No title

The

BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGIS

Of.

Publishedby THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESIEARCH

126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass. Vol. XXXV

No. 1

February, 1972

L r 1 , ~ ?i 'i 'C'

?. )

P

~~~?;?

..

~?5 d,,

Il

~CL-L4LI

$ j? ?, ?)

rl 1iF iilir:

.;i

t ,ill~cl I~L

`r Ylr t

/rii'

'i ;1ILL

r?

is

~1

Fig. 1. The Mausoleumat KhirbetShema',lookingnorth,veneratedas the Tomb of Shammaisince the Middle Ages. Photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Sr.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

2

(Vol. XXXV,

The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible. Editors: Edward F. Campbell, Jr. and H. Darrell Lance, with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editors at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. Editorial Board: G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Subscriptions: 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $3.50 per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back Numbers: $1.50 per issue, 1960 to present: $1.75 per issue, 1950-59; $2.00 per issue before 1950. Please remit with order, to the ASOR office. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1972 PRINTED

IN THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, PETERBOROUGH,

BY TRANSCRIPT

PRINTING

COMPANY

N. H.

Archaeology and Rabbinic Tradition at Khirbet Shema' 1970 and 1971 Campaigns ERIC M. MEYERS,Duke University; A. THOMAS KRAABEL, University of Minnesota; JAMES F. STRANGE,

Florham Park, New Jersey The Joint Expedition to Khirbet Shema' is a project of ASOR. Its first two seasons were funded by the Smithsonian Institution and a consortium of schools. For the 1970 season these schools were Drew University, Dropsie University, Duke University, Harvard University, Luther College, and the University of Minnesota. The 1971 season was sponsored by Dropsie, Duke, Harvard, Luther, and Minnesota, joined by Princeton University. Special thanks are due the Project Overseer, G. Ernest Wright, and to Senior Advisor Robert J. Bull, for their abiding help and support without which the project would never have succeeded. The cooperation of Dr. A. Biran, Director of the Israel Department of Antiquities, has been invaluable, as has been that of his local inspector Mr. N. Tflinski of Meiron. During the 1970 season, Dean Moe was a field supervisor and Sidney D. Markman was architect. Area supervisors were Frank Anders, Michael Goldwasser, Barbara Johnson, Harold Liebowitz, Carol Meyers and Dave Peters. Area supervisors for 1971 were Sue Estroff, Diana Furmanik, John Gager, Harold Liebowitz, Carol Meyers, Dan O'Connor and Olin Storvik. John Thompson was head architect, Tom Blount and John Machinist also served as architects, Hendrick van Dijk, Sr. and Jr., and Lee Sterner photographers, Baruch Kanael numismatist, and Richard Hanson, academic director and epigrapher. To the 150 or so volunteers, no thanks are sufficient to express the indebtedness of the entire staff.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Historical

3

Setting

Khirbet Shema' (The Ruin of Shammai) is located on a natural hill in the township of Meiron, some ten kilometers from Safad in Upper Galilee (Fig. 2). Since at least medieval times, if not much earlier, Khir-

-----------------------~ ~?,,,---r-=~--~T--

It\

It\ 'N\\

I ItIt It It \"\ ItItItIt

IN

/i

II II /

,

",I N,it ItI

INI I

N,\I t fill\,?II It\ INI ,-'\N.IN\ \ \-??-:N '.= I \"' N, , , NI "N I \ \ " N, '\ N,, I\\\I \1 N, ?N N, I- N, \NoIN? N" k\\ \I INN I,II""I "2 I

I

IN-;

,

I

I /

vo

I NNN X\

I,Ii

I AtI

INIIll, A ItI ItI,IN 01 kill itIIII

1, II N'' fill I

Ij ItI 6 PwZ. II

iti

-

-=

m

'~:,

,

Fig. 2 Topographic map indicates that Meiron and Khirbet Shema' are separated only by the Wadi Meiron. Both sites are less than 10 km. from Safad. Drawing and photo by John F. Thompson.

bet Shema' has been associated with the sacred synagogue and necropolis of ancient Meiron, where tradition located the tomb of Hillel. From the 15th century onward, however, travelers and pilgrims venerated the socalled Tomb of Shammai (see Fig. 1) which lies south of the Meiron tombs across the Wadi Meiron on one of the foothills of Mt. Meiron, often called Har Shammai, some 760 m. above sea level.' 1. These notices are conveniently collected by Zev Vilnay in Holy Monuments in Eretz Israel (1963), pp. 289-295 (Hebrew). For another picture of the Mausoleum see Vilnay, P1. 72, and also his plan on p. 294. Others who record the uniqueness and significance of this monument are V. Gu6rin, Galiled II (1880), pp. 433-434; C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine I (1881), pp. 246-247; G. Dalman, Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldistina-Vereins, XXIX (1906), 195-199; and the Israel Department of Antiquities' List of Historical Monuments (1964), Paragraph 17, map coordinates 191 and 264 (Hebrew).

4

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

It is probablyfrom this period that the Arabic tradition regarding the name of Khirbet Shema' dates and it must be emphasized that no

ancient sourcementions KhirbetShema'as the burial place of Shammai.2 That later generations of Jews placed the holy places of their sages in Galilee is readily understandable, for it was in the north that the rabbis

reconstitutedthemselvesafter the two devastatingwarswith Rome. Though the bulk of literary referencesto Meiron and its environs come from the talmudic (late Roman-Byzantine)period 'the expedition was a bit hopeful at the outset of finding remains from the late Second

Temple period. After all Josephusis thought to have fortifiedMeiron in

Jim

f , ?all

" '--4 "?,• ;.%

• i.;.,•'?,

'

:.

'b r, •.

-%

,.•. .. :"J6.

Fig. 3 The Shema' eagle is incised on a doorpostin the western wall of the synagogue.Drawing by Kay Wanous; photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Jr.

