 1963: incense shovel nos. 3–6, figs. 11–15).

Roman Pottery

55

Pateras (pl. 35) The patera has a handle and a round shovel (hollowed-out receptacle) that takes the shape of a small shallow bowl with raised edges and a ledge-rim. The handle is hollow and elongated. The rim and handle are sometimes decorated with a bas relief—the rim with two or three parallel lines, the handle with wavy lines. Some of the pateras are made of thick, crude clay, have a red-brown slip, and a smooth, unformed base. Others have a thinner wall, a red-orange slip, and are more meticulously decorated, including a decorated ring base (see, e.g., pl. 35:4, 8). Several of the pateras exhibit black soot marks on the interior wall and occasionally also on the rim. Fifteen patera sherds were discovered at Sepphoris. Specifications: Average interior diameter: 9.53 cm. Average exterior diameter: 12.73 cm. Average depth of small bowl: 2.56 cm. Parallels: Ceramic pateras are known only from Sepphoris. One fragment was found in the 1931 excavations at Sepphoris (Israel Antiquities Authority No. 31.162; Yeivin 1937: 33). Bronze pateras, generally with a much deeper small bowl, are also known. The patera was a component of the Roman soldier’s permanent equipment and was often used as a frying pan. It comes in various sizes and was typical of the first century c.e. Smaller bronze patera, adorned with various medallions bearing pagan motifs, were apparently cultic items; they were probably used for libations and usually accompanied incense shovels in ritual acts. 25 The patera was often found alongside bronze juglets (Yadin 1963: 58–63; Bishop and Coulston 1993: 105). Incense Shovel and Patera Lids (pl. 36) The assortment of lids is diverse. Two sherds of square lids that fit the incense shovels and five sherds of round lids that fit the pateras were found. The lids are made of the same clay as the incense shovels and pateras and have a slip of similar red-brown color. They are mold-made, as are their decorations. One of the round lids (pl. 36:3) is decorated and pierced with a small button handle. All the lids have a number of small, round holes that were apparently intended to allow the smoke to escape as it rose from the incense shovels and pateras. Each lid was decorated with a relief in various fine patterns (lines, dots in a circle, leaves in a circle, etc.). Soot marks were found on the interior of some of the lids. Lids are unknown in artistic depictions, but no pottery or bronze parallels have been identified to date. Discussion How these incense shovels and pateras were used is not entirely clear. We suggest that some sort of hot material, perhaps live coals, was placed on the incense shovel or patera, which would then have been covered with a lid. 26 Because there are 25.  Editors: We disagree with this identification of the ceramic pateras as ritual objects; see n. 28 below. 26.  Editors: Balouka’s suggestion that the pateras held live coals contradicts her connecting them with bronze pateras, which she says were used for libations (see above).

56

Roman Pottery

no soot marks on the bottoms of the incense shovels and pateras, it seems certain that they were not placed on a fire. Most of the incense-shovel and patera sherds discovered at Sepphoris came from a cistern that served as a garbage dump and contained pottery vessels and lamps dating from the mid-second century until the end of the third century c.e. These were probably vessels discarded from nearby houses occupied by Jews, an assumption based on the multiple miqvaʾot (ritual baths) found in these houses. Nevertheless, it should be noted that one of these assemblages also contained two bronze figurines, one of Pan and one of Prometheus (Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1992: 24; Nagy, Meyers, Meyers, and Weiss 1996: 171–72). Most of the lamps were round Roman discus lamps used by the population at large in this period. Bronze incense shovels and pateras are often discovered together at pagan sites and in camps of Roman legionary and auxiliary units throughout the Roman Empire. They are common in France, Italy, Syria, and Palestine and are dated in most cases to the first and second centuries c.e. Even the incense shovels and pateras found in the Cave of the Letters in Nahal Hever were probably taken by Bar Kochba’s rebels as spoils from one of the Roman military units (Yadin 1963: 45); they are dated to the Bar Kochba revolt (132–135 c.e.). According to the Bible, the sons of Aaron the priest each uses an incense shovel (“censer”) in a tabernacle ritual (Lev 10:1); Aaron uses one to hold the hot coals on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:12) and to make expiation for the community (Num 17:11). 27 In the temple, the incense shovel was used to hold incense during the sacrifice. In the Second Temple period, burning incense on the altar was very common, apparently owing to the influence of the surrounding Roman culture. 28 However, burning incense in synagogues was not practiced (Goodenough 1954: 198). According to Goodenough (1954: 201), the Mishnah alludes to the use of incense or spices in private homes, and a blessing was performed over it. In Jewish art, especially in ancient Palestine, the incense shovel appears alongside the menorah and is often accompanied by additional ritual objects such as the lulav and ethrog. These depictions appear on synagogue mosaics, usually next to a depiction of the hekhal or the Torah Shrine (as at, e.g., Huseifa, Gerasa, Beth Alpha, and Sepphoris), as well as on burial monuments, pottery lamps, glass bases, etc. from the third–fourth centuries onward (Goodenough 1954: 195; Narkiss 1935).

27.  Editors: Also, Korah and his associates use incense shovels in a ritual meant to expose their rebelliousness (Numbers 16). 28.  Editors: We are not sure what Balouka has used as evidence for these assertions about temple usage. Biblical sources (e.g., Exod 30:1–8) mention incense burned on the golden incense altar. They refer to incense accompanying sacrifices, but they do not specify that a censer (incense shovel or patera) is used. Perhaps her statements come from rabbinic sources, which are not necessarily reliable evidence for First Temple practice. We also note that Roman culture did not surround the Second Temple for the first few centuries of its existence. We also note that the use of incense on the golden altar of the tabernacle and temple may correspond to AssyroBabylonian rituals because of the placement of the altar in front of the place where the ark (equivalent to a deity’s image) was kept; see Nielson 1992: 406–7.

Roman Pottery

57

The incense shovel is usually depicted as a square object with a long handle, at times exhibiting black dots, which Goodenough (1954: 195–96) interprets as coals and Rutgers (1999: 182) as the holes in the lids that covered the shovels. None of the incense shovels, not even at Sepphoris where all ceramic shovels were found, was discovered in a synagogue context; and all of them are dated to the first and second centuries (in Sepphoris perhaps until the third century), a period that predates their appearance as a motif in Jewish art in the Byzantine period. It seems that the incense shovel in Jewish art in this period had an eschatological function, as did the menorah, shofar, ethrog, and hekhal or Torah Shrine that often appear with it. The combination of these motifs symbolized the yearning for the destroyed temple and the longing for it to be rebuilt. According to Weiss (2005: 235–36), this combination of motifs on the synagogue mosaic at Sepphoris symbolizes redemption. In summary, the ceramic incense shovels, pateras, and lids discovered at Sepphoris are unique artifacts. They are dated, by the context in which they were found, from the mid-second century until the end of the third century c.e., and by parallels to bronze incense shovels dating to the first and second centuries c.e. These ceramic incense shovels and pateras thus predate by centuries their appearance in Jewish art. Because they were found in contexts with miqvaʾot and with other objects related to Jewish presence (e.g., chalkstone vessels), they were probably used by the Jewish inhabitants of Sepphoris. Based on their soot marks, they were used for incense purposes in domestic contexts and were ultimately thrown into the cistern together with other household vessels discarded there. 29 29.  This is contrary to the view held by Rutgers (1999: 194). Editors: The black marks understood by Balouka to indicate burning could just as well have come from reduced oxygen flow in the firing process, according to Eric Lapp in a private communication to E. Meyers (2006: 874–76; cf. C. Meyers 1998), who suggests that these vessels were used for dry fumigants to provide a pleasant smell in domestic settings).

Roman Pottery

58

Plate 1:  Late Hellenistic Period No.

Vessel Type

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot open cooking pot storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar juglet ungentarium ungentarium bowl bowl krater? cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar jug jug juglet juglet? bowl bowl bowl jug

CP1 CP1 CP1 CP1 OCP1a HSJ1a-b HSJ1a-b HSJ1c

85.3325.3.10 85.3031.1.3 85.3325.4.1 85.3063.1.1 85.3325.3.1 85.3056.1.7 85.3314.1.3 85.3325.3.11 85.3031.1.2 85.3314.1.1 85.3031.4.1 85.3314.1.2 85.3325.4.3 85.3031.2.2 85.3029.1.1 85.3321.3.1 85.3050.2.12 85.3096.1.4 85.3221.6.26 85.3316.2.10 85.3022.1.8 85.3031.3.2 85.3325.2.17 85.3221.5.2 85.3221.8.2 85.3221.3.2 85.3092.1.1 85.3221.5.6 85.3325.2.9 85.3325.2.1 85.3325.2.6 85.3316.2.24

BL1

CP1 CP1? HSJ1a-b HSJ1a-b HSJ1a-b HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1c JG1 JG1

BL1 BL1 ETS

Roman Pottery

59

Roman Pottery

60

Plate 2:  Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot

CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 CP2 OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a

85.1150.1.11 85.1150.1.7 85.1150.1.6 85.3307.1.11 85.3302.3.8 85.3213.1.1 85.3059.4.4 85.3037.2.20 85.3037.1.4 85.3037.2.4 85.3313.2.6 85.3313.2.7 85.3302.6.13 85.3302.8.1 85.3186.1.12 85.3301.2.29 85.1157.2.1 85.3186.2.2 85.1114.1.1

Roman Pottery

61

Roman Pottery

62

Plate 3:  Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1c HSJ1a-b HSJ1a-b SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ

85.1157.3.2 85.3007.7.2 85.3022.1.9 94.1061.2.1 85.3134.2.4 85.3134.2.1 85.3007.9.16 85.3081.3.11 85.1145.3.2 85.1150.1.3 85.1150.1.1 85.1150.1.2 85.1150.1.10

Roman Pottery

63

Roman Pottery

64

Plate 4:  Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

SJ1 SJ1 SJ1 SJ1 SJ1 SJ1 SJ1 SJ1 SJ1

85.1157.3.1 85.1145.3.1 85.3302.9.1 85.3037.1.4 information missing 85.3037.4.1 85.1150.1.4 85.1150.1.5 85.1150.1.8

Roman Pottery

65

Roman Pottery

66

Plate 5:  Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

strainer jug strainer jug strainer jug strainer jug strainer jug strainer jug strainer jug strainer jug jug jug jug amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos jug jug unguentarium unguentarium unguentarium unguentarium funnel cup amphora? amphora?

JG5 JG5 JG5 JG5 JG5 JG5 JG5 JG5 JG2 JG2 JG2 AMP1 AMP1 AMP1

85.1150.3.3 85.1150.3.1 84.1068.17.5 85.1115.1.4 84.1118.2.1 84.1068.17.7 85.3186.1.8 84.1120.3.30 85.3144.1.1 85.3221.2.2 84.1068.18.6 85.3324.3.5 85.3186.2.15 84.1120.3.26 85.3387.1.2 85.3302.6.9 85.3302.6.1 85.3134.2.5 85.3312.1.9 85.3221.9.8 85.3302.3.4 85.3307.1.7 85.1146.3.1 85.3081.3.10

JG3a

Roman Pottery

67

Roman Pottery

68

Plate 6:  Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

jug jug jug jug jug jug jug jug juglet juglet juglet juglet juglet

JG1 JG1 JG1 JG1 JG4 JG4 JG4 JG4 JT1 JT1 JT1 JT1 JT1

85.1150.1.16 85.1150.1.15 85.1150.1.19 85.1150. 85.3221.7.1 85.1157.2.4 85.3307.1.1 85.3307.3.6 85.1150.1.14 85.3307.1.9 85.3307.4.2 85.3307.1.8 85.3307.1.6

Roman Pottery

69

Roman Pottery

70

Plate 7:  Early Roman 1 Period (0–70 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

krater krater bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl cup rouletted cup rouletted cup cup stand/jar stand/jar stand/jar

KR1 KR1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1

85.1150.1.13 85.3323.2.3 85.3302.6.7 85.3324.3.3 85.1157.2.3 85.1157.4.1 85.3307.1.16 85.3 85.3302.6.4 85.3307.4.14 85.3 85.3007.5.1 85.3302.3.10 85.3186.1.3

Roman Pottery

71

Roman Pottery

72

Plate 8:  Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot cooking jug small cooking jar small cooking jar small cooking jar cooking jug

CP2 CP2 CP2 CP3a CP3a CP3a CP3a CP3a CP3a CP3a CP3a SCP4 Varia Varia Varia SCP1 SCP1 CJ? SCJ1 SCJ1 SCJ1 CJG2

84.1120.3.4 84.1068.18.11 85.3324.2.6 85.1100.2.2 (IAA 95-3902) 85.1100.2.3 85.1100.2.6 85.1100.2.4 84.1120.1.3 84.1068.18.12 85.3324.3.1 85.3301.3.1 85.1100.2.46 85.3318.3.4 84.1120.3.6 84.1120.3.7 84.1120.1.5 84.1120.3.29 85.1100.2.8 85.1100.2.14 84.1068.18.13 85.1100.2.13 85.1100.2.12

Roman Pottery

73

Roman Pottery

74

Plate 9:  Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl

OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a OCP1a-b OCP1a-b OCP1a-b OCP1a-b OCP2a OCP2a OCP2a OCP2c OCP2a OCP2b OCP3 OCP3 OCP4 OCP7a OCP7a GB1a GB1a GB1a GB1b GB1b GB1b

84.1120.3.8 85.1120.3.9 84.1068.18.9 84.1068.17.23 84.1120.3.11 84.1118.2.3 84.1120.3.10 85.1100.2.18 85.1100.2.16 85.1100.2.17 84.1120.1.6 84.1120.1.7 84.1118.3.6 85.3324.3.14 84.1068.17.12 84.1120.3.12 85.3318.3.6 84.1118.2.4 85.3306.1.12 85.3302.2.10 85.1100.2.26 85.1100.2.21 85.1100.2.22 85.3324.2.3 85.1100.2.25 85.1100.2.23 85.1100.2.24

Roman Pottery

75

Roman Pottery

76

Plate 10:  Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ2/3 SJ2/3 SJ2/3 SJ2/3 SJ11 SJ11

85.1100.2.55 85.1100.2.33 85.1100.2.54 85.1100.2.56 84.1120.3.1 84.1120.1.1 85.3324.3.2 85.3318.3.22 84.1068.18.17 85.3316.2.4

Roman Pottery

77

Roman Pottery

78

Plate 11:  Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

jug amphoriskos amphoriskos bowl amphoriskos? amphoriskos? juglet juglet juglet juglet lid juglet juglet juglet juglet juglet jug jug jug jug jug jug jug juglet juglet juglet

JG1 AMP2 AMP3

84.1068.18.4 85.1100.2.30 85.1100.3.? 85.3301.3.17 85.3301.2.3 85.1100.2.52 85.1100.2.40 84.1120.3.22 84.2221.5.1 84.2221.5.2 84.1068.17.13 85.3302.7.3 85.3302.7.6 84.1068.17.17 84.1068.17.18 85.1100.2.38 85.1100.2.39 84.1120.3.19 84.1118.2.8 84.1118.1.50 85.3301.3.12 85.3324.5.10 85.1100.2.? 84.1068.18.2 84.1068.18.1

JT2b JT2b JT2b JT2b JT2b JT1 JT1 JT1 JG6a JG6a JG6a JG6a JG6b JG6b JG6b JT2a JT2a JT2a

Roman Pottery

79

Roman Pottery

80

Plate 12:  Early Roman 2 Period (70–135 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

krater krater krater krater krater krater krater krater krater krater krater krater/lid krater krater krater krater krater krater krater

KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3 KR3

84.1120.3.15 84.1120.2.2 84.1120.3.13 85.1115.1.17 84.1120.3.4 85.1109.1.4 84.1068.18.4 85.1100.2.1 85.3318.2.21 85.3324.4.7 85.3301.2.17 85.3301.3.5 85.3177.2.15 85.3306.1.17 85.3324.4.13 85.3318.3.30 85.3301.3.14 85.3177.2.8 85.3306.1.6

Roman Pottery

81

Roman Pottery

82

Plate 13:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot

CP3b CP3b CP3b CP3b CP3b OCP1b OCP1b OCP1b OCP1b OCP7a OCP7a OCP2b OCP5

84.1068.5.1 84.1068.9.9 84.1068.3.7 84.1068.3.6 84.1068.3.5 84.1068.3.56 84.1068.3.74 84.1179.3.4 84.1094.3.1 84.1179.5.3 95.1016.7.2 84.1068.16.12 84.1179.4.2

Roman Pottery

83

Roman Pottery

84

Plate 14:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

small cooking jar small cooking jar small cooking jar cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug

SCJ1 SCJ1 SCJ1 CJG1 CJG1 CJG1 CJG1 CJG2 CJG2 CJG2 CJG2

84.1209.2.1 84.1068.3.15 84.1179.5.9 84.1068.3.16 84.1068.7.14 84.1068.3.17 84.1068.3.11 84.1068.15.16 84.1068.3.20 95.1016.11.2 84.1068.7.13

Roman Pottery

85

Roman Pottery

86

Plate 15:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot small cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot

SCP1 SCP1 SCP1 SCP1 SCP2 SCP2 SCP2 SCP2 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 Varia Varia Varia Varia Varia

84.1068.16.1 84.1068.3.64 95.1016.8.9 84.1068.3.65 84.1068.13.1 84.1068.7.30 84.1179.3.21 84.1068.11.23 84.1068.11.24 95.1016.11.6 95.1016.14.4 84.1068.3.66 84.1068.11.5 84.1179.3.19 84.1068.3.110 84.1068.15.9

Roman Pottery

87

Roman Pottery

88

Plate 16:  Middle Roman-Late Roman Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl Galilean bowl

GB1a GB1a GB1a GB1a GB1b GB1b GB1b GB1b GB1b GB1b GB1d GB1d GB1d GB1e GB1e GB1e

84.1068.3.33 95.1016.8.1 84.1068.7.5 84.1068.9.5 84.1068.3.25 95.1016.5.1 84.1068.16.3 84.1068.7.1 84.1068.3.27 84.1179.5.4 84.1209.2.16 84.1209.2.15 84.1068.10.6 84.1068.4.1 84.1068.3.29 84.1173.4.2

Roman Pottery

89

Roman Pottery

90

Plate 17:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2 SJ2

84.2029.3.4 84.1240.4.1 84.2029.3.3 84.1094.7.6 84.1179.4.7 84.1068.3.92 84.1068.10.7 84.1068.3.104 84.1179.4.8 84.1179.3.3

Roman Pottery

91

Roman Pottery

92

Plate 18:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3

84.1068.3.96 84.1068.15.28 84.1179.3.2 84.1179.5.1 84.1057.1.5 84.1068.3.97

Roman Pottery

93

Roman Pottery

94

Plate 19:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

SJ4a SJ4a SJ4a SJ4a SJ4a SJ4a SJ5 SJ5

84.1094.3.3 84.1068.5.4 84.1179.3.42 84.1068.9.11 84.1068.11.17 84.1068.3.90 84.1068.3.85 84.1068.9.13

Roman Pottery

95

Roman Pottery

96

Plate 20:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

SJ6 SJ6 SJ6 SJ6 SJ7 SJ7 SJ7 SJ7 SJ7 SJ7 SJ7 SJ7

84.1068.3.87 84.1056.2.8 84.1130.1.2 84.1194.5.11 84.1068.14.17 84.1094.5.3 86.1067.4.10 86.1036.1.4 84.1068.16.11 84.2172.3.1 84.1068.6.12 85.1001.2.12

Roman Pottery

97

Roman Pottery

98

Plate 21:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

jug jug jug jug jug jug amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos jug jug jug jug

JG1 JG1 JG1 JG1 JG1 JG1 AMP2 AMP2 AMP2 JG3b JG3b JG3b JG3b

84.1068.10.1 (IAA 94-2604) 84.1068.12.4 84.1056.1.1 84.1068.7.16 84.1068.8.12 84.2027.1.4 84.1179.3.18 84.1068.11.1 84.1068.7.17 84.1068.10.3 84.1068.3.111 84.1068.3.2 84.1179.3.16

Roman Pottery

99

Roman Pottery

100

Plate 22:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

juglet juglet juglet juglet juglet juglet juglet juglet jug jug jug jug bottle bottle

JT2b JT2b JT2b JT2b JT2b JT2a JT2a JT2a JG6c JG6c JG6c JG6c

84.1068.15.25 84.1068.16.13 84.1068.1.3 84.1068.15.2 84.1068.15.26 84.1068.3.61 84.1094.3.15 84.1068.6.16 84.1068.3.59 84.1179.3.23 84.1068.11.25 84.1068.7.34 84.1068.3.58 84.1068.3.57

Roman Pottery

101

Roman Pottery

102

Plate 23:  Middle Roman-Late Roman Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

krater krater krater krater krater krater krater basin basin basin basin

KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR1 BS1 BS1 BS1 BS1

84.1068.10.2 (IAA 94-2618) 84.1068.7.4 84.1068.3.81 84.1068.3.84 84.1209.2.10 84.1179.5.6 84.1179.4.5 84.1068.7.3 84.1068.12.3 84.1068.7.2 84.1068.3.46

Roman Pottery

103

Roman Pottery

104

Plate 24:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

bowl bowl bowl/lid bowl/lid bowl/lid bowl/lid bowl/lid bowl/lid bowl/lid bowl/lid storage jar? storage jar? storage jar?

BL2 BL2 BL3 BL3 BL3 BL3 BL3 BL3 BL3 BL3 SJ? SJ? SJ?

84.1068.14.19 84.1068.15.24 84.1068.11.10 84.1068.15.11 84.1068.9.8 84.1068.16.7 84.1068.14.8 84.1068.x.8 84.1068.11.9 84.1068.16.5 84.1179.3.30 84.1068.7.25 84.1068.11.20

Roman Pottery

105

Roman Pottery

106

Plate 25:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

storage jar lid storage jar lid storage jar lid storage jar lid storage jar lid storage jar lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid jug lid?

