Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Yoav Arbel

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 2. Aerial view of Areas D and E. artifacts from the Neolithic, Iron Age/Persian and Ottoman periods were found on topsoil (Table 1).

Figure 2 Aerial view of Areas D and E. artifacts from the Neolithic, Iron Age/Persian and Ottoman periods were found on topsoil (Table 1).

Related Figures (76)

Fig. 1. Location map of the site and adjacent sites.
Fig. 1. Location map of the site and adjacent sites.
Table 1. Division of Strata according to Periods The importance of this article stems from the fact that there is no comprehensive publication of the finds retrieved from any of these sites, including those that have been systematically excavated. The information disclosed in this report is thus the first to be made available to researchers, shedding light on this area.
Table 1. Division of Strata according to Periods The importance of this article stems from the fact that there is no comprehensive publication of the finds retrieved from any of these sites, including those that have been systematically excavated. The information disclosed in this report is thus the first to be made available to researchers, shedding light on this area.
Fig. 3. Installation 1083 in Area D2, looking west. —T a ee ee eng While the pottery related to the structures in their immediate vicinity is mostly dated to he Byzantine period, the finds within the installations included a concentration of sherds from the first and second centuries CE; finds from the earlier phase dominated the lowest evels above the floors (0.6—1.0 m deep; see Vincenz, this volume: Figs. 1-3). The Early Roman period is otherwise almost non-existent in the pottery assemblages of the site. Other han ceramics, the Early Roman date is confirmed by glass vessels (see Ouahnouna, this volume: Fig. 1:1—5), fragments of soft limestone mugs (Fig. 4) and two coins (see Ariel, his volume: Cat. Nos 1, 2). owes ie ea
Fig. 3. Installation 1083 in Area D2, looking west. —T a ee ee eng While the pottery related to the structures in their immediate vicinity is mostly dated to he Byzantine period, the finds within the installations included a concentration of sherds from the first and second centuries CE; finds from the earlier phase dominated the lowest evels above the floors (0.6—1.0 m deep; see Vincenz, this volume: Figs. 1-3). The Early Roman period is otherwise almost non-existent in the pottery assemblages of the site. Other han ceramics, the Early Roman date is confirmed by glass vessels (see Ouahnouna, this volume: Fig. 1:1—5), fragments of soft limestone mugs (Fig. 4) and two coins (see Ariel, his volume: Cat. Nos 1, 2). owes ie ea
‘ Another fragment of a chalkstone mug fron Area D1 (B10469) was not illustrated (length 2.5 cm, height 3.2 cm, thickness 1.4 cm).
‘ Another fragment of a chalkstone mug fron Area D1 (B10469) was not illustrated (length 2.5 cm, height 3.2 cm, thickness 1.4 cm).
Figs. 4. Chalkstone vessel fragments from the installations.
Figs. 4. Chalkstone vessel fragments from the installations.
Fig. 8. Area D1, clay oven (L1019) with a funnel, looking north.
Fig. 8. Area D1, clay oven (L1019) with a funnel, looking north.
Fig. 9. Area D1, Channel V with fragments of a Pompeian mill, looking north. JUSLUUTT, UULWOULT LUIS UULIL did dlliUd UIL Upelt ot VUULIOD. The southern Channel V (L1077) was built of fieldstones strengthened with rough nortar, with an inner conduit (20 cm wide) coated with rough plaster. Its northern extension lisappeared into an accumulation of debris. It was probably fed by drains from rooftops or ipper floors. Two halves of the top part of a Pompeian mill (see Sidi, this volume: Nos. 27, 28; Avitsur 1976:77; Frankel 2003a:46—-47) were incorporated along the channel (Fig. 9). Such grinding devices were used in ancient Israel from the Early Roman to the Byzantine
Fig. 9. Area D1, Channel V with fragments of a Pompeian mill, looking north. JUSLUUTT, UULWOULT LUIS UULIL did dlliUd UIL Upelt ot VUULIOD. The southern Channel V (L1077) was built of fieldstones strengthened with rough nortar, with an inner conduit (20 cm wide) coated with rough plaster. Its northern extension lisappeared into an accumulation of debris. It was probably fed by drains from rooftops or ipper floors. Two halves of the top part of a Pompeian mill (see Sidi, this volume: Nos. 27, 28; Avitsur 1976:77; Frankel 2003a:46—-47) were incorporated along the channel (Fig. 9). Such grinding devices were used in ancient Israel from the Early Roman to the Byzantine
Fig. 10. Area D1, Gaza jars incorporated into Channel VI, looking south.