the first war against Rome (War II. 573; III. 40) and Gush Halav (Gischala), just a few kilometersnorth, is thought to be the home of John of Gischala,fanatic zealot of that revolt (WarIV. 66; V. 70, et al.). Indeed the Israel Departmentof Antiquitiesin its list of monumentsrecords the presenceof Hellenistic remainsat KhirbetShema'and seven to eight percentof all coins thus far identifiedat the site are Maccabean.Yet no occupationfrom before the 4th centuryA.D. has as yet been found. 2. Among the supposedly earlier writings the Megillath Avitar (Evyatar, Abiathar?), of questionable origin and date, records that the burial place of Shammai was in Galilee. On this point see M. Ish-Shalom, Holy Tombs (1948), pp. 129-133 (Hebrew), who also lists the 12th-century traveler Benjamin of Tudela as one of the earliest writers to place Shammai's burial place in the vicinity of Meiron. The authors have been unsuccessful in locating the former reference which in all probability dates to modern times as it leaves no impact on the medieval midrashim.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

5

One of the main reasons why this site was selected over others was the important fact that Khirbet Shema' had never been excavated. The presence of fallen architectural members and of an eagle incised on the front of a doorpost "with outstretched wings, sculptured on a crown . . ." (Fig. 3) suggested to the British survey team of Conder and Kitchener that such fragments probably "once belonged to a synagogue, though there are now no traces of such a building." It was anticipated, therefore, that Khirbet Shema' was a rather out-of-the way Jewish village in a part of Galilee in which there had been little scientific archaeology. Indeed, we know this section of Palestine mainly from surface surveys, published architectural fragments and objets d'arts. To begin a new effort at recovering the Judaism of Galilee, therefore, was a major goal of the Joint Expedition from the outset. It was also hoped that a renewed interest and study of Judaism in Galilee would feed into the discipline of New Testament studies as well. In attempting to relate the ruins of Khirbet Shemna'to a town known from literary sources it became immediately apparent that this was a very hazardous task without archaeological proof. The late Professor Samuel Klein of the Hebrew University was the first to suggest that Khirbet Shema' was the same as Galilean Tekoa3. Though Klein educes convincing evidence for the existence of a Galilean Tekoa nothing uncovered in the first season of excavations would tend to corroborate or discredit his view. The fact that the rabbinic sources are at pains to identify Tekoa as "the one near Meiron and Gush Halav" and note that it was "built on a mountain with its houses running down the incline of the site" at least leaves the possibility that Tekoa and Khirbet Shema' are one and the same. The nagging problem remains, however, that in the whole area of Meiron there is little data to support either a Second Temple or even a 2nd or 3rd century occupation. Excavation

Methods

Generally speaking, the methods of excavation followed those first developed by the British (the "Wheeler-Kenyon" Method) and then by American expeditions such as those to Shechem and Gezer. This involved three major considerations: the grid, use of balks, and separation of all artifacts by loci. The entire site was laid out in four quadrants around a N-S base line that ran through the 19th century British triangulation point at the north end of the ruin. Each of these four quadrants (NW, NE, SW, and SE) was divided into thirty-six 30 x 30 m. squares numbered by Roman 3. Not to be confused with Judean Tekoa, the home of the prophet Amos. See Klein, The Land of Galilee, (1946), p. 130 (Hebrew). M. Avi-Yonah in The Macmillan Bible Atlas (1968), pp. 141 and 183 accepts the identification but without discussion.

6THE

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

numerals W-E east of the base line and E-W on the other side. That is, east of the base line the squares were numbered I-VI west to east, VIIXII west-east for the next row north, and so on to square XXXVI. On both sides of the base line this numbering moved northwards by rows. Each of these 30 x 30 m. squares was further subdivided into thirtysix 5 x 5 m. squares numbered according to the same pattern, but this

-e?

rcN

Q

2..A

Fig. 4 This site plan represents the Joint Expedition's continuing effort to investigate Khirbet Shema' in its totality. In the center at grid zero the synagogue and associated buildings. Below and to the left one grid square may be located the Mausoleum and an ancient wine press. Drawing and photo by John F. Thompson.

time with Arabic numerals. In this way every 5 x 5 m. square in the grid received a unique numerical designation. For example square NW. VII.2 was the second 5 x 5 m. square east of the base line in the seventh 30 x 30 m. square in the NW quadrant. This square happened to be in the Northeast corner of the synagogue (see Fig. 4). Only 4 x 4 meters was dug in most squares, which left a one meter wide catwalk to the east and north of each square. This catwalk or "balk" effectively separated squares during the work of digging, but more im-

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

7

portantly it left a vertical section of unexcavated soil. Such a vertical section provides a visual record of each layer of human occupation and natural deposition in the site. Therefore it was necessary to draw virtually every section, for that drawing contained a permanent file, so to speak, of the history of occupation in that square. After balks are drawn, however, they have served their purpose and are taken down layer by layer so as to maximize exposure of the architecture. Soil layers in each square are, of course, excavated in reverse order to the way they were deposited, the latest layers removed first. In other words all of a given layer (identified by changes in color, texture, or composition) is carefully peeled off with pick and hoe or with small hand tools, and all pottery and other artifacts from each layer (or "locus") are carefully separated from all other artifacts of different provenance. This separation of layers and therefore of artifacts is the only way to recover successfully the chronological development of pottery, artifacts, and successive uses of structures without a time machine. On occasion it was discovered in the course of two seasons that the demands of digging a Khirbeh (or "ruin") necessitated slight modifications in digging and recording procedures. These were always introduced with some diffidence, as this method is widely accepted and used, especially in British and American archaeology, though almost always at deep soil sites (tells). The staggering amount of stone architecture at Khirbet Shema' required serious reconsideration, for example, of the size of squares. If it was discovered that the north balk of a 5 x 5 m. square was parallel to and perhaps 35 cm. north of a large wall, then it seemed foolish to attempt to dig a tiny trench along the north face of the wall, which would result in a narrow trench and a balk that no one could "read" or draw. In such a circumstance the square was simply enlarged to 5 x 7.5 m., or even 5 x 10 m., which gave a clear N-S section across the wall. Modifications in the method of layer separation are more serious, as they may alter the very basis of stratigraphic digging as ordinarily understood in American, British, and Israeli archaeology. Nevertheless on occasion it was clear that a change in only one of the three variables above (color, texture, and composition) did not signify a new locus, but rather a local change in the same one. For example in the NW corner of the synagogue, where the debris was deepest, the "layers" under the Arab house that were identified by color changes alone were not sharply delineated but rather blended into one another indicating that the soil is the result of continuous natural deposition and does not indicate successive layers of occupation. Texture and composition did not change, so this particular stratum of soil was dug as one layer. The different elevations

8

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

on successive buckets of pottery (with associated artifacts and coins) would enable later analyses to recover whatever chronological sequence might otherwise be lost if an error had been made in this case. But examination of pottery and artifacts indicated that only one period was represented with no clear typological or numismatic development from bottom to top. The considerations that dictated changes in the use of balks in the sense of catwalks and in the sense of drawable sections were two: quantity of stone fall and the necessity to clarify complex architecture in our new rescue excavations in Meiron. In the first instance it was sometimes found that a shallow deposition of debris on top of bedrock consisted almost entirely of stone fall with wind-blown soil in the interstices. In this case a careful photograph would serve the purpose of a balk drawing and could be taken, developed, and printed in far less time than a competent, checked balk drawing could be produced. In the second instance it was sometimes decided that time did not warrant leaving catwalks between four adjacent squares, though the section drawings were desired. In such a case two 5 x 5 m. squares diagonally opposite would be dug fully, leaving no 1-meter catwalk. Then the north and west balks of one square and the south and east balks of the other would be drawn. This set of drawings preserves the entire N-S and E-W story across a 10 x 10 m. square. The other two diagonally opposed squares within this 10 x 10 meters could then be excavated, leaving outside balks to be drawn later.4 In all cases these changes in field method were still based on the premise that archaeology is vertically as well as horizontally oriented. That is, it is obvious that we need full plans of houses and public buildings, but it is equally obvious by now that we also need vertical plans of the successive soil layers laid down both by nature and by man so as to recover a graphic record of successive occupations and abandonments of a given site. Our method represented an attempt to use the best of stratigraphic and architectural archaeology. The Synagogue