LID3 LID3 LID3 LID3 LID3 LID3 LID1 LID1 LID1 LID1 LID1 LID1 LID1 LID1 LID2 LID2

84.1068.3.39 84.1068.5.2 84.1068.3.40 84.1029.2.5 84.1179.5.13 84.1209.2.5 84.1068.3.53 84.1068.3.54 84.1068.7.27 84.1068.9.14 84.1179.5.7 84.1179.5.8 84.1068.6.14 84.1179.2.1 84.1179.3.22 84.1068.9.16

Roman Pottery

107

Roman Pottery

108

Plate 26:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphoriskos amphora amphora amphora amphora amphora amphora amphora

AMP3 AMP3 AMP3 AMP3 AMP3 AMP3 AMP3 AMP3 AMP3

84.1068.15.17 84.1068.11.7 84.1068.6.3 84.1068.6.2 84.1068.10.7 84.1068.12.16 84.1172.3.1 84.1094.7.4 84.1068.3.109 84.1179.3.1 84.1179.3.40 84.1068.14.7 84.1068.7.8 84.1068.12.8 84.1179.3.29 84.1068.7.9

Roman Pottery

109

Roman Pottery

110

Plate 27:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6

bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl

ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS

84.1068.11.18 84.1068.3.48 84.1068.3.49 84.1068.3.51 84.1068.15.22 84.1068.3.52

Roman Pottery

111

Roman Pottery

112

Plate 28:  Late Roman–Byzantine Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot

CP3c CP3c CP3c CP3c CP3c CP3c CP3c CP4a CP4a CP4a CP4a CP4a CP? CP?

84.2037.1.2 84.1150.2.10 84.1012.2.1 84.1195.1.3 84.1195.1.2 84.1056.3.2 84.2131.3.1 84.1056.1.1 84.1056.1.2 84.1007.1.19 84.1150.2.18 84.1390.6.1 84.1195.1.1 84.1195.1.7

Roman Pottery

113

Roman Pottery

114

Plate 29:  Late Roman–Byzantine Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

cooking pot cooking pot cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot open cooking pot lid small cooking jar small cooking jar cooking jug cooking jug cooking jug

CP5a CP5b CP5b OCP6 OCP5 OCP7b OCP7b OCP7b OCP7c CPL SCJ2 SCJ2 CJG2-3 CJG2-3 CJG2-3

84.1007.1.18 84.1150.2.19 84.1150.2.15 84.1150.2.3? 84.1007.1.13 84.1390.4.22 84.1160.3.3 84.1056.1.8 84.1195.1.6 84.1056.3.6 84.2092.5.2 84.1152.5.2 86.1232.4.2 84.1007.3.2 84.1150.2.29

Roman Pottery

115

Roman Pottery

116

Plate 30:  Late Roman–Byzantine Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar (black ware) storage jar (black ware) storage jar (black ware) storage jar (black ware)

SJ4b SJ4b SJ4b SJ4b SJ8 SJ8 SJ8 SJ9 SJ9 SJ9 SJ9 SJ10 SJ10 SJ10 SJ10

85.1001.2.1 84.1150.2.11 84.2027.2.9 84.2027.2.100 84.1056.3.22 84.1150.2.17 84.1007.3.10 84.1056.3.19 84.1007.1.3 84.1152.5.3 84.1195.1.4 84.1008.1.11 84.1150.2.30 84.1150.1.3 84.1150.2.30

Roman Pottery

117

Roman Pottery

118

Plate 31:  Late Roman–Byzantine Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

storage jar lid krater krater krater krater mortarium basin basin basin basin pithos

LID3 KR1 KR1 KR1 KR2

84.1195.4.1 84.1152.5.6 84.1150.2.9 84.1150.1.7 84.1150.2.16 84.1150.1.2 84.1056.3.12 84.4065.2.11 85.1013.1.17 84.1152.5.6 84.1150.1.1

BS2 BS2 BS3 BS3

Roman Pottery

119

Roman Pottery

120

Plate 32:  Late Roman–Byzantine Period No.

Vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl cup bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl

ARSW 58 ARSW 59b ARSW 61a ARSW 61a ARSW 67 ARSW 67 ARSW? LR’D’W 1 LR’D’W 1 LR’D’W 1 Varia Varia Varia Varia

84.1150.2.21 84.1150.1.6 84.1002.2.13 84.1150.2.8 84.1007.1.5 84.1007.1.4 84.1150.3.1 84.1152.5.7 84.2092.5.11 84.1150.1.5 84.2092.5.23 84.1007.2.1 84.1150.2.11 84.1150.2.7

Roman Pottery

121

Roman Pottery

122

Plate 33:  Late Roman Period (300–363 c.e.) No.

Vessel

1 2 3

zoomorphic vessel zoomorphic vessel zoomorphic vessel

Type

Area, Locus, Reg. No. 84.1390.5.1 84.1390.12.4 reconstruction

Roman Pottery

123

Roman Pottery

124

Plate 34:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Description

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel incense shovel

soot on rim & floor

84.1068.3x.13 (IAA 94-2634) 84.1209.3x.1 86.1023.4x.1 84.1068.3x.19 84.1068.3x.20 95.1016.9x.1 84.1068.5x.1 84.1068.14x.4 84.1068.11x.2

soot on floor soot on floor

Roman Pottery

125

Roman Pottery

126

Plate 35:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

Description

Area, Locus, Reg. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

patera patera patera patera patera patera patera patera patera

soot on rim & floor soot on rim & floor? soot on floor

84.1068.3x.3 84.1068.3x.25 84.1068.3x.24 84.2018.4x.1 84.1179.6x.3 84.1068.3x.34 84.1179.6x.2 84.1068.3x.33 x84.1068.1

soot on rim

some soot on rim & floor

Roman Pottery

127

Roman Pottery

128

Plate 36:  Middle Roman Period (135–300 c.e.) No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

incense shovel lid incense shovel lid patera lid patera lid patera lid patera lid patera lid patera lid

Description

soot on interior handle perforated handle soot on interior; stamped

Area, Locus, Reg. No. 84.1068.17x.1 84.1068.16x.1 84.1068.3x.32 84.1068.19x.4 84.1068.3x.39 84.1068.34x.5 84.1140.21x.1 84.2051.1x.1

Roman Pottery

129

CHAPTER 3

Additional Roman Pottery Eric M. Meyers Four pottery plates (pls. 37–40) are provided as a supplement to pls. 1–36 for several reasons. First, the presentation of pls. 1–36 by Marva Balouka represents a significant expansion of her Hebrew University M.A. thesis (1999). Her work is certainly a major step forward in our understanding of the material culture and especially the ceramic repertoire of Roman-period Galilee. Indeed, for some time now many of us have been dependent on the outlines of this work, which were developed in the early years of the Sepphoris expedition, when Hebrew University and Duke University were closely collaborating. Ms. Balouka in fact leaned ceramics with me in the field and in the lab, and she served as our registrar for many years. The Sepphoris staff is grateful to her for her work. However, her study of the Sepphoris ceramics is organized largely by chronology and typology; and thus her selections, especially with respect to juglets and bowl lids, do not indicate the frequency with which those forms are found. These additional plates are meant to rectify that problem. Second, when the Duke Sepphoris project was forced to vacate its lab at the Albright Institute in Jerusalem, long after Balouka had completed her work, several important ceramic items that had not been included in her plates were found. Overcrowding in the storage area had led to the misplacement of these items, and this was discovered only when the ceramics were being packed for transfer to the Israel Antiquities Authority. We add these items in pls. 37–40 for the sake of thorough reporting, although we recognize that many of the forms overlap with examples in Balouka’s corpus.

1.  Early Roman–Middle Roman Period (pl. 37:1–9) The first plate (pl. 37) presents nine bowls and lids that are all clearly from the Roman period. Balouka dates all the similar forms on pl. 25 to the Middle Roman period, 135–300 c.e. However, forms 1 and 2 on pl. 37 could be as early as the Early

Additional Roman Pottery

131

Roman period; parallels at Gamla that could bring them back to pre-70 c.e. (Berlin 2006: pls. 3.4.1, unit B3 and 3.1.1, unit B1). This could also apply to the forms shown on pls. 37:4 and 37:5. The forms appearing on Balouka’s pl. 25:1–6 are probably lids; but similar forms, such as the more squat ones shown on pl. 37:1–6, are perhaps small bowls. The most common period of usage for these forms, whether lids or bowls, was probably the Middle Roman period. Plate 37:8 shows a very common type of lid that surely was used throughout the Middle Roman period. Plate 37:9 shows a rare form; with its rope decoration and red stripes and in its execution and style, it closely resembles the kinds of bowls and lids depicted on pl. 24. The rope decoration, however, seems to be unique in the Roman period.

2.  Late Hellenistic–Middle Roman Period (pl. 38:1–7) The cooking pots appearing on pl. 38:1–5, which nicely complement the material presented on Balouka’s pl. 1, date to the Hellenistic period. Pl. 38:6 can be slightly later; Balouka dates it to the Early Roman period (cf. pl. 2:14). However, a case can be made for dating it earlier, to the Late Hellenistic period, as is suggested by parallels from Capernaum and Kefar Hananiah (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 112–15, type 3A). The flat-bottom bowl depicted in pl. 38:7 is Adan-Bayewitz form 1B and has a rather long life in the Roman period, as Balouka correctly points out in her discussion of pl. 16; but it may in fact begin somewhat earlier than the 135 c.e. date that she uses as the beginning of the Middle Roman period (see Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 97).

3.  Middle Roman-Late Roman Period (pl. 39:1–8) The forms on pl. 39 supplement the examples presented on Balouka’s pl. 21, which extend throughout the Middle Roman period according to her chronology. These jugs are found at Meiron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: pl. 6.4.4 in C-3), Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers 2009: Pottery Plate 00.3) in Period III (250–363 c.e.), and most Galilean sites. Plates 37:1 and 37:2, however, are unusual in the execution of the handle with a secondary loop and a spout, possibly indicating that this vessel was used for serving a liquid. The strainer top with three holes was probably intended to remove small particles from a liquid; the liquid would have been strained as it was poured into the vessel and then served by pouring it through the spout. However, the position of the loop handle would have made pouring awkward, perhaps making it necessary to hold the neck rather than the handle when pouring.

4.  Late Hellenistic-Middle Roman Period (pl. 40:1–15) Plate 40:1–8 shows the kind of small juglets that are ubiquitous in Romanperiod contexts at most sites. Loffreda years ago said there was no clear typology of

132

Additional Roman Pottery

these vessels and that they could appear in any stratum of the Roman period (Loffreda 1974: 34, Type A10). Several appear on pl. 22. Balouka correctly assigns them to the broad chronological range of Middle Roman, 135–300 c.e.; but it is possible, as Loffreda asserts, that they occur earlier. The remainder of the examples shown on pl.  40 should be considered together with those presented in Balouka’s pl.  6 and dated to the Early Roman period. However, the forms shown on pl. 40:11, 13, and 15 are probably Late Hellenistic; and the one shown on pl. 40:14 may be even earlier. The context for these small objects, often found unbroken, is usually fill or collapse; their small size makes them less apt to break than larger forms.

Additional Roman Pottery

Plates for chapter 3 (Additional Roman Pottery) begin on p. 134.

133

Additional Roman Pottery

134

Plate 37:  Early Roman–Middle Roman Period No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Description

1

bowl

85.3103.2P

2

bowl

84.2079.2.1

3

bowl

85.1100.2.43

4

bowl

84.1111.1.4

5

bowl

85.3176.1.1

6

bowl

85.3065.1P

7

bowl lid

85.1115.2.12

8 9

bowl lid lid

85.3216.7.2 95.1016.9.1

Ware: 10YR 4/1 dark gray Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Ware: thick gray core Surface: 10YR 8/2 very pale brown Ware: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown Surface: 5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: light gray, rim lighter Ware: 10YR 6/3 pale brown with burned grits Surface: dark gray with large white grits visible Ware: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown Surface: 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown Ware: 2.5YR 7/8 light red Surface: 2.5YR 6/8 light red, rim 2.5YR 8/4 pin Ware: only on surface: 7.5YR 6/6 light red Ware: 10R 5/8 red with gray core Surface: 7.5YR 5/6 red with three 7.5YR 5/8–6/8 light red stripes on outside

Additional Roman Pottery

135

Additional Roman Pottery

136

Plate 38:  Late Hellenistic–Middle Roman Period No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Description

1

cooking pot

84.2026.4.1

2

cooking pot

85.3138.2P

3

cooking pot

85.3310.2.2

4

cooking pot

95.1016.14.4

5

cooking pot

85.3302.3.1

6

cooking pot

85.3221.8P.3

7

Galilean bowl

85.1100.2.21

Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red with thin gray core Surface: 2.5YR 4/6 red and burned Ware: 2.5YR 7/4 light reddish brown Surface: 5YR 7/4 pink Ware: 2.5YR 4/8 red Surface: 5YR 4/1 dark gray Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 2.5YR 4/6 red and burned Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: 2.5YR 4/4 reddish-brown and burned Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red and burned Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red Surface: 10R 5/6 red

Additional Roman Pottery

137

Additional Roman Pottery

138

Plate 39:  Middle Roman—Late Roman Period No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Description

1

spouted jug

84.1523

2

jug

84.2239.1.1

3

jug

85.1150.1.18

4

jug

85.1150

5

two-handled jug

84.1040.1.1

6

jug

85.3464.1.1

7

table amphora

84.1068.3.1

8

table amphora

84.1173.3.1

Ware: 10R 5/8 red with thin gray core Surface: 2.5YR 4/8 red and burned Ware: 5YR 6/3 light reddish-brown Surface: 7.5YR 7/4 pink Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 10R 5/6 red Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 10R 5/6 red Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red with few very small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 5/6–4/6 red with thin black and thick white stripe around shoulder Ware: 10R 5/8 red with thin gray core Surface: 2.5YR 4/8 red and burned Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red and encrusted Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 10R 5/6 red

Additional Roman Pottery

139

Additional Roman Pottery

140

Plate 40:  Late Hellenistic–Middle Roman Period No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Description

1

juglet

85.3216.7.4

2

juglet

85.3216.7.3

3

juglet

95.1016.14.8

4

juglet

85.3000.1.1

5

juglet

84.2147.7.3

6

juglet

85.3007.1.6

7

juglet

85.3007.48.2

8

juglet

85.3007.188.1

9

juglet

85.3007.188.1

10

juglet

85.3244.4P.2

11

juglet

85.3251.5.2

12

juglet

85.3344.5.2

13

juglet/vase 85.1307.1P.4

14

juglet

94.1066.1.1

15

juglet

85.3021.2.1

Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown Ware: gray with few white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6 red Ware: 10R 5/8 red Surface: 10R 5/6 red and encrusted Ware: 7.5YR 3/6 dark red Surface: encrusted, color not visible Ware: 7.5YR 5/3 brown with many small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow and inclusions visible on surface Ware: 2.5YR 6/6–5/6 reddish yellow to strong brown Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Ware: 7.5YR 5/8 red with many small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 5/6–5/8 red and inclusions visible on surface Ware: not visible because complete Surface: 5YR 7/4 pink Ware: dark gray Surface: 2.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: 5R 5/6 red and red slip Ware: 10R 5/6 red Surface: 10R 8/2 very pale brown and red slip Ware: 7.5YR 7/4 pink Surface: 5YR 7/4 pink and red slip on interior and exterior rim dripping on body Ware: gray Surface: gray covered with plaster Ware: 7.5YR 8/3 pink Surface: 5YR 8/4 pink with traces 2.5YR 6/8 light red slip

Additional Roman Pottery

141

CHAPTER 4

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares Anna de Vincenz Editors: This chapter consists of five parts. The first two parts consider fine wares. Part 1 examines some of the fine wares of the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods that were recovered from non-stratified loci and thus do not appear in chap. 2; and Part 4 presents fine wares of the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, also not part of the purview of chap. 2. The two largest parts of this chapter focus on the sizeable corpus of Byzantine and Early Islamic wares from Sepphoris: Part 3 focuses on an area of the western summit that has primarily Byzantine and later remains and that seems to have been the locus of commercial and craft activities—hence the designation “Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Shops”; and Part 3 presents additional Byzantine and Early Islamic materials from other parts of the western summit, including two loci—one a cistern—that each produced an interesting corpus of wares. The chapter concludes in Part 5 with a brief discussion of the menorah as a decorative motif on some of the ceramic remains from Sepphoris. The term “Islamic” is used in this chapter to designate the period beginning with the Islamic conquest for areas under Islamic rule; it is used with a political, not a religious, meaning. The author considers this term preferable to “Arab,” which may have ethnic implications. The discussion of fine wares in this chapter uses the standard designations shown in Chart 3 (p. 143).

1.  Eastern Sigillata A Wares and Other Hellenistic and Early Roman Fine Wares (pls. 41–42) Introduction Only a few of the fragments of Eastern Sigillata that were found in one specific locus are discussed in chap. 2 (see above, pl. 27). There are, however, a rather large Author’s note: I wish to thank Eric and Carol Meyers who asked me to study the material. Drawings are by Helena Bitan and Julia Rudman.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

143

Chart 3.  Fine Ware Designations and Abbreviations African Red-Slip Cypriot Red-Slip Cypriot Sigillata Eastern Sigillata A Egyptian Red-Slip Late Roman C (Phocean) Fine Byzantine Ware Pompeian Red Ware Western Terra Sigillata

ARS CRS CS ESA ERS LRC FBW PRW WTS

number of Eastern Sigillata A sherds from various locations in Sepphoris; and fragments of other fine wares—such as Cypriot Sigillata, Western Terra Sigillata, Knidian Gray Ware, Pompeian Red Ware, and a sherd decorated in West Slope style—have also been found.

Eastern Sigillata A Wares (pl. 41) Eastern Sigillata A is represented mainly by bowls of various shapes and also by jugs. The classification of the ESA vessels follows Hayes (1985a). Because ESA vessels were produced in the Syro-Palestinian region, probably somewhere in southern Syria, it is not surprising to find these vessels at Sepphoris. The clay of the vessels is usually fine and well levigated. The vessels are covered with a dull or glossy slip that is different in color from the clay and is mainly represented by various shades of orange-red and red. The slip is either applied thinly, barely covering the ware, or applied twice, in which case the second layer is clearly visible. Sometimes the surfaces are fired so intensely that they appear black, as is the case in our two jugs (pl. 41:9–10). ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 20 (pl. 41:1).  This small bowl with incurved rim is a type that Hayes (1985a: Tav. 3:8) classifies as Form 20 and dates to the second century b.c.e. This form also appears in Antiochia as Form 157. ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 35 (pl. 41:2).  This shallow bowl has a carinated body, an everted rim, a rather high foot, and a fine rouletted band under the rim. Hayes (1985: Tav. 5:12) classifies it as Form 35. The slip is usually glossy and well applied. An exact parallel from Jerusalem has been published by Hayes (1985b: fig. 53:1). Similar bowls have been found at Caesarea ( Johnson 2008b: 228–29) and Ashkelon ( Johnson 2008a: Form 36:12–13). They are dated to the second half of the first century c.e. ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 43 (pl. 41:3).  The rim of this bowl with gently flaring walls and carination is flaring, and it has a ring base. Hayes (1985: 33) classifies it as

144

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

Form 43 by and dates it to the Late Augustan period (10–20/30 c.e.) or slightly later. The rim of a similar bowl has been found at Caesarea ( Johnson 2008b: 234). ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 44 (pl. 41:4).  This bowl type has a rounded body and everted rim, which is slightly beveled internally, and has a low foot. The interior and exterior are covered with glossy red slip. Classified by Hayes (1985a: Tav. 6:9–10) as Form 44, it has also been found at Caesarea ( Johnson 2008b: 235) and is dated to the first half of the first century c.e. ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 45 (pl. 41:5–6).  Similar in shape to the previous bowl (Form 44) and thus classified by Hayes (Hayes 1985a: Tav. 6:11–12) as Form 45, this small bowl has a sharp carination and everted rim. Usually it has a ring base. The interior and exterior of the bowl are covered with a glossy red slip. This type of bowl has also been found at Caesarea ( Johnson 2008b: 236), Ashkelon ( Johnson 2008a: Form 45:23), and as far south as Oboda (Negev 1986: 164). It is dated from 1/10 c.e. to 50/60 c.e. Similar bowls are mentioned in a catalogue of the Royal Ontario Museum (Hayes 1976a: fig. 4.82). ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 46 (pl. 41:7).  Only a body fragment of this bowl is preserved, but it can be classified as Hayes’s Form 46 (Hayes 1985a: Tav. 6:13–14). Also found at Ashkelon ( Johnson 2008a: Form 47: 24–25) and Oboda (Negev 1986: 169), it is dated to 10–60/70 c.e. ESA Bowl Hayes’s Form 49 (pl. 41:8).  The bowl has a deep, rounded body with a carination that forms a bulge on the exterior. The walls flare out at the carination and turn in again to form a concave rim. Some examples have rouletted bands at the carination and on the rim, although those from Sepphoris are undecorated. This form, which is dated to about 40–70 c.e., is rather common and appears at Caesarea ( Johnson 2008b: 241–43). ESA Jug (pl. 41:9).  This jug, which has a straight neck ending in an everted, molded rim, has double-strand handles that are attached under the rim; they curve upward and then down to the location where they are attached on the shoulder. From Hayes’s catalogue (1985a: Tav. 10:4), it seems that the jug had an ovoid body. It is dated to the first century c.e. ESA Jug (pl. 41:10).  This jug with flaring neck and everted, flat rim probably had an ovoid or globular body. A fragment of jug quite similar to our example comes from Ashkelon ( Johnson 2008a: Form 113:51). It probably dates to the first century c.e.