Fig. 10. Area D1, Gaza jars incorporated into Channel VI, looking south.
Southern Stone-Paved Floor (VUI)— This floor was the largest structural unit to be discovered in Area D1. It comprises fieldstones of various types and sizes in a tight arrangement, including several grinding stones in secondary use. There were also fragments of plaster and scattered white mosaic stones. Associated pottery was mostly Byzantine. Immediately to the north of the floor was a clay oven (L1058; diam. 0.9 cm), the only one found in the western part of Area D1.
Southern Stone-Paved Floor (VUI)— This floor was the largest structural unit to be discovered in Area D1. It comprises fieldstones of various types and sizes in a tight arrangement, including several grinding stones in secondary use. There were also fragments of plaster and scattered white mosaic stones. Associated pottery was mostly Byzantine. Immediately to the north of the floor was a clay oven (L1058; diam. 0.9 cm), the only one found in the western part of Area D1.
Fig. 13. Area E2, aerial view to the north.
Fig. 13. Area E2, aerial view to the north.
Fig. 14. Area El, the residential building, looking west.
Fig. 14. Area El, the residential building, looking west.
Fig. 15. Area El, the fragmentary mosaic floor from the residential building.
Fig. 15. Area El, the fragmentary mosaic floor from the residential building.
Fig. 16. Area El, northern Channel 1590, looking east.
Fig. 16. Area El, northern Channel 1590, looking east.
Fig. 17. Area El, the storage facility, looking south. LE MLOPASE LACILULY (AATCd El, Fr ldall %) his structure, located immediately to the north of the residential building, was the larges herent architectural unit discovered at the site (Fig. 17). The remains are represented b mg segments of the southern and eastern perimeter walls (W1563, W1634; 18.4 m and , respectively) and a series of rooms. The depth of the remains and the sturdy constructio F two lines of roughly worked large stones (0.6—0.9 m wide) spared the remains from som f the damage that would normally have been inflicted by modern agriculture. Therefor« 5 preservation is better than most other complexes at the site. its preservation is better than most other complexes at the site.
Fig. 17. Area El, the storage facility, looking south. LE MLOPASE LACILULY (AATCd El, Fr ldall %) his structure, located immediately to the north of the residential building, was the larges herent architectural unit discovered at the site (Fig. 17). The remains are represented b mg segments of the southern and eastern perimeter walls (W1563, W1634; 18.4 m and , respectively) and a series of rooms. The depth of the remains and the sturdy constructio F two lines of roughly worked large stones (0.6—0.9 m wide) spared the remains from som f the damage that would normally have been inflicted by modern agriculture. Therefor« 5 preservation is better than most other complexes at the site. its preservation is better than most other complexes at the site.
Fig. 18. Area El, upside-down Gaza jars in corner of Room 1612, looking southeast. Room III— This room contained a well-preserved stone pavement made of tightly arranged irregularly shaped slabs of various sizes in a random arrangement. The pavement was missing, probably intentionally, in an approximately one-meter-wide strip along the southern perimeter wall. A Gaza jar was embedded in the eastern part of the floor, probably as a fixed container for liquids (Fig. 19).
Fig. 18. Area El, upside-down Gaza jars in corner of Room 1612, looking southeast. Room III— This room contained a well-preserved stone pavement made of tightly arranged irregularly shaped slabs of various sizes in a random arrangement. The pavement was missing, probably intentionally, in an approximately one-meter-wide strip along the southern perimeter wall. A Gaza jar was embedded in the eastern part of the floor, probably as a fixed container for liquids (Fig. 19).
Fig. 19. Area El, room HI with embedded Gaza jar, looking east.
Fig. 19. Area El, room HI with embedded Gaza jar, looking east.
Fig. 20. Area El, basin and remains of upside-down Gaza jars in Room IV, looking north.