Surface evidence at Khirbet Shema' had long made it likely that some of the ruins belonged to a synagogue, but any visitor to modern Galilee can attest that a number of ancient synagogues have been discovered already, and six well known ones are restored in some fashion for any tourist to view: Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, Capernaum, Chorazin, Meiron and Bar'am.5 4. This is an adaptation of a well-known method of excavating "barrows." Cf. R. J. C. Atkinson, Field Archaeology (1953), p. 59, Fig. 10. 5. Brief descriptions, plans and references to the literature for each of these buildings are conveniently available in E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols of the Greco-Roman Period (1953), Vols. I and III, especially the index to volume I. Also I. Sonne, "Synagogue" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), Vol. IV, 480-483 and Fig. 99.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

9

Bringing in eighty or ninety Americans to go after still another would not be a wise investment of time and funds perhaps unless the building turned out to be unusual in function or design, or unless it was to be excavated in its context, with equal attention given its adjoining buildings and the town around it. This latter concern was a part of the expedition's planning from the beginning (all of the town has been planned and much of it excavated already), but the discovery of a "unique" building cannot be planned in advance; it was not until the 1971 campaign, the "synagogue season," that we could be sure that the Shema' structure is unparalleled, a riddle of a building in Galilee, where one might have thought that all synagogue puzzles had been solved. Location:

Surroundings

and Orientation

Like its neighbor, the Meiron synagogue, one wadi to the north, the Shema' building is not located on the highest part of the site; it is on the first terrace below and east of the top of the north-south ridge on which the ancient town was located. The long axis of the building runs east-west, at right angles to the lines of the terraces, so that the western half of the building has walls and floor cut out of bedrock, while the eastern end extends beyond the edge of the terrace and rests on a platform of fill held in by retaining walls. Excavation of the fill at the eastern end in 1971 proved that the synagogue was not the first installation in this position; under the fill was a chamber, roughly round, about 2.5 m. in diameter. It and the steps which led into it were cut into bedrock at some earlier time, then deliberately covered over later to provide a foundation for the east end of the synagogue. At Khirbet Shema' most rock-cut chambers are tombs or cisterns, but this one is too shallow to contain much water and too small and simple to be a likely tomb; it is without loculi and resembles none of the tombs excavated thus far. Nor is it likely that a Galilean synagogue would be founded knowingly on a tomb. The closest parallel typologically on the site is the ritual bath or miqveh, excavated this season farther down the east slope of the hill.6 It indicates that the crest of the ridge was occupied, perhaps even well settled, before the synagogue was erected. Two facts suggest that earlier rooms were extended and utilized to form the new building. First, the south wall, the "bema-wall",is not a unit; a seam is visible in the wall at the west end of the bema. The west end of what is now the bema-wall originally "turned a corner" and became the terrace wall which still runs southward away from the synagogue (see Fig. 5); later, when the synagogue was constructed, its south side was 6. It is possible, however, that this installation is a cistern, for an interesting parallel comes from the ancient synagogue at Yafa near Nazareth. On this point see E. L. Sukenik, Bulletin II (1951), p. 15, of the Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

10

(Vol. XXXV,

formed by adding that section of wall which now runs behind the bema and out across the newly extended foundation to the southeast corner of the present building. Second, the orientation also suggests that the form and position of the synagogue were determined in part by whatever occupied this area earlier. In most Galilean synagogues, the long axis is north-south, locating the facade or, in later times, the torah shrine in the short wall facing Jerusalem. The Khirbet Shema' ridge and its terraces also run north-

,Tj K4WN

0

0

0 0cm.

",

Fig. 5 The synagogue plan reveals all the salient features: the terrace leading to entryway on the north; the bema on the south wall; stairway, two chambers, woman's gallery, "Eagle doorway" on western wall. Drawing by John F. Thompson and John Machinist. Photo by John F. Thompson.

south, making it more practical to position a rectangular building with its long axis north-south. But this synagogue has its long axis running east-west and its bema on the long southern wall! We may attribute this to creative architects (for whom there is other evidence as well, see below), but it could as well be due to the need to fit the structure into a site defined by already existing building and, perhaps, the desire to use existing walls in the construction. While the synagogue thus incorporates parts of earlier structures, the

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

11

present large building was built to be a synagogue; it is not, as a whole, converted from another use. This seems clear from the fact that the two pedestals before the bema are the most elaborate of the eight in the building, the only two provided with plinths; they were designed to indicate that the "focus" of the building was the center of the south wall, where the bema is located. If these pedestals were installed when the large building was first built, and not later, then the building had that "focus" from the beginning; such a building in this Galilean town would almost have to be synagogue - from the beginning. The excavations have revealed a series of four small rooms extending southward from the southern wall; their southern limits are not yet clear, but their other walls reveal the same creative use of the site as appears in the synagogue proper: their northern wall (i.e., the synagogue's southern wall) is cut from solid bedrock, nearly a meter thick, nearly two meters high at its highest, and the two westernmost rooms have a bedrock wall between them as well. The eastern end of the synagogue projects out into the next terrace, so the rooms on its eastern side are one level lower. Excavations in 1970 revealed them to be substantially made, but with no clear connection to the synagogue above. They are residences perhaps; little more can be said. Interior

The main room of the synagogue is roughly a rectangle 11 m. by 15 m. (see Fig. 5); the irregularities in the line of its western wall are due to the demands of the staircase, the frescoed room and the balcony all located there, or perhaps to the toughness of the bedrock cut to form it. Huge quantities of tesserae, some grey, chiefly white, were discovered in the fill, but non in situ; the floor was thus mosaic, plain or perhaps with the simplest of designs, laid over bedrock or - in the eastern end - over rubble fill. The interior was littered with scores of architectural fragments, most of them on or very near the floor, but only the bema, the pedestals and the benches were in situ. There are at least two kinds of benches; the earlier are stone blocks laid snugly against the walls and plastered on top and sides, the plaster bonding wall and bench. These are visible (Fig. 5) in the southeast and northwest corners of the room and along the southern wall on either side of the bema. The other "benches" (if such they are) may have been intended to increase the seating capacity of the building; they are larger ashlar blocks not attached to the walls, but parallel to them. One lies parallel to the southern wall at its western end, just below the staircase; nearly a meter and a half long, a half meter high, nearly a half meter deep, it stands 4-10

12

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

cm. away fromntthe wall itself. It was crudely but deliberately placed; small leveling stones, wedged beneath it, keep it in position. Similar blocks line the northern wall, one row running from the eastern corner of the northern doorway nearly to the northeast corner of the building; another row lies in front of the first for half that distance (see Fig. 5), the longest block in it, now broken, originally 2.5 m. in length. The pedestals are also diverse: the best made are the simply but carefully done pair in front of the bema. The other pedestals in the southern row of four are even less elaborate; that at the east end appears to be a crude attempt to copy one of the other three; perhaps it replaces the original pedestal which had become damaged in some way. When work began in 1970, this pedestal was the only one still bearing a section of column; sometime after that first season an unknown vandal tumbled that drum too from its place. The four "pedestals" in the north row are nothing more than undecorated ashlar blocks of varying height, cut from bedrock somewhere not far from the present building. Today they appear inappropriately rough when compared to the well-carved doorposts of the north entrance nearby. All four may be from some later rebuilding, though that seems unlikely; there is no other evidence for an extensive reconstruction literally from the foundation up. The bema, the rectangular platform in the middle of the south wall, is uncommon in Galilean synagogue architecture, though the Beth She'arim and Beth Alpha synagogues each contain one.7 Its location on the long wall of the building is even more unusual, for it proves that the Shema' structure is a "broadhouse," a synagogue in which the faithful face a long "side" wall rather than the shorter "end" wall during the service. The south wall is, of course, the wall toward Jerusalem, the traditional orientation for worship; once it had been decided that the long axis would be east-west, the "broadhouse" pattern was a necessity. Close examination of the south wall, the bema and the two pedestals in front of it suggests at least three phases (all with the same orientation) to this part of the structure. To the original phase belong the pedestals (whose plinths and other details suggest that they are designed to designate the south wall as the focus of worship), the benches which project from either side of the present bema, and perhaps a rudimentary or portable bema which was positioned where the present bema now stands. The benches on the south wall run behind the present bema; that is, they were already in position when the bema was built. The second phase begins with the construction of a permanent stone bema two courses high. Irreg7.