Other Imported Fine Wares (pl. 42) Knidian Gray-Ware Bowl (pl. 42:1).  This drawing shows a fragment of a bowl with folded strap-handles. The rim is simple and slightly inverted. The exterior of the bowl and the handle are covered with a flaking red slip. The interior has a slip that appears metallic gray, which is typical for the Knidian bowls. This type of bowl is widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean, where it was imported from Athens

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

145

from the second quarter of the second century b.c.e. to the first half of the first century c.e. Bowls of this type have been found in Libya at Sidi Khreibish Benghazi (Kenrick 1985: 59–62, B82.2), and two bowls from Caesarea are reported as being copies of the Knidian bowls ( Johnson 2008b: 709–10). They have also been found at Dor (Guz-Silberstein 1995: 294–95, fig. 6.7:9–10). Cypriot Sigillata Bowl Hayes’s Form P22 (pl. 42:2).  This small, rounded bowl has an everted rim forming a small, rounded flange. The ware is fine and well levigated and the bowl is covered with a glossy red slip that is blackened on the rim from stacking the vessels together in the kiln. These CS bowls have also been found at Caesarea ( Johnson 2008b: 56). They are dated to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1985a: 84). Cypriot Sigillata Bowl Hayes’s Form P34 (pl. 42:3).  Another small CS bowl has an incurved rim with a short external flange. This bowl appears in Hayes’s catalogue as Form P34 among the CS bowls and is dated to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1985a: 84). Western Terra Sigillata Bowl (pl.  42:4).  This fragment of a WTS bowl has a carinated body with a sharply everted, down-turned rim that is hooked at the end. The base is a low foot. The ware is very fine and well levigated. No inclusions are visible, and the slip melts well with the ware and is very glossy. It is probably of Italian production. Pompeian Red-Ware Bowl (pl. 42:5).  This large, shallow bowl has an incurved rim and flat base that is thick in the middle. It is covered with a dull red slip. The inclusion of mica in the ware suggests that it belongs to the group of PRW vessels and not to the group of ARS wares, which eventually copied some of the shapes of PRW (including this form). The body is covered on both sides with a red slip that is thick and dull and sometimes bears scratches on the inside. Because these vessels were used mainly as serving vessels, the slip is usually worn. The bowl can be dated from the mid-first century b.c.e. to the end of the first century c.e. 1 Closed Vessel Decorated in West Slope Technique (pl.  42:6).  This fragment of a closed vessel, possibly a table amphora, is decorated in West Slope technique. It seems to be of eastern manufacture rather than an Attic import. The ware is reddishyellow, and the slip is red on the interior of the vessel and blackish and dull on the exterior. The decoration, appearing around the middle of the body, is an inscribed ivy vine onto which leaves were painted with thinned, whitish clay. Dating this example is difficult because of its fragmentary nature. Unidentified Vessel (pl.  42:7).  This sherd is made of well-levigated ware. Because the inside is rather rough, it was probably formed in a mold. The exterior is covered with a dull red slip. The rim has a hole that was made prior to firing. The form and use of the vessel is unknown. 2

1.  For a detailed discussion, cf. Kenrick 1985: 320–26. 2.  For the technique and dating, see Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995: 222–31.

146

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

Conclusion Editors: This small assemblage of Late Hellenistic and Early Roman fine-ware vessels provides an important supplement to what is presented in chap. 2 by Balouka. It adds weight to the argument that Sepphoris from its earliest stages was an important administrative center in Galilee and was also integrated into the commercial world of the Roman Empire. The presence of a sizeable assemblage of fine wares also is suggestive of feasting: beautifully finished or decorated pottery is an archaeological correlate of special meals (Hayden 2001: table 2.1). Feasting is indicative of economic surpluses as well as organizational hierarchies and can serve many interrelated political, economic, social, and religious functions (see C. Meyers 2012 for further discussion and bibliography).

2.  Byzantine–Early Islamic Pottery Assemblage from the Byzantine Shops (pls. 43–51) Introduction The pottery assemblage presented in this chapter comes from the area of the Byzantine shops on the western summit of Sepphoris, and the material has been chosen from the critical loci of that area. In addition, some complete or otherwise important vessels that do not come from critical loci are included. The material in this section, which dates mainly to the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, has been divided into typological groups. These are shown on pls. 43–51; and the keys to the plates provide information on provenance, ware color, and inclusions. The colors were identified by using the Munsell Color Charts in neon light. The keys to the plates also provide references and/or parallels for every vessel. A more detailed discussion and the suggested dating of the vessels appear below in the typological discussion of every group. The aim of this report is to show the repertoire of Byzantine–Early Islamic pottery found in the area of the Byzantine shops and to distinguish between imported vessels and locally made ones. The Byzantine pottery found in this area of Sepphoris includes local and imported pottery. The imported vessels are mostly fine wares, like the ARS wares, the LRC (Phocean) wares, and the CRS wares. But most of the material appears to be of local production and is clearly part of the ceramic repertoire of the northern region. Parallels have been found in the vicinity—at Capernaum, Kefar Hananiah, and Jalame—and of course from other excavation areas at Sepphoris.

The Pottery Fine Wares (pl. 43).  The three groups of Late Roman fine wares, following the classification of Hayes (1972), are well represented in the Sepphoris corpus. 3 3.  Editors: The designation “Late Roman” in reference to fine wares here follows Hayes’ convention of labeling these wares, which date predominantly to the Byzantine (not the Late Roman) period.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

147

African Red-Slip Bowls (pl. 43:1–9).  Four different forms of ARS vessels have been found. The most frequently found type (pl. 43:1, 4–5) is the one having the characteristic “two-part flaring rim” classified by Hayes as Form 67 (Hayes 1972: 112–16). These shallow bowls (e.g., those depicted on pl. 43:1, 4), which are usually decorated, are very common; they are found at many sites all around the Mediterranean and are dated to the fifth–sixth century c.e. The small bowl with a short, flat, ledge rim (pl. 43:6) is related to Hayes’s Form 94, which is dated to the late fifth and early sixth centuries c.e. (Hayes 1972: 148–49). It is possible that our example is a variant, and a sixth-century c.e. date seems appropriate. The hemispherical bowl fragments with rolled rim (pl. 43:7–8) correspond to Hayes’s Form 99A and are dated to the beginning of the fifth century (Hayes 1972: 152–55). The large plate with the rather large knob-rim and the rounded foot (pl. 43:9) corresponds to Hayes’s Form 105 (Hayes 1972: 166–69). The ware is coarser than in the previous examples; and the thin slip applied to these vessels is of poor quality and shows the brush marks with which it was applied. These forms are usually undecorated. They are very common and found all over the Mediterranean beginning in the late sixth century c.e. and continuing into the early seventh century c.e. Late Roman C Wares–Phocean Wares (pl. 43:10–16).  LRC wares are represented by two main forms, both of which are very common in the region. Hayes classifies them as Form 3 and Form 10. Form 3 (shown on pl. 43:11–14) is characterized by a vertical rim with a flange and appears in different sizes and with different morphological variations in rim shape. 4 The smaller bowls of the group are usually undecorated, but sometimes they have a single band of rouletting on the rim. The larger examples have additional grooves and/or bands of rouletting and/or stamps (animals, floral designs, crosses, etc.) on the inner side of the vessel. They seem to start to appear around the middle of the fifth century c.e. and are being produced well into the sixth century, with some coarse later pieces. The example shown on pl. 43:12 is a rather small bowl with the characteristics of Form 3, to which it seems related. The successor of Form 3 is represented by Form 10 (pl. 43:15–16). It is a bowl with rather straight, flaring walls ending in a knobbed rim (pl. 43:15) or a flattened rim with a small ridge underneath (pl. 43:16). This type is usually undecorated and may be dated to the end of the sixth and the seventh centuries c.e. (Hayes 1972: 343–46). The small bowl with incurved rim (pl. 43:10) seems to belong to Hayes’s Form 1 and is probably a very small version (cf. Hayes 1972: 325–27). A dating to the fifth century c.e. seems appropriate. Cypriot Red-Slip Wares and Variants/Imitations (pl. 43:17–24).  As at other sites of the northern region (e.g., Capernaum, Jalame, and Yoqneʿam) the CRS wares are well represented. Hayes’s Forms 9 and 10 are the most common ones; some local bowls (pl. 43:22–23) may even be imitations of such vessels, which are inspired by Cypriot wares and which show some of their characteristics, such as the grooves on the rim and the ware color of the bowl shown on pl. 43:24. Bowls of Form 9 have flaring walls that merge into an externally thickened rim that may be grooved 4.  For an extensive discussion on the form see Hayes 1972: 329–38.

148

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

(pl. 43:19). Most of the examples have an incised, short, wavy line on the rim; and frequently they are decorated with light rouletting under the rim. They may be dated to the end of the sixth and the seventh centuries c.e. (Hayes 1972: 379–82). The large deep version of Form 9 is Form 10. The characteristics are the same as before, flaring walls and externally thickened rim with grooves. The incised wavy line and the rouletting are the usual decoration of this type. The dating is the same as for the small version—that is, to the end of the sixth and in the seventh centuries c.e. The thick-walled basin with heavy, rectangular rim (pl. 43:17) corresponds to Hayes’s Form 7.1. It is decorated with two grooves on the rim and with two different types of rouletting under the rim and on the body. This form is fairly common and dates from the end of the sixth to the seventh century c.e. This type of basin or large bowl is very common at Jalame, where as many as 135 fragments have been found ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-14:252–56). The form of bowl no. 24 is similar to that of the carinated kraters shown below on pl. 38:7–10, but the grooves on the rim and the ware seem to point to Cypriot production. The shape of bowl no. 22 imitates CRS Form 9. However, because the ware is not the typical ware of the Cypriot prototypes, this may be a local imitation. Note that bowl no. 23 recalls the shape of Form 9. Local Bowls and Kraters (pl. 44).  Two main types are well attested at Sepphoris: the Galilean bowls and the carinated kraters. Many examples of both types have been found, and they are present throughout the areas of the Byzantine shops. Some other bowls apparently of local production have also been found. Galilean Bowls (pl. 44:1, 3, 11–13).  Of the large repertoire of Galilean bowls, only three forms have been discovered at Sepphoris: Form 1B, 1C, and 1E. Bowls no. 1 and 3 are two variants of Form 1B (see above, pl.  16). They are small- to medium-sized bowls with gently flaring walls (no. 1) or rounded walls with incurved rim (no. 3). Their characteristic feature is the rim with two grooves, and they also usually have two loop handles. Their use as cooking vessels seems confirmed by the signs of burning on the body and the base; but they might have been used as tableware as well (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 88). Form 1B, which has been found at sites throughout the Galilee, is very common during the second and third centuries c.e. It appears together with Form 1A, which is dated to the first to third centuries c.e. They continue into the fourth century and are then replaced by Form 1E. 5 Form 1E is represented by nos. 11–13, which are examples of a rather large bowl with everted, flaring walls that end in a simple rounded or squared rim. The ware is thicker than in the earlier examples, and they sometimes have ribbing. Because many of the examples show signs of burning on the body, they were probably used for cooking as well as for tableware. Like the earlier forms, these bowls may have been produced at Kefar Hananiah; only a petrographic analysis could confirm this. They are present at many sites in Galilee and the rest of the northern region beginning at the end of the third century c.e. and continuing into the fourth and beginning of the fifth century c.e. 6 5.  For an extensive study on the subject, see Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 91–97. 6.  For a detailed discussion see Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 103–9.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

149

Carinated Kraters (pl.  44:7–10).  The carinated krater is characterized by its large, deep body and the sharp carination on the upper part of the vessel. The rim is hooked and sometimes forms a flange. This krater probably had a convex base. Many of these vessels have been found at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-30), where they are called “basins with carinated sides” and are dated to the mid-fourth century c.e. An example similar to no. 7 was found at Capernaum; it has traces of burning on the body and is dated to the Roman period (Loffreda 1974: fig. 7). These kraters have rounded walls and an everted, rounded rim with external flange and apparently begin to appear in the middle of the second century c.e. The form later evolves, with the body becoming increasingly carinated and the rim more hooked. Thus, this krater probably dates from the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries c.e. (cf. above, chap. 2, pl. 31:2–5, p. 118). Other Bowls (pl. 44:2, 4–6).  The medium-sized bowl shown in pl. 44:2 has a carinated body and grooved rim. A good parallel was found at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-25:409). A date to the fourth century c.e. seems appropriate. Bowl no. 4 has slightly flaring walls and a slight carination on the upper part of the body. No satisfactory parallel has been found, but the context would suggest that it dates to the Late Roman or Early Byzantine period. Bowls no. 4 and 5 have a slightly carinated body and an inverted, flattened rim. Their ware is dark brown and rather hard-fired, which suggests that they were used as cooking vessels. Similar bowls or, rather, cooking bowls have been found at Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: fig. 11:2–5), where they are dated to the Byzantine period. Other similar cooking bowls, dated to the Late Roman–Byzantine period, have been found at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-43:634) and at the water reservoir in Sepphoris (Ayalon 1996: pl. 7:7–8). Basins and Pithoi (pl.  45:1–10).  Many rim fragments of large vessels, which could be identified as basins and/or pithoi, have been found in the area of the shops. Most of them are crudely made, possibly coil-made, with a wheel-finished rim. The surfaces are usually wet-smoothed and then covered with a slip. Many of them bear incised or combed decorations consisting of straight and/or wavy lines on the body and sometimes also on the rim. Additional decorations are applied clay bands with thumb impressions. These large basins (nos. 1 and 3) have flaring walls and a triangular rim. The inner surface of some vessels (e.g., no. 1) is covered with a brownish slip; the rim in others (e.g., no. 3) is slipped. Usually, they have a thumb-impressed decoration under the rim on the outside. Similar vessels have been reported from Capernaum and date to the Byzantine period (Loffreda 1974: fig.  12:15). The Sepphoris examples have been found together with cooking pots of Jalame Form 10 Variant 1 ( Johnson 1988: fig. 77-39:575–88), casseroles of Magness’s Form 1 (1993: 211–13), FBW juglets of Magness’s Form 1 (1993: 239–40), LRC ware bowls of Hayes’s Form 1 (1972: 325–27). Thus, the Sepphoris basins can be dated to the Byzantine period, not earlier than the fifth century c.e. but possibly also later. The large basin with heavy, square, sharply inverted rim (no. 2) has good parallels at Capernaum, where it is dated to the Late Roman and beginning of the Byzantine periods (Loffreda 1974: fig. 12:1–6). The large basin with heavy, inverted

150

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

flat rim (no. 4) is decorated on the rim with incised zigzag pattern and under the rim with an applied band with thumb impressions. No satisfactory parallel has been found; but both the decoration and the shape (the rounded walls) recalls basins no. 1 and no. 3. Thus, a proposed dating would be the Byzantine period, probably the fifth or sixth century c.e. The basin’s ware is similar to that of the bowl appearing in pl. 44:6, which is dated to the Byzantine period. The basin with straight, flaring walls and a grooved rim (no. 6) is decorated with combed straight and wavy bands. This type of basin is common at northern sites with early Islamic occupation levels, and good parallels are known from Pella (McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: pl. 148:5) dated to the beginning of the eighth century c.e. The basin with concave walls and two handles (no. 5) has no parallels so far. It is made of dark-brown ware with white inclusions and could possibly be a cooking pot, although the ware is not typical cooking-pot ware. The surface is covered with a reddish-brown slip known from the basins. It has been found together with a fragment of cooking pot of Jalame Form 10 Variant 1 ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-39:575–88). A proposed dating is thus the fifth–sixth century c.e. The four large vessels shown on pl.  45:7–10 are called pithoi; their Roman name is dolia. They are very large, having a rim diameter of more than 20 cm and an average height of 80 cm. They were used in the Roman world for the fermentation and storage of wine and also for storing other food items such as grain, olives, olive oil, and dried fruits. 7 The discovery of numerous examples of these vessels in the shop area at Sepphoris is not surprising, given that these jars were also used in shops to store necessary supplies. They have been found at Pompeii in wine-selling shops, where they were buried in the ground or stood under the counter, with an opening to pour out the wine. The Sepphoris examples are all handmade of coarse ware mixed with many limestone fragments and other inclusions. They are usually coated with a thick slip on both surfaces, and some have thick handles on the upper part of the body. Some of them are undecorated (e.g., no. 9), but most have combed wavy and straight bands (nos. 8 and 10) or applied clay bands with thumb-impressed decorations (no. 7). A proposed dating for these examples is the end of the Roman period and the Byzantine period. Cooking Vessels (pl.  46:1–20).  The cooking vessels found in the shop area at Sepphoris include closed cooking pots (nos. 1–11), casseroles (nos. 12–16), lids (nos. 17–18), and handmade baking trays (nos. 19–20). Closed Cooking Pots (pl. 46:1–11).  The most common closed cooking pot found in the area of the Sepphoris shops is the type with wide mouth and lacking a neck (nos. 1–4). The shape of the body is rounded and covered with ribbing, the base is also rounded, and the rim is grooved and flaring. These forms have two rather small loop handles extending down from the rim. This type of closed cooking pot is frequently found at northern Palestinian sites, including Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-39:574–90), Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: fig. 10:7–9), and Yoqneʿam (Avissar 1996: fig. 12.6:7). These forms can be dated to the fourth and fifth centuries c.e. 7.  See Ayalon (1991), who discusses the use of large ceramic jars found at Yavneh-Yam.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

151

The cooking pot with a vertical concave neck ending in an internally thickened rim (no. 5) seems to be related to Jalame Form 18 ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-41:610), which is dated to the end of the fourth century c.e. The example with everted, grooved rim (no. 6) finds a good parallel at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-36:543–51). That hundreds—360, to be exact—of this type of pot have been found at Jalame indicates that it was a common type during the Byzantine period. The two cooking pots shown on pl. 46:7, 9 have a carinated body covered with ribbing and a rim with a pronounced internal groove for holding a lid. The shape of the body recalls that of a cooking pot from Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-37:553), and a similar rim was found on another pot from Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-39:596). Both are dated to the fourth century c.e. and later. The globular cooking pot with swollen neck and an internally thickened rim (no. 8) seems to have evolved from the globular cooking pot of the second and third centuries c.e. (cf. Magness 1993: 216, Cooking Pot Form 1A). Loffreda (1974: fig. 10:6) published a similar form with a vertical neck; and Johnson (1988: fig. 7-41: 608) reports a cooking pot with a slightly swollen neck at Jalame. A date to the Byzantine period seems appropriate for these vessels. The cooking pot with globular ribbed body (no. 10) is the typical Byzantine cooking-pot form and can be dated to the fifth–sixth century c.e. This form, which can have slight variations in rim stance and shape, has been reported at Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: 46, Type C3 and fig. 10:6). The cooking pot with inverted, slightly pointed rim (no. 11) has a good parallel from the water reservoir in Sepphoris (Ayalon 1996: pl. 6:11), where it is dated to the fourth–fifth centuries c.e. Casseroles (pl. 46:12–16) and Lids (pl. 42:17–18).  The casseroles found in the shop area at Sepphoris all have a characteristic rim that is internally beveled for holding a lid. Some (e.g., nos. 12–13) have vertical handles, and others (such as nos. 14–16) have upturned handles. These casseroles replace the Roman carinated casserole during the Byzantine period. The basic shape of the vessel is a shallow-todeep bowl with two horizontal handles, which may be straight, up-turned, or downturned. Sometimes these handles are twisted or bear ridges. The chronological development of cooking bowls is still not clear, and it seems that ribbed and unribbed vessels appear together. These casseroles are rarely found in the southern and central part of the country, where the closed cooking pot is the predominant type. Northern examples have been found at Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: fig. 11:11–12), at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-43:630), and at Yoqneʿam (Avissar 1996: fig. 12.6:11–13). They continue into the Early Islamic period and have been found in Umayyad contexts at Pella (McNicolls, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: pl. 47:10; Smith 1973: 1127, 1128, 1328; Smith 1989: pls. 51:5–6; 53:6, 8, 13, 17). The two lids (nos. 17–18) are made of cooking-pot ware and belong to the casseroles. A similar dating is proposed. Baking Trays (pl. 46:19–20).  These interesting vessels are made of coarse ware and are covered with a reddish-brown slip. Similar baking trays have been found at Capernaum and are dated to the Late Roman period (Loffreda 1974: fig. 14:1–2).