Fig. 20. Area El, basin and remains of upside-down Gaza jars in Room IV, looking north.
Fig. 21. Area E1, anthropomorphic basalt grinding stone (Room IV, B15429). a Ia a a a ce I A unique basalt bowl with the sculpted image of a head of a female or a youth (Fig. 21) was found in this room, c. 50 cm above the floor. The fragment (8 cm high, diam. 0.2 cm) represents approximately a third of the vessel. The bowl apparently stood on a set of fou legs, two of which remain. Each stand was subdivided into three cushion-like feet in linea formation, with two larger feet at each end and a smaller foot in the middle. The vessel’: exact function remains obscure.* No comparisons have been found for the bowl, although the image is similar to examples in stone capitals (Schlumberger 1933: Pl. XXXVII:2: Fischer 1981: Figs. 9, 14) and ceramic vessels (Taxel 2007: Fig. 1:3, 5) from the Romar and Byzantine periods.°
Fig. 21. Area E1, anthropomorphic basalt grinding stone (Room IV, B15429). a Ia a a a ce I A unique basalt bowl with the sculpted image of a head of a female or a youth (Fig. 21) was found in this room, c. 50 cm above the floor. The fragment (8 cm high, diam. 0.2 cm) represents approximately a third of the vessel. The bowl apparently stood on a set of fou legs, two of which remain. Each stand was subdivided into three cushion-like feet in linea formation, with two larger feet at each end and a smaller foot in the middle. The vessel’: exact function remains obscure.* No comparisons have been found for the bowl, although the image is similar to examples in stone capitals (Schlumberger 1933: Pl. XXXVII:2: Fischer 1981: Figs. 9, 14) and ceramic vessels (Taxel 2007: Fig. 1:3, 5) from the Romar and Byzantine periods.°
Fig. 22. Area El, basin in Room VI, looking north.
Fig. 22. Area El, basin in Room VI, looking north.
Fig. 23. Elongated walls enclosing courtyards in Area D2, looking north.
Fig. 23. Elongated walls enclosing courtyards in Area D2, looking north.
Fig. 24. Area D2, chalkstone slab Floor 1076, looking east. belonged to a single room, although it is probable that they were part of the same complex.
Fig. 24. Area D2, chalkstone slab Floor 1076, looking east. belonged to a single room, although it is probable that they were part of the same complex.
Fig. 25. Area A, the northern winepress at the end of the excavation, aerial view to the south.
Fig. 25. Area A, the northern winepress at the end of the excavation, aerial view to the south.
Fig. 26. Area A, the northern winepress after restoration, aerial view to the south.
Fig. 26. Area A, the northern winepress after restoration, aerial view to the south.
Fig. 27. Isometric restoration of the northern winepress.
Fig. 27. Isometric restoration of the northern winepress.
Fig. 28. Northern collecting vat of the northern ae ee he, |; Ses ee” eae To the north and east of the treading floor were four preserved auxiliary floors (L120 L128, L130, L136; 3.6 x 1.3 m, c. 4.7 sq m each; Fig. 30). The auxiliary floors wer circumscribed by walls built of small and medium-sized fieldstones. Between them wer raised platforms (L108 at the northern part). The auxiliary floors were paved with mosaic (10-12 tesserae per sq dm) laid over square ceramic tiles (0.40 = 0.25 m, width: 4.0 » 4.5 cm); there was a lower foundation bed of small stones and pebbles inserted into th stay mortar-plaster (5-10 cm thick). The square tiles, laid over the pebbles-and-morta foundation layer, were an additional precaution against soil movement. The auxiliary floor were higher than the treading floor and sloped toward it, connected to it via perforated hole (0.45 m length). The holes were found in the partition wall, in the center of each auxiliar floor and the treading floor. This seems to suggest that there were at least six auxiliary floor in the winepress, two on each side of the treading floor.