See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, Vol. III, Figs. 535, 631.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

13

ularities in the molding at the front of the present, three-course bema indicate that the topmost course was a later, final addition, the third architectural stage. The portable bema of the first stage is only a hypothesis based on practices known from elsewhere; the other details for each stage are easily discernible on the site.8 The Northern

Entrance

The Conder and Kitchener Survey of Western Palestine in the late nineteenth century first reported the pair of massive, fallen doorposts which can now be associated with the northern entrance to the building. These doorposts apparently twisted toward each other and then fell parallel, southward, into the main room of the synagogue in its final,

Fig. 6 Tentative architect's reconstruction of the synagogue. At right note northern entryway and terrace turning west to the second story of the women's gallery. The function of Building A at the top of the picture and other associated structures are not yet clear. Drawing and photo by John F. Thompson.

catastrophic destruction, probably during an earthquake. One is nearly complete, the other is broken at the top; the pieces have been recovered and the two doorposts will be raised, restored and set back into place during the 1972 season. They are visible in the reconstruction (Fig. 6). These architectural pieces are remarkable for two reasons: first, they exhibit the most skillful stone-carving to be seen on this site. It is difficult to attribute their moldings and margins to the same craftsmen who did less careful work on other elements of the building; at the same time, it is difficult to imagine these two doorposts, each weighing over four tons, being brought up to the site after being robbed from some earlier build8. A less probable but nonetheless possible alternative explanation of the first phase is that it was a simple basilica oriented to the east. Since the benches run behind the bema it is possible that in this phase there were no bema and no columns.

14

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

ing many kilometers away. Perhaps a professional mason produced them for this building, on the site. Secondly, the north doorway is identical in size and design to the "Eagle Doorway" (see below) which leads into the synagogue from an upper level on the west; it is likely that the two entrances are contemporary, indicating that the plan of the town and the configuration of the site called for two unusually placed entranceways, one opening to the northern section of the town, the other to the west and the top of the ridge. From the north, one approached the synagogue on a flagstone pavement, walked through the doorway and stepped down into the building, or turned right immediately before the doorway and mounted a series of steps to a balcony or upper story or platform (described below) founded on the bedrock surface9 there, discovered during the 1971 excavations. The area just east of the flagstone pavement was also excavated in 1971, revealing a surface, probably a floor, cut into the bedrock there, with a storage chamber cut beneath it. These are located immediately north of the northeast corner of the synagogu6; the storage chamber does not resemble the cisterns already known from the site, so it may have been for dry storage, perhaps for the grains needed for the preparation of special foods associated with synagogue rites. The West

WalI

In 1971 excavations in the western end of the synagogue revealed it to be a building without parallel in Galilean architecture. Anyone standing on the bemnatoday and looking directly west will see the following: against the south wall, a broad staircase with two landings leading into the building from the "Eagle Doorway" on the upper terrace (Fig. 7); just north of that, the entrance to a small frescoed room; north of that and above it, a platform cut into the bedrock for the support of a gallery or balcony. The staircase is monumental, each of its stairs nearly three meters wide. It provides an entrance to the building from the highest part of the site via the western doorway, which is identical in design to the north doorway except for the eagle-in-wreath design visible on the south doorpost of the "Eagle Doorway" as one enters. The area immediately west of the "Eagle Doorway" is a rectangle with its long axis east-west and was originally designated "Building A", but the 1970 excavations to bedrock there showed the "building" to lack a substantial foundation and any discernible floor. It is most likely a pavilion or terrace from which worshippers entered the synagogue via the "Eagle Doorway." Two mas9. Staff geologist Reuben Bullard, after a close inspection, verified that this area is "worked" in the sense that slabs of bedrock were pealed off along natural fault lines; it is not dressed (i.e., squared off with hard tools) but roughly prepared, presumably to support some wooden installation.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

15

sive, monolithic piers founded on earth are still in situ on the long axis; they might have supported a light, temporary roof, but could not be bearing elements in a true building. Precisely in the center of the west wall of the synagogue's main room is another doorway, over a meter wide, threshold still in situ, doorposts standing over two meters high, the only entrance to a small room, 2.25 m.

V -.LI_

|4

,o

i

l

' So.

,,. ,

• ..

,

.•a k.•'" •:"*...

Fig. 7 The authors and G. E. Wright discuss the monumental stairway in the SW corner of the synagogue. Photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Jr.

x 3.5 m., cut from bedrock. The room's walls are plastered, the only painted plaster yet found in situ at Khirbet Shema'; fragments of simple designs in red paint are still faintly visible. A low, plastered stone bench lies along the west wall (Fig. 5). The "frescoed room" was meant to be an integral part of the synagogue, but no direct evidence of its purpose was discovered within it.

16

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

Then a volunteer, working at the room's south wall, discovered the puzzle of the 1971 season, a concealed chamber, roughly diamond-shaped, 3.3 m. by 3.25 m. (outlined in the lower left corner of Fig. 5) cut into the bedrock under the staircase and the "Eagle Doorway" and entered through a small, square opening in the middle of the south wall of the frescoed room. The chamber is irregular in outline but clearly man-made, and it is no more than 1.25 m. high! The water-and-mud mixture which half-filled it was removed and allowed to dry in the sun; then this material, now rock-hard, was carefully broken up and sifted for any evidence which might give a clue to the purpose of the chamber. What are room and chamber for, located as they are in a way which makes them an integral part of the synagogue, accessible only from its main room? Any identification now must be most tentative, but they may be a scribe's or scholar's workroom and the synagogue genizah, for damaged, worn or imperfect copies of the scripture. A final discovery in the west wall area in 1971 indicates again that the design of the building was not that of the usual Galilean "basilica"synagogue. Note the following features on Fig. 5: The west "wall" north of the entrance to the frescoed room is again bedrock, which has been dressed not only on its vertical surface (the west "wall"), but also on the horizontal surface above and behind the wall, so that the outer stone wall which contains the "Eagle Doorway" encloses a bedrock platform whose surface is over two meters above the synagogue floor. The platform can be reached from the north as well, via a small stairway which begins at the flagstone terrace in front of the north doorway. It appears that site conditions determined that the balcony or woman's gallery in this synagogue be located here, and that the bedrock platform formed the foundation for a wooden floor which probably also extended over the frescoed room. If this reconstruction is correct, the congregation entered the building from the north and from the west; men coming from the north entered the north doorway, women turned right just before the doorway and climbed the stairs to the gallery. Those entering from the west crossed the terrace there ("Building A") and went through the "Eagle Doorway"; the men descended the great stairway to the synagogue floor, the women turned left and mounted wooden stairs to the balcony. Architectural

Restoration

of the Synagogue

During the 1971 season, the architectural staff worked steadily on "restoring" the synagogue: tentative plans of the original building in its entirety, and detailed calculations, measurements and instructions for actual reconstruction of all pedestals, columns, capitals and the massive north doorposts. A great number of fallen architectural fragments came

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

17

to light in the 1971 season as we reached floor level throughout the building; one 5 m. by 5 m. square, for example, produced thirty major architectural fragments, including three capitals, two pedestals and seven column drums! These make possible a high degree of accuracy even in the details of the reconstruction (Fig. 6). The process of recording and examining these materials has allowed us to draw two other important conclusions. First, it is likely that the synagogue was destroyed while still in use and by one catastrophic event, probably an earthquake. Most of the architectural fragments were discovered at floor level. Debris and wind-driven deposits had not been allowed to accumulate in an abandoned building; the floor was clear at the time of destruction, that is, the building was being used. The position of fallen columns suggests that the whole superstructure collapsed at once, one section pulling down another as it fell. Second, the anonymous builders must be given credit for real creativity and a strong desire for architectural variety. As noted above, the broadhouse design is a difficult one for this site, yet it is made to work. The building is made to fit on the side of a hill by putting one main entrance, the "Eagle Doorway," on an upper terrace and bringing worshippers down to the main floor via the massive stairway in the west wall. Contrast this with Meiron, where a traditional "basilica" synagogue, intended for a level site, is made to fit a hill by cutting a "level site" into the side of the hill! At Shema' the frescoed room and the western balcony are further indication of architectural experimentation. The desire for variety is carried to extremes: none of the eight capitals resembles any other. No two pedestals of the four in the southern row are alike in detail, and these four are again totally different in design from the four ashlar blocks which serve as pedestals on the north side. With the architecture recorded, actual construction can begin; the Israel Department of Antiquities has approved, and the work will be done in the 1972 season. Column drums will be replaced on each pedestal, with capitals for six of the eight. The massive north doorposts will be set on their original foundations, and the walls will be consolidated. Tombs

and the Cistern

The expedition devoted a major effort in 1970 and 1971 to locating and excavating tombs. About 31 tombs were plotted on the site map, and seven were excavated and planned. ("Tomb 17" turned out to be a ritual bath.) The other six tombs proved to be either kokhim type (with burial slots - tombs 1, 25, and 29), a grave-type arcosolium tomb (tomb 31) (Fig. 8), or a mixed-type (tomb 22). The Mausoleum was unique, as an enormous, free-standing sarcophagus.