152

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

Storage Jars and Amphorae (pl. 47:1–16).  One would expect a shop area to have storage jars, and many complete and restorable vessels as well as many fragments of storage jars have been found. The predominant type is the so-called bag-shaped jar, which appears in a large variety of shapes, with many rim variations (pl. 47:1–12). The basic form is the same for all of them: bag-shaped body, with two loop handles on the upper part of the body. The ware is grayish, with reddish shades; and the surfaces, which are fired purple-gray or gray, usually have a metallic sound. Many of the jars are decorated with spirals, loops, and other similar geometric designs applied with white paint (nos. 1–2, A–C). There are many parallels for these jars, which occur at many northern sites but are virtually absent at sites in the center and the south. They have been found, for example, at Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: fig. 8, class B), Jalame ( Johnson 1988: figs.  7-53:810–11; 7-54:812–823), and Yoqneʿam (Avissar 1996: fig. 13:114: Type 4). Many of these jars appear in Early Islamic contexts in Transjordan at Pella (McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: pls. 139:6–7; 141:2, 4; 146:3; 148:4, 6; Smith 1973: pl. 31:284, 495; Smith 1989: pls. 48:6, 8–9, 15; 54:1–2; 58:14–15, 20). The Sepphoris examples provide evidence of the large variety of rim shapes that are associated with these bag-shaped storage jars. The jar with rather wide neck and everted, externally thickened rim (no. 13) is buff-ware and recalls the shape of the glazed jugs of the Early Islamic period (Avissar 1996: fig. 12.144:1–2). Somewhat similar jars have been found at Pella and are dated to the Umayyad period (Smith 1973: pl. 32:490, 1126). Three amphora fragments appear on pl. 47:14–16. The first (no. 14) is a vessel with a medium-high neck ending in a rounded rim. Two handles extend downward from the middle of the neck. No satisfactory parallel to this form has been found so far. The second amphora (no. 15) has a high neck ending in a flat, square rim. Two heavy handles extend from under the rim to the upper shoulder. The body of these amphorae is usually oblong, and they have a “nipple-toe” base. They have been classified as Late Roman Amphorae 1B1 and are dated to the sixth–seventh century c.e. (Peacock and Williams 1986: Class 44). The amphora with narrow, long neck ending in a square rim (no. 16) has two large handles extending from below the rim to the upper shoulder. It seems to be related to the amphora type found at Jalame and classified as Amphora Form 1 ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-49). That these amphorae were probably produced locally at each site would explain the variety of rim shapes found at Jalame. Johnson’s dating of these forms to only the fourth century c.e. seems too restricted, and a dating to the fourth–fifth century c.e. is proposed. Jugs, Juglets, and Bottle (pl. 48:1–15).  Jugs and juglets were not very common in the area of the Sepphoris shops; of those that occur, the most common type is the FBW juglet (nos. 3–7). Two fragments of jugs with externally thickened rim (nos. 1–2) belong to an unidentified form, possibly dating to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. It seems similar to the Kefar Hananiah Form 5B2 (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl. 5B). The five forms depicted on pl. 48:2–7 are FBW juglets. Their characteristic ware is fine and well levigated, with smooth surfaces that are often burnished. Very often, the vessels are decorated with incised nicks on the shoulder (e.g., nos. 4–6). These jug-

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

153

lets can be considered both small and very small in size. Their body is globular, with a narrow neck and a swollen, stepped rim. Magness (1993: 166–67, 239–40) claims that their production center was in the Jerusalem region, where they are common at sites with Byzantine and Late Byzantine occupation layers. Indeed, few examples have been found outside the Jerusalem area. Several juglets have been found in recent excavation in the village of En-Gedi (Vincenz 2007: pl. 25:3) and on some other sites in the Dead Sea area (e.g., Harper 1995: fig. 11:38–39). These juglets can be dated from the middle of the sixth century c.e. onward, but it is not certain for what purpose they were used. A second type of juglet, which is quite common at Byzantine sites, is made of cooking-pot ware. One example (no. 8) has a narrow neck ending in a widening rim. Its handle starts at the mid-neck. The vessel corresponds to Kefar Hananiah Form 6C (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl.  6C:2, 4) and to the jugs reported from Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: fig. 3:13–14). In both cases, they are dated to the Byzantine period, early fourth to early fifth century c.e. Another cooking-pot-ware juglet (no. 10) has a spout. Its body is possibly globular, and a single handle extends down from the rim. This type seems to be rare in the north and does not appear at Jalame or Capernaum. Nevertheless, this juglet can be dated to the Byzantine period, although not before the fifth century, on the basis of the context in which it is found at Sepphoris. That is, it appears together with cooking pots of Jalame Form 10 Variant 1 ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-39:575–88), casseroles of Magness’s Form 1 (1993: 211–13), FBW juglets of Magness’s Form 2A (1993: 239–40), and LRC ware bowls of Hayes’s Form 1 (1972: 325–27). 8 A buff-ware juglet with a slightly inverted rim and a ribbed body (pl. 48:9) does not have a satisfactory parallel, but a dating to the Late Byzantine period is proposed. A “carrot-shaped” jug with two small handles (no. 11) is made of yellowish ware, with many micaceous inclusions. Although it is difficult to identify because the rim and base are broken, it seems to be an imported vessel on the basis of its ware. At Horvat ʿAqav (Ramat Hanadiv), a somewhat similar jug with a single handle has been found (Calderon 2000: pl. 24:67 and fig. 43). The base of a small jug made of pale brown buff-ware (no. 12) finds a parallel in a winepress at Akhziv, where it has been identified as the base of an Antilia jug (Syon 1998: fig. 12:9; see below, p. 157 for more information on this form). It probably dates to the Late Byzantine period. The base of a carinated jug (no. 13) could not be further identified. A sherd from the neck of a jug (no. 14) has incised lines forming a menorah. The lines were incised before firing and might have been part of other decorative motifs that are now lost. A menorah incised on a storage jar has been found in another area of Sepphoris and dates to the fifth century c.e. (Meyers and Meyers 1996), and two sherds with painted menorahs are described below (see pl. 51:2). The squat bottle with a very narrow, long neck (no. 15) was probably used as a container for an expensive liquid such as perfumed oil or balsam, because the narrow neck would allow only a few drops to come out at a time. No published parallels 8.  The locus was 84.1471.

154

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

are known so far; but a bottle recently discovered at the Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem, although made of a different ware, is similar in shape. 9 A date in the fourth–fifth century c.e. seems probable. Lids and Stoppers (pl. 49:1–13).  As already mentioned, many storage jars have been discovered in the shops area of Sepphoris. In the same area, as might be expected, numerous lids and stoppers that would fit these jars were discovered. They are of two basic forms. One is the deep cup or bowl (nos. 1–9) and the other is the bell-shaped lid (no. 10). Magness (1993: 247) classifies the cup-formed lid as Form 1 and dates it from the sixth to the eighth centuries c.e. They occur at Pella in a sixth-to-earlyseventh century c.e. context (Smith 1989: pl. 50:12–13). Mount Nebo examples are dated to the Byzantine period (Schneider 1950: 122, fig.  14:4). Many lids of this form have also been found in Early Islamic contexts at Ramla. 10 The second type is the bell-shaped lid, which is common at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-55), where over a 1,000 fragments have been discovered. Unfortunately, they were found separate from the containers they were meant to close. Other bellshaped lids come from a smithy in Horvat ʿOvesh in Upper Galilee (Aviam and Getzov 1998: fig. 9:17–18) and from a winepress at Akhziv (Syon 1998: fig. 12:10–11). The bell-shaped lids are dated to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. Another closing device that was quite common in the shop area at Sepphoris is the clay cone (nos. 11–12). These cones are made of coarse ware and are not very well fired; thus, they crumble easily. Some show traces of burning. They are heavy and could have been used as stoppers for the jars, although no example has been found together with a jar. The context would date them to the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. No parallels are known thus far, possibly because of their fragile nature. However, the stopper (no. 13) is made of coarse ware and is similar to one found in Kefar Saba and dates to the Byzantine period (Ayalon 1998: fig. 10:4). Editors: An alternative theory is that these forms are not lids but rather were objects used in a kiln to facilitate the stacking of large ceramic vessels. Red-Painted Vessels (pl.  50:1–8).  Red-painted vessels are common at Islamic sites such as Pella, where numerous examples have been found. The carinated bowl with thumb-impressed and red-painted decoration (no. 1) lacks a parallel. However, a similar carinated vessel made of light buff-ware and painted purplish-brown comes from an Umayyad context at Pella (McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: pl. 147:7), where it is called a jar. Other jugs and jars with red paint have many parallels in Pella (McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: pls. 140:5, 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1; Smith 1973: pl. 30: 492, 1101; Smith 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8). They are all dated to the Umayyad period. Miscellaneous (pl. 51:1–9).  A fragment of a vessel (no. 1) with an applied ceramic snake decorated with impressed circles has no known parallel. However, the ware, which is similar to Late Roman fine ware, and the decorative circles point to a dating into the Byzantine period. 9.  I wish to thank Eilat Mazar for allowing me to mention the vessel. 10.  The ceramic report of this important Early Islamic site is being prepared by the author.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

155

Two jar fragments (nos. 2 and 2A) each have a menorah painted in white. These fragments belong to a group of jars decorated with white paint; typical decorations include circles and loops but not menorahs (see section on storage jars, pl. 47). A fragment of jug with an incised menorah has been described above (see pl. 48:14), and menorah decorations are also discussed below in chap 4.5 (“Comments on Sherds with Incised or Painted Menorahs,” pp. 167–71). Thus, jars and jugs depicting menorahs appear at Sepphoris almost exclusively during the Byzantine period. The jar fragment shown on pl. 51:3 has an incised “cross,” which is unlikely to be a religious symbol and more likely is part of a larger decoration, as can be seen from a small line belonging to some other pattern. A crudely made stopper or plug (no. 4) was possibly used for sealing a ceramic container. A fragment that may be part of a cooking bowl appears on pl. 51:5. The collar and part of the body of a ceramic water pipe (no. 6) is similar to pipes from Jalame (Berry 1988: fig. 8-14:143– 44). A ceramic fragment that might have been the base of a closed vessel appears on pl. 51:7. A large ceramic funnel (no. 8) was probably used to pour liquids (or solid food?) into storage jars and can be compared with a painted funnel from Pella that dates to the beginning of the eighth century c.e. (Smith and Day1989: 56:1). Two fragments of a small ampulla with perforated handles (no. 9) are forms that were common in the Byzantine period (see Israeli and Mevorah 2000: 202, lower photo), when they were used by pilgrims as “souvenirs” from the Holy Land). Nagy (1996) has published a similar pilgrim flask. A fragmentary example decorated with birds and a ladder motif, found in the Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem, has been published recently by Mazar and Gordon (2007: fig. 15.3:27).

Conclusion The pottery assemblage from the area of the Byzantine shops on the western summit of Sepphoris is characteristic of an urban center that had many commercial ties with the surrounding villages, with sites that were farther away, and also with foreign countries, as indicated by the presence of imported fine wares. Some vessels, such as the FBW juglets, have been brought from the Jerusalem area. The richness of the imported pottery is a clear sign of the continuing wealth of the site during the Byzantine period and also in the Early Islamic period. Indeed, it seems that Sepphoris was the site of considerable commercial activity throughout the Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods. This activity is also shown by the presence of wares from elsewhere in the region, which continues the tradition of the Roman period. Editors: Another consideration is that all of the Byzantine–Early Islamic pottery, like the other forms presented in this volume, comes from the western summit. As we pointed out in chap. 1, the character of this area changed dramatically after the great earthquake of 363 c.e. Before that date, the summit was a residential area with large domiciles, almost certainly inhabited by Jews. After that date, it apparently became an area of craft-production and sales, where metal and glass objects were made and sold, probably by Christian artisans. It is likely that the 363 c.e. earthquake led to this change in the character of the area and the identity of the inhabitants on the summit of the site. Along with the different use of space, perhaps there was a different repertoire of pottery types and forms. That is, the frequency of

156

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

household vessels, such as cooking pots and bowls, seems to diminish; and the number of storage jars, which would be expected in an area of production and sales, increases. However, unfortunately, we do not have statistical evidence to support this conclusion because the sheer volume of recovered sherds made counting all of them impractical. For a broader picture of the ceramics at Sepphoris in the post-363 c.e. period, we refer the reader to the publications of the Hebrew University and the University of South Florida excavations at Sepphoris (e.g., Weiss and Talgam 2004; Weiss 2005; Strange, Longstaff, and Groh 2006). Both of those projects have uncovered elaborate and extensive structures dating to the Byzantine period. An important factor affecting the ceramic repertoire recovered from the western summit is that the existing remains are very close to the bedrock surface, especially on the southern part of the summit where the shops are located. It was difficult to determine the nature of the Roman-period occupation in the area of the Byzantine shops, although material uncovered in the many cisterns and underground cavities did contain an abundance of sherds of the Roman period if not earlier. Also, because of erosion and modern disturbances, it could not be determined if the shops were on the ground floor of two-storey structures. However, it is likely that they were, for it is common to have living space above work space, as is the case in the lower city of Meiron (see Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1981: 24–41).

3.  Additional Byzantine and Early Islamic Pottery from Various Loci and from Cistern 85.1195 and Locus 85.4120 (pls. 52–54) Introduction This section presents additional Byzantine and Early Islamic pottery vessels from various areas of the western summit of Sepphoris. These include miscellaneous vessels, such as an Antilia jug (below, p. 157), a bread stamp, and a fragment of a lantern. In addition, vessels from cistern 85.1195, north of the Byzantine shops, and locus 84.4120, associated with a paved surface in the shops area, are discussed as discrete groups.

Pottery from Various Loci (pl. 52) Fine-Ware Bowl with Black Painted Decoration (pl. 52:1).  This fine-ware bowl has a rather deep body with almost straight walls and a rounded base. Bowls of this type belong to the FBW tradition (see Magness 1993). An important characteristic of this Sepphoris bowl is the deeply incised and painted decoration on the body. Painted bowls like this one were found at Khirbet el-Mafjar, where Baramki (1944: pl. 17–18, fig. 6:18–10, ware 10) dates them to the middle of the eighth century c.e. This dating has since been refined by Whitcomb, who dates them to just after the earthquake of 749 c.e. (cf. Whitcomb 1988: 63–64). These bowls, with both bi-chrome and monochrome decoration, have also been found at Umm al-Rasas (Alliata 1991: figs. 11:7, 17:2, 18:11, 19:18, 22:18–19) and are dated to the Umayyad period. Cooking Jug (pl. 52:2).  The jug shown here is made of cooking-pot ware. It has a squat body and a rounded base, and the neck is everted, with an inner groove for

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

157

holding a lid. One handle extends from the rim to the upper body. It is similar in shape to some of the vessels from cistern 84.1195 (pl. 47:23, 26). No satisfactory parallel from other sites has been found. Cooking Pot Lid (pl. 52:3).  This cooking-pot lid is made of the same gritty redbrown ware as the cooking vessels. Its diameter (27 cm) suggests that it was used to cover a casserole like those discussed above (pl. 46:12–16). Its peculiarity lies in the decoration: combed horizontal straight lines and combed wavy lines. Lids with similar decoration have been found at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-44:644, 646, 650, 652) and Capernaum (Loffreda 1974: foto 10:1–6) and are dated to the Byzantine period at both sites. Gaza Jar (pl. 52:4).  The main type of storage jar encountered in the Byzantine shops at Sepphoris is the bag-shaped jar, which is discussed above (see pl. 47). The jar fragment shown here belongs to a type called the “Gaza (wine) jar.” Editors: It was originally identified at Gaza but now is known to have also been produced in other places. This form has been well studied (see Mayerson 1994 and Majcherek 1995). Because complete examples have been found at various sites, the body of these jars is known to be cigar-shaped, usually with ribbing below the shoulder, two small loop handles, and a slightly pointed or stump base. Many Gaza jars were discovered in a Byzantine warehouse near Ashkelon; and analysis of their residues showed that they had contained the resined wine for which the area was famous (Fabian and Goren 2001: 213). This wine was produced during the Byzantine period in the GazaAshkelon area and probably stored in the warehouse before being shipped all over the Mediterranean. One can assume that the wine was also transported overland to Sepphoris and other sites. Jug (pl.  52:5).  This jug has an ovoid body and a short, straight neck. One strap-handle extends from the rim to the upper shoulder. The body of the jug is covered with dense ribbing, and the base is concave with a button. No satisfactory parallel has been found, although a juglet from Sumaqa is similar (Siegelmann 1998: fig. 11:18). Antilia Jug (pl.  52:6).  The Antilia jug is a small-to-medium-sized jug without handles that was tied to a chain and used on a water wheel to fetch water. These jugs usually have a slightly everted neck and a toe base that allowed the jug to be tied with ropes to the wheel. 11 They were made of a rather coarse ware and were ribbed for a more secure grip. These jugs are widely found; and examples similar to the Sepphoris jug come from a wine press at Akhziv (Syon 1998: fig. 12:16–19). The type shown on pl. 52:6 can be dated to the fourth to sixth centuries c.e. (Schiøler 1973: 103–4). The base of such a jug was previously identified at Sepphoris (cf. above, pl. 48:12).

11.  For a reconstruction and explanation of the device see pp. 15, 19–20, 21 of the “Activities: water-lifting” section of Yeshu Dray, “Restoration of Ancient Technology,” accessed October 4, 2009; http://www.yeshuat.com.

158

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

Lantern (pl. 52:7).  Lanterns are common in the Byzantine period, but unfortunately they are usually found only in fragments. These vessels usually have a flat base with a fenestrated body and a handle at the top from which the lantern could be suspended. 12 They have been found in sealed contexts under the pavement of the Nea Church in Jerusalem and are thus dated to no later than the mid-sixth century c.e. (Magness 1993: figs. 3:1–3; 4:9–10). Lantern fragments have been found at many sites throughout the country, including Caesarea (Sherwood 1994: 63–64, fig. 21:TC2), Khirbet el-Kerak (Delougaz and Haines 1960: pl. 57.9), Mount Nebo (Schneider 1950: pl. 157.26–38), and En-Gedi (Vincenz 2007: pl. 28:1–2). Large Handmade Basin (pl.  52:8).  This fragment of a large handmade basin is made from a very coarse ware with many large limestone and other inclusions. There also seems to have been straw mixed into the clay; the straw burned out during firing, leaving hollows. The surfaces were wet-smoothed, and streak marks from the cloth are visible. Deeply incised lines forming triangular patterns appear on the rim and the body. There is also a depression, perhaps a spout, on the rim. Many large vessels, jars, and pithoi made of a similar coarse ware and with many inclusions are known at Caesarea (Loffreda 1974: 54–60, class D). However, no identical parallel has been found. Bread Stamp (pl.  52:9).  The ceramic object shown here seems to have been part of a bread stamp. It is round in shape, and the undecorated part seems to have had a handle. The other side is decorated with incised lines and dots forming a decorative pattern. Bread stamps, which were commonly used for liturgical purposes during the Byzantine period, were made not only of clay but also of stone or wood (see Galavaris 1970). They were decorated with Christian symbols such as crosses and also with geometric patterns. Editors: Jewish bread stamps have also been recovered; see, for example, Meyers and Meyers 1975. Bread stamps are rarely mentioned in excavation reports, but four examples have recently been published: one from En-Gedi (Vincenz 2007: pl. 30 and fig. 51), two from Raqit (Vincenz 2004: fig. 9:12–13), and another possible example from Horvat ʿAqav (Sidi 2000: pl. 4:1 and fig. 8).

Vessels from Cistern 85.1195 (pl. 53) The assemblage found in this cistern consists mainly of jugs (nos. 1–21), but a few other forms were also found (nos. 22–27). Editors: Most of the coins from this cistern are dated to the sixth century c.e.; but two are seventh century c.e. in date, and several are from the late fourth–fifth centuries c.e. Few structural remains of the Byzantine or later periods have survived in 85.1, but the cistern was probably used extensively during these periods. Jugs (pl. 53:1–21).  The jugs are all of the same type; they have an elongated body widening to a greater or lesser degree as it rises toward the shoulder. All have a high neck that ends in an everted rim, which is triangular in section and has a groove. One strap-handle extends from the rim to the upper shoulder. These jugs 12.  For a reconstruction of such a lantern, see Vincenz 2007: pl. 28:1.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

159

Photo 11.  Jugs from Cistern 85.1195.

have a ribbed body and a concave base with a button. The ware is fine, with few inclusions, although some have micaceous inclusions. No satisfactory parallel has been found thus far; and the fact that all of the jugs have some kind of defect, such as misfiring (nos. 5, 21), ancient mending (no. 7), or encrustation or burning (no. 16), perhaps indicates local manufacture. Another feature of the jugs is puzzling: many were intentionally broken, either opposite the handle or next to it. Examining the place where they were broken indicated that the breaks were made by some sort of cutting object and were not the result of being accidentally dropped while pulling water up from the cistern. Why were these jugs broken in this way? Breaking jugs certainly did not facilitate their use as a pouring vessel; an experiment showed that pouring water with an intact rim resulted in less spilling and dribbling and thus was more efficient than pouring with the broken rim. Because none of the jugs were first choice—that is, they all had manufacturing defects—were they intentionally broken to leave at the cistern for public use without fear that they might be stolen. Or was there some sort of ritual behind it? If so, why were some of the jugs not broken? Three more jugs of the same type, though made of coarser ware, were found in other areas of the western summit: in Areas 84.1 and 84.2. 13 The rims of all of them are broken opposite the 13.  A large domicile of the Roman period, west of Area 85.1, was excavated in Area 84.1; Roman and later remains were recovered in Area 84.2 at the western edge of the summit. See fig. 1 (p. 3). Sepphoris: Western Summit (Area Locator Plan).

160

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

handle. In addition, the publication of the excavations at the ancient water reservoir at Sepphoris includes a picture of a jug of a different type but with a rim that has been broken in the same way (Ayalon 1996: fig. 166 and pl. 9:5). Small Jug (pl. 53:22).  This small jug has a high, slightly flaring neck and one handle extending from the rim to the upper shoulder. The base is rounded and the body slightly ribbed. A similar jug comes from the Sepphoris water reservoir (Ayalon 1996: pl. 9:6). Pot with One Handle (pl. 53:23).  The pot shown here has a squat body with carination in the middle, a rounded base, and a very short, everted neck. One handle extends from the rim to the carination. The body is decorated with combed, straight horizontal bands and wavy vertical ones forming an intricate pattern. The shape recalls cooking pots, but the ware is not the usual gritty cooking-pot ware. Rather, it is fine and well levigated with well-smoothed surfaces. Three similar rims were found at Khirbet el-Niʿana (Vincenz and Sion 2007: fig. 5:1–3). Magness (1992: fig. 62:9) calls a similar vessel from Caesarea a “jar/cooking pot,” and Tushingham (1985: fig. 28:28) calls an example from Jerusalem a “cooking pot.” Pot (pl. 53:24).  The large, squat pot shown here is similar in shape to no. 23. It is carinated in the middle of the body; and it has a rounded base and a very short, everted neck. It has only one handle, which extends from the rim to the carination. Again, the shape seems to be more like a cooking pot; but the ware is not cookingpot ware. The pot is larger than no. 23 but is made of the same ware. No exact parallel has been found. Jug (pl. 53:25).  This jug has a rather rounded body and a rounded base; and its short, straight neck has a thickened rim. One handle extends from the rim above it to the upper shoulder. A similar jug has been found at Jalame ( Johnson 1988: fig. 7-46:696), although it is larger and has a higher neck. Jug (pl. 53:26).  This jug features a squat body, a slightly pointed base, and a high neck with grooves. The rim is everted, and a rather large handle extends from the rim to the upper body. As with the jugs shown on pl. 53:1–21, the rim of this jug was intentionally broken; and only the part of the rim next to the handle is intact. No satisfactory parallel has been found. Small Jug/Jar (pl.  53:27).  This small jar has a squat body. Its base, which is broken, was probably rounded. The neck is short, with an everted rim. Two small loop handles are positioned on the upper shoulder. As is true for most of the other vessels in the cistern, a satisfactory parallel for this jar has not been found. Conclusion.  The vessels found in the cistern seem to have been manufactured locally, as is suggested by the conspicuous lack of parallels and the defects noted in the jugs. Indeed, there are no similar vessels in the entire ceramic repertoire of the Byzantine period from the western summit excavations at Sepphoris. Furthermore, all of the jugs were intact (with the exception of the intentionally broken rims), and

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

161

the other vessels (pl. 53: 22–25, 27) were all broken and restored (with the exception of no. 26, which also was intact except for the purposefully broken rim). Editors: The numismatic data and stratigraphic context, however, leave no doubt as to the Byzantine-period dating (fifth–sixth centuries c.e.) of these forms from the cistern.