Fig. 28. Northern collecting vat of the northern ae ee he, |; Ses ee” eae To the north and east of the treading floor were four preserved auxiliary floors (L120 L128, L130, L136; 3.6 x 1.3 m, c. 4.7 sq m each; Fig. 30). The auxiliary floors wer circumscribed by walls built of small and medium-sized fieldstones. Between them wer raised platforms (L108 at the northern part). The auxiliary floors were paved with mosaic (10-12 tesserae per sq dm) laid over square ceramic tiles (0.40 = 0.25 m, width: 4.0 » 4.5 cm); there was a lower foundation bed of small stones and pebbles inserted into th stay mortar-plaster (5-10 cm thick). The square tiles, laid over the pebbles-and-morta foundation layer, were an additional precaution against soil movement. The auxiliary floor were higher than the treading floor and sloped toward it, connected to it via perforated hole (0.45 m length). The holes were found in the partition wall, in the center of each auxiliar floor and the treading floor. This seems to suggest that there were at least six auxiliary floor in the winepress, two on each side of the treading floor.
Fig. 30. Auxiliary floor L130, looking west.
Fig. 30. Auxiliary floor L130, looking west.
Plan 7. Area B2, the southern winepress.
Plan 7. Area B2, the southern winepress.
Fig. 31. Area B2, the southern winepress at the end of the excavation, aerial view
Fig. 31. Area B2, the southern winepress at the end of the excavation, aerial view
Fig. 32. Patch of sherds that mended the missing part of the treading floor’s mosaic.
Fig. 32. Patch of sherds that mended the missing part of the treading floor’s mosaic.
Fig. 33. The intermediate vat, looking west.
Fig. 33. The intermediate vat, looking west.
Fig. 34. Area B2, Collecting Vat 275 and Intermediate Vat 265, looking west. \t the southern end of the vat was a hemispherical niche (diam. 0.85 m) wi h a perforatec \ole through which the must flowed from the adjacent intermediate vat. At the center of the loor was a circular sump (diam. 0.45 m, depth 0.28 m) for draining the was loping sides were coated with hydraulic plaster. A large stone was found on e. The sump’s he floor of the collecting vat, near the hemispherical niche. It had two purposes: (1) preventing damage o the plastered floor from the must flowing from the intermediate vat; and iccess into the vat and the hemispherical niche. (2) providing access into the vat and the hemispherical niche.
Fig. 34. Area B2, Collecting Vat 275 and Intermediate Vat 265, looking west. \t the southern end of the vat was a hemispherical niche (diam. 0.85 m) wi h a perforatec \ole through which the must flowed from the adjacent intermediate vat. At the center of the loor was a circular sump (diam. 0.45 m, depth 0.28 m) for draining the was loping sides were coated with hydraulic plaster. A large stone was found on e. The sump’s he floor of the collecting vat, near the hemispherical niche. It had two purposes: (1) preventing damage o the plastered floor from the must flowing from the intermediate vat; and iccess into the vat and the hemispherical niche. (2) providing access into the vat and the hemispherical niche.
Fig. 35. Area B2, Collecting Vat 275, looking south.
Fig. 35. Area B2, Collecting Vat 275, looking south.
Fig. 36. Area B2, the eastern row of minor collecting vats, looking north. bed remained of their floors, which may have originally been paved with a mosaic. Such
Fig. 36. Area B2, the eastern row of minor collecting vats, looking north. bed remained of their floors, which may have originally been paved with a mosaic. Such
Plan 8. Area E3, Mamluk-period remains. tructure from the same period was recorded at Khirbat el-Ni‘ana (Sion 2007:46*). Several parts of what seem to be foundation beds of earth floors were exposed northwe nd north of the building (L1525). A lack of affiliated walls, with one exception (W156¢ uggests that these were courtyards. The single wall from the same context as the floo W1566) was discovered c. 3.8 m northwest of the walled structure and parallel to ; lorthwestern wall (W1543). Stones of various sizes were used haphazardly in W156 comprising both cut and uncut stones. The vast majority of the pottery from the foundati« eds and the sediment surrounding them dated to the Mamluk period (see Vincenz, th ‘olume: Figs. 10-12). Eight of the nine coins found in this area were minted by Ayubbid Viamluk rulers (see Ariel, this volume: Cat. Nos. 44-49, 51, 52). Three bronze rings dat yy style to the fourteenth—fifteenth centuries CE were also found in this area (see Amite -reiss, this volume: Nos. 1-3). Other metal finds were found, including pins and an ir
Plan 8. Area E3, Mamluk-period remains. tructure from the same period was recorded at Khirbat el-Ni‘ana (Sion 2007:46*). Several parts of what seem to be foundation beds of earth floors were exposed northwe nd north of the building (L1525). A lack of affiliated walls, with one exception (W156¢ uggests that these were courtyards. The single wall from the same context as the floo W1566) was discovered c. 3.8 m northwest of the walled structure and parallel to ; lorthwestern wall (W1543). Stones of various sizes were used haphazardly in W156 comprising both cut and uncut stones. The vast majority of the pottery from the foundati« eds and the sediment surrounding them dated to the Mamluk period (see Vincenz, th ‘olume: Figs. 10-12). Eight of the nine coins found in this area were minted by Ayubbid Viamluk rulers (see Ariel, this volume: Cat. Nos. 44-49, 51, 52). Three bronze rings dat yy style to the fourteenth—fifteenth centuries CE were also found in this area (see Amite -reiss, this volume: Nos. 1-3). Other metal finds were found, including pins and an ir
Fig. 37. Area E3, the Mamluk-period architectural remains, looking north.