18

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

Tombs 25 and 1 are quite similar in plan. Both are cut into bedrock with an entrance in the narrow end of the rectangular main chambe.r. About a dozen burial shafts (kokhim) opened off the main chamber on three walls, each for an articulated burial. A low rock-cut bench lined three walls, possibly for seating during the burial rites. A lamp niche was cut beside the door so that the lamp shed light into the gloom of Sheol. Perhaps the most interesting feature, however, was the ca. 1.25-1.50 m. wide circular chamber in one corner of both tombs that evidently served for secondary burial. Here the bones of the dead were collected on the first anniversary of death. In this way one could quite literally be "gathered to his forefathers." Tomb 29 was the only double-chambered tomb we found on the site. It yielded by far the greatest quantity of grave goods (pottery, coffin rings, nails, etc.) and was the most interesting architecturally (besides the Mausoleum). The north chamber of this tomb was similar in plan to tombs 1 and The kokhim opened from the two long walls, and the entrance was 25. from the middle of the north (long) wall. Most fascinating, from the point of view of ancient Jewish burial customs, was the small room for secondary burial in the west wall (charnel house). It was filled to 25-30 cm. deep with bones and bone fragments. We gained entry to the north chamber through a hole cut by robbers in the 5th/6th century. Chips from their cuttings were still inside, though covered by soil that had washed in through their breach for fifteen centuries. Sometime between the last use of the tomb and the robber's entry, the south chamber was built. The vertical shaft through its roof and the two horizontal entrances in its narrow east wall betray the first intention of its builders, namely, that it served as a cistern. Its nearest morphological parallel is the large cistern facing the grand staircase at the "Tomb of the Kings" in Jerusalem. Evidently the masons cut into one of the kokhim from the north chamber, to their great chagrin, and were therefore forced to conserve their efforts by converting this second chamber into another tomb. They covered the vertical shaft with slabs of stone sealed with plaster. They then tried to cut some kokhim into their north wall, but again ran into burial shafts from the north chamber. The record of their frustration remains as unfinished kokhim. These ingenious stone masons completed their conversion by cutting a staircase down from the north chamber to the lower south chamber through an existing kokh. This effectively united the two tombs as one. The pottery from the tombs shows use in the 4th and the 6th centuries, including a robbing in the 5th/6th century.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

1972, 1)

19

,,mf7

• ?

.

. , .lk

•Alf

%wo MW A

..

B

SECTION B

AA

SECTION A PA

TCM

PLAN OF TOMB

Fig. 8 Tomb 31 is a few meters NE of the Mausoleum. An arcosolium type tomb with shallow pit graves and possible repository for bones, it is distinguished from other tombs at the site by the false doorway (Section B)) carved into the bedrock. Photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Jr.; drawing by John F. Thompson.

20

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

Tomb 31 (Fig. 8) was noticed by the British in the Survey of Western Palestine in 1881. After cleaning, this tomb was found to consist of a single arched chamber 80 cm. high with three graves cut into the floor. A fourth, smaller pit was evidently for secondary burial. Another interesting feature of this tomb was an unfinished door cut into bedrock just outside the main chamber. This door could represent either the gate to Sheol or the portal to the world to come.

A

!m

Fig. 9 Cistern no. 1, found in the SE quadrant, produced the largest corpus of restorable pottery

fromthe firsttwo seasons.Bothcoinsand potterydateits use to the fourthcenturyA.D.

Drawing by John F. Thompson.

Tomb 22 was unique at KhirbetShema',though well representedat sites such as Beth She'arim.This tomb exhibited a main chamber with two arcosolia or arched graves wieth three graves in each arch. Cut into one wall next to the floor was a single kokh, while an unfinished ledge, also arched, graced a side wall. Finally two free-standing sarcaphogi cut from the living rock flanked the entrance. One of the arcosolia and the kokh had pits for secondary burial, a feature we have met before. The Mausoleum is perhaps the most striking feature of the entire site.10 This megalithon is formed of six blocks of locally quarried limestone, three of which are stacked like stories of a house. The middle stone 10. See footnote 1 and Fig. 1.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

21

is hollow and cut for two graves, complete with headrests. Two upright, hollow stones with a lintel stand at the south end, and a "window" is cut between them into the middle stone between the graves inside. The roof slab is estimated to weigh in excess of fifteen tons. We excavated the foundations in order to try to date the structure, but found the soil disturbed in modern times. We did discover, nevertheless, that the edifice was founded partially on bedrock raised with plaster, which was totally unexpected in view of the great weight of the whole. The bottom stone was also hollow, probably also for secondary burial. No artifacts were found either in the graves or in this bottom "story," doubtless because so frequently visited in modern times. A cistern (no.1) located in tomb survey in 1970 was excavated in 1971 (see Fig. 9). This effort resulted in the recovery of a fine set of restorable cooking pots of the 4th/5th century which are datable both by typology and by the coins found with them, the latest coin of which was dated to 405 A.D. The cistern was filled to a depth of less than 35 cm., attesting its being sealed soon after its abandonment. The burial customs at Khirbet Shema' demonstrate that ossilegium, or the collection of desiccated remains a year after death, was practiced in Judaism until late Talmudic times. Secondary burials in fact seem to predominate, as they do at Beth She'arim, and this is not without theological significance.1" Indeed such a custom seems to reflect a deep conservatism. One puzzling feature of the tombs remains: from a typological point of view they seem to be earlier than the synagogue, though the ceramic data does not allow us an earlier dating. The Ritual

Bath

This installation (Fig. 10) was provisionally labeled tomb 17 in 1970 when it was located and partially excavated by the tomb survey team. Later it was conjectured that the small cave with seven stairs leading to it, all cut into bedrock, was part of a larger tomb complex. Visitors to the site suggested that the small cave was a genizah or a hermit's cave. None of these explanations satisfied the excavators' continuing curiosity, so a team of excavators set out to clarify the matter in 1971. To no one's surprise the carved bedrock continued in a southerly direction for approximately 5 m. eventually leading into a seven-stepped subterranean chamber (Fig. 11) whose walls were neatly plastered.12The fill which was removed contained some 129 buckets of pottery all of which uniformly dates to the early 4th century. Carvings in the bedrock at the 11. See E. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (1971), passim, but especially Ch. IV. For a brief and more popularly written discussion, see Meyers, BA, XXXIII (1970), 2-29. 12. Our geologist, Reuben Bullard, reports that in spite of the plaster, a certain amount of seepage and percolation could be expected, providing for some natural drainage.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

22

(Vol. XXXV,

-AZr

41 tv

"p-dow ob

It 1

16

ol

ot

Fig. 10 The entryway to the mikveh or ritual bath, looking north. Note the underground (bathing) chamber in foreground and pre-lavatorium in middle left. Though the construction makes use of the existing city wall at left considerable effort was expended by the ancient inhabitants in excavating both chambers and steps in the bedrock. Photo by Hendrik van Dijk, Jr.