Vessels from Locus 84.4120 (pl. 54) All of the vessels found in this locus 14 except no. 8 are made of coarse yellowish ware, which is quite thick and is covered with a thick yellowish slip. Some of the vessels have red- or black-painted decorations. Vessels decorated with red and black paint are common in Early Islamic strata at sites such as Pella, where they have been found in abundance. They are all dated to the Umayyad period, which is the dating proposed for these examples. The jug shown on pl. 54:8 (IAA 96–878) is also made of yellowish buff-ware, but it is very thin and almost metallic in sound. Its decoration is also more elaborate than that of the other vessels. A dating to the Umayyad period, however, can still be proposed. Editors: This jug type is also known is a Khirbet el-Mafjar vessel because of its distinctive ware. Because it is fired at a very low temperature, it remains soft; and after firing, it often appears green or pale buff. The fineness of the clay facilitates the application of the barbotine decorations on its exterior surface. With its funnel-like neck and everted rim, this example is typical. Similarly, its decoration of repeating ovals arranged in horizontal bands is also characteristic of this type. This jug is a notable example of the significant changes in ceramic technology and decoration that occurred in the Early Islamic period (E. Meyers 1996). Two table amphorae (nos. 6, 7) and the jug (no. 5) are of the group of redpainted vessels that are well known at sites with occupation levels of the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods. As already noted, many parallels have been found at Pella (McNicoll, Smith, and Hennessy 1982: pls. 140:5, 11, 12; 142: 2, 3; 143:1; Smith 1973: pl. 30:492, 1101; Smith 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58: 1, 5, 7, 8); and they have also been found at Mount Nebo (Schneider 1982: 25–27, fig. 2: 2), Madaba (Acconci and Gabrieli 1994: figs. 45:4; 46:6–14), and Umm al-Rasas (Alliata 1992: fig. 7:0). Bowl (pl.  54:1).  This large, simple bowl, with a slightly inverted rim and an omphalos base, is undecorated. No exact parallel has been found; however, because it is made of the same material and in the same style as all the others in this group, it can be assumed that the bowl belongs to the same period as the others. Storage Jar (pl. 54:2).  This bag-shaped storage jar has a high neck ending in a slightly inverted and rounded rim. The handles are positioned on the upper shoulder and are rather heavy. The body of the jar is ribbed, and the entire jar is covered with a thick yellowish slip. The remains of lines painted with thick white paint can be seen on the handles. Umayyad storage jars with painted decoration are common in Pella, although most of them (i.e., the so-called Beth Shean storage jars) are made of dark ware and are metallic in sound. Only a few examples are made of yellowish 14.  See fig. 1 (p. 3) for location of Area 84.1.

162

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

buff-ware; one jar from Pella dates to the eighth century c.e. (Smith and Day 1973: pl. 54:4). Holemouth Jar (pl. 54:3).  This holemouth jar has a globular body and a short, sharply everted rim. Like the preceding vessels, it is made of coarse, pinkish-gray buff-ware and is undecorated. A jar found at Yoqneʿam (Avissar 1996: 164–65, Type 18) is similar in shape and ware but is not glazed. Thus, it is possible that this shape also existed in undecorated versions. Trefoil Juglet (pl. 54:4).  This juglet has a squat, ovoid body and an omphalos base. The rim is everted, forming a trefoil mouth. Its long neck and lower body are ridged. It is made of light brown, coarse buff-ware, very light and undecorated. No parallel has been found. Red-Painted Jug (pl. 54:5).  This jug has an ovoid body and an omphalos base. Its high, flaring neck has one handle extending from the rim to the upper shoulder. The body and handle are decorated with red-painted straight and wavy lines. Red-Painted Table Amphora (pl. 54:6).  This small table amphora has an ovoid body and a high, slightly flaring neck with two loop handles positioned on the upper body. It possibly has an omphalos base, and the body is decorated with red-painted straight and wavy lines. Black-Painted Table Amphora (pl. 54:7).  This small table amphora has a globular body, an everted flat rim, and a high, slightly ribbed neck. Two loop handles extend from the rim to the upper shoulder. The black-painted decoration on the body consists of triangles and straight and wavy bands.

4.  Additional Late Roman–Byzantine Fine Wares from Various Loci (pls. 55–57) 15 Introduction Byzantine fine wares from stratified contexts have been discussed above; cf. pl. 32 in chap. 2 (p. 120) and pl. 43 in this chapter (pp. 146–48). However, a large amount of fine-ware materials from various unstratified locations deserve attention. These vessels belong mainly to three groups of (ARS, CRS, and LRC), and their classification here follows Hayes (1972).

African Red-Slip Bowls and Plates (pl. 55) Hayes’s Forms 58, 59b, 61a, 67, 94, 99A, and 105 are discussed in chap. 2 and above in this chapter, with Form 67 being the most common fine-ware plate at Sepphoris (cf. pl. 32:1–6; 43:1, 3–9). To these, some earlier forms might be added, such 15.  Drawings are by Helena Bitan and Julia Rudman. The drawing on pl. 55:2 is by Marina Zeltser. Thanks also go to Justin Winger for his comments.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

163

as Form 52 with appliqués and Forms 61, 73, 91 and 93; examples of all these types come from unstratified contexts at Sepphoris. Hayes’s Form 50A (pl.  55:1).  This bowl is the earliest form of ARS found at Sepphoris. It is a large, shallow bowl with a broad, flat base and flaring walls ending in a simple rim. Its ware is thin and well levigated, with only a few small inclusions visible. Usually undecorated, this type is very common and widespread. It is dated to the fourth century c.e. 16 Hayes’s Form 52B (pl. 55:2).  Several examples of the form have been discovered at Sepphoris. This type is a small bowl with a rounded body and a wide, everted rim. It rests on a small, low foot. Its thin, well-levigated ware is without visible inclusions. It has a thin slip that melts well with the ware and covers both sides of the vessel. The rim is decorated with appliqués. Two fragments of this bowl were found in two different loci and in two different digging seasons. One fragment is decorated with a fish; and, although the appliqué on the other fragment is only partially preserved, it can be identified as an Oceanus mask. A parallel, which appears on a complete dish from North Africa on exhibit at the Louvre Museum (see Salomonson 1969: Taf. 2:6), depicts two different fish and two Oceanus masks. However, the Oceanus mask on the Sepphoris sherd is smaller and has a smaller beard and lacks the hair mane of the Louvre example. The Oceanus mask on the Sepphoris example can be compared to one in the catalogue of stamps published by Hayes (1985a: Tav. 88:24). And the Sepphoris fish, with its open mouth can also be compared to a stamp in Hayes (1985a: Tav. 72: 21). Another type 52B ARS bowl, with fish appliqués (two different fish), has been found in Jerusalem (Mazar and Gordon 2007: fig. 15.13:1). Hayes’s Form 59B (pl. 55:3).  This shallow plate has a flat base and short, rounded walls ending in a broad, flat rim. The ware is fine and well levigated, with few blackand-white inclusions. The thin and glossy slip is applied on the inside and the upper outside. This form usually has stamps on the inside, while variant A has gouging on the exterior of the body. The Sepphoris example is undecorated; however, since the base is missing, the possibility of a stamped decoration cannot be discounted. These bowls are common and widespread during the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries c.e. 17 Hayes’s Form 61A (pl. 55:4).  This is another shallow plate with a flat base. The rim is incurved, appearing triangular. Because other examples have been found at Sepphoris (cf. pl. 32:3–4, where they are identified as bowls), it seems to be common at this site. The ware is fine and well levigated but with many small black inclusions. The slip in this example is faded and did not adhere very well to the surface. This type is usually decorated with stamps and grooves on the inner base, which is unfortunately broken in our example. Common throughout the Mediterranean, this plate is dated to the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries c.e. 18 16.  For an extensive discussion, see Hayes 1972: 69–73. 17.  For an extensive discussion of the type, see Hayes 1972: 96–100. 18.  For an extensive discussion of the type see Hayes 1972: 100–107.

164

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

Hayes’s Form 73A (pl. 55:5).  This small bowl has rounded walls and a wide rim that is hooked on both the top and the bottom and is decorated with incised nicks. The ware is fine and well levigated with a few small, white inclusions. The thin slip is of the same color as the ware but applied more thickly on the front than on the back, where it tends to fade. The bowl is dated to the fifth century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 121–24). Hayes’s Form 91A (pl. 55:6).  This bowl has a rounded rim and a rounded, overhanging flange. There are two sets of incised grooves on the body. The ware is well levigated, without visible inclusions. The slip is thickly and unevenly applied; it thus tends to flake. This form is dated to the mid- to late-fifth century c.e., but the coarser workmanship of this example suggests a later date, probably at the end of the fifth or perhaps even at the beginning of the sixth century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 140–44). Hayes’s Form 93B (pl.  55:7).  This large bowl has rounded walls and a short, rolled rim. The ware is fine, with a few small white inclusions visible; and it has a glossy slip. This type is quite common and dated to the sixth century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 145–48). Hayes’s Form 105 (pl.  55:8).  This large plate is very shallow and has a heavy knobbed rim. The ware is rather thick and well levigated, with a few small white inclusions. The slip is not as shiny as in the forms discussed above (pl. 55:1–7). This type is very common and was discussed earlier (pl. 43: 9). It is dated to the late sixth and seventh centuries c.e. (see Hayes 1972: 166–69). ARS Stamped Sherd (pl.  55:9). 19  ARS vessels are well known for being decorated with incisions, rouletting, nicks, and especially with stamps. These stamps are usually found on the inner side of the base and can include geometrical, floral, animal, and human figures. The ware of the fragment shown on pl. 55:9 indicates that it is an ARS vessel; and the stamp seems to represent a cross, the arms of which are decorated in small circles, in the center surrounded by incised lines and circles.

Cypriot Red-Slip Bowls and Plates (pl. 56) Cypriot Red-Slip (CRS) Forms 1, 7.1, 9, and 10 are discussed in chap. 2 (pl. 32:8– 10) and above in this chapter (pl. 43:17–21). This plate presents additional examples of CRS vessels from unstratified contexts as well as types, such as Forms 2 and 11, that are not discussed above. Hayes’s Form 1 (pl. 56:1–4).  These undecorated bowls are rather common at Sepphoris. They have sloping walls, a simple rounded rim, and a low foot. The ware is fine, with small white inclusions. The slip, which is darker or redder than the ware but is well applied and covers both sides of the vessel, is not as glossy as in the ARS examples. The type is dated from the late fourth to fifth centuries c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 372–73). Sometimes, the slip on the rim is faded or flaking (e.g., no. 4); this happens from stacking the vessels together in the kiln. This fragment has two layers 19.  There is no reference to a Hayes ARS form because the rim is missing.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

165

of slip: a glossy and red one, and an additional darker one that probably was applied after firing to cover the missing slip on the rim. Hayes’s Form 1/2 (pl. 56:5).  This large plate has a thick, round rim and a low foot. It has two incised grooves under the rim and three incised grooves around the inner base. The brown-colored ware is fine, with small white and micaceous inclusions. The walls are rather thick; and the slip, which is applied only on the inside and above the rim, is thin and slightly redder than the ware. A proposed dating is the early- to mid-sixth century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 376). Hayes’s Form 2 (pl. 56:6).  This bowl is rather shallow, with a low foot and gently flaring walls that end in a grooved rim that is thickened or knobbed. The walls are decorated with rouletting immediately under the rim. The ware is fine, with small black-and-white inclusions. The slip, which covers the entire vessel including the base, is thin and redder than the ware. This form, which is very common in the area and appears throughout the Mediterranean, is dated to the fifth and sixth centuries c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 373–76). Hayes’s Form 5 (pl. 56:7).  This small bowl has curved walls and a low ring base. Its heavy, triangular rim is flat, with one groove. The slip is thin and discolored on the rim. This type of bowl is rather common and can be dated to the mid- to latesixth century c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 377). Hayes’s Form 7.1 (pl. 56:8–9).  These large basins shown have a heavy rectangular rim with deep grooves on the top. The body is carinated immediately under the rim, and the outside is often decorated with rouletting. The slip, which is thin and different in color from the ware, is applied to the inside, the rim, and the upper exterior of the vessel. Although no complete example has yet been published, the form is quite common and is dated to the sixth to seventh centuries c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 377–79). 20 Hayes’s Form 9B (pl. 56:10–12).  These large bowls have a low foot, flaring walls, and a thickened rim that can be incurved. These examples lack the rouletted decoration and wavy incised line on the exterior that are typical of this form. The ware, which is fine with very small white inclusions or no visible inclusions at all, appears in different shades of red or brown. The slip, however, is of rather poor quality and darker than the ware, and it is applied to the entire vessel, including the base. The example appearing on pl. 56:10 has a very thin slip that was not uniformly applied to the vessel, resulting in dripping on the exterior. In addition, the discoloration on the rim is probably the result of the way vessels were stacked, one on top of the other, in the kiln. This type is very common and is dated to the end of the sixth and into the seventh centuries c.e. (cf. Hayes 1972: 379–82). Hayes’s Form 11 (pl. 56:13).  This basin has a deep body with a flat base and thickened rim. The two horizontal handles immediately under the rim are characteristic of this form. The ware is fine, with small black inclusions, and the thin slip does 20.  An unpublished complete example was found in an Israel Antiquities Authority salvage excavation in Haifa several years ago. This material has been studied by the author.

166

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

not cover the entire vessel. On some vessels, the slip appears to be dripping on the exterior and on the handles. The form is rather common and dated to the mid-sixth to seventh centuries c.e. and later (cf. Hayes 1972: 383). Stamped Cypriot Red-Slip Sherd (pl. 56:14).  Like the other fine wares (ARS and LRC), some CRS vessels bear stamps, although not as frequently as do vessels in the other groups. The most common motifs are leaves and crosses. The ware of this sherd seems to belong to the CRS category of vessels. Both the lack of any sort of base and the type of stamp on the inside of the base—some sort of leaf—suggest that it is a fragment of a CRS Form 9 bowl (cf. Hayes 1972: 375, fig. 84:c). Stamped Cypriot Red-Slip Ware Closed Vessel (pl. 56:15).  This fragment is possibly part of a closed, carinated vessel decorated with unidentified stamped decorations. Given its ware and slip, it probably belongs to the CRS group of vessels. No parallel has been found so far.

Late Roman C, Egyptian Red-Slip, and Other Fine Wares (pl. 57) Bowl, Probably Hayes’s Form 3 (pl. 57:1).  This form is the most common of the so-called LRC or Phocean vessels, which are found throughout the Mediterranean. It is a bowl that occurs in various sizes, but its distinguishing characteristic is the flanged rim that gives it a triangular profile. Our example does not exhibit the ware common to LRC bowls but instead is dark brown with a dull slip that melts completely with the ware. It bears five leaves of a stamped palmette that has five leaves above two volutes at the bottom (see Hayes 1972: 352–53, Motif 10i for an exact parallel). This motif is usually stamped four times around the inner bottom and is associated with Hayes’s Form 3. A parallel for our vessel is not known, given its atypical ware; but it may be an imitation of an LRC bowl of Hayes’s Form 3, perhaps one produced in Cyprus, where this color of clay is common. A dating to the sixth century c.e. is suggested. Stamped Bowl Fragment (pl. 57:2).  The fragment of a bowl base is stamped with palm leaves and circles (cf. Hayes 1972: 350, fig. 72:2j). The combination of these two motifs is known in the LRC group (cf. Hayes 1972: 350–51). The ware indicates that it should be categorized as an LRC vessel. Stamped Bowl Fragments (pl. 57:3–4).  These are two fragments of bowls stamped with crosses. One is decorated, and the other is not. Simple, undecorated crosses (e.g., pl. 57:3) are known in both the ARS (cf. Hayes 1972: 276) and LRC (cf. Hayes 1972: 364–66) groups. Decorated examples are more common in the ARS group of vessels (cf. Hayes 1972: 272–80); and a good parallel to the example shown on pl. 57:4 appears in Hayes’s catalogue (1972: fig. 57:331A–B, c–d) and is found on vessels dated to the sixth century c.e. Large Plate (pl. 57:5).  This large plate has flaring walls, a flat off-set base, and an incurved, internally thickened rim. Its thin slip covers the entire vessel but is discolored on the rim. The ware seems to be that of the LRC group, though the shape

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

167

does not precisely match any of the forms in Hayes’s catalogue. It may be a variant of its closest parallel, Form 10 (cf. Hayes 1972: 343–46). These vessels are dated to the sixth and seventh centuries c.e. Large Plate (pl. 57:6).  This large plate has a low ring base, the floor of which continues horizontally outside of the base before coming to a carination where the wall begins. The rim is round and simple. A rather coarse thick slip, which covers the entire plate, is flaked and discolored on the rim. However, the ware is fine, with only few small white inclusions. No parallel has been found among the three main groups of fine wares. Egyptian Red-Slip A Bowl (57:7).  This small bowl has a ring base, slightly curved sides, and a thickened rim. The ware is light red and fine, with some red and white inclusions. The slip, which covers the entire vessel, is dull and just slightly darker than the ware. This vessel can be identified as Shape P in Hayes’s catalogue (1972: 391–92) and is dated to the sixth century c.e. Stamped Bowl or Lid (pl. 57:8).  This carinated bowl or lid has inwardly leaning upper walls and a ridged rim. The shape of the base or upper part is not known. The vessel has a dull brown slip that covers the upper inside and the entire outside. The outside is decorated with rouletting and stamped circles. The ware is fine and well levigated, with only a few small black inclusions visible. No parallel has been found, but it can be noted that the beveled rim is common in lids.

Conclusion Editors: This small sampling of fine wares from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, in addition to the ones presented by Balouka in chap. 2, further strengthens the view that Sepphoris was well integrated into the larger Mediterranean world of antiquity. Moreover, because the presence of significant number of fine-ware sherds is an archaeological correlate of feasting, these wares are also indicative of the important economic, social, and religious functions associated with commensal events. 21

5.  Comments on Sherds with Incised or Painted Menorahs by Carol L. Meyers Description Three of the decorated sherds or vessels published in this chapter are decorated with a rendition of a seven-branched lampstand (menorah), according to the discussion by Vincenz, the author of this chapter. One of them (pl. 48:14) appears on the shoulder of a small jug or juglet. The other two (pl. 51:2, 2A) are found on jar fragments. 21.  For the archaeological correlates of feasting, see Hayden 2001; cf. C. Meyers 2012.

168

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

The menorah on the first example (the jug shown on pl. 48:14) is partially preserved. Only one of the arms (branches) on the left side is extant; but three arms on the other side are visible, as is the central shaft. Thus, it can be assumed that the original depiction showed a seven-branched menorah. However, because the break on the right side appears just under the third arm, it is possible that a fourth arm was also present on each side, forming a nine-branched menorah. Such anomalous forms—having five, nine, or even eleven branches instead of the expected seven— sometimes are found, perhaps in deference to the talmudic injunction (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 43a; cf. b. Menaḥ. 28b and b. Roš Haš. 24a–b) not to replicate temple appurtenances for use other than in the temple itself. 22 The schematic nature of this rendition, which was incised in wet clay before the vessel was fired as is the case for several other sherds with menorahs discovered at Sepphoris (e.g., the example shown in Meyers and Meyers 1996), means that only one of the three elements—the base, the upward-reaching branches on each side of a central shaft, and light fittings surmounting the branches (Hachlili 2001: 121)— comprising depictions of menorahs in ancient art is present on this fragment. The arms are undecorated, giving no hint of the elaborate ornamentation prescribed for them in the biblical description of the tabernacle (Exod 25:31–36; 37:17–22), and curve slightly as they extend upward from the central shaft. This form is the most common; it appears much more often, especially in locally made in contrast to Diaspora versions, than do the straight-armed or right-angled branches (Hachlili 2001: 147–48, fig. 3-20a). The longest arm on this example would have been at least 10 cm in length, covering much of the shoulder of the juglet. The menorah on this juglet would have been a prominent decoration. The other two menorahs had white paint applied onto the body of the vessels on which they appear. Although only partially preserved, the image of the menorah shown on pl. 51:2 includes the central shaft and three arms on each side, forming the common seven-branched shape, and also the bar for light fittings across the top of the branches. Like the example on the juglet, this one lacks decorations on either the shaft or the branches. Moreover, although it does represent the bar that would have held lamps, the lamps or lights themselves are not present, as is sometimes the case even in menorahs that are much more artistically rendered than this one. Curiously, the bar extends well beyond the third arm—its extant length is 36 cm—and its arms extend above the bar; and the arms are not of uniform widths nor do they curve upward symmetrically. This menorah is rather crude; yet its size would have made it a prominent feature on the storage jar on which it was painted. In this way, it is similar to the Sepphoris example incised on a storage jar discussed in Meyers and Meyers 1996. The other image depicted on pl. 51, no. 2A, was also applied with white paint on a jar but is smaller (about 7 cm high and 4.5 cm wide) and more carefully rendered. Its identity as a menorah, however, is questionable for several reasons. First, the arms on the left side do not reach to the same height—that is, at or about the height of the central shaft—as do those on the right side. Instead, they 22.  See the examples in C. Meyers 1976.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

169

extend outward and only slightly upward, one below the other, like the branches of a tree. This occasionally appears on menorah depictions, but it would be present on both sides (see some of the illustrations in Hachlili 1988: 240, fig. 4a). Thus, there is no symmetry in the arrangement of the pairs of branches. A second anomaly is that the two-legged base, each leg curled upward and outward in a spiral, is otherwise unknown among the hundreds of menorahs found in Jewish antiquity. Although the tripod base is most common in renditions of the menorah, bases with two legs do occasionally occur: in 2% of Palestinian and 3% of Diaspora examples (Hachlili 2001: 131, Table III.1). However, none of these relatively rare two-legged depictions feature the legs ending in upwardly curved spirals, with the possible exception of one very stylized motif on a hexagonal glass pilgrim vessel from Jerusalem (Hachlili 2001: 106, fig.II-36.IV right). A third problem is that there does not seem to be a light-supporting bar across the top; the horizontal lines at the top of the sherd are ridge lines of the jar’s shoulder and probably not meant to be part of the decoration. Such bars, to be sure, are not always present; yet without it, there is no hint of a light-bearing function for the branches. A fourth problem, which in itself might not disqualify this form from being considered a menorah, is that it has nine rather than seven branches. But because of all the other unusual features, this atypical aspect seems to add to the likelihood that this decoration is a schematic tree rather than the sacred lampstand. Adding to this possibility is the appearance of other segments of four aligned curving lines, criss-crossing each other or joined at their ends, on this sherd. That is, the putative menorah may simply be part of a series of curvilinear designs.

Discussion Even if one of the three renderings that Vincenz has identified as menorahs is not a menorah, the appearance of the other two, along with the two incised examples mentioned in an earlier Sepphoris publication, 23 represent an unusual set of menorah depictions. The main reason for this is that they all appear on ceramic forms: three (or four, if the one on pl. 51:2A is included) storage jars and one juglet. In addition, several other fragments of jars with incised wavy lines depicting menorahs were recovered from the excavations at Sepphoris but are not included in this corpus. 24 All together, at least eight depictions of the menorah, most of them incised, have been discovered on ceramic vessels at Sepphoris. Moreover, a number of other storage-jar sherds have incised lines that may be part of menorah depictions but are too fragmentary to be certain. This sizeable corpus of menorahs on Sepphoris pottery must be considered in relation to the depictions of menorahs in ancient Jewish art. More than a thousand examples of the menorah, dating from the late Second Temple period to the 23.  This publication (Meyers and Meyers 1996) discusses only one of these storage-jar fragments; the other (item 83 in the exhibition for which this publication is the catalogue) is listed but not described. 24.  See Meyers and Meyers forthcoming: fig. 1 and photos 1–3.

170

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

eighth century c.e., have been recovered in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. They appear on a variety of objects and architectural forms. 25 The greatest number are found on funerary remains (tomb walls and tombstones); and the next most common group of menorahs are those on oil lamps, followed by depictions on architectural elements. Much smaller percentages appear on a variety of other artifacts (glass, mosaics, bread-stamps, mirror plaques, jewelry, etc.). Very few menorahs appear on ceramic vessels, and those that do are painted or stamped. Several vessels with stamped menorahs have been recovered at Italian sites (see Hachlili 2001: 110). Menorahs painted on storage jars are known from five sites in Israel: Ḥorvat ʿUza, Khirbet Aiyadiya (near Tell Keisan), Jalame, Sumaqa, and Capernaum (Hachlili 2001: 110, 339–40), all from fourth-century c.e. contexts. But the several incised Sepphoris examples are virtually unique. Two Diaspora examples are reported for the Anatolian site of Sardis (Hanfmann 1967: 15, fig. 41), but both are on fine wares rather than utilitarian vessels. Several sherds with menorahs have been reported for Palestine—from Caesarea, Shiqmona, and Sumaqa. However, the one example from Caesarea (reported by Hachlili 2001: 340, IS14:9) and the two from Sumaqa (Kingsley 1999: 264 and 312, fig. 11:38, 39) are questionable (Meyers and Meyers forthcoming); and no published image or description is available for the one from Shiqmona (reported by Hachlili 2001: 340, IS14.8). Thus, there seem to be no parallels for the incised examples from Sepphoris. The relative plethora of menorahs on ceramic vessels is augmented by the appearance at Sepphoris of the menorah on other forms (all discussed in Meyers and Meyers forthcoming). They include one each on a tombstone, a bulla, and an architectural element (a stone in the colonnaded cardo); several on lamps; and an elaborate one on the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic. 26 Some of the images may date to the Late Roman period, but most seem to come from the transition into the Byzantine period in the late fourth century c.e. or later. That is, they date to the periods in which the cross is becoming a prominent Christian symbol and when Sepphoris apparently had a burgeoning Christian as well as a sizeable Jewish population. The increased frequency of the menorah as a Jewish symbol in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods need not be a result of Christian influence, as some have supposed (e.g., Levine 2000: 149–53). Instead, it is likely that both the menorah and the cross were responses to Roman modes of cultural identification. As Fine (2005: 155) has pointed out, various groups in the Roman world drew on iconic images from their traditions to serve as identity markers for the groups and their members in the heterogeneous settings of Greco-Roman culture. Rooted as it was in sacred cultic forms present in Jewish scripture, the menorah began to appear in noncultic forms (e.g., on coins) already in late Second Temple times. With its unique form reminiscent of the sacred trees of the ancient Near East as well as the light of the 25.  See the indexes in Hachlili (2001: 515–39) of artifactual and architectural types on which menorahs appear in Israel and in the Diaspora 26.  Much of the Sepphoris material is still unpublished; other examples, unknown to us, may have been found by one of the several excavation projects (those of the University of South Florida, the Hebrew University, and Tel Aviv University), in addition to our own (Duke University), that have dug or are still digging at Sepphoris.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

171

divine presence (C. Meyers 2003: 174–81), it became the dominant visual marker of Jewish objects and structures and thus of the people who owned these items or were associated with these structures. As Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora found themselves more and more a minority group in communities with multiethnic and multireligious populations, they adorned an enormous variety of their architectural forms and their daily-use objects with the menorah. This being said, it is notable that the number of menorahs appearing on artifacts and structures seems to be somewhat fewer, comparatively, than at other Palestinian sites of the Late Roman–Byzantine periods. Perhaps this is not surprising, given the rabbinical pedigree of Sepphoris. Perhaps the need for visible religio-ethnic identification was less pressing at a place with so many sages and their descendants in residence from the third century c.e. on (see Miller 2006: 31–106, 394–445). What is indeed striking about the Sepphoris group of artifacts is the variety of different objects or structures that they adorn and, especially, the number of them appearing as incised and painted motifs on ceramic vessels. Their use on vessels may have had a specific functional purpose—perhaps to denote Jewish ownership in relationship to the processing of the vessels’ contents and thus to indicate the ritual purity of certain commodities. This kind of piety would be in keeping with other aspects of religiosity, such as the many miqvaʾot, or ritual baths (Galor 2007; E. Meyers 2008: 161–63), known from the excavations on the western summit of Sepphoris.

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

172

Plate 41:1–10:  Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Eastern Sigillata A and Other Fine Wares No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description Ware: 5YR 7/6 reddish-yellow Surface: 2.5YR 3/6 dark red fired black Ware: 2.5YR 8/3 pink Surface: 10R 5/8-4/8 red glossy slip covering interior and exterior; fine rouletting under rim Ware: 7.5YR 8/4 pink Surface: 10R 5/8 red glossy slip with darker splashes, 10R 4/6 red Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red Surface: 10R 4/8 red glossy slip Ware: 5YR 7/6 reddish-yellow Surface: 2.5YR 7/6 and 10R 5/8 red glossy slip Ware: 5YR 7/6 reddish-yellow Surface: 2.5YR 7/6 light red and 10R5/8 red glossy slip Ware: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown Surface: 10R 5/8-4/8 red glossy slip; fine rouletting on body Ware: 10R 6/8 light red Surface: 10R 5/8 red dull slip Ware: 5YR 7/4 pink Surface: 10R 4/6 red glossy slip, fired black on exterior Ware: 7.5R 5/8 red with dark gray core Surface: 5R 5/3-4/3 weak red dull slip, poorly applied and fired black

1

bowl

85.3325.4P.3

2

bowl

85.3100.5P

3

bowl

85.3307.1.10b

4

bowl

85.3310.2P.13

5

bowl

85.3307.1.10a

6

bowl

85.3307.1.15

7

bowl

85.3307.1P.28

8

bowl

85.3307.1.16

9

jug

85.3325.4P.3

10

jug

84.1118.2.9

Comment; Parallel/Reference Hayes ESA Form 20 Hayes ESA Form 35

Hayes ESA Form 43

Hayes ESA Form 44 Hayes ESA Form 45 Hayes ESA Form 45

Hayes ESA Form 47

Hayes ESA Form 49 Hayes 1985a: Tav. X:4

Johnson 2008a: Form 113:51

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

173

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

174

Plate 42:1–24:  Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Knidian Grey Ware, Cypriot and Western Sigillata, West Slope, Pompeian Red No. Vessel

Reg. No.

Description

1

85.3125.10

Ware: 10R 5/1 reddish-gray Surface: 10R 8/4 pink with flaking 10R 5/8 red slip on handle and metallic grey in appearance inside

2

3 4 5

6

7

bowl

Comment; Parallel/Reference

Knidian Grey Ware Kenrick 1985: 59–62, B82.2 Johnson 2008b: 709–10 Guz- Silberstein 1995: 294–95, fig. 6.7:9–10 bowl 85.3314.1P.14 Ware: 2.5YR 6/4–6/6 light reddish-brown Cypriot Sigillata Hayes to light red Surface: 10R 4/8 red, blackened Form P22 on rim bowl 85.3302.6.11 Ware: 10R 6/6 light red Cypriot Sigillata Hayes Surface: 2.5YR 4/8 red, glossy slip Form P34 bowl 85.3310.2P.8 Ware: 10R 5/6 red Western Terra Sigillata Surface: 10R 5/8 red glossy slip bowl 84.2172.3.4 Ware: 5YR 7/6 reddish-yellow with few Pompeian Red Ware cf. small white and mica inclusions Kenrick 1985: 320–26 Surface: 10R 5/8 red dull slip closed 84.1111.1.1 Ware: 5YR 7/6 reddish-yellow West Slope technique cf. vessel Surface inside: 10R 4/6–2.5YR 4/6 red slip Rosenthal-Heginbottom Surface outside: dull black glaze, white 1995: 222–31 decoration mold- 85:1157.2.1 Ware: 10R 6/6 light red with occasional no parallel found made large white inclusions vessel Surface: 7.5R 3/8 dark red, dull slip

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

175

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

176

Plate 43:1–24:  Byzantine Period: Late Roman Fine Wares No. Vessel

Reg. No.

Description

1

platter 84.4124.3X.2

Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Surface: 2.5YR 6/6–5/6 light red to red; stamped decoration

2

platter 84.1375.5X.2

3

platter 84.4124.9X

Ware: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow Surface: glossy 2.5YR 6/6–5/6 light red to red; stamped decoration Ware: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow Surface: glossy 2.5YR 6/6–5/6 light red to red; stamped decoration

4

platter 84.4192.2X.2

Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red with black inclusions Surface: glossy 2.5YR 5/8 red

5

bowl

84.1519.1P.9

6

bowl

84.5084.4P.1

Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red with few white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/8 red and encrusted Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red 2.5YR 5/8 red

7

bowl

84.1519.2P

8

bowl

84.4102.2P.6

9

platter 84.4108.2P.2

10

bowl

84.1471.2P.11

11

bowl

84.4102.5P.3

12

bowl

84.1519.2P

13

bowl

84.5058.2P.3

14

bowl

84.1471.2P.5

15

bowl

84.1512.1P.15

16

bowl

84.4122.2P.12

Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Surface: 10R 5/4 weak red Ware: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow Surface: 2.5YR 5/6–6/6 red glossy slip Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with few large white inclusions Surface: encrusted Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red Surface: slip, 2.5Y 5/4–5/6 reddish-brown to red Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red Surface: 10R 6/6–5/6 light red to weak red Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: 10R 5/6 red Ware: 2.5YR 6/8–5/8 light red to red with few very small white inclusions Surface: encrusted Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with small white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6 red, rim darkened Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red with many small black and white inclusions Surface: encrusted

Comment; Parallel/Reference pointed palm leaves forming star Hayes ARS Form 67 cross; LRC Form 73 Hayes LRC Form 3 palm leaves and dotted semi-circles Hayes ARS Form 105? concentric circle and dot fringes ARS Form 35 Hayes ARS Form 67? Hayes ARS Form 67 related to Hayes ARS Form 94 Hayes ARS Form 99 Hayes ARS Form 99 Hayes ARS Form 105 Hayes ARS Form 105 Hayes LRC Form 3F Hayes LRC Form 3F Hayes LRC Form 3F related to Hayes LRC Form 3 Hayes LRC Form 10 Hayes LRC Form 10C

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

177

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

178

Plate 43:1–24:  Byzantine Period: Late Roman Fine Wares (cont.) No. Vessel Reg. No.

Description

17

bowl 84.5058.2P.1

18

bowl 84.4102.9P.1

19

bowl 84.1471.3P.3

20 21

bowl 84.1510.1 bowl 84.5019.1P.8

22

bowl 84.4122.2P.7

23

bowl 84.1442.3P.4

24

bowl 84.4145.4P.5

Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red and drippy paint 2.5YR 5/3 reddish-brown; rouletting under rim and body, two incised lines on rim Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Surface: 10R 5/4–5/6 weak red to red; burnished and encrusted Ware: 7.5YR5/3 brown Surface: 5YR 5/3 reddish-brown; deep incised lines on rim and nicks on body sherd missing Ware:2.5YR 6/4–6/6 light reddish-brown to light red Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown slip; deep incised lines on rim and nicks under rim Ware:2.5YR 6/4–6/6 light reddish-brown to light red Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown slip; deep incised lines on rim and nicks under rim Ware: 7.5YR 5/4–5/6 reddish-brown to yellowish-red with small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 6/4–5/4 light brown to brown Ware: 5YR 5/4–5/6 reddish-brown to yellowishred with few black, white and mica inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 6/6 brown to reddish-yellow; grooved rim

Comment; Parallel/Reference Hayes CRS Form 7.1

Hayes CRS Form 9

Hayes CRS Form 9

Hayes CRS Form 10 Hayes CRS Form 10

imitation? of Hayes CRS Form 10

imitation? of Hayes CRS Form inspired by Hayes CR Form 9

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

179

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

180

Plate 44:1–13:  Late Roman and Byzantine Periods No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description Ware: 7.5YR 4/4 brown with few inclusions Surface: 5YR 4/3 reddish-brown and burned Ware: 7.5YR 5/4 brown with few large black inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 6/4–5/4 light brown to brown sherd missing Ware: 7.5YR 5/2 brown with many black and white inclusions Surface: encrusted sherd missing Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with few white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 5/2 brown sherd missing

1

bowl

84.5033.1P.6

2

bowl

84.1471.3P.3

3 4

bowl bowl

84.1510 84.1482.1P.4

5 6

bowl bowl

84.1510 84.1442.2P.7

7

krater 84.1510

8

krater 84.1464.1P.2

9

krater 84.5045.1P

10

krater 84.1512.1P.4

11

bowl

84.1510

Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with black and white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/4–5/6 reddishbrown to red Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with large white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddishbrown and encrusted Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/6–6/8 light red to red sherd missing

12 13

bowl bowl

84.1510 84.1510

sherd missing sherd missing

Comment; Parallel/Reference Kefar Hananiah Form 1B Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl. 1B:6 Loffreda 1974: Tipo A12, fig. 5:16–19 carinated bowl form 11 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-25:409

same as no. 1 Loffreda 1974: fig. 11:2–5 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-43:634 Ayalon 1996: pl. 8:7–8 same as no. 4 Loffreda 1983: fig. 12:-4 Peleg 1989: fig. 48:-2 Loffreda 1974: fig. 7 Avissar 1996: fig. 13.5:6 Ayalon 1996: pl. 4 related to Ayalon 1996: pl. 4

related to Ayalon 1996: pl. 4

related to Ayalon 1996: pl. 4

Kefar Hananiah Type 1E Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl. 1E: 12, 19 Loffreda 1974: Tipo A15, fig. 5:21–23 Diez Fernandez 1983: Tipo 3.1, 3.2, 4.1 same as no. 11 same as no. 11

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

181

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

182

Plate 45:1–10:  Byzantine Period No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description Ware: 10YR 7/2 light gray with white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/4 pink and slip 2.5YR 5/6 red; thumb-impressed decoration Ware: 7.5YR 5/4–5/6 brown to strong brown with few white inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown Ware: 7.5YR 7/2 light gray with large white inclusions visible on surface Surface: 5YR 7/4–7/6 pink to reddishyellow, rim slipped 5YR 5/6 yellowishred; thumb-impressed decoration Ware: 5YR 4/4 reddish-brown Surface: 5YR 4/4 reddish-brown; thumbimpressed decoration and incised wavy line on rim Ware: 7.5YR 5/6 strong brown with white inclusions Surface: slip 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Ware: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown with white inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow Ware: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray with many large black and white inclusions; organic inclusions are burned out Surface: 7.5YR pink and slip 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown; thumb-impressed decoration Ware: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray with many inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/3 pink and slip 5YR 7/6 reddish-yellow; combed wavy lines Ware: 10YR 8/2–7/2 very pale brown to light gray with black, white, and mica inclusions Surface: 10YR 8/2 very pale brown and slip 10YR 5/2 grayish brown Ware: 10YR 7/2 light gray with black, white and organic inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown and slip 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow; combed wavy lines

1

basin

84.5033.1P.6

2

basin

84.4102.9P.9

3

basin

84.1471.9P.4

4

basin

84.5019.1P.2

5

deep basin

84.1434.3P.4

6

basin

84.4109.7P.4

7

pithos 84.5058.4P.5

8

pithos 84.5024.1P.6

9

pithos 84.1523.1P.5

10

pithos 84.4142

Comment; Parallel/Reference Loffreda 1974: fig. 12:15, Tipo C 12b Johnson 1988: fig. 7-32:508–9 Loffreda 1974: fig. 12:1–6, Tipo 12a Loffreda 1974: fig. 12:-15, Tipo C 12b Johnson 1988: fig. 7-32:508–9, 523

no parallels found

no parallels found

McNicoll et al. 1982: pl. 148:5 Loffreda 1974: fig. 13:1–4, 8, foto 11, 12:2–6, Tipo D1 Calderon 2000: pl. 21:31 and fig. 31 Loffreda 1974: fig. 13:1–4, 8, foto 11, 12:2–6, Tipo D1 Calderon 2000: pl. 21:31 and fig. 31 Loffreda 1974: fig. 13:1–4, 8, foto 11, 12:-2–6, Tipo D1 Calderon 2000: pl. 21:31 and fig. 31 Loffreda 1974: fig. 13:1–4, 8, foto 11, 12:2–6, Tipo D1 Calderon 2000: pl. 21:31 and fig. 31

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

183

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

184

Plate 46:1–20:  Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Periods No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1

cooking pot 84.5078.2P

2

cooking pot 84.1471.2P.12 Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown cooking pot 84.1510 sherd missing cooking pot 84.5019.1P.2 Ware: 7.5YR 4/3 brown with white inclusions Surface: 5YR 5/6–5/2 yellowish-red to reddish-gray cooking pot 84.1402.1P.3 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red Surface: 7.5YR 6/2 pinkish gray cooking pot 84.1510 sherd missing cooking pot 84.5058.2P.10 Ware: 7.5YR 5/4 brown with few black inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown cooking pot 84.4116.1P Ware: 5YR 5/2 reddish-gray Surface: 7.5YR 6/2 pinkish gray cooking pot 84.1524.1P Ware: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown with many small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 5/3 reddish-brown and burned cooking pot 84.1390 sherd missing

3 4

5 6 7

8 9

10

Ware: 5YR 4/4 reddish-brown with small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/3

Comment; Parallel/Reference Loffreda 1974: fig. 10:7–9 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-39:575–88 Avissar 1996: fig. 12.6:7 Ayalon 1996: pl. 6:1–2, 4–5, 8 same as no. 1 same as no. 1 same as no. 1

Johnson 1988: fig. 7-41:610 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-36 Johnson 1988: figs. 7-37:553, 7-39:596 same as no. 7 Loffreda 1974: fig. 10:6; Johnson 1988: fig. 7-41:608 Loffreda 1974: 46, Tipo C3

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

185

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

186

Plate 46:1–20:  Late Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Periods (cont.) No. Vessel 11

Reg. No

Description

12

cooking pot 84.5058.4P.4 Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red Surface: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown casserole 84.4130.2P.3 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with many black and white inclusions. Surface: pale 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown

13

casserole

14

15

16 17 18 19

20

84.5045.2P.1 Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red Surface: 2.5YR 4/6 red and burned casserole 84.1471.2 Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with white inclusions Surface: 5YR 5/3 reddish-brown casserole 84.1482.1P.9 Ware: 7.5YR 5/4 brown with black and white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 6/3–5/3 light brown to brown casserole 84.1514.1P.3 Ware: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Surface: 5YR 5/3 reddish-brown lid 84.1519.21 Ware: 7.5YR 4/2 brown Surface: 7.5YR 5/3 brown lid 84.1510 sherd missing baking tray 84.4108.1P.8 Ware: 7.5YR 5/2 brown with many black, white and organic inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 5/6 strong brown baking tray 84.5928.1P.1 Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown with many black and white inclusion; organic inclusions burned out

Comment; Parallel/Reference Ayalon 1996: pl. 6:11 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-43:630 Ayalon 1996: pl. 8:-2, 4 Avissar 1996: fig. 12.6:11–13 McNicoll et al. 1982: pl. 147:10 Smith and Day 1973: pl. 30:1127, 1128, 1328 Smith and Day 1989: pls. 51:5–6; 53:6, 8, 13, 17 same as no. 12 same as no. 12

same as no. 12

same as no. 12 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-44:639 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-44:644 Loffreda 1974: fig. 14:1

Loffreda 1974: fig. 14:1

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

187

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

188

Plate 47:1-16:  Byzantine—Early Islamic Period No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description Ware: 10YR 4/1 dark gray with few black and white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 4/2

1

storage jar

84.1510

2

storage jar

84.1510

A storage jar

84.1421.2P.12

B

storage jar C storage jar

84.1519.1P.4

3

storage jar

84.4145.1P.5

4

storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar storage jar

84.1510

storage jar storage jar jar

84.4102.11P

5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13

84.1519.1P.2

84.1510 84.4102.8P.1 84.4102.8P.11 84.1510 84.4102.8P.5 84.1442.2P.1

84.4102.11P.4 84.4102.2P.4

Comment; Parallel/Reference

Smith and Day 1973: pl. 31:284 Smith and Day1989: pl. 54:1–2 McNicoll et al. 1982: pl. 141:4 Ware: 10YR 4/1 dark gray with black and white inclusions Smith and Day Surface: 10R 4/1 dark reddish-gray 1973: pl. 31:284 Smith and Day 1989: pl. 54:1–2 McNicoll et al. 1982: pl. 141:4 Ware: 10R 5/8 red with thin brown core and few small white inclusions Surface: pale 10R 5/2 weak red with white painted spiral Ware: 2.5YR 5/8 red with few small white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/3 weak red with white paint Ware: 2.5YR 5/3 reddish-brown with many small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 5/1 gray with white painted spiral Ware: 10YR 4/1 dark gray with few black and white Palestinian baginclusions shaped jar Surface: 7.5YR 4/2 brown and burned sherd missing Palestinian bagshaped jar sherd missing Palestinian bagshaped jar Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with large white inclusions Palestinian bagSurface: 10R 4/1 dark reddish-gray shaped jar Ware: 7.5YR 5/1–4/1 gray to dark gray Palestinian bagSurface: 7.5YR 4/1 dark gray shaped jar sherd missing Palestinian bagshaped jar Ware: 2.5YR 5/1 reddish-gray Palestinian bagSurface: 10YR 4/1 dark gray and encrusted shaped jar Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with many small white Palestinian baginclusions shaped jar Surface: 2.5YR 5/1–4/1 gray to dark gray; interior: 2.5YR 5/6–5/8 reddish-brown to red Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with white inclusions Palestinian bagSurface: 5YR 5/2–4/2 reddish-gray to dark reddish-gray shaped jar Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with white inclusions Palestinian bagSurface: 5YR 5/2–4/2 reddish-gray to dark reddish-gray shaped jar Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with white inclusions Avissar 1996: Surface: 5YR 5/2–4/2 reddish-gray to dark reddish-gray fig. 12.144:1–2

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

189

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

190

Plate 47:1–16:  Byzantine—Early Islamic Period (cont.) No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

14

amphora

84.4102.7P.1

15

amphora

84.1519.2P

16

amphora

84.4145.1P.1

Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with many mica inclusions Surface: pale 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Ware: 5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown with many white inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown with inclusions visible Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red with many large white and black inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown

Comment; Parallel/Reference no parallel

Late Roman amphora 1B1 Peacock and William 1986: Class 44 amphora Form 1 Johnson 1988: fig. 7-49

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

191

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

192

Plate 48:1–15:  Byzantine Period No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1

jug

2

jug

3

FBW juglet

4

FBW juglet

5

FBW juglet

6

FBW juglet

84.1482.1P.10 Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red with many white inclusions Surface: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red 84.1482.1P.5 Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with white inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/3 light reddish-brown 84.1511.5P Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown 84.1511.4P Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Surface: 7/3 very pale brown; incised nicks on shoulder 84.1485.1P Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; incised nicks on shoulder 84.1520.2P Ware: burned

7

FBW juglet

84.1471.2P.2

8

cooking-pot 84.1471.1P.1 ware juglet

9

juglet

10

84.4145.1P.4

11

cooking-pot 84.1471.1P.4 ware juglet jug 84.4142

12

juglet

84.5045.2P.2

13

jug(let)

84.4124.7X.1

14

jug(let)

84.5086.1X

15

perfume bottle

84.1514.1P.4

Comment; Parallel/Reference Kefar Hananiah Form 5B2 Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl. 5B Kefar Hananiah Form 5B2 Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl. 5B

Magness 1993: FBW, juglets Form 2A Magness 1993: FBW, juglets Form 2A

Magness 1993: FBW, juglets Form 2A Magness 1993: FBW, juglets Form 2A Magness 1993: FBW, juglets Form 2A

Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown with large white inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red Kefar Hananiah Form 6C Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red Adan-Bayewitz 1993: pl. 6C.2, 4 Loffreda 1974: fig. 3:13–14 Ware: 7.5YR 6/4–6/6 light brown to reddish-yellow Surface: 2.5Y 8/1 white Ware: 5YR 4/6 yellowish-red Magness 1993: FBW, juglets Surface: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Form 2A Ware: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Calderon 2000: pl. 24:67 with many mica inclusions Surface: 2.5Y 6/4 light yellowish brown Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with many Syon 1998: fig. 12:19 white inclusions Smith and Day 1989: Surface: 10YR 7/3–6/3 very pale pl. 50:5 brown to pale brown Ware: 5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown no parallel Surface: 7.5YR 7/6–6/4 reddishyellow to light brown Ware: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow no parallel Surface: 5YR 6/4–6/6 light reddishbrown to reddish-yellow; incised lines forming “menorah” Ware: 75YR 6/3 light brown with no parallel many white inclusions Surface: slip 10YR 7/2 light brown

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

193

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

194

Plate 49:1–13:  Byzantine—Early Islamic Period No.

Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1

lid

84.1521. 2X.5

2

lid

84.1520.2X.1

3

lid

84.4100.3X

Ware: 10YR 6/1 gray Surface: 10YR 6/1 gray Ware: 10YR 7/2 light gray Surface: 10YR 7/2 light gray Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Surface: very pale brown

4

lid

84.1570.2X.2

5

lid

84.1510

6

lid

84.1514.1P.8.1

7

lid

84.1511.9X.4.1

8

lid

84.1511.9X2.1

9

lid

84.1514.1P.7

10

lid

84.1523.2P.2

11

lid

84.1514.1X.3.1

12

lid

84.1514.1X.4.1

13

lid

84.1511.9X.3

Comment; Parallel/Reference

Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Smith and Day1989: pl. 50:12–13 Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Ware: 10YR 5/2 grayish brown with Magness 1993: 247, lid black inclusions Form 1 Surface: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Magness 1993: 247, lid Form 1 Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown with Johnson 1988: fig. 7-55 many black and white inclusions Aviam and Getzov 1998: Surface: 7.5YR 6/4–6/6 light brown fig. 9:17–18 to reddish-brown Syon 1998: fig. 12:10–11 Ware: 7.5YR 8/3 pink with many no parallel limestone inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown no parallel Surface: 10YR 5/3 brown Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown Ayalon 1998: fig. 10:4 Surface: 10YR 5/3 brown

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

195

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

196

Plate 50:1–8:  Early Islamic Period: Red-Painted Vessels No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1

bowl

84.5046.3P

2

jug/ jar

84.5046.3P

Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown with many black inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; paint: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown bands and net pattern, thumb-impressed decoration Ware: 5YR 7/4 pink with many large black and white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/4-7/6 pink to reddish-yellow; paint 2.5YR 5/6 red bands and wavy bands

3

jug/ jar

4

jar

5

jar

6

jar

Comment; Parallel/Reference no parallel

McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 Smith and Day1973: pl. 30:492, 1101 Smith and Day 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8 84.1449.1P.1 Ware: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, with large black, white and mica 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 inclusion Smith and Day 1973: pl. 30:492, Surface: 10YR 8/2-7/2 very pale 1101 brown; paint: 2.5YR 5/4 reddishSmith and Day1989: pls. 55:2, 8, brown bands and wavy bands 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8 84.15045.1P Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red with few small McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, white inclusions 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 Surface: 2.5YR 6/3 light reddishSmith and Day 1973: pl. 30:492, brown; paint: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish1101 white stripes and incised lines Smith and Day 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, forming geometric pattern 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8 84.5046.3P Ware: 7.5YR 7/4 pink McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 paint: 2.5YR 4/4 reddish-brown Smith and Day 1973: pl. 30:492, bands and wavy bands 1101 Smith and Day 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8 84.2184.4 Ware: 2.5YR 7/4 light reddish-brown McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, Surface: 5YR 7/4 pink; paint: 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 10R 5/8 red bands and wavy bands Smith and Day 1973: pl. 30:492, 1101 Smith and Day 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

197

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

198

Plate 50:1–8:  Early Islamic Period: Red- Painted Vessels (cont.) No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

7

jar

84.1098.4.1

Ware: 7.5YR 7/4 pink Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; paint: 2.5YR 4/4 reddish-brown bands and wavy bands

8

jar

84.1098.1.1

Ware: 7.5YR 7/4 pink Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; paint: 2.5YR 4/4 reddish-brown bands and wavy bands

Comment; Parallel/Reference McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 Smith and Day 1973: pl. 30:492, 1101 Smith and Day 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8 McNicoll et al. 1982: pls. 140:5, 11, 12; 142:2, 3; 143:1 Smith and Day 1973: pl. 30:492, 1101 Smith and Day 1989: pls. 55:2, 8, 10, 12; 58:1, 5, 7, 8

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

199

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

200

Plate 51:1–9:  Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods No.

Vessel

Reg. No

1

jar with snake application

84.4145.1X

2

sherd

2A

sherd

3

sherd

4 5

stopper-? handle-?

6

water pipe

7

base-?

8

funnel

9

ampula

Description

Ware: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red; applied snake decorated with impressed circles 84.4142.3X.1 Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown with large white inclusions Surface: 2.5Y 7/2–6/3 light gray to light yellowish brown; paint: 2.5Y 8/1 white forming “menorah” 84.1092.6P.1 Ware: 10R 4/6 red with large white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/4 weak red; paint: 2.5Y 8/1 white forming “menorah” 84.4142.6X.2 Ware: 2.5YR 5/4–5/6 reddishbrown to red Surface: 10YR 7/2 light gray; incised “cross” 84.1511.9X.4.2 Ware: 7.5YR 7/3 pink; handmade 84.1518.5X.1 Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red with few large white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown 84.1471.1P.16 Ware: 7.5YR 5/4 brown Surface: encrusted 84.4122.2P.18 Ware: 7.5YR 6/3 light brown with small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 4/2–5/4 brown 84.1514.1P.5 Ware: 7.5YR 5/2 brown Surface: burned 84.5048.1X.1 Ware: 5YR 6/4–5/4 light reddishbrown to reddish-brown and flaking Surface: slip 10R 5/6–4/6 red; applied lined and dotted decoration

Comment; Parallel/Reference no parallel

see pl. 47:A–C

see pl. 47:A–C

no parallel

no parallel no parallel

Beryy 1988: fig. 8-14:143–44 no parallel

Smith and Day 1989: 56:1 Meyers, Meyers, and Weiss 1996: 209:86 Mazar and Gordon 2007: fig. 15.3:27

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

201

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

202

Plate 52:1–9:  Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1d

bowl

84.1101.1.13

2

cooking jug

84.2092.58

3

cookingpot lid

84.4108.4.2

4

“Gaza” jar

84.1068.11.21

5

jug

84.1384.1

6

antilia jug no number

7

lantern

84.2172.3.2

Ware: dark gray with many small white inclusions Surface: burnished bands 2.5YR 5/3 reddish-brown and 2.5YR 6/6 light red; painted decoration in white and black; incised spiral on base Ware: 2.5YR 5/3 with few small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/3 Ware: 10R 5/6 red few large white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/3 weak red; combed bands forming criss-cross pattern and bands Ware:2.5YR 5/6 red with many small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 7/4–7/6 pink to reddish yellow Ware: 2.5YR 4/6 red with few large white inclusions Surface: pale 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown Ware: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown with many very small white and many small micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown Ware: 2.5YR 6/4–6/6 light reddishbrown to light red with many small white and black inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown

8

basin

75.1001.21

9

bread stamp

86.1000.1X.1

Ware: gray with many large white and black inclusions, burned out organic inclusions leave hollows Surface: 10YR 7/3–6/3 very pale brown to pale brown Ware: grayish-brown with many large white and black inclusions; hollows from charred organic inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown

Comment; Parallel/Reference Baramki 1944: pl. 17–18, ware 10 Alliata 1991: figs. 11:7; 17:2; 18:11; 19:18, 22; 22:18–19 see pl. 47:23, 26; no parallel Johnson 1988: fig. 7-44:644, 646, 650, 652 Loffreda 1974: Foto 10:1–6 Mayerson 1994 Majcherek 1995

no satisfactory parallel except Siegelman 1998: fig. 11:18

Syon 1998: fig. 12:16–19 Schiøler 1973: 103–4

Magness 1993: figs. 3:1–3; 4:9–10 Oleson et al. 1994: fig. 21:TC2 Delougaz and Haines 1960: pl. 57.9 Schneider 1950: pl. 157.26–38 Vincenz 2007: pl. 28:1–2 no identical parallel ware similar to Loffreda 1974: 54–60, classe D

no identical parallel, same use Vincenz 2007: fig. 9:12–13 Sidi 2000: pl. 4:1 and fig. 8

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

203

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

204

Plate 53:1–27:  Byzantine Period: Vessels from Cistern 85.1195 No. Vessel Reg. No 1

jug

2

jug

3

jug

4

jug

5

jug

6

jug

7

jug

8

jug

9

jug

10

jug

11

jug

12

jug

13

jug

14

jug

15

jug

Description

85.1195.1P.1

Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with many very small and few small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow 85.1195.1P.2 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with small white inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3–7/4 very pale brown 85.1195.2P.4 Ware: 5YR 6/6–5/6 reddish-yellow to yellowish-red with many very small white and few very small black inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red 85.1195.2P.10 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with gray core and few small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red 85.1195.6P.3 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with few small white and few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow 85.1195.3P.1 Ware: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown with many very small white and many very small micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/8–6/8 red to light red 85.1195.3P.2 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with few very small white and few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 7/6–6/6 light red 85.1195.3P.3 Ware: 10R 4/4 weak with few small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 7/6–6/6 light red

85.1195.3P.4

Ware: 5YR 5/6 yellowish-red with many very small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown 85.1195.5P.2 Ware: 2.5YR 4/4 reddish-brown with many small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red 85.1195.5P.11 Ware: 10R 5/8 light red with many very small white and few small micaceous inclusion Surface: 10R 6/6 light red 85.1195.6P.1 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with darker core and many very small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/6 red 85.1195.6P.1 Ware: 10R 5/8 red with dark gray core and many small white and few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 10R 6/6 light red 85.1195.6P.4 Ware: 5YR 6/6 reddish-yellow with few small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/4 pink 85.1195.3P.5 Ware: 5YR 4/4 reddish-brown with many very small to small white and few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish-brown; splashes of brownish paint

Comment; Parallel/Reference rim not broken

rim broken opposite the handle rim broken opposite the handle rim broken next to the handle rim broken opposite the handle, misfired rim broken opposite the handle rim broken opposite the handle rim not broken with ancient restoration of the bottom rim not broken

rim broken opposite the handle rim broken opposite the handle rim not broken

rim broken opposite the handle rim not broken

rim not broken

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

205

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

206

Plate 53:16–27:  Byzantine Period: Vessels from Cistern 85.1195 (contd.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No

16

jug

85.1195.4P.1

17

jug

18

jug

19

jug

20

jug

21

jug

22

jug

23

jug

24

jug

85.1195.5

25

jug

85.1195.4

26

jug

85.1195.42.2

27

jug

85.1195.42.2

Description

Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown with few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/4 pink 85.1195.2P.7 Ware: 2.5YR 5/3 reddish-brown and 10R 6/6 light red with few small white and very few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/4–6/4 pink to light brown 85.1195.34.42.1 Ware: 10R 5/4 weak red with few small white inclusions Surface: 10R 6/6 light red 85.1195.5P.3 Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red with very few small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/4 pink 85.1195.2P.6 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with many very small white inclusions; pale 2.5YR 5/6 red 85.1195.3P.6 Ware: 2.5YR 5/3–5/4 reddish-brown with few small black, few small white and few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red 85.1195.3.1 Ware: 5YR 7/4 pink with few small white inclusions Surface: 5YR 7/4 pink 85.1195 Ware: 10R 5/6 red Surface: 10R 6/4 pale red; combed horizontal straight lines and vertical wavy lines Ware: 10R 5/6 red Surface: 10R 5/3 weak red Ware: 10R 5/8 red with few small white inclusions Surface: 10R 6/6 light red

Comment; Parallel/Reference rim not broken, burned on the side of the handle

rim not broken

misfired

Ayalon 1996: pl. 9:6

Vincenz and Sion 2007: fig. 5:1–3 Magness 1992: fig. 62:9 Tushingham1985: fig. 28:28 no parallel

no exact parallel; similar to Johnson1988: fig. 7-46:696 Ware: 10R 5/8 red with 10R 4/4 weak red rim next to handle core with few small white inclusions broken Surface: pale 2.5YR 6/4 light reddishbrown and white painted decoration Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red with few small no satisfactory parallel white and few small micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 6/6 light red

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

207

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

208

Plate 54:1–8:  Early Islamic Period: Vessels from 84.4120 No.

Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1

bowl

84.4120.3.12

2

storage jar 84.4120.3.28

3

jar

84.4120.3.3

4

trefoil juglet

84.4120.3.20

5

jug

84.4120.2.25

6

jug

84.4120.3.24

7

jug

84.4120.3.21

8

buff-ware jug

84.4120.313; IAA 96–878

Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown with few large white inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 light reddish-brown with light brown core and many small white and black inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 7/3 pink. White painted stripes on handle Ware: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray with few small white and black inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3–6/3 very pale brown to pale brown Ware: 7.5YR 6/3 light brown with few large black and few small white inclusions Surface: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown with many small white and few large black inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; paint: 2.5YR 5/6 red wavy bands Ware: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown with few large grey and many small white inclusions Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; paint: 2.5YR 5/6 red wavy and straight bands Ware: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray with few small white and black inclusions Surface: 10YR 6/3 pale brown; paint: 10YR 5/2–5/3 grayish brown to brown bands, wavy bands and triangles Ware: 7.5YR 8/3 pink with many very small pink and black and few small white inclusion Surface: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; incised decorations and applications

Comment; Parallel/Reference no parallel

Smith and Day 1973: pl. 54:4

similar to Avissar 1996: 164–65, Type 18 no parallel

see pl. 50

see pl. 50

see pl. 50

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

209

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

210

Plate 55:1–7:  Late Roman and Byzantine Periods: African Red-Slip Wares Comment; Parallel/Reference

No. Vessel

Reg. No

Description

1

bowl

84.2203.5.1

2

bowl

84.1000.0.5; 84.1140.21.1

3

bowl

84.2039.1.1

4

bowl

84.1140.1.3

5

bowl

84.4142.1

6

bowl

84.2116.1.1

7

bowl

84.1049.3.1

8

bowl

84.2221.5.6

9

bowl

85.3004.2.1

Ware: 10R 5/8 red with very few small Hayes Form 50 white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/8 red and encrusted Ware: 10R 5/8 red Hayes Form 52B Surface: glossy 10R 5/8 red; fish appliqué appliqué Hayes 1985: Tav. 82:21 and Tav. 88:24 Ware: 10R 6/8 light red with few very Hayes Form 59 small black and white inclusions Surface: glossy: 10R 5/8 red Ware: 10R 6/8 light red with many very Hayes Form 61 small black inclusions Surface: faded 10R 5/8 red Ware: 10R 5/8 red with few small white Hayes Form 73A inclusions Surface: 10R 6/8 light red; incised nicks on rim Ware: 10R 5/8 red Hayes Form 91 Surface: pale 10R 5/8 red and encrusted Ware: 10R 5/8 red with few small white Hayes Form 93 inclusions Surface: glossy 10R 4/8 red Ware: 10R 5/8 red with few small white Hayes Form 105 inclusions Surface: 10R 5/8 red Ware: 10R 5/8 red with many small white Hayes ARS Form inclusions rim is missing, thus no Surface: 10R 5/8 red; stamped exact identification of decoration type possible

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

211

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

212

Plate 56:1–15:  Cypriot Red-Slip Wares No. Vessel

Reg. No

1

bowl

2

bowl

3

bowl

4

bowl

5

plate

6

bowl

7

bowl

8

basin

9

basin

10

bowl

11

bowl

12

bowl

13

basin

14

basin

15

closed 84.1483.2X vessel

Description

84.1151.1.1

Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with few small white and black inclusions Surface: glossy 10R 4/6 red 85.2058.5.8 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with few small white and black inclusions Surface: pale 10R 4/4 weak red and encrusted 84.1278.2.1 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with very few small black inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6 red 84.4006.5.1 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with few small black inclusions Surface: glossy 10R 4/8 red, drippy black slip; discolored rim 84.1285.2.1 Ware: 10R 5/4–5/6 weak red to red with few small white and micaceous inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish-brown 85.1022.3.3 Ware: 2.5YR 6/8 light red with few small black and white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/8 red; rouletting under rim. 84.2032.2.2 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with few small black and white inclusions Surface: glossy 10R 4/8 red 84.1077.1.4 Ware: 5YR 6/4–6/6 light reddish-brown to reddish-yellow Surface: 5YR 5/4 reddish-brown slip; incised grooves on rim 84.1006.3.14 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with very few small white inclusions Surface: faded 2.5YR 5/6 red slip; incised grooves on rim 84.2077.1.6 Ware: 2.5YR 5/6 red with few small white inclusions Surface: 2.5YR 5/8 red 84.2077.4.7 Ware: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown Surface: 5YR 5/3 reddish-brown drippy slip 84.1160.4.3 Ware: 10R 5/6 red with few small white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/4–5/6 weak red to red; rim discolored 84.1100.3.2 Ware: 10R 5/8 red with few small black inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6–6/6 red to light red 84.1027.2P.2 Ware: 2.5YR 6/6 light red with few medium sized white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6 red; stamped decoration Ware: 10R 5/6 red Surface: 10R 6/6 light red partially fired black; stamped decoration

Comment; Parallel/Reference Hayes Form 1

Hayes Form 1

Hayes Form 1

Hayes Form 1

Hayes Form 1/2

Hayes Form 2

Hayes Form 5.2

Hayes Form 7.1

Hayes Form 7.1

Hayes Form 9

Hayes Form 9 Hayes Form 9

Hayes Form 11 Hayes CRS Form (possibly 2), and 4 central stamps fig. 84:c

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

213

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

214

Plate 57:1–8:  Late Roman ‘C’ Wares and Other Fine Wares No. Vessel Reg. No 1

Description

3 4

Ware: 10R 5/6–4/6 red with many small white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6 red; stamped decoration bowl 84.2007.1.1 Ware: 10R 6/8 light red with few small inclusions Surface: 10R 5/8 red; stamped decoration bowl 84.1375.5X.2 sherd missing bowl 5.1301.5P.28 sherd missing

5

plate 84.2077.3.3

6

plate 84.1156.3.1

7

bowl 84.4142

8

bowl 84.4128.5.1

2

bowl 84.3033.2.7

Ware: 10R 5/6 red with few small white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/6 red, rim discolored Ware: 10R 6/6 light red Surface: encrusted Ware: 10R 6/8 light red with few small white inclusions Surface: 10R 5/8 red. Ware: 5YR 7/4 pink with few small black and white inclusions Surface 2.5YR 6/6 light red and slip 10R 4/6 red; stamped decoration

Comment; Parallel/Reference Hayes LRC Form 3 with stamp motif 10 i Hayes LRC Form with palmette and dotted circle simple undecorated cross cross decorated with dotted diamonds probably Hayes LRC Form 10 or variant of it no parallel found among Hayes groups Egyptian Red-Slip A, Hayes Shape P no parallel

Fine Wares; Byzantine–Early Islamic Wares

215

Bibliography Acconci, A. and Gabrieli, E. 1994 Scavo del cortile Bajali a Madaba. Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 44: 405–520. Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1986 The Pottery from the Late Byzantine Building and Its Implications (Stratum 4). Pp. 90–129 in Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, 1975, 1976, 1979 – Final Report, ed. L. I. Levine and E. Netzer. Qedem 21. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1990 The Pottery. Pp. 89–96 in The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret), ed. S.  Wachsmann et al. ʿAtiqot 19 (English Series). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 1993 Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press. 2003 On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine. Pp. 5–32 in One Land – Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda, ed. G. C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and L. D. Chrupcala. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 41. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Adan-Bayewitz, D., Asaro, F., Wiedner, M., and Giauque, R. D. 2008 Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century b.c.e.–70 c.e.). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350: 37–85. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and Aviam, M. 1997 Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–94 Seasons. Journal of Roman Archaeology 10: 131–65. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and Perlman, I. 1990 The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period. Israel Exploration Journal 40: 153–72. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and Wieder, M. 1992 Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 189–205. Alliata, E. 1991 Ceramica dal Complesso di S. Stefano a Umm Al-Rasas. Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 41: 365–422. Amiran, D. H. K., Arieh, E., and Turcotte, T. 1994 Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 b.c.e. Israel Exploration Journal 44: 260–305. Aviam, M. 1998 Burial Tomb from Kefar Shaʿab. ʿAtiqot 33: 79–80. [Hebrew] Aviam, M., and Getzov, N. 1998 A Byzantine Smithy at Horvat ʿOvesh, Upper Galilee. ʿAtiqot 34: 63–85. [Hebrew]

218

Bibliography

Avigad, N. 1955 Excavations at Beth-Sheʿarim, 1954. Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 205–39. 1976 Beth Sheʿarim, Report on the Excavations during 1953–1958. Vol. 3, Catacombs 12–23. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press on behalf of the Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Avissar, M. 1996a The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 66–74 in Yoqneʿam 1, The Late Periods, by A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali. Qedem Reports 3. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1996b The Medieval Pottery. Pp. 75–172 in Yoqneʿam I, The Late Periods, by A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali. Qedem Reports 3. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah, M. 1976 The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. New York: Schocken. Avshalom-Gorni, D. 1998 Storage Jars from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods in Western Galilee – Chronological, Typological and Regional Aspects. M.A. thesis. Bar Ilan University. [Hebrew] Ayalon, E. 1991 Large Jars from Yavneh-Yam. Pp. 80–88 in Yavneh-Yam and Its Environs, ed. M. Fischer anad B. Dashti. Yavneh-Yam Studies 1. Jerusalem: Palmahim. [Hebrew] 1996 The Pottery. Pp. 93–123 in The Ancient Water Reservoir at Sepphoris, 1993–1994 Excavations, by T. Tsuk, A. Rosenberger, and M. Peilstöcker. Tel Aviv: National Parks Authority. [Hebrew] 1998 Ancient Kfar Sava in the Light of Recent Excavations. ʿAtiqot 34: 107–20. [Hebrew] Bagatti, B. 1969 Excavations in Nazareth. Vol. 1, From the Beginning till the XII Century. Trans. E.  Hoade. Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 17. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Bahat, D. 1974 A Roof Tile of the Legio VI Ferrata and Pottery Vessels from Horvat Hazon. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 160–69. Balouka, M. 1999 The Evidence for the Existence of an Earthquake in the Year 363 and the Transition from the Roman Period to the Byzantine Period according to the Archaeological Finds in Sepphoris. M.A. thesis. Hebrew University. [Hebrew] 2004 Appendix: The Pottery from the House of Dionysos. Pp. 35–46 in The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Excavated by E. M. Meyers, E. Netzer and C. L. Meyers, by R. Talgam and Z. Weiss. Qedem 44. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002 Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Vol. 3, The Pottery. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Bibliography

219

Bar-Nathan, R. and Adato, M. 1986a Byzantine Pottery (Stratum 5). Pp. 132–36 in Excavations at Caesarea Maritima. 1975, 1976, 1979 – Final Report, ed. L. I. Levine and E. Netzer. Qedem 21. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1986b The Promontory Palace: The Pottery. Pp. 160–75 in Excavations at Caesarea Maritima. 1975, 1976, 1979 - Final Report, ed. L. I. Levine and E. Netzer. Qedem 21. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Berlin, A.  2006 Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 29. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Berry, W. 1988 The Minor Objects. Pp. 227–56 in Excavations at Jalame. Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, ed. G. D. Weinberg. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Birger, R. 1981 Pottery and Miscellaneous Finds of the Byzantine Period. Pp. 75–77 in Greater Herodium, ed. E. Netzer. Qedem 13. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Bishop, M. C., and Coulston, J. C. 1993 Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. London: Batsford. Blakely, J. A. 1988 Ceramics and Commerce: Amphorae from Caesarea Maritima. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 27: 31–50. Blakely, J. A., Brinkmann, R., and Vitaliano, C. J. 1992 Roman Mortaria and Basins from a Sequence at Caesarea: Fabrics and Sources. Pp. 194–213 in Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, ed. R. L. Vann. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 5. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Brock, S. P. 1976 The Rebuilding of the Temple under Julian: a New Source. Palestine Excavation Quarterly 108: 103–7. 1977 A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 40: 267–86. Bull, R. J., and Campbell, E. F., Jr. 1968 The Sixth Campaign at Balatah (Shechem). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 190: 2–41. Calderon, R. 1999 The Pottery. Pp.135–48 in The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in the Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987, by Y. Hirschfeld. Qedem 38. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University. 2000 Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 91–165 in Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Final Report of the 1984–1998 Excavations, by Y. Hirschfeld and A. Boas. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Dar, S. 1999 Sumaqa: A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series 815. Oxford: Archeopress.

220

Bibliography

Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1996a Persian-period Incense Burners. Pp. 164–65 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. 1996b Rhyton. Pp. 162–63 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. Delougaz, P., and Haines, R. C. 1960 A Byzantine Church at Khirbet al-Karak: The Glass Vessels. Oriental Institute Publications 85. Chicago: University of Chicago. Díez Fernández, F. 1983 Cerámica común romana de la Galilea: Approximaciones y Diferencias con la Cerámica del Resto de Palestina y Regiones Circundantes. Madrid: Ed. Biblia y Fé: Escuela Biblica. Djobadze, W. 1979 Medieval Bread Stamps from Antioch and Georgia. Oriens Christianus 63: 163–80. Donalson, M. D. 1996 A Translation of Jerome’s Chronicon with Historical Commentary. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. Elgavish, J. 1994 Shiqmona on the Seacoast of Mount Carmel. Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz Hameuchad. [Hebrew] Elgavish, J., and Banai, M. 1977 Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona: The Pottery of the Roman Period. Haifa: City Museum of Ancient Art. [Hebrew] Fabian, P., and Goren, Y. 2001 A Byzantine Warehouse and Anchorage South of Ashqelon. ʿAtiqot 42: 211–19. Feig, N. 1990 Burial Caves in Nazareth. ʿAtiqot 10: 67–79. [Hebrew] Fine, S. 2005 Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galor, K. 2007 The Stepped Water Installations of the Sepphoris Acropolis. Pp. 201–13 in The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class, and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers, ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 60/61. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Geiger, J. 1988 The Gallus Revolt and the Building of the Temple under Julian. Pp. 202–17 in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, ed. Y. Tsafrir. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. [Hebrew] Getzov, N., et al. 1998 ʿUsha 1991, Part 4, version β. [Hebrew; unpublished report] Gichon, M. 1974 Fine Byzantine Wares from the South of Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 106: 119–39.

Bibliography

221

1993 En Boqeq, Ausgrabung in einer Oase am Toten Meer, Bd. I, Geographie und Geschichte der Oase, Das Spätrömische-Byzantinische Kastell. Mainz: von Zabern. Goodenough, E. R. 1953–68  Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. New York: Pantheon. Grantham, B. 2007 The Butchers of Sepphoris: Archeological Evidence of Ethnic Variability. Pp. 279– 90 in The Archaeology of Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric. M. Meyers, ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 60/61. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1995 The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Pp. 289–434 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. IB, Areas A and C: The Finds, by E. Stern. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hachlili, R. 1988 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Siebente Abteilung, Kunst und Archäologie. Leiden: Brill. 2001 The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form, and Significance. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 68. Leiden: Brill. Hanfmann, G. M. A. 1967 The Ninth Campaign at Sardis (1966) (Continued). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 187: 9–62. Harper, R. 1995 Upper Zohar. An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia: Final Report of Excavations in 1985–1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayden, B. 2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. Pp. 23–64 in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Hayes, J. W. 1967 North Syrian Mortaria. Hesperia 36: 337–47. 1972 Late Roman Pottery: A Catalogue of Roman Fine Wares. London: British School at Rome. 1976 Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1980 A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. London: British School at Rome. 1985a Sigillate Orientali. Pp. 1–96 in Enciclopdia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale. Atlante delle forme Ceramiche II. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo Impero). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1985b Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivates in the Jerusalem Corpus. Pp. 183–94 in Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume 1, by A. D. Tushingham. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1991 Paphos 3: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Nicosia: Published for the Republic of Cyprus by the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

222

Bibliography

Herr, M. D. 1985 Eretz Israel after the Ben-Koziba War and until the Division of the Roman Empire. Pp. 54–80 in The History of Eretz Israel. Vol. 5, The Roman–Byzantine Period, ed. M. D. Herr. Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. [Hebrew] Hirschfeld, Y. 1999 The Early Byzantine Monastery at Khirbet ed-Deir in The Judean Desert: The Excavations in 1981–1987. Qedem 38. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 2000 Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Final Report of the 1984–1998 Excavations. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Hoglund, K. G., and Meyers, E. M. 1996 The Residential Quarter on the Western Summit. Pp. 39–43 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. Iliffe, J. H. 1945 Imperial Art in Trans-Jordan: Figurines and Lamps from a Potter’s Store at Jerash. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 11: 1–26. Israeli, Y., and Mevorah, D. 2000 Cradle of Christianity. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Johnson, B. L. 1988 The Pottery. Pp. 137–226 in Excavations at Jalame, Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, ed. G. D. Weinberg. Columbia: University of Missouri. 2008a Ashkelon 2: Imported Pottery of the Roman and Late Roman Periods. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2008b The Pottery. Pp. 13–206 in Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas CC, KK and NN - Final Reports. Vol. 1, The Objects, by J. Patrich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Kenrick, P. M. 1985 Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice). Vol. 3,  Part 1, The Fine Pottery. Tripoli: Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Secretariat of Education, Department of Antiquities. Kingsley, S. A. 1999 The Sumaqa Pottery Assemblage: Classification and Quantification. Pp. 263–330 in Sumaqa, A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel, ed. S. Dar and Y. Ben-Ephraim. BAR International Series 815. Oxford: Archeopress. Levine, L. I. 2000 The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press. Loffreda, S. 1974 Cafarnao II: La Ceramica. Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 19. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. 1976 Alcune Osservazioni sulla ceramica di Magdala. Pp. 338–54 in Studia Hierosolymitana in onore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti. Vol. 1, Studi Archeologici, ed. M. Piccirillo. Studium Biblicum Franciscani 22. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. 1982 Documentazione preliminare degli oggetti della XIV campagna di scavi a Cafarnao. Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 32: 409–26. 1983 Nuovi contributi di Cafarnao per la Ceramologia Palestinese. Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 33: 347–72.

Bibliography

223

La ceramica di Macheronte e dell’Herodion (90 a.C.–135 d.C.). Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing. Magness, J. 1992 Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery, Preliminary Report, 1990. Caesarea Papers. Stratons’ Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, ed. L. R. Vann. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 5: 129–53. 1993 Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology circa 200–800 ce. Sheffield: JSOT. Majcherek, G. 1995 Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered. Pp. 163–78 in Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Worksop, ed. H. Meyza and J. Młynarczyk. Warsaw: Research Centre for Mediterranean Archaeology, Polish Academy of Sciences. Mayerson, P. 1994 The Gaza ‘Wine’ Jar (Gazition) and the ‘Lost’ Jar (Askalonion). Pp. 346–51 in Monks, Martyrs, Soldiers and Saracens, Papers on the Near East in Late Antiquity (1962–1993), ed. P. Mayerson. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in association with New York University. Mazar, B., and Gordon, B. 2007 The Pottery from the Peristyle and the Southern Houses. Pp. 149–76 in The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 directed by Benjamin Mazar, Final Reports. Vol. 3, The Byzantine Period, by E. Mazar. Qedem 46. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. McNicoll, A., Smith, R. H., and Hennessy, J. B. 1982 Pella in Jordan 1: An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and The College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981. Canberra: Australian National Gallery. Meyers, C. L. 1976 Note on the Lamp Base with Menorah. Pp. 248–49 in Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shemaʿ, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1970–1972, by E.  M. Meyers, A.  T. Kraabel, and J. F. Strange. Durham, NC: Duke University Press on behalf of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 1998 Fumes, Flames, or Fluids? Reframing the Cup-and-Bowl Question. Pp. 30–39 in Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus A. Gordon, ed. M. Lubetski, C. Gottleib, and S. Keller. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 273. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1998. 2003 The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for the American Schools of Oriental Research. Repr., Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias. 2012 The Function of Feasts: An Anthropological Perspective on Israelite Religious Festivals. Pp. 14–68 in Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Saul Olyan. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Studies 71. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Meyers, E. M. 1996 Arab-period Jug from Sepphoris [No. 89]. P. 210 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. 2002 Sepphoris: City of Peace. Pp. 110–20 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman. London: Routledge. 1996

224

Bibliography

2006 The Ceramic Incense Shovels from Sepphoris: Another View. Pp. 865–78 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2008 Sanders’ “Common Judaism” and the Common Judaism of Material Culture. Pp.153–74 in Redefining First-Century Jewish and ChristianIdentities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders, ed. E.  P. Sanders, F. E.  Udoh, S.  Heschel, M.  A. Chancey, G. Tatum. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 16. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Meyers, C. L., and Meyers, E. M. 1975 Another Ancient Jewish Bread Stamp? Israel Exploration Journal 25: 154–56. 1996 Menorah Incised on Storage Jar [No. 82]. P. 207 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. 1997 Sepphoris. Pp. 527–36 in vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers et al. 4 vols. New York: Oxford University Press. 2009a Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs. Meiron Excavation Project 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2009b The Persian Period at Sepphoris. Pp. 136–44 in Eretz Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern volume): 136*–44.* forthcoming  Images and Identity: Menorah Representations at Sepphoris. Viewing Ancient Judaism: Jewish Art and Archaeology in Honor of Rachel Hachlili, ed. A. E. Killebrew and A. Segal. Leiden: Brill. Meyers, E. M., Kraabel, A. T., and Strange, J. F. 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shemaʿ, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1970–1972. Durham, NC: Duke University Press on behalf of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Meyers, E. M., Netzer, E., and Meyers, C. L. 1992 Sepphoris. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Meyers, E. M., Strange, J. F., and Meyers, C. L. 1981 Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Miller, S. S. 2006 Sages and Commoners in Late Antique ’Erez Israel: A Philological Inquiry into Local Traditions in Talmud Yerushalmi. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Nagy, R. M. 1996 Pilgrim Ampulla [No. 86]. P. 209 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. Nagy, R. M., Meyers, C. L., Meyers, E. M., and Weiss, Z., eds. 1996 Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Raleigh: North Carolina Museum of Art. Narkiss, M. 1935 The Snuff-Shovel as a Jewish Symbol. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 15: 14–28. Naveh, J. 1996 Jar Fragment with Inscription in Hebrew. P. 170 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art.

Bibliography

225

Negev, A. 1986 The Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Nabatean Oboda: Final Report. Qedem 22. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Nielsen, K. 1992 Incense. Pp. 404–9 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Oleson, J. P., Fitzgerald, A., Sherwood, A. N., and Sidebotham, S. 1994 The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Project 1980–85. Vol. 2, The Finds and the Ship. BAR International Series 594. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Peacock, D. P. S. and Williams, D. F. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide. New York: Longman. Peleg, M. 1989 Domestic Pottery. Pp. 31–130 in Excavations at Capernaum. Vol. 1, 1978–1982, by V. Tzaferis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Riley, J. A. 1975 The Pottery from the First Session of Excavations in the Caesarea Hippodrome. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 218: 25–63. Roll, I., and Ayalon, E. 1989 Apollonia and Southern Sharon, Model of a Coastal City and Its Hinterland. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad and Israel Exploration Society. [Hebrew] Rosenfeld, B. 1997 Lod and Its Sages in the Period of the Mishnah and Talmud. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi. [Hebrew] Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1995 Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Pp. 183–288 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, by E. Stern. Qedem 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Rotroff, S. I. 2002 West Slope in the East. Pp. 97–115 in Céramiques hellénistiques et romaine: productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Egypte et côte syro-palestinienne), by F. Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Salles. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux. Rutgers, L. V. 1999 Incense Shovels at Sepphoris? Pp. 177–98 in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. E. M. Meyers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Salomonson, J. W. 1969 Spätrömische rote Tonware mit Reliefverzierung aus Nordafrikanischen Werk­ stätten: entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur reliefgeschmückten terra sigillata chiara C. BABesch 44: 4–109. Schiøler, T. 1973 Roman and Islamic Water-Lifting Wheels. Odense: Odense University Press. Schneider, H. 1950 The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo, Part III: The Pottery. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Sherwood, A. N. 1994 Lamp Holder. Pp. 63–64 in The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima 2: Results of Caesarea Ancient Harbour Excavation Project 1980–1985, The Finds and the Ship, by J. P. Oleson et al. BAR International Series 594. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

226

Bibliography

Sidi, N. 2000 Roman and Byzantine Small Objects. Pp. 177–86 in Ramat Hanadiv Excavations, Final Report of the 1984–1998 Excavations, by Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Siegelmann, A. 1998 The Pottery from the Sumaqa Excavations. Pp. 311–57 in Sumaqa: A Jewish Village on the Carmel, by S. Dar. Ramat-Gan: Israel Exploration Society. Smith, R. H., and Day, L. P. 1973 Pella of the Decapolis. Vol. 1, The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella. Wooster: College of Wooster. 1989 Pella of the Decapolis. Vol. 2, Final Report on the College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, the Civic Complex, 1979–1985. Wooster: College of Wooster. Stern, E. 1994 Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician harbor Town on the Phoenician Coast. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Stern, M. 1980 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Stolper, M. 1997 Vase fragment. Pp. 166–67 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. Strange, J. F. 1996 The Eastern Basilical Building. Pp. 117–21 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. Strange, J. F., Groh, D. E., and Longstaff, T. R. W. 1994 Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin, Part I. Israel Exploration Journal 44: 216–27. 1995 Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin, Part II. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 171–87. Strange, J. F., Longstaff, T. R. W., and Groh, D. E. 2006 Excavations at Sepphoris. Vol. 1, University of Florida Probes in the Citadel and Villa. Brill Reference Library of Judaism 22. Leiden: Brill. Syon, D. 1998 A Winepress at Akhziv. ʿAtiqot 34: 86–100. [Hebrew] Talgam, R., and Weiss, Z. 2004 The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Excavated by E. M. Meyers, E. Netzer and C.  L. Meyers. Qedem 44. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Tushingham, A. D. 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Vincenz, A. de 2004 The Pottery Assemblage from Horvat Raqit. Pp. 213–41 in Raqit: Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel, Israel, by S. Dar and B. Arensburg. BAR International Series 1300. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bibliography

227

2007 The Pottery. Pp. 234–427 in En-Gedi Excavations II. Final Report (1996–2002), by Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Vincenz, A. de, and Sion, O. 2007 Two Pottery Assemblages from Khirbet el-Niʿana. ʿAtiqot 57: 21–52. Waterman, L. 1931 Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Weiss, Z. 1993 Sepphoris. Pp. 1324–28 in vol. 4 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2005 The Sepphoris Synagogue: Deciphering an  Ancient Message through its Archaeological and Socio-Historical Context. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2008 Sepphoris. Pp. 2029–35 in vol. 5 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E.  Stern. 5 vols. Supplementary Volume. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Weiss, Z., and Netzer, E. 1996a Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Archaeological Evidence. Pp. 29–37 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. 1996b Promise and Redemption: A Synagogue Mosaic from Sepphoris. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. 1996c Sepphoris during the Byzantine Period. Pp. 81–89 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R. M. Nagy, C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art. Wolff, S. R. 1997 “Ironian” Casseroles from Nizzana and Iskandil Burnu, Turkey. Israel Exploration Journal 47: 93–96. Yadin, Y. 1963 The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yeivin, S. 1937 Historical and Archaeological Notes. Pp. 17–34 in Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931, by L. Waterman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Yisraeli, Y. 1970 A Roman Pottery Mortarium. ʿAtiqot 6: 10, 79. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. [Hebrew; English summary, p. 10] Zemer, A. 1977 Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade. Haifa: National Maritime Museum Foundation. 1988 The Storage Jars from Geva. Pp. 68–88 in Gevaʿ: Archaeological Discoveries at Tel Abu-Shushah, Mishmar Ha-ʿEmeq, ed. B. Mazar. Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz Hameuchad. [Hebrew]