Fig. 37. Area E3, the Mamluk-period architectural remains, looking north.
Fig. 38. Area E3, Mamluk-period walls and stone mass, looking south.
Fig. 38. Area E3, Mamluk-period walls and stone mass, looking south.
Table 2. Ottoman-Period Musket Balls
Table 2. Ottoman-Period Musket Balls
Fig. 39. Area Cl, the loculi tomb, looking east.
Fig. 39. Area Cl, the loculi tomb, looking east.
Fig. 40. Area Cl, the tomb’s entrance, looking west.
Fig. 40. Area Cl, the tomb’s entrance, looking west.
Fig. 41. Area C1, the three loculi at the northern side, looking north.
Fig. 41. Area C1, the three loculi at the northern side, looking north.
Table 3. Cist Graves from the Early Cemetery
Table 3. Cist Graves from the Early Cemetery
Plan 10. Area B1, cist graves.
Plan 10. Area B1, cist graves.
Fig. 43. Area B1, Cist Grave 269, Fig. 42. Area B1, Cist Grave 272, lAxboaw AReTh
Fig. 43. Area B1, Cist Grave 269, Fig. 42. Area B1, Cist Grave 272, lAxboaw AReTh
Fig. 45. Area B1, circular pit partially disturbing Cist Grave 273, looking north. Fig. 44. Area B1, unused child-sized Grave 268, looking west.
Fig. 45. Area B1, circular pit partially disturbing Cist Grave 273, looking north. Fig. 44. Area B1, unused child-sized Grave 268, looking west.
Plan 11. Area C2, vaulted tombs. Vaulted Tomb I— The tomb is a broad rectangle on an east—west axis (4.8 x 4.0 m). It w lug into virgin soil, and its solid outer walls were built of tightly laid stones consolidat with mortar. The two longer walls (W761, W766) were very thick (0.7—0.9 m) and plaster oth inside and out (Fig. 46). The width of the walls and the use of plaster on the outer fac which would not have been visible from the surface, possibly served to protect the chamb rom humidity. The burial chamber (4.0 x 2.5 m) was accessed from the east through a 0 n wide passageway (L773) built of large, roughly hewn blocks. A perfectly preserved 0 n tall, arched doorway in the eastern wall linked the passageway to the burial chamber (Fi 17). The full length of the burial chamber could not be determined. Both the burial chamb ind the passageway were vaulted. Large portions of the collapsed vault were found in upp iccumulations of both areas, indicating a gradual disintegration over a protracted period.
Plan 11. Area C2, vaulted tombs. Vaulted Tomb I— The tomb is a broad rectangle on an east—west axis (4.8 x 4.0 m). It w lug into virgin soil, and its solid outer walls were built of tightly laid stones consolidat with mortar. The two longer walls (W761, W766) were very thick (0.7—0.9 m) and plaster oth inside and out (Fig. 46). The width of the walls and the use of plaster on the outer fac which would not have been visible from the surface, possibly served to protect the chamb rom humidity. The burial chamber (4.0 x 2.5 m) was accessed from the east through a 0 n wide passageway (L773) built of large, roughly hewn blocks. A perfectly preserved 0 n tall, arched doorway in the eastern wall linked the passageway to the burial chamber (Fi 17). The full length of the burial chamber could not be determined. Both the burial chamb ind the passageway were vaulted. Large portions of the collapsed vault were found in upp iccumulations of both areas, indicating a gradual disintegration over a protracted period.