first chamber and at the point of entry to the underground chamber

stronglysuggesteda superstructure.The purposeof such a construction was apparentlytwofold:first,to conveywaterfrom anothersourceand/or

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

1972, 1)

,....

._

!-

_f 0

100

~~cm.

'0,o

23

"

200

-.A

Fig. 11 The plan and sections of the ritual bath reveal how carefully this installation was constructed. Section A indicates how rain water was channeled to the underground chamber after first entering a sump above the capstone. Drawing by Tom Blount.

to receive and collect rain water; second, to provide protective covering from the elements as well as from passers-by as the rabbinic dictates of modesty would prescribe. The underground chamber is partially closed by a capstone with its western extremity set into a terrace wall. Preliminary efforts to determine the town plan of the site indicate that the bath falls outside the town gate and wall on the eastern face of the hill. If

24

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

this be correct the ritual bath would be virtually acceptable for menstruants who are required to bathe outside the city (M. Mikvaoth 8.1). The size of the lower chamber 3 in. high, 2.2 in. long, 2.5 m. wide (see Fig. 11), would easily permit either a male or female to immerse totally in the collected water. Adjoining the capstone is a sump and small channel cut into bedrock which evidently allowed the fresh water to flow freely into the chamber after the pebbles and mud which might have gathered on the roof or gutter (M. Mikvaoth 4.1) had settled out. According to the dimensions the required minimum of 40 seahstmof rain water is easily met, indeed far exceeded (MAl. Mikvaoth 1.7). During the season such could be maintained as the level of a standard rainy easily rainfall in upper Galilee is extremely high, with averages in the Meiron area of 40-44 inches, the highest in Israel, distributed over a period from 60 to 80 days.14 A high point of the season was occasioned by the visit of Rabbi David Muntzberg and his entourage, a specialist in the laws of mikveh, and the same person who declared the baths at Masada as kosher. Though puzzled at first at the rather unorthodox shape of what was clearly intended for water storaoge,when reminded that cisterns and wells were often used for ritual bathing (so e.g. Al. Mikvaoth 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, etc.), he readily admitted that indeed it could have been used as a mikveh. The Rabbi was concerned, however, with the problem of water transport and the problem of draining off the dirty water in the dry season. With reference to both these issues it could be conjectured that the drainage for transfer of rainwater in a gutter simply has not survived. Indeed, the excavation of the cistern in SE II suggests that rain water was available in large quantity very close to the nmikveheven in the dry season. If the community was observant in ritual matters there is the possibility that pure water could be siphoned from an associated well or cistern nearby (M. Mikvaoth 6.8) without invalidating the bath itself. It is also possible that the community did not observe the commandment prohibiting the use of drawn water, 3 logs of drawn water invalidating a bath with less than 40 seahs of water.1,5It is also possible that because of the large size of the bath it was only partially emptied from time to time, and filled with drawn water. In any case, it would seem that the same problem holds for 13. 1 Seah = 12.148 liters (a bit over three US gallons) according to P. Blackman, Mishnayoth (3rd ed., 1965), I, 18, and to I. Epstein in the Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Seder Tohoroth, p. Reader 3 (eds., E. F. Campbell and D. N. Freed419. But cf. R. B. Y. Scott, Biblical Archaeologist man, 1970), pn. 350ff., who gives about 7.3 liters for a seah, basing his calculations on Albright's to note how closely the larger measure compares with the 22 liters to a bath. It is interesting 3.8.3, 8.2.9, where the bath is equated with Greek metrjtEs, figure given in Josephus, Antiquities yielding 39 liters, or 13 liters for a seah. 14. See Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Geography of Israel (1964), pp. 104-107. .52 liters, or a bit more than a pint. Scott's figure (BA Reader 15. See M. Mikvaoth 3.1; a log 3, p. 352) is 2/3 of a pint.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

25

the mikveh at Masada where room A could hardly store enough water for the much longer dry season of the Judean desert.16 What is still more interesting about the Shema' bath is the smaller upper chamber, comparable to chamber C of the Masada structure, which was apparently used for actual cleansing purposes as opposed to ritual bathing. It is quite possible therefore that the small chamber served as a sort of pre-lavatorium, a place where either male or female washed before immersion. This upper chamber could not itself be the mikveh because it cannot contain the minimum pure water of 40 seahs. Both the Mishnah (Mikvaoth 9.1-9.3) and the Gemara (Niddah 66b) allude to the lesser known custom of hafifah, or cleansing of the hair before ritual immersion. These sources have little to say about this practice for men, but do underscore a woman's difficulties in properly achieving a state of purification without first washing both the hair on her head and in the "folds", especially the pudenda. Without this prewash, contaminating materials caught in the body hair could invalidate the ritual bathing in the mikveh proper. In short, both chambers of this installation may be accounted for in sources which are concerned with ritual bathing and there seems little reason not to accept the designation of mikveh as a valid one. Indeed, the upper chamber at Shema' has shed unexpected light on the whole matter of pre-washing, as it provides a very comfortable and discreet place for such preparations.17 It goes without saying that if the law went to such length to delimit the kinds of drainage procedures there were some who did not adhere to the letter of the law. The Town

Plan

As indicated previously, the Khirbet Shema' Expedition began as the investigation of an entire ancient town; major buildings and other monuments were important, but always in their ancient context, as elements in the social, religious and economic life of all the inhabitants. This required clearing, surveying and planning the entire site. The initial plan (see Fig. 4) was completed by a six-man surveying and drafting team during the first season. For the central area of the village, detailed top plans were prepared for each 5 m. by 5 m. "square"; the outlying sections were planned in 30 m. by 30 m. squares. These plans were then transferred to a single town plan (1:200 scale) which records all surface ruins. Such a procedure assumes that there is a close relationship between 16. See Y. Yadin, Masada (1966), pp. 164-167. Both the Shema' and Masada baths were apparently emptied by hand as there is no out drainage in either of the immersion chambers. 17. The rabbis in discussing the matter were evidently concerned with the issue of personal cleanliness in the hairy regions of the body.

26

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

surface ruins and the outlines of the ancient town. In a "thin dig" like Khirbet Shema' this is plausible, but it must be checked; conceivably a much later village could have been imposed on the abandoned site. During the first two seasons, excavations to bedrock on the main north-south and east-west axes of the site (see Fig. 4) showed that, in those areas at least, the plan of the walls on the surface continues to be the plan of the earlier stages of occupation. Smaller probes in the north and northwest also bear this out for those areas. The present working plan will be tested for accuracy with new probes during the 1972 season. With an accurate layout, including detailed plans of the major buildings and of representative homes and smaller structures, we will be able to begin describing the flow of life in this ancient town, something which has not been done in this detail for any comparable Palestinian town of this period. The Pottery

The pottery from Khirbet Shema' is predominantly datable to the 4th/5th century, though pottery through the 8th/9th century is well attested from the acropolis. The earlier Roman/Byzantine pottery is typically of finely prepared clay reddish-orange in color (Munsell 2.5YR 6/4), with many, fine lime grits. Forms most commonly found are cooking pots, bowls, and "pithoi." Far and away the most interesting and commonly recurring form, however, was the bowl with simple rim (in several variations) and ribbing on the inside. Four examples of this bowl are illustrated in figure 12. Figure 12.1 represents the "simple rim" mentioned above, and figure 12.4 is an example of the same rim on a more steeply sloping bowl. Bowl 12.2 shows a rim that is beginning to be slightly pulled outward in construction, or "everted," while 12.3 is an instance of the more extremely, even sharply everted rim. It is interesting to note the carination or sharp turn near the base in the profile of 12.1. This was observed in almost all examples of this bowl reconstructed in the two seasons to date. Visits to other Galilean synagogue sites produced this particular pottery type in abundance, notably at Gush Halav, Umm el-'Ammed, Bar'am, and Capernaum. Fathers V. Corbo and S. Lofreda have already published a typology from Capernaum,8 where these bowls are found, as at Khirbet Shema', with 4th and 5th century coins. A tomb and cistern at Gush Halav (el-Jish) has also been published,'9 and its cooking pots provide precise parallels to those of Shema' especially from the cistern. 18. La Sinagoga di Cafarnao (1970), pp. 61-123. 19. N. Makhouly, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities

in Palestine,

V (1938),

pp. 45-50.

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

27

The household lamps20 of Palestine are also well represented at the site. These range from the small, round lamp with broken disc and slight nozzle of the Roman period (Fig. 12) to the elongated lamps with incised geometric decoration of the late Byzantine period. A few spatulated "Herodian" nozzles have also been found, but no complete lamps. Two later Arab lamps with trefoil form ("three-cornered hat") have also been found on the surface, though most of the complete lamps come from the tombs.

AA

Fig. 12 Selected pottery from Khirbet Shema'. At left right a typical lamp from Tomb 29.

the omnipresent

"Shema' bowl;"

at

A small but significant amount of the late Roman pottery is of a type often identified as "imitation Terra Sigillata," which means that it is unsigned and only thinly washed. But its form is unmistakably modeled after the Roman red wares that blanketed the Empire. In any case we are dealing with the kitchen ware of a rather small Galilean village occupied mainly in the 4th/5th centuries. Only the lamp base with molded Menorah (discussed below) furnished evidence for ceramic iconography. Numismatic

Evidence21

A survey of the coins found at Khirbet Shema' reveals an important correspondence between the numismatic and ceramic evidence testifying 20. See R. H. Smith in BA, XIX (1966), 2-27. 21. This statement is based upon the preliminary observations of the dig numismatist, Baruch Kanael of the University of Judaism, who has thus far tentatively identified around 800 coins. A complete coin catalogue will appear in Vol. I of the Shema' Project publication.

28

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

to Jewish occupation at the site from the beginning of the 4th century to the end of the 5th century A.D. and probably into Arab times. Though Maccabean coins comprise some 7-8% of all the coins (Alexander Jannaeus 103-76 B.C., 5%, late Hasmoneans 2-3%) coins of the Herodian dynasty some 2%, coins of the Roman procurators (4 A.D.-66 A.D.) 1%, and early Roman coins until the accession of Constantine some 10%, 75-80% of all the coins date to Constantine I (324-337 A.D.) and his immediate successors, especially Constantius (337-361 A.D.). The remainder mostly date to early Byzantine times, though there is a good sampling of Arab and Crusader coins also. It is not surprising that so many earlier coins are found and yet have no occupation to go with them. Indeed as the horrors of later Maccabean times became more and more remote later generations began to idealize those days, as indeed they did the days of H-lerodthe Great (Talmud: Baba Batra 36). Since Herod and his grandson Agrippa I issued far more coins than the Maccabees and because at Khirbet Shema' we find more Maccabean coins, it is therefore, quite possible that the Galilean Jews kept those older coins in longer circulation because of their affection for the Hasmonean dynasty. The coins also reflect the changed political conditions which had overtaken Palestine in late antiquity when we witness the last efforts of the Roman state to keep the traditions of pagan belief alive, adapting their coins to suit the changes brought about by the strengthening of Christianity. Under Constantine one is confronted with the gradual appearance of Christian symbols on coins which becomes dominant in the days of his successors. Under Constantine the Great one may also follow the symbiosis of pagan and Christian symbolism, the heathen symbols now combined with the cross. Most popular of the themes which appear on the Shema' coins in this period is the figure of Victory, signifying the expected win of the Emperor over the barbarians, or the figure of the Emperor killing a barbarian soldier or taking him prisoner. The latter was often a gratuitous hope since the barbarians were always a menace to the Empire. The last issues which are to be found in quantity at Khirbet Shema' date from the middle of the 5th century A.D. and reflect the increasing persecution of the Jewish population by Christian rulers. At our site, however, the cause of abandonment would seem to be natural disaster rather than Christian persecution given the manner in which the synagogue fell to the ground. Similarly, given the several structures at Shema' which produced quantities of Arabic sherds and coins, it is reasonable to assume a modest settlement prior to Crusader times as well as minor

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

29

Arab occupation afterwards. Indeed the mixed finds of later medieval times suggest that the site was sporadically visited for some time though no further permanent occupation can be traced. The numismatic evidence therefore, clearly places the Jewish settlement and synagogue in late Roman-Byzantine times, the same period which in Palestine witnessed the final writing down of the Jerusalem Talmud.

t1Ei

14F

4k

Fig. 13 The five-branched Menorah at top was found in the SW corner of the synagogue. The carnelian gem at bottom was found in a room just outside of the southern wall of the synagogue. Selected

Small Finds

Khirbet Shema' was surprisingly rich in metal and glass, two types of material that are otherwise associated with sites settled by more affluent people than our architecture would seem to imply. In addition there were significant amounts of worked bone, ceramic, stone, plaster, and coins, and a few examples of simple jewelry and organic materials.

30

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXV,

All objects were sent to registry to be processed. These artifacts were given an "R" number in addition to the field, square, bucket, and locus numbers identifying its provenience. From registry they proceeded to drafting and photography, both of which operations were done in camp to the maximum extent possible. The most spectacular find from the 1970 season was a beautiful cut carnelian gem of a popular Roman type (Fig. 13). It features a head of Athena in intaglio facing right, helbuted, cuirassed, and draped. Its find spot was the floor of a house adjoining the Synagogue, and of course much excitement accompanied its uncovering. Such cut gems are well known from other ancient sites, but are perhaps most thoroughly published for Palestine by A. Hamburger in Gems From Caesarea Maritima, a special issue of 'Atiqot in 1968.22 Another otherwise routine day was considerably enlivened at the discovery of a lamp base with molded Menorah (Fig. 13). This piece of Jewish inconography turned up in the pottery "reading,"which means that it went unrecognized as another sherd through the pottery processing after being excavated from the south-west corner of the Synagogue. This lamp base holds fascination for the ceramicist as well as the scholar in the history of symbols, for the base is pointed on the nozzle end, a characteristic which may date as early as the 6th century A.D. but which is more frequent in Arab lamps of the 7th and 8th centuries.23If the lamp in question is to be dated to the Arab period, its importance cannot be over-estimated. In any case, the Menorah in question is of a five-branched rather than seven-branched type, perhaps attesting a simpler tradition for the craftsman.24The vertical center piece (the stand) extends above the cross arm, as would be expected, but none of the four arms do so. At the base of the figure to the right and left are palm branches, modelled assymetrically. Some Historical

Implications

The excavations at Khirbet Shema' have succeded in producing enough new material for a renewed discussion of the typology of ancient Galilean synagogues. Indeed, the synagogue at Khirbet Shema' would seem not only to raise questions about older views concerning the architecture of synagogues themselves, but also questions regarding their 22. See especially nos. 32-42 and discussion on p. 8. Though Athene gems are difficult to date it is important to note that Hamburger argues that no piece in the entire corpus dates later than the 4th century A.D., p. 24. 23.

See the Arab lamp

bases

in D.C.

Baramki,

Quarterly

of the Department

of Antiquities

Palehtine. X (1942), PIs. XVII and XVIII, especially XVII.9. 24. For another five-branched Menorah, see L. Yarden, The Tree of Light (1971), p. 26, which comes from Monteverde in Rome.

in

Ill. 119, text

1972, 1)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

31

dating. Gideon Forster25represents that older consensus when he argues that the basilica pattern as well as Synagogue art itself is a borrowed one, and dates the latter to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. The evidence from Khirbet Shema', however, now offers a broadhouse from the 4th century, the closest Palestinian parallels to which are provided by Eshtemo'a and Susiya in the Hebron area in the south. What's more, the little art that we have found at Khirbet Shema' would seem to represent purely local tradition, for the Menorah and the Eagle, though familiar subjects, have no close parallels in Jewish art. Indeed, with the re-excavation of Capernaum by the Franciscans who now argue a 4th century date, and with a beginning date of 4th century now posited for Susiya, there is every reason to suspect that Galilee and other parts of Palestine flourished in this period. For Galilee at least the 2nd or early 3rd century might be too soon after the second war from Rome to be the only time from which the great synagogal edifices such as that of Meiron date. Preliminary soundings at Meiron in 1971 already suggest a 4th century date for that community also. The very fact that in Meiron we find a more standard basilica-type synagogue just a few hundred meters across the wadi from Khirbet Shema' suggests that synagogal art and architecture was not imitative but highly creative and innovative. If it be argued that the Meiron synagogue represents a borrowed architecture surely it can be argued that Khirbet Shema' represents a native adaptation of the old Palestinian broadhouse, developing perhaps in isolation. The striking creativity of the Shema' artisans who made each capital of their synagogue different contrasts greatly with the Meiron synagogue where architectural conformity with the use of heart-shaped columns seems to be the rule. Perhaps at Khirbet Shema', therefore, we have the remains of Jews somewhat removed from the mainstream. But one thing is sure: this glimpse of Galilean Jewry begs further the study. It is to such questions that the Shema' Project will turn in future.

25. In Bible et Terre Sainte 130 (1971), pp. 8-15. No discussion of the problem of ancient synagogues would be complete without mentioning the pioneering works of E. L. Sukenik, A Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (1934). More recently see the work of S. J. Sailer, of art Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holy Land (1969). In considering the should Palestine Roman in (1961), Art Oriental of M. work Avi-Yonah, the superb synagogues also be mentioned.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

32

U. S.

P(8STAL

OWNERSHIP, Section (Act of August 12,1970:

1.

SERVICE

SEE INSTRUCTIONS INS E R OSE EVERS

MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

STATEMENT OF

3685.

1T11LtEOF PUBLICATION

United States

Ttle

(Vol. XXXV,

Code)

39.

2.

ON PAGE 2 (REVERSE) DATE OF FILING

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3. FREQUENCYOF ISSUE

Quarterly 4.

OF KNOWN OFFICE

LOCATION

126 Inman Street,

OF PUBLICATION

Cambridge,

tate, ZP1code)

city, county,

(Street,

Massachusetts

Middlesex,

(Not printers)

02139

5. LOCATIONOF THE HEADQUARTERSOR GENERAL BUSINESSOFFICES OF THE PUBLISHERS(Notprinters)

126 Inman Street,

Cambridge,

Massachusetts

Middlesex,

02139

6. NAMESAND ADDRESSES OF PUBLISHER,EDITOR, AND MANAGINGEDITOR PUBLISHER(Name and address)

American

of Oriental

Schools

126 Inman Street,

Research,

EDITOR(Name and address)

Edward F. Campbell, EDITOR

MAN4GER

Jr.

Mass.

Cambridge,

12 Holden Wood Road, Concord,

Mass.

01742

12 Holden Wood Road, Concord,

Mass.

01742

02139

(Name and address)

Edward F. Campbell,

Jr.

7. OWNER (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addreses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the indivitdualowners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of each indivldual must be given.) NAME

American

ADDRESS

of Oriental

Schools

Research

126 Inman Street,

8. KNOWN

BONDHOLDERS,

MORTGAGEES,

Mass.

Cambridge,

02139

Non-Proflt Organization AND OTHER

SECURITY

HOLDERS

OWNING

OR HOLDING

TOTAL AMOUNTOF BONDS, MORTGAGESOR OTHERSECURITIES(If there aren one, so state NAME

1 PERCENT

OR MORE OF

u ADDiRSS

NONE

NONE

9. FOR OPTIONALCOMPLETIONBY PUBLISHERSMAILINGAT THE REGULAR RATES (Section 132.121, Postal Service Manual) 39 U. S. C. 3626 provides in pertinent part: "No person who would have been entitled to mail matter under former section 4359 of this title shall mail such matter at the rates provided under this subsection unless he files annually with the Postal mServicea written request for permission to mail matter at such rates." In accordance

with the provisions

of this statute,

I hereby

rates presently authorized by 39 U. S. C. 3626. (Signature 10.

and title of editor,

FOR COMPLETION

publisher,

business manager,

BY NONPROFIT

request

permission

to mail the publication

named In Item 1 at the reduced

postage

or owner)

AUTHORIZED

ORGANIZATIONS

TO MAIL AT SPECIAL

RATES

(Section

132.122,

PostalMnual)

(Check one) The purpose, function, and the organization Income tax purposes

11. EXTENT

and nonprofit status of this exempt status for Federal

AND NATURE

Have not changed IV during preceding 12 months

AVERAGE NO. COPIES DURING EACHISSUE12 MONTHS PRECEDING

OF CIRCULATIONA

A. TOTAL NO. COPIES PRINTED

(NetPrecssRun)

B. PAID CIRCULATION 1. SALES THROUGHDEALERSSAND

CARRIERS,

STREET

VENDORS AND COUNTERSALES 2.

MAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS

C. TOTAL PAID CIRCULATION BY MAIL, CARRIER OR OTHER MEANS D. FREE DISTRIBUTION AND OTHER FREE COPIES 1. SAMPLES, COMPLIMENTARY,

2. COPIESDISTRIBUTEDTO NEWSAGENTS, BUT NOT SOLD E. TOTAL DISTRIBUTION F.

OFFICE

(Sum of CandD)

USE, LEFT-OVER,

UNACCOUNTED,

Have changed during preceding 12 months

SPOILED

AFTER

PRINTING

ACTUAL NUMBER OF COPIES OF SINGLE ISSUE PUBLISHEDENEAREST TO F ILI NG DATE

4,100

4,100

NONE

NONE

3,787

3,787

3,787

3,787

113

113

NONE

NONE

3,900 200

3,900 200

200

200

G. TOTAL (Sum of E & F-should equal net press run shown in A)

(If changd, pubhlter must submit explaation ofchange w4th this statement.)

4,100

4,100

, (Signatureof editor, publisher, business manager,or owner) I certify that the statements

made by me above are correct and complete.

Eugene

R. Tomlinson,

Publications

Manage