Fig. 46. Area C2, plastered outer face of Vaulted Tomb I W761, looking south.
Fig. 46. Area C2, plastered outer face of Vaulted Tomb I W761, looking south.
Fig. 47. Area C2, Vaulted Tomb I inner partitions, looking east. The burial chamber (L784) was subdivided into five rectangular troughs, all of which were orientated east-west (Fig. 47): three, roughly similar-sized troughs were located in the eastern part of the chamber, and two, wider ones, in the western half. The excavation was stopped before the troughs could be thoroughly excavated, and therefore potential information for dating the structure remained inaccessible. The central eastern trough that
Fig. 47. Area C2, Vaulted Tomb I inner partitions, looking east. The burial chamber (L784) was subdivided into five rectangular troughs, all of which were orientated east-west (Fig. 47): three, roughly similar-sized troughs were located in the eastern part of the chamber, and two, wider ones, in the western half. The excavation was stopped before the troughs could be thoroughly excavated, and therefore potential information for dating the structure remained inaccessible. The central eastern trough that
Fig. 48. Area C2, Vaulted Tomb II, looking east.
Fig. 48. Area C2, Vaulted Tomb II, looking east.
Table 4. Graves from the Late Cemetery
Table 4. Graves from the Late Cemetery
Fig. 49. Area E2, Pit Grave 1531, looking west.
Fig. 49. Area E2, Pit Grave 1531, looking west.
Plan 12. Area E4, southern pit-grave field.
Plan 12. Area E4, southern pit-grave field.
Fig. 50. Area E4, parts of mosaic floor used as grave markers (L1648), looking east.
Fig. 50. Area E4, parts of mosaic floor used as grave markers (L1648), looking east.
Taking these points into consideration, it could be suggested that the cemetery dates fror sither the latest phase of the Byzantine occupation, probably during the seventh centur CE, or shortly after its abandonment. Pit graves of this type were common in the Nege luring the Byzantine period (Tsafrir 1988:36—38), and are also characteristic of Muslir 10madic populations in the Early Islamic period (Avni 1996:30—40). Their presence in th southern lowlands (Shephelah) should come as no surprise. The orientation of the graves heir modest architectural investment and the apparent lack of grave goods suggests the hese were Muslim individuals. They may have been settlers in a nearby site that used th rbandoned site for burial, or nomads or semi-nomads that occupied the site or its vicinit vhen many of the derelict buildings were still standing. Another, less viable, alternativ vould be that the graves belong to the fourth—fifth centuries CE and are contemporaneou with the cist graves and vaulted tombs, but represent the less affluent residents of th settlement or estate.
Taking these points into consideration, it could be suggested that the cemetery dates fror sither the latest phase of the Byzantine occupation, probably during the seventh centur CE, or shortly after its abandonment. Pit graves of this type were common in the Nege luring the Byzantine period (Tsafrir 1988:36—38), and are also characteristic of Muslir 10madic populations in the Early Islamic period (Avni 1996:30—40). Their presence in th southern lowlands (Shephelah) should come as no surprise. The orientation of the graves heir modest architectural investment and the apparent lack of grave goods suggests the hese were Muslim individuals. They may have been settlers in a nearby site that used th rbandoned site for burial, or nomads or semi-nomads that occupied the site or its vicinit vhen many of the derelict buildings were still standing. Another, less viable, alternativ vould be that the graves belong to the fourth—fifth centuries CE and are contemporaneou with the cist graves and vaulted tombs, but represent the less affluent residents of th settlement or estate.
APPENDIX: Locus List
APPENDIX: Locus List
Related topics:
Industrial ArchaeologyFunerary ArchaeologyMamluk ArchaeologyArchaeology of IsraelRoman Